Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Evaluation of the progress of elementary English learners at Daisyville Unified School District
(USC Thesis Other)
Evaluation of the progress of elementary English learners at Daisyville Unified School District
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EVALUATION OF THE PROGRESS OF ELEMENTARY ENGLISH LEARNERS
AT DAISYVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
by
Iztaccíhuatl G. Soto
_______________________________________________________________
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 2010
Copyright 2010 Iztaccíhuatl G. Soto
ii
DEDICATIONS
I dedicate this dissertation and degree to mi familia whose struggles have
made this possible. Although this document only holds my name it belongs to all
those who surround me.
To my abuelitos y abuelitas who sacrificed all they, had all their life, as farm
workers and laborers to provide a pathway for their children to go to college.
Especialmente gracias abuelita Mercedes por todo su apoyo y por sus oraciones a
Nuestra Virgen de Guadalupe. To my tio Pancho who taught me that one must
persevere despite any obstacles life has to give.
To my parents Salvador and Maria Soto, who have instilled in me and in all
your daughters the importance of being a Chicana. To be an educated Chicana that
knows how to embrace family, culture, language and education. You have inspired
me to become the educator that I am and to always embark on new adventures. Your
positive encouragement and belief that I could succeed even when I thought all hope
was lost has made a tremendous difference in my life. Mamá y Papá thank you for
continuously nurturing my spirit, my heart and at times my bank account to help me
accomplish my dream of having a doctoral degree.
Thank you to all my sisters Ixtlilxóchitl, Quetzal, Tonantzin, and Mixtlicoatl
who have been my emotional anchors. You along with your families have given me
ganas to get this done! It is my hope that I can inspire my young nieces and nephews
Corina, Valeria, Enrique, Anthony, Tzintzuni, Veronica and those to come that they
can accomplish their dreams with enough gana to see it through.
iii
To my husband Roberto Valdes who has stood by me through all the late
nights and times of high stress, thank you. We decided to get married and have two
children during this EDD program and after all the bumps we did it! To my beautiful
two young daughters Tonantzin (two years old) and Huitziloxochitl (11 months old)
who have grown into healthy, loving and energetic girls despite my time away from
you. You both inspire to succeed every day. Los quiero mucho y gracias por todo.
¡Si se puede!
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to deeply thank Dr. Hocevar who has been my professor, my
advisor and my best supporter at the University of Southern California. Dr. Hocevar
has always gone above and beyond as the chair of my dissertation to ensure I
succeeded. A special thanks to Dr. Hentchke who agreed to serve on my committee
and took the time to see this process through. To my advisor Guadalupe Montano
who was my link to the university over the years and who always supported me as a
student. I would like to thank the USC Rossier School of Education for all the
support and guidance since I embarked in the program.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedications ………………………………………………………………………. ..ii
Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………....iv
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………… ...vi
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………….. ...vii
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………...viii
Chapter 1: The Problem………………………………………………………. ...1
Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………...16
Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………...41
Chapter 4: Findings…………………………………………………………......49
Chapter 5: Overview………………………………………………………… ...58
References ……………………………………………………………………… ...73
Appendix A: Grade 3 ELA Results……………………………………………. ...76
Appendix B: Grade 3 Math Results……………………………………………. ...77
Appendix C: Grade 4 ELA Results……………………………………………. ...78
Appendix D: Grade 4 Math Results……………………………………………. ...79
Appendix E: Grade 5 ELA Results……………………………………………. ...80
Appendix F: Grade 5 Math Results……………………………………………. ...81
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. English Learner Population at DJUSD (per school data)……………....42
Table 2. Selection Criteria for Experimental and Control Groups……………....45
Table 3. ELA and Math Performance Level Results…………………………. ...52
Table 4. Percentage Difference Indices-ELA ………………………………......53
Table 5. Percentage Difference Indices-Math…………………………………...54
Table 6. Effect Size Results-ELA…………………………………………….. ...55
Table 7. Effect Size Results-Math……………………………………………. ...55
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. % of DUSD Enrollment 2006-2007…………………………………... ...4
Figure 2. DUSD EL Enrollment by Language – 3 year span (2004-2007)……... ...5
Figure 3. DUSD – CELDT Proficiency 3 year span……………………………. ...6
Figure 4. DUSD EL Instructional Services – K-12 Grade (2006-2007)………... ...7
Figure 5. ELA CST of DUSD EL Students at Intermediate Level on………….. ...9
CELDT (2006-2007)
Figure 6. DUSD – AMAO 3 (AYP for EL Subgroup) Percent Proficient……. ...10
in ELA
Figure 7. Grade 2 ELA Results for EL Students………………………………. ...50
Figure 8. Grade 2 Math Results for EL Students……………………………… ...51
Figure A. Grade 3 ELA Results………………………………………………... ...76
Figure B. Grade 3 Math Results………………………………………………... ...77
Figure C. Grade 4 ELA Results………………………………………………... ...78
Figure D. Grade 4 Math Results………………………………………………... ...79
Figure E. Grade 5 ELA Results………………………………………………... ...80
Figure F. Grade 5 Match Results………………………………………………. ...81
viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to compare the academic proficiency levels on
the California Standards Test (CST) in both English-Language Arts (ELA) and
mathematics for English learners (EL) at the elementary schools in Daisyville
Unified School District (DUSD) with that of ELs throughout California. DUSD is
like many other districts in California, that are striving to find effective ways to
educate students. The study specifically compared ELs by grade level (2
nd
-5
th
grade)
at each elementary at DUSD to that of ELs by grade level (2
nd
-5
th
grade) on CST
performance statewide. The results of the study uncovered distinct results in terms of
EL proficiency in ELA and in mathematics.
The majority of the EL students in grades 2 through 5 at the all elementary
schools at DUSD varied dramatically on CST performance in ELA when compared
to the ELs statewide and schools within the district. Two elementary schools
outperformed their counterparts within the district and across the state. One school,
unfortunately, significantly underperformed across grade levels within the district
and when compared to ELs statewide. The other three elementary schools fluctuated
in the percentage of EL students proficient in ELA.
The results on the CSTs for mathematics at DUSD told a quite different story
from the ELA results. Most of the schools performed at or above the EL state
average on the CSTs in math. Three schools outperformed schools in the district and
ix
performed above the average of ELs across California. The other elementary schools
were not too far behind in the percentage of EL students proficient in math.
By comparing the academic achievement of EL students at DUSD with that
of the ELs in California, this study provides an understanding of challenges districts
are facing in addressing the academic achievement of ELs per the requirements of
NCLB. This study contributes to the body of literature concerning the challenges of
academic achievement for ELs and provides recommendations for possible
approaches that address these issues.
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM
Since the 2002 federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the focus on
raising student achievement K-12 has been at the forefront of education nationally.
In California, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell “has
emphasized the need for reforms not only to raise student performance overall, but
also to improve achievement for all groups of students” (Cannon and Karoly, 2007:
p. xiii). Thus it has been made clear that access to high-quality educational
experiences is the right of every student and responsibility of the state, however “the
State of California has not lived up to this commitment for all students, particularly
poor, racial/ethnic minority students; English learners; and students with disabilities”
(California P-16 Council, 2008, p.1).
Since the passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, the education of
English learners has come under focus as educators strive to implement approaches
and programs to best meet their needs (Olsen, 2006). Given that California public
schools serve the largest number of English Learners (EL), when compared to the
rest of the nation, it has become imperative to evaluate how the EL population is
progressing linguistically and academically. The California Department of Education
(2009) defines an English Learner as a “K-12 student who, based on objective
assessment, has not developed listening, speaking, reading, and writing proficiencies
in English sufficient for participation in the regular school program” (p. 4).
2
Crawford and Krashen (2007) describe them as “students who face a formidable
challenge: learning academic skills and knowledge while acquiring a second
language at the same time” (p.12). Achievement data have consistently revealed a
persistent gap in underachievement rates between English learners and majority
students in urban schools (California P-16 Council, 2008).
Background of The Problem
Currently California public schools serve nearly 1.6 million EL students in
K-12
th
grades, which represent one-third of all ELs in the nation. Of the nearly 1.6
million ELs, approximately 85% are Spanish speaking, 2.2% are Vietnamese
speaking, 1.4% are Filipino speaking and 1.4% are Hmong speaking (CDE, 2009).
Unfortunately “English learners are more likely than their English-fluent
peers to drop out of high school” (Olsen, 2006:1). The statewide trend for language
minority students is that they have “lowest levels of educational and highest dropout
rate of any group of students” (Padron, 2002: p. 7).
A common thread in the majority of districts across California that are
identified by the California Department of Education (CDE) as Program
Improvement (PI) and the schools in state-monitoring and PI is that they all have a
considerable number of EL students that are not making significant progress
according to state and federal requirements. Consequently, it is evident that
California public schools are facing great challenges as the number of English
learners continues to rise and as their academic achievement continues to lag far
behind their white monolingual counterparts (Ovando, Combs, & Collier, 2006).
3
Although the topic of closing the achievement gap with the EL population has
become widespread among educators, there are still no any clear answers on how to
ensure academic achievement for all EL students. Jepson and de Alth (2005) studied
the statewide relationship between the numbers of ELs in a school and the school’s
API score. They found that schools with at least half or more EL enrollment have
APIs that are about 160 below that of schools with 6% or fewer ELs.
Statement Of The Problem
As a former English Learner Specialist at Daisyville Unified School District
(DUSD), it was my primary responsibility to serve the academic needs of ELs at the
elementary level. To begin to accomplish this monumental task it was crucial to
evaluate how ELs were performing linguistically and academically. To embark on
meeting the needs of the elementary ELs at DUSD was to know how they were
performing academically and how the EL students were performing in comparison to
EL students statewide in both English-Language Arts and mathematics.
DUSD in the city of Marysville and part of Yuba County located about 40
miles north of the state capitol of Sacramento. It has long been one of the leading
agri-business centers of California. DUSD is home to 9,738 students in 13
elementary schools, 4 middle schools, and 3 high schools. There are 495 teachers
according to DataQuest (06-07) reports, 91.1% are fully credentialed, 5.3% have
waivers, 2% are university interns, and another 2% have an emergency credential.
The remaining teachers are district interns or pre-interns. Sixty-two percent of the
4
teachers are in their first year of teaching and 34% are in their second year of
teaching.
The students population is linguistically, culturally, and socio-economically
diverse. According to Data Quest (2006-2007) students receiving free/reduced meals
was 67.7% of the total population, which is 18% more than the state average. The
ethnic composition consisted of White (43.7%), Hispanic (30.7%), and Asian
(12.4%), and ELs made up 26.2% of the total DUSD student population with the
majority being Spanish and Hmong speakers as seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below.
Figure 1. % of DUSD Enrollment 2006-2007
5
Figure 2. DUSD EL Enrollment by Language – 3 year span (2004-2007)
English Learners at DUSD along with all other EL’s in California are assessed with
the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) to determine their
English proficiency. The test is used to identify new students who are EL, to monitor
their progress, and to help decide when they are proficient in English (CDE, 2002).
There are five levels of English proficiency a student can achieve, which are
beginning, early intermediate, intermediate, early advanced and advanced. As
illustrated in Figure 3 below a majority of EL students at DUSD have been
predominately at the intermediate and early advanced levels for at least the last three
years. These two levels of language proficiency are known to be an area of great
concern, since most EL students remain at this CELDT level far longer than any
other level of language proficiency. It is important for students to move to the
advanced level in order for them to be proficient.
6
Figure 3. DUSD – CELDT Proficiency 3 year span
Instructional services available for the EL population at DUSD include
English Language Development (ELD)/Specially Designed Academic Instruction in
English (SDAIE), ELD/SDAIE (L1 support), other EL services, ELD, no service, or
ELD/academic Subjects (L1). However, district-wide these services have not been
defined, which makes it difficult to know what services are in fact given to the EL
students. Being the EL specialist for this district brings an opportunity to define these
terms, however due to this being a newly created position in the district there is some
push back on various levels district-wide. Figure 4 illustrates instructional services
EL’s received according to a teacher survey during the 2006-2007 school year at
DUSD.
7
Figure 4. DUSD EL Instructional Services – K-12 Grade (2006-2007)
As seen in figure 4, most EL students at DUSD are receiving ELD and SDAIE
support. An area of concern is the 348 students who are receiving ‘other EL services’
which is not clearly defined and most importantly the 168 EL students who are not
receiving any EL instructional services. Based on the information in figure 4 there is
a lack of services for 168 students and services are not targeted for English learners
as a whole, given that 348 are provided ‘other EL services’ (which are undefined).
Although California does not have a law regarding the exact number of daily
instructional English Language Development (ELD) minutes a student is to receive
or the exact type of program to be provided, every student identified as an EL
student must receive daily structured ELD instruction in addition to the core
programs. Based on figure 4 EL students at DUSD are not being given consistent and
clearly defined ELD instructional services.
8
DUSD is currently in year 3 as a Program Improvement (PI) district, which
means the district did not make the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) target set.
AYP is required under NCLB Act of 2001 and it is a series of annual academic
performance goals established for each school, LEA and the state as a whole (CDE,
2007). Any school or district that receives Title I funds is subject to PI status if it
does not make AYP for two consecutive years within specific areas. If a school or
LEA is designated PI it must provide certain types of required services and/or
interventions during each year it is identified as PI (CDE, 2007). In the case of
DUSD failed to meet AYP criteria (percent of students proficient) in the subgroup of
ELA with the EL population and students with disabilities. Five out of the 20 schools
at DUSD are year 5 PI sites, which include the two elementary schools, two middle
schools and one high school all of which house a large number of EL students
(DataQuest, 2008).
In order to gain a more vivid picture of the EL academic performance, the
chart in Figure 5 provides data on CST (2006-2007) performance for ELs at the
Intermediate level (per CELDT results) for grades 2
nd
-8
th
; from this data, it is
evident that most ELs at the Intermediate level performed overwhelmingly at the
basic and below basic level. Although this is just a snapshot of how they are
academically performing it is important to note how the majority of these students
from 2
nd
to 6
th
grade performed mostly at the basic level and how the 7
th
-8
th
grade
students performed at the below basic level, which would classify them as not
proficient. These groups of students at the below basic and basic levels in the CSTs
9
have the potential to achieve the proficient level if their educational services were
specifically targeted for their learning at the basic and below basic level.
Figure 5. ELA CST of DUSD EL Students at Intermediate Level on CELDT (2006-
2007)
DUSD along with being a PI year 3 district, has also been identified as a Title
III (Language Instruction for EL and immigrant students) year 4 district. Title III is
part of the NCLB Act of 2001, which provides supplemental funding to local
educational agencies (LEAs) to implement programs designed to help English
learners and immigrant students attain English proficiency (per CELDT and CST
results), develop high levels of academic attainment in English, and meet the same
challenging state academic standards as all other students. Title III requires each
state to hold Title III sub-grantees accountable for meeting three annual measurable
objectives (AMAOs), which are performance objectives or targets, for EL’s. The
first AMAO relates to making annual progress on the CELDT, the second relates to
10
attaining English proficiency on the CELDT, and the third AMAO relates to meeting
AYP by the English Learner subgroup at the LEA level. DUSD has failed to achieve
the AMAO 3 targets for three consecutive years in the area of English Language Arts
(ELA), as illustrated in Figure 6. The state is therefore requiring the district to
modify its curriculum, program, and method of instruction or determine whether the
district will continue to receive Title III funds.
Figure 6. DUSD – AMAO 3 (AYP for EL Subgroup) Percent Proficient in ELA
Based on the data in figures 1-6 elementary ELs at DUSD are not meeting
state and federal requirements. Potential causes for the performance gaps for English
Learners are EL instructional services, core and ELD materials, and professional
development of teachers.
DUSD does not have a district-wide system in place to ensure that consistent
targeted EL instructional services are available for all elementary EL students. EL
instructional services vary depending on elementary school site and in some cases
11
classroom to classroom. This lack of consistency in instructional services makes it
difficult to pinpoint district-wide instructional strengths and areas of need. If the
district implemented and monitored clear instructional services that all elementary
EL students are to receive, it would encourage district-wide consistency and help to
develop the next steps in meeting linguistic and academic areas of need for EL
students.
The district uses the State Board of Education (SBE) adopted materials for
ELA and mathematics. At the elementary level the SBE-adopted material for ELA in
use is SRA Open Court and Saxon for mathematics. Although the district is not
currently required to, DUSD has yet to purchase current EL material targeted for
elementary EL students since 1994 with the purchase of Into English, a product of
Hampton-Brown which contains ELD material. There are a handful of schools that
have purchased the Avenues (2004), which is a recent ELD Hampton-Brown
program, from their school site budget. Depending on the availability of funds some
school sites provided (professor professional?) development on the Avenues
program. Due to the inconsistency of ELD materials available to all EL elementary
students, teachers are left with only Open Court as the primary curriculum.
Unfortunately, the Open Court material does not have differential learning for
linguistically diverse students.
Due to the fact that Open Court instructional material does not have separate
ELD instructional materials and minutes DUSD has begun providing professional
development (PD) in the area of English learners. The PD is only provided to the two
12
PI year 5 sites, with the exception of three teachers from a PI middle school. Reading
Lions, a PD provider, were contracted to provide the three-day PD. Reading Lions is
an organization that “provides a coordinated system of services for implementing
and sustaining effective research-based instruction in reading and language arts in
kindergarten though sixth grade.” The PD offered focused on how to teach out the
Open Court material to ELs without providing additional strategies outside of the
curriculum. It was basically re-teaching teachers how to use Open Court, a program
that does not provide information on how to differentiate daily instruction. Based on
teacher feedback forms, half of the teachers decided not to complete all three days of
PD put on by the Reading Lions because they did not feel they were gaining useful
strategies for them to use with their EL students.
Purpose Of The Study
The academic proficiency levels on the California Standards Test (CST) in
both English-Language Arts and mathematics for English learners at the elementary
schools in Daisyville Unified School District was compared to EL proficiency rates
in the state of California. The purpose of this non-equivalent comparison group
design was to determine how the EL academic performance at DUSD compared to
ELs in California. English learners were used as the control group and served as a
performance benchmark. Each of the seven elementary schools from DUSD were
used as the experimental group given that ELs had proficiency scores for ELA and
math. The CST statewide data were used to compare the achievement results for ELs
13
in Grades 2 through 5 at the elementary schools throughout California to the
achievement results for EL students in Grades 2 through 5 at DUSD.
Research Questions
The following research questions, guided this study:
1. How are elementary ELs in grades 2 through 5 at DUSD performing
academically on the CSTs on ELA as compared to ELs statewide?
2. How are elementary ELs in grades 2 through 5 at DUSD performing
academically on the CSTs on math as compared to elementary ELs
statewide?
Definition Of Terms
Elementary English Learners. A student identified as an English learner in K-
5
th
grade.
English Learners. A “K-12 student who, based on objective assessment, has
not developed listening, speaking, reading, and writing proficiencies in English
sufficient for participation in the regular school program” (CDE, 2009, p. 4).
English Language Development (ELD). Instruction that is appropriate for the
ELs identified level of language proficiency based on multiple measures. This
instruction is designed to promote the effective and efficient acquisition of English
listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills of ELs (CDE, 2009).
California Standardized Test (CST). CSTs are developed by California
educators and test developers specifically for California and students ranging from
2
nd
-11
th
grade are tested yearly in various subject areas (STAR, 2009). The tests
14
“measure students' progress toward achieving California's state-adopted academic
content standards, which describe what students should know and be able to do in
each grade and subject tested” (STAR, 2009: p.1).
California English Language Development Test (CELDT). It is a
standardized test that serves three purposes as specified in California state law. First,
to identify EL students, second determine English language proficiency and assess
the progress of EL students in the four language domains (listening, speaking,
reading, and writing) (CDE, 2009).
Program Improvement (PI). “A school or school district that receives federal
Title I funds is subject to identification for PI if it does not make AYP for two years
in a row” (CDE, 2007:2).
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE). It is a
methodology or approach used to teach academic courses, such as mathematics and
social science, in English, to ELs and is designed to increase the level of
comprehensibility of the English-medium instruction (CDE, 2009).
Summary
In sum, DUSD is classified as a year 3 PI district with 5 school sites in year 5
PI, and also identified as a Title III year 4 district. DUSD has a common strand when
it comes to federal and state identification, which is the EL academic achievement.
Both the PI and Title III status are attributed to English Learners not meeting AYP
targets. As the former English Learner Specialist at Daisyville Unified School
District (DUSD) it is my intent to gather the academic proficiency levels on the
15
CSTs in both English-Language Arts and mathematics for ELs at the elementary
schools in Daisyville Unified School District and to compare their performance with
that of English learners in California. This would gauge how EL students at DUSD
are fairing academically as compared to EL students in California and would give a
scope of how EL students in general are doing academically based on the CSTs. The
current focus in California is the identification of districts in PI and/or Title III
versus trends statewide and how ELs are fairing as a whole when academic
achievement is based only CST scores.
To be able to gain a better understanding of the importance of the EL
population as a whole it is important to know the background of the EL student
population in California, the requirements and challenges of the NCLB Act for ELs,
and the factors effecting EL achievement on the CSTs in both ELA and mathematics,
these factors will be addressed in Chapter 2 of this dissertation.
16
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
It is evident that California public schools are facing great challenges as the
number of English learners continues to rise, yet their academic achievement
continues to lag far behind their white monolingual counterparts (Ovando, Combs, &
Collier, 2006). In this chapter, three areas related to English-language learners and
their academic achievement and best practices are discussed. First, a background of
the EL student population in California is reviewed. Second, the requirements and
the challenges of the NCLB Act for EL students are examined. Third, best practices
for English Learners are reviewed.
A Background of the EL Student Population in California
To gain a better understanding of the background of the EL student
population in California certain essential areas are addressed in this section. First, a
brief overview of the historical background of this student population and the
education practices and policies that influence the education of ELs will be provided,
second the diversity of the ELs will be discussed, and third EL initial identification,
ongoing monitoring and program placement will be reviewed.
Background educational practices and policies for education of ELs
During the 1930’s there was “widespread segregation and inferior schooling”
for language minority students (Valencia, Menchaca, and Donato, 2002: p. 71).
Segregation usually took place in the primary grades however in later grades these
17
students were sometimes allowed to integrate with their white monolingual peers.
The reasoning behind the early segregation and later integration was because “the
language handicap” had practically disappeared and students adapted socially by the
time they were in the 5
th
and 6
th
grades (Valencia, Menchaca, and Donato, 2002: p.
71). In 1968, over half of all Spanish speaking students attended schools in which
they comprised the predominant racial/ethnic group (Valencia, Menchaca, and
Donato, 2002). Today in California schools EL students are highly segregated, in
2005 more that a third of California’s EL students were attending 15% of the state’s
public schools where they made up over 50% of the student body (UC LMRI, 2006).
At the elementary level over half of all ELs attend 21% of California’s public
schools where they comprise more than 50% of the student population (Rumberger,
Gandara and Merino, 2006). It is difficult to determine the exact reasons why these
students are segregated, however one can assume it is not all by chance.
In general during the 20
th
century, anti-immigration sentiments and restrictive
immigration legislation has resulted in the widespread of “Americanization” and the
English Only instruction as a national policy (Ovando, Combs and Collier, 2006).
Policies that have significantly affected the education of California’s ELs are the
Bilingual Education Act, Lau v Nichols, Proposition 227.
In 1968, the federal government enacted the Bilingual education act, known
as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to aid and monitor the
education of English language learners through mother tongue and English education
(Crawford, 1994; Ovando, 2003). The primary intent was to prepare EL students to
18
“succeed in English-language classrooms, to ease their transition to the mainstream”
(Crawford, 2004: xiv). This soon became known as transitional bilingual education.
Even though the details were ambiguous it was a first step toward moving away from
the sink or swim mentality.
This was followed by, the Supreme Court case in 1974 Lau v. Nichols, which
held public schools responsible for providing an education that was comprehensible
to students who could not speak English (Valencia, Menchaca, and Donato,
2002:91). In 1983 came the report called A Nation at Risk (The National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) which referenced the issue of
accountability and raised the bar for all learners, regardless of ethnic, or
socioeconomic background, and brought these issues to the surface at a national
level. In 1994, Congress extended the Bilingual Education Act, which now
articulated a new purpose, which was “developing bilingual skills and multicultural
understanding” (Crawford, 1994: xv). This law paved the way for national support to
develop bilingual education, including two-way immersion programs. In 1998,
California voters passed proposition 227 which replaced most bilingual programs
with all-English immersion for EL students.
Partly based on the stipulations of proposition 227, program placement for
ELs in California is in an English language classroom, unless a parental waiver is
granted for an alternative program. Dual Language Program or Two-Way Immersion
Program is an instructional delivery approach under alternative programs and it
basically integrates ELs and English only speakers to develop their biliteracy and
19
bilingualism in English and another language (CDE, 2008). The CDE identifies two
types of English language classrooms: Structured English Immersion (SEI), and
English Language Mainstream (ELM). An SEI classroom is designed for ELs with
less than reasonable fluency, which is typically ELs scoring at the beginning to
intermediate levels on the CELDT. Instruction in an SEI classroom is in English,
however the curriculum and presentation is designed for ELs, and according to the
CDE SEI classrooms include three basic components, which include: English
Language Development (ELD), content instruction utilizing Specially Designed
Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE), and also may include primary language
support. Although all districts, and schools in California that serve ELs have a legal
obligation to provide the minimum program elements of ELD instruction, the CDE
does not have a clearly defined criteria of what ELD instruction should be. Given the
unclear criteria at the state level many districts and schools vary on the definition of
ELD instruction, which inevitably causes inconsistency of ELD instruction
statewide. Given these types of instructional programs and settings, there is a
question as to whether the settings address the diversity of EL students in California.
Diversity within the EL students
The California Department of Education (CDE) defines an EL student as a
“K-12 student who, based on objective assessment, has not developed listening,
speaking, reading, and writing proficiencies in English sufficient for participation in
the regular school program” (CDE, 2009). Currently California public schools serve
nearly 1.6 million EL students in K-12
th
grades, which represent one-third of all ELs
20
in the nation. Of the nearly 1.6 million ELs approximately 85% are Spanish
speaking, 2.2% are Vietnamese speaking, 1.4% are Filipino speaking and 1.4% are
Hmong speaking (CDE, 2009). The educational practices and policies of the
education of ELs date back far into the history of the United States, so for purposes
of this dissertation, only trends beginning in the 1930’s and ending with the current
policies will be summarized.
The California EL population varies not only by language proficiency, but
also by culture, social status, and the type of schooling they have experienced
(Crawford and Krashen, 2007). This diversity plays an integral role in determining
the pace at which they will acquire the English language, and become English-
proficient based on the criteria identified by the CDE. Although there is no single
program that will necessarily meet all their needs, Olsen (2006) advocates that
effective programs for EL students start by first understanding the students. Lachat
(2004), states, “although there are similarities on how ELs learn English, learning
varies by language background and other characteristics” (p. 34). Olsen (2006)
recommends for schools to be able to “craft a particular set of program components
and support services that are needed for the specific population of English learners
enrolled, based on available resources, capacity, and educational goals” (p.10).
Olsen proposes that all EL students regardless of their background need to have a
“cognitively complex, coherent, well-articulated and meaningful standards-based
curriculum taught in a comprehensible manner, and a program that will enable them
21
to learn English quickly enough and fluently enough to participate fully in grade-
level academic curriculum” (Olsen, 2006: p.2)
Nationwide there is no uniform criteria for ELs to be classified as proficient
“each state and, in many cases, each school district set their own criteria for
assessing and placing ELLs and for reclassifying them as English-proficient”
(Crawford and Krashen, 2007: p. 12). The CDE does have a criteria for students to
be initially identified as EL and the State Board of Education (SBE) has established
guidelines for school districts to use in reclassifying students from EL to fluent
English proficient, however districts are not all monitored to ensure a criteria is
being implemented. Once a K-12
th
grade student is identified as an EL they are
monitored annually until they are reclassified as English proficient. The CDE also
recommends for reclassified ELs to be monitored a minimum of two years after
reclassification, however ‘monitoring’ is not clearly defined.
Review of EL initial identification, ongoing monitoring and program placement
A student is initially identified as an English learner using the state adopted
criteria, which begins when a parent registers his/her child for school. As part of the
initial registration parents complete a Home Language Survey (HLS), which is
required in the state of California. If any of the questions on the HLS regarding the
students primary language is answered with a language other than English the
California regulation requires the district to test the student for English proficiency
within 30 calendar days of enrollment (CDE, 2009). The California English
Language Development Test (CELDT) is used to determine English proficiency to
22
identify new students who are EL, to monitor their progress, and to help decide when
they are proficient in English (CDE, 2008). The CELDT assesses the four language
domains of listening, speaking, reading and writing, however kindergarten and first
grade students are assessed only in listening and speaking; this is aligned with the
SBE-adopted English Language Development Standards. The results are measured in
five levels of English proficiency, which are beginning, early intermediate,
intermediate, early advanced and advanced. The nationwide trend is that EL students
tend to remain longer at the intermediate level than any other CELDT level. It should
be noted that the CELDT only measures language proficiency, not necessarily a
student’s academic abilities.
Once a K-12
th
grade student is identified as EL he/she is placed appropriately
into an English language classroom, unless a parental exception waiver is granted for
an alternative program (CDE, 2009). All K-12
th
grade EL students continue to
receive services such as ELD, SDAIE, and/or primary language instruction until they
are re-designated.
The re-designation process is when EL students are reclassified as fluent
English proficient and is complete when they meet a criteria developed by the CDE.
The criteria used to reclassify ELs as proficient in English must include, however is
not limed to, the following four criteria: First one is assessment of language
proficiency, which in California is the CELDT and the EL student must score at least
at the Intermediate level in all language domains; the second criteria, is based on
teacher evaluation of language proficiency; the third criteria, is the parent or
23
guardian opinion and consultation on the EL student being redesignated; and finally
the fourth criteria, is the comparison of the EL student’s academic performance,
which in 2
nd
-5
th
grade is the California Standardized Test (CST) in which case the
student must be at least proficient in English language arts.
The CSTs are considered the objective assessments by the CDE, and are used
as one of the criteria to monitor academic progress of elementary ELs. The CST has
been developed by California educators and test developers specifically for
California, and students in 2
nd
-11
th
grade take the multiple choice test yearly on
various subject areas (STAR, 2009). The tests “measure students' progress toward
achieving California's state-adopted academic content standards, which describe
what students should know and be able to do in each grade and subject tested”
(STAR, 2009: p.1). Canon & Karoly (2007) state that in California ELs and students
whose parents are not high school graduates have the highest proportion who fall
short of proficiency. About 70 percent of these students do not meet second-grade
proficiency standards in ELA, and about 85 percent do not meet third-grade
standards (Canon & Karoly, 2007). In mathematics, between 53 and 58 percent do
not meet math proficiency standards in those grades (Canon & Karoly, 2007). This
type of trend affects how EL students fair with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act.
Requirements and Challenges of the NCLB Act for EL Students
In 2002, the NCLB legislation surfaced, in which schools are held
accountable for the academic progress of every child, regardless of race, ethnicity,
24
income level or zip code (USDE, 2005). The goal of NCLB is for all students to be
proficient or higher on the standards based assessments by the 2013-2014 school
year, regardless of their proficiency in English. It should be noted that NCLB places
primary emphasis on English acquisition and achievement, not the development of
bilingualism and biliteracy (Ovander, Combs and Collier, 2006).
NCLB requires each state to develop and implement a statewide
accountability system that ensures that all schools and districts make Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP). It is a series of yearly academic performance goals
established for each school, district, and the state. Per NCLB, all California schools,
and school districts receive an annual AYP report. The AYP report shows how well
schools and school districts are meeting common standards of academic
performance, as measured by whether the school or school district makes AYP. The
AYP targets increase almost yearly until 2013-2014 when 100% percent of all
schools must have students at or above the proficiency levels on the CSTs (CDE,
2008). If a school or district that receives Title 1 funds does not meet AYP criteria
for two consecutive years it is identified as Program Improvement (PI). Certain
criteria in terms of services and/or interventions are required until the school or
district exits PI. A school or district can exit PI if it meets AYP criteria for two
consecutive years (CDE, 2009). The challenge with ELs surfaces in part because the
targets increase every year and eventually ELs are not able to meet all the targets
because by definition ELs are not proficient in English (Jepson & de Alth, 2005).
An EL student is more likely to demonstrate proficiency on CSTs once they gain
25
English proficiency. There is general concern among various researchers that testing
ELs academic achievement does not adequately reflect an EL student’s ability or
competence (Jepston & de Alth, 2005).
English Learners along with all students in California are being measured not
only with AYP, but with the Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO)
and the Academic Performance Index (API) on a yearly basis. An additional
component of the NCLB legislation is tied to the federal Title III, which requires
states to establish annual AMAOs for ELs. AMAOs are SBE approved and Title III
requires California to hold districts for meeting three AMAOs for ELs. The first
AMAO relates to making annual progress on the CELDT, the second relates to
attaining English proficiency, and the third AMAO relates to meeting Adequate
Yearly Progress by the EL subgroup (CDE, 2007). If districts do not meet the
AMAOs, they may be identified as needing assistance and the CDE requires districts
to submit a Title III plan that the district is implementing. This Title III plan includes
many components including instructional programs and instructional materials for
ELs. As stated earlier the instructional programs are not clearly defined or monitored
statewide, therefore many districts’ Title III plans vary tremendously. As for
instructional materials there are SBE-adopted instructional materials for ELA and
math at the elementary level, however specific material to teach ELD is not required
by the CDE despite large numbers of ELs at a district. Gandara & Rumberger (2007)
emphasize the importance of resources for ELs such instructional programs and
materials because EL needs cannot be meet with the same resources as the general
26
population. Given the inconsistency of implementation of instructional programs
and instructional materials, one can assume that these may be contributing factors as
to why schools and districts are not meeting their AMAO and AYP targets. A
statewide accountability component comes in the form of the Academic Performance
Index (API).
As part of the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999
requirement, the state of California has an API index. A school’s API score is used to
show how well students are performing on the CSTs (EdSource, 2007). A school’s
API number ranges from 200 to 1000 and is calculated from the results for each
school’s students on statewide tests. The statewide target is set at 800, if schools
reach the 800 target they are required to meet annual growth targets, which vary
from school to school (CDE, 2007). API scores of elementary schools present both
the state and the general public with a consistent way to be informed about the
academic progress of students toward becoming proficient and eventually enabling
them to achieve academic success in later grades (EdSource, 2007). Jepson & de
Alth (2005) studied the statewide relationship between the EL in a school and the
school’s API score. They found that school with at least half or more EL enrollment
have APIs that are about 160 below that of schools with 6% or fewer ELs. The
California P-16 Council (2008) reported that at the elementary level ELs had an API
147 points lower than non-EL students. Based on 2006 CST results 14% of ELs
scored at proficient or above in ELA as compared to 60% of white students
(California P-16 Council, 2008). The P-16 Council (2008) also reported that in that
27
same year 25% of ELs scored proficient or above on the CSTs in mathematics as
compared to 53% of white students in California. According to the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) the achievement gap between ELs and
non-ELs is “13 to 18 points larger than gaps between students who are and are not
eligible for free and reduced lunch” (Goldenberg, 2008: 11). These discrepancies are
not a total surprise given that by definition ELs are not English proficient and the
CSTs are in English. What is not clear is why ELs score low. It could be that ELs
simply lack the knowledge and skills or their lack of English proficiency or other
unknown factors. What is clear is that this issue highlights the tremendous need for
policymakers to craft a balance to be able to evaluate ELs academic achievement and
also how he ELs linguistic and academic needs can be best met in classrooms.
Best Practices for English Learners
The importance of the best instructional strategies for ELs comes to the
forefront as this subgroup continues to grow in classrooms across the United States.
In 1990 one in 20 K-12 students were EL and now it is 1 in 9, demographers
estimate in 20 years it might be 1 in 4 (Goldenberg, 2008). The monumental task of
effectively teaching ELs lays on the laps of teachers who rely on their own
experience and knowledge of how to best teach their students.
Researchers found that individual teachers have a significant effect on
student achievement, despite the effectiveness of the school, in raising student
performance (Hill & Flynn, 2006). In an effort to investigate this phenomenon,
researchers at Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) began
28
reviewing studies on various instructional strategies that can be used by teachers.
Researchers defined instructional strategies as “alterable behavior on the part of
teachers or students” (Hill & Flynn, 2006: 6). Using a meta-analysis, researchers at
McREL analyzed over 100 studies over a 30 year period and based on that identified
nine categories of instructional strategies that were effective in increasing student
performance: (a) setting objectives and providing feedback, (b) nonlinguistic
representations, (c) cues, questions, and advance organizers, (d) cooperative
learning, (e) summarizing and note taking, (f) homework and practice, (g)
reinforcing effort and providing recognition, (h) generating and testing hypotheses,
and (i) identifying similarities and differences (Hill & Flynn, 2006, p. 6). Hill and
Flynn (2006) document the research by Marzano, Pickering and Pollock (2001)
regarding the nine categories. Hill and Flynn (2006) provide insight and concrete
examples of how these strategies can be adapted for ELs based on their level of
English proficiency and to provide differentiated instruction for ELs.
Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback
When teachers set objects and provide feedback it provides students a
direction for their learning and gives them a gauge of how they are performing
relative to their learning goal. This is essential given that per the requirements of
NCLB, EL students must make significant progress in both ELA and English
language proficiency.
29
In the 1980’s in order to address the high number of English Learners (EL)
educators began using content-based English as a Second Language (ESL), which is
also known as sheltered English immersion in California.
More recently Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2000) developed the Sheltered
Instruction Observational Protocol (SIOP) which is a research based model that all
teachers can use to better teach ELs. This model can be applied to all subject areas
and has basic components that are essential for each lesson.
Hill and Flynn highlight generalizations from research that can be drawn in
both setting objectives and providing feedback. These three generalizations come
from the research by Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001). First is setting goals
for instruction, which helps student focus their attention on information specifically
related to the goals. Second, teachers should encourage students to personalize the
learning goals identified for them. Third, goals should not be too specific because it
may limit learning.
Providing feedback is also an important component of setting objectives.
According to the research by Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) there are four
generalizations about providing feedback. First, feedback should be corrective in
nature, instead of immediately correcting students teachers should just restate what
the student is trying to say using the correct grammar and pronunciation without
overly calling attention to the errors. Second, feedback should be timely to maximize
effectiveness. Third, feedback should be criterion-referenced, and students should
know how they are performing relative to the academic goal instead of how they are
30
performing in comparison to their peers. Lastly, the students can effectively provide
their own feedback through ongoing self-evaluation of their learning and
performance. Hill and Flynn (2006) recommend using rubrics as a way to provide
feedback.
Nonlinguistic Representations
Nonlinguistic representations are vital to access and demonstrate knowledge
especially with students at the early stage of English language acquisition. Low
language EL students have much difficulty demonstrating conceptual knowledge in
the form of writing and taking tests, therefore it is important to provide them with the
opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge in a nonlinguistic form.
Given this it is Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) who provide two
general statements regarding nonlinguistic representations. First, a variety of
activities can help students formulate nonlinguistic representation. This may include
creating graphic representations, making physical models, generative mental
pictures, drawing pictures and engaging in kinesthetic activity which helps students
understand and recall information better. Second, nonlinguistic representations
elaborate on knowledge.
Hill and Flynn (2006) highlight five recommendations for classroom use
which follow the research by Marzano, Pickering and Pollock. First, the use of
graphic organizers is helpful to represent knowledge to EL students especially the
ones that are at the early stages of English language acquisition. According to Hill
and Flynn (2006) the use of symbolic representations can also be in form of pictures,
31
pictographs, maps, and diagrams. This helps ELs when understanding text because
they are connecting their prior knowledge to the new knowledge and language.
Teachers can guide the process of nonlinguistic representations by helping students
generate mental pictures. Using all five senses in one form or another can help build
rich mental images. Making physical models is another recommendation which gives
a concrete example of what is being learned. Last, the use of kinesthetic activities
where students use physical means to represent knowledge which will help EL
students understand and recall information better. A popular approach to this has
been Total Physical Response (TPR) which was developed by James Asher (1977)
which uses kinesthetic activities to teach English. Hill and Flynn (2006) describe the
use of nonlinguistic representations as a way to enhance “students’ ability to
represent and elaborate on knowledge using mental images” (p.37).
Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers
Cues and questions can be best used in the beginning of lessons to help
students access their prior knowledge and connect to the new information. Ovando
and colleagues (2006) acknowledge the importance of activating a student’s prior
knowledge. Building prior knowledge is also one of the components of the Sheltered
Instruction Observational Protocol model which was developed by Echeverria, Vogt,
and Short (2000). By using cues, questions, and advanced organizers teachers can
“enhance students’ ability to retrieve, use, and organize what they already know
about a topic” (Hill and Flynn, 2006, p. 45).
32
Marzano, Pickering and Pollock (2001) provide four generalizations when
using cues and questions. First the cues and questions should focus on what is
important rather than what is unusual. Focusing on the unusual will distract the
learner from the important information that needs to be grasped. The focus should
also be on higher-level questions (i.e. those that require analytic thinking), and
produce deeper learning than lower-level questions (i.e., those that simply require
students to recall or recognize information). Teachers will need to understand to
levels of English language acquisition to be able to effectively adapt questions. Third
is the importance of wait time during cues and questions. Giving wait time before
accepting answers can give time for students to formulate what they want to say and
lead to more quality responses overall. Lastly, questioning is effective both before
and after a learning experience.
Marzano, Pickering and Pollock (2001) identify four recommendations for
using advanced organizers in the classroom. One is the use of expository advanced
organizers because they describe the new content that will be introduced, also the use
of narrative advanced organizers to let students know what they are going to be
learning in a story format. Depending on language proficiency of students, teachers
will scaffold learning for their students by using visuals, pantomime, and simple
vocabulary to make the story comprehensible to all students. Lastly, teach students to
use graphic advance organizers, which will help students understand complex
concepts or themes.
33
Cooperative Learning
Using the cooperative learning techniques allows students to have the
opportunity to interact with each other in groups in ways that promote their own
learning. Marzano, Pickering and Pollock (2001) have three generalizations that can
be drawn from the research on cooperative learning. First, organizing groups by
ability level should be done sparingly. It is known that ability grouping in general is
more effective than no grouping; research has shown that students with low
academic skills perform worse in this type of grouping. It is only the students in the
middle spectrum that increase achievement in ability grouping. The cooperative
groups should be small, about three to four members is ideal, especially for ELs who
often feel intimidated speaking in their second language in a large group setting.
Cooperative grouping should be used at least once a week to be most effective. The
following are classrooms recommendations according to Hill and Flynn (2006): (a)
teachers should use a variety of criteria for grouping students; (b) use of several
types of cooperative learning groups, that will help vary group makeup; (c) teachers
should manage group size; (d) combine cooperative groups with other types of
classroom instruction.
Summarizing and Note Taking
Through teaching summarizing and note-taking techniques, students can
enhance their ability to synthesize and organize information to be able to capture
main ideas, and supporting details. Hill and Flynn (2006) describe summarizing as
34
“primarily about distilling information, finding patterns, filling in the missing parts,
and synthesizing the information in a condensed form” (p. 9).
Research by Marzano, Pickering and Pollock (2001) provide three
generalization in regards to developing summarizing skills. Students should engage
in the following three activities when summarizing effectively: deleting information,
substituting information, and keeping information. There are three recommendation
for classroom use: (a) teach students the rule-based summarizing strategy; (b) use
summarizing frames; (c) instruct students in reciprocal teaching as an aid to
understand expository text. All of these techniques are adaptable dependending on
the language proficiency of the ELs, and require a fairly deep level of analysis of the
information.
Note taking is much like summarizing in that it requires students to identify
the important information and then be able to rephrase that information in their own
words. Research by Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) provides three
generalizations for note taking. First is taking notes verbatim, which is the least
effective way because it does not provide an opportunity for the student to
synthesize the information being given. Second, notes taken should be considered a
work in progress and should be revisited, revised and be added to as the student’s
content knowledge expands. Lastly, students should use notes as study guides
especially if the notes are clear and well organized. Note taking recommendations for
the classroom are: (1) give students teacher-prepared notes; (2) teach students a
variety of note-taking formats; (3) use combination notes.
35
Both summarizing and note taking skills can be very beneficial for students
at all language proficiency levels. Summarizing skills can be best taught when
teachers provide the essential comprehensible input. Note taking skills are equally as
important and can be best used when combining both linguistic and nonlinguistic
learning to make it easier for students to store and retain knowledge.
Homework and Practice
Homework assignments provide an opportunity to review and apply
knowledge and skills. Hill and Flynn (2006) outline the general guidelines to keep in
mind for ELs. The following are items that should be included to make it
understandable and accomplished: (a) concrete, nonlinguistic examples; (b)
opportunities for students to clarify and discuss the assignment; (c) native language
support when necessary; (d) peer support; (e) modified or additional instructions; (f)
tips and strategies.
The research from Marzano, Pickering and Pollock (2001) indicate the
following generalizations when assigning homework to students. First, the amount of
homework assigned increase as they progress from elementary, middle to high
school. The homework policy should be pre-established and the policy contents
should be clearly communicated to the student, and whenever possible, also sent
home in the parent’s home language. Second, parent involvement in homework
should be kept to a minimum. Third, the purpose of the homework should be clearly
designed and communicated to all students. Lastly, feedback should be provided on
36
homework assignments, such as peer feedback. ELs would benefit from seeing
examples of homework from other students and listening to explanations.
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) identify generalization from the
research with regards to practice. First is that students must have significant practice
to master a skill. According to Hill and Flynn (2006) a student needs practice a skill
approximately 24 times before they reach 80% proficiency and ELs may need more
practice. The three recommendations for classroom application outlined by the
research of Hill and Flynn (2006) are: (1) ask students to chart their speed and
accuracy; (2) design practice that focuses on specific elements of a complex skill or
process; (3) plan time for students to increase their conceptual understanding of
skills or processes.
Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition
Reinforcing effort and providing recognition affects a student’s attitudes and
beliefs. According to the research by Marzano, Pickering and Pollock (2001) there
are two classroom recommendations for reinforcing effort. First is to explicitly teach
students the importance of effort. This will help students a great deal, especially if
the teacher shares stories of their own life when effort has led to success and students
also have the opportunity to reflect and share their experiences. Second is to track
effort and achievement where, for example, students use graphics or charts to
explicitly see the correlation to effort and progress of their achievement.
Providing students’ recognition can come in the form of rewards or praise for
the accomplishments. The following three recommendations for classroom use is
37
based on the research of Marzano, Pickering and Pollock (2001): (a) personalize
recognition; (b) use the pause-promote-praise strategy; (c) use concrete symbols of
recognition. Personalizing recognition is best used immediately following the
achievement of specific goals. The use of concrete examples can be in the form of
awards, certificates, or coupons, which should be given when goals have been met
not when simply completing a task.
Generating and Testing Hypotheses
The strategy of generating and testing hypotheses emphasis on both inductive
(specific to general) and deductive (general to specific) reasoning and can be used
throughout various grade levels. It is important to note that to engage all ELs in the
process may involve reducing the linguistic complexity of the task (Hill & Flynn,
2006). Although this may involve scaffolding and significant amount of preparation,
it will help EL students in the integration of language and content instruction which
is what they need the most (Hill & Flynn, 2006).
Identifying Similarities and Differences
It is important to note that when EL students identify similarities and
differences in the content they are learning, they are able to make new connections,
and experience new insights (Hill & Flynn, 2006). By participating in this type of
complex reasoning, students are given an opportunity to understand content at a
deeper level.
Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) identify four generalizations from
the research that conceptualize the areas for identifying similarities and differences.
38
First, teacher-directed activities deepen understanding for students and increase their
ability to use knowledge. The following are some tips that will help understanding
for ELs : “(a) represent what you say with visuals; (b) use short, simple sentences
with clear articulation; (c) include gestures and facial expressions; (d) use high-
frequency vocabulary; and (e) reduce idiomatic expressions” (Marzano, Pickering
Pollock, 2001, p. 102). The second generalization is that students should
independently identify similarities and differences. Teachers of EL students should
take into consideration the language level of students when planning and teaching
lessons. For example an EL at the beginning level per the CELDT, would greatly
benefit from comparing familiar items that forces the use of everyday vocabulary.
Jim Cummins (1984) describes this kind of communication as “cognitively
undemanding: context embedded” (138). Cummins (1984) recommends that EL
students at higher language proficiency levels should be pushed to more unfamiliar
context, and eventually pushed to practicing more academic English. Cummins notes
that the reason many ELs do not develop strong academic skills is because much of
their initial instruction takes place in cognitively demanding, context-reduced
situations that are inappropriate for the early stages of language acquisition
(Cummins, 1984). The third generalization is when students represent similarities
and differences in a graphic or symbolic form, it enhances their ability to identify
and understand the concept. One of the biggest advantages of using graphics and
symbols is that students must use language to explain the nonlinguistic
representations. The fourth generalization is the various forms that can be used when
39
identifying similarities and differences such as: comparing, classifying, creating
analogies, and creating metaphors. As with all teaching it is important to consider the
language level of EL students in order to maximize the comprehensible input.
This review of the nine categories outlined for increasing student
performance and the classroom recommendations for EL students serve as research
examples of best practices for ELs. Hill and Flynn (2006) provide insight and
concrete examples of how these strategies can be adapted for ELs based on their
level of English proficiency and to provide differentiated instruction for ELs and all
students.
Summary
In sum, the EL student population in California is very diverse which makes
the requirements of the NCLB Act challenging. The diversity within the EL
population is reflective in languages spoken, language proficiency, cultures, prior
schooling and social status. This diversity within the EL population must be
considered when addressing academic achievement. The NCLB Act requires schools
and districts to be held accountable for the academic success of all students,
including ELs, using the CST as the primary source of measurement of success.
There is general concern among various researchers that testing ELs academic
achievement does not adequately reflect an EL students’ ability or competence
(Jepston & de Alth, 2005). As the academic achievement targets continue to rise, it
becomes more challenging for ELs to meet these targets since by definition they are
not English proficient. It is imperative for schools and districts to be proactive in
40
differentiating programs and services that are specific for the particular EL
population. Although there are many strategies and programs for EL students the
nine categories outlined by McREL researchers meta-analysis would be a good
grounding point when searching for best practices at the classroom level for EL
students.
Chapter 3 addresses the EL academic proficiency levels on the California
Standards Test (CST). The proficiency levels are in both English-Language Arts and
mathematics at seven elementary schools in Daisyville Unified School District and
are compared to the performance of English learners throughout the state of
California.
41
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to compare the academic proficiency levels on
the California Standards Test (CST) in both English-Language Arts and mathematics
for English learners at the elementary schools in the Daisyville Unified School
District and to compare their performance with that of English learners in California.
A non-equivalent comparison group design was used for this study. The
experimental group was the ELs at DUSD and the control group was the ELs
statewide.
Research Questions
How are Grade 2 through 5 ELs at DUSD performing academically on the
CSTs on ELA as compared to ELs statewide? How are Grade 2 through 5 ELs at
DUSD performing academically on the CSTs on math as compared to elementary
ELs statewide?
Sample and Population
The sample of participants was purposefully selected based on three common
characteristics. All participants were elementary English learners that ranged from
beginners to advanced levels of English proficiency, had CST scores in ELA and
Mathematics, and ranged from 2
nd
to 5
th
grades. The seven elementary school sites
were selected from DUSD if at least 15% of students were identified ELs. This was
done to ensure a significant number of ELs were tested at each school site.
42
Table 1. English Learner Population at DJUSD (per school data)
DJUSD School
English Learner
Population (Percentage
per school)
Language Percentage per
school
Cedar Lane 56%
Spanish 30%
Hmong 26%
Covillaud 30%
Spanish 25%
Hmong 4%
Ella 51%
Spanish 43%
Hmong 8%
Johnson Park 33%
Spanish 29%
Hmong 1%
Rumanian 1%
Kynoch 15%
Spanish 13%
Hmong 1%
Linda 47%
Spanish 26%
Hmong 20%
Olivehurst 36%
Spanish 27%
Hmong 7%
Rumanian 2%
* Data retrieved from DATAQUEST
Instrumentation
The instrumentation for this study was achievement and all data available
were quantitative collected by the California Department of Education (CDE) to
report the academic proficiency levels on the California Standards Test (CST) in
both English-Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics for English learners at the
elementary schools in the Daisyville Unified School District. This was used to
compare the performance of elementary schools in DUSD with that of English
43
learners in California. Achievement was measured using the California Standardized
Test (CST), specifically with the EL-subgroup.
The CST is one of the standardized tests under California’s Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program. The CST is administered annually to
California public school students from second through eleventh grade and was
developed by California educators and test developers. Students are tested in ELA,
math, science and history-social science, however for purposes of this study only
ELA and math scores was analyzed. The CST is a multiple-choice test that measures
a students’ progress in achieving the state’s academic content standards. It is the goal
of every student who is assessed to achieve at levels of proficient or above
(EdSource, 2009, p.1)
CST information were gathered through DataQuest, which is on the CDE
website. The two subject areas that were analyzed were ELA and mathematics.
DUSD is currently in Program Improvement (PI) status which focuses on ELA and
math in terms of the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). AYP is a federal measure
that originates from the accountability system under No Child Left Behind (NCLB),
which focuses the achievement proficiency on significant subgroups. Achievement is
measured by the scores on the CSTs, which according to federal guidelines, should
be increasing to proficient and meet the targets in both ELA and math for all
significant subgroups. Schools must have a participation rate on the CSTs of at least
95% for each subgroup and failure to do so is followed by both state and federal
44
sanctions. These sanctions range from providing supplemental services to closing the
school and reopening it possibly as a charter.
Design
The design of this study was a quasi-experimental approach using non-
equivalent control groups because the 8 groups of EL students selected for the study
were not randomly assigned to a school.
Summative data were collected to compare the academic performance of ELs
at DUSD to ELs in California. The dependent variables were: (a) percent proficient
and above on ELA as measured by the California Standards Test (CST), (b) percent
proficient and above on math as measured by the California Standards Test (CST).
The summative evaluation was a non-equivalent comparison group design.
This design was used to analyze the differences of each DUSD school from the
population of all ELs in the state. The following statistics were used for the
dependent variables: (a) 95% confidence intervals to assess the statistical
significance of the effects (p < .05), (b) Cohen’s D to assess practical significance of
the effects (criterion for practical significance (d > .20) and (c) the raw percentage
difference to assess practical significance as per NCLB (10% improvement).
This design included an experimental group and one comparison group that
was not randomly assigned. The experimental and comparison groups were
compared on the post-test data. The comparison group was the EL population as a
whole in California that had CST scores for ELA and math. The seven elementary
schools at DUSD were the experimental group. The selection of the elementary
45
school was primarily based on the percentage of ELs per school site. Each school
had to have at least 15% ELs that were tested in ELA and mathematics. Other
information collected were: (a) API scores, (b) grade levels within the schools, (c)
percentage of students participating in the free or reduced price lunch program and
(d) percentage of students classified as ELs and participated in STAR, depicted in
Table 2.
Table 2. Selection Criteria for Experimental and Control Groups
DJUSD School
% English
Learner
(STAR)
API
Scores
Grade
Levels
% of Free or
Reduced Price
Lunch (STAR)
Cedar Lane
(Experimental)
56% 703 K-6 90%
Covillaud
(Experimental)
30% 734 K-5 71%
Ella
(Experimental)
51% 598 K-5 74%
Johnson Park
(Experimental)
33% 804 K-6 67%
Kynoch
(Experimental)
15% 653 K-5 54%
Linda
(Experimental)
47% 692 K-5 76%
Olivehurst
(Experimental)
36% 746 K-6 74%
46
The two summative evaluation designs used in this study are annotated in
scientific notation as follows:
E X OPost
C OPost
The scientific notation is defined as follows:
Experimental Group (X) Cedar Lane (DUSD) Post (2006)
Covillaud (DUSD) Post (2006)
Ella (DUSD) Post (2006)
Johnson Park (DUSD) Post (2006)
Kynoch (DUSD) Post (2006)
Linda (DUSD) Post (2006)
Olivehurst (DUSD) Post (2006)
Comparison Group – English Learners in California (Post 2006)
For the nonequivalent comparison group design, data outcomes on the 2006
CST ELA for ELs at seven elementary school in grades 2 through 5 at DUSD were
compared to the data outcomes of EL population in grades 2 through 5 in California.
The purpose of this analysis was comparative.
Data Collection
Data were collected using the public quantitative data collected by CDE and
posted on the CDE website, specifically DataQuest. First, the EL-subgroup CST data
47
for ELA were collected for the ELs statewide. These data were broken down by
grade level for EL students in the second through fifth grade. Second, the EL-
subgroup CST data for mathematics were collected for the ELs statewide. These data
also were broken down by grade level for EL students from the second through fifth
grade. Third, the EL-subgroup CST data for ELA was collected for the specified
elementary schools at DUSD. The data were then broken down by grade level for
each of the specified elementary schools. Fourth, the EL-subgroup CST data for
mathematics was collected for the specified elementary schools at DUSD. The data
were then broken down by grade level for each of the specified elementary schools.
The data gathered are analyzed using the SPSS data analysis software.
Data Analysis
The data gathered were divided up by grade levels, second through fifth
grade to compare how CST scores vary between grade levels and elementary schools
at DUSD and compared to the state. All data regarding CST scores for ELs were
collected from the CDE website. Elementary EL students at DUSD were divided up
by elementary school and then by grade level and were then compared by grade level
to ELs statewide.
The data analysis conducted in this study to compare elementary ELs at
DUSD academic performance on the CSTs on ELA and math as compared to ELs
statewide involved traditional significance testing and calculating Cohen’s D to see if
there were practical differences.
48
It is important to acknowledge that the findings of this study are limited to
Daisyville Unified School District. Due to the limited scope of this study causation
cannot be proven because random assignment did not occur. This study provides
insight into how ELs are performing in ELA and math as compared to their EL peers
statewide, but other unmeasured factors may have confounded the results.
Summary
In sum, this study was a comparison of the academic proficiency levels on
the CST in both ELA and mathematics for English learners at eight elementary
schools in DUSD compared to that of ELs in California. The participants were 2
nd
-
5
th
grade ELs that had CST scores in ELA and Mathematics. The public quantitative
data collected by CDE were used to compare the academic proficiency levels on the
CSTs in both ELA and mathematics for ELs at seven elementary schools in DUSD
to that of 2
nd
-5
th
grade ELs in California. This was a quasi-experimental approach
using non-equivalent control groups and the data were collected from the CDE
website, specifically DataQuest. The data was then broken down by grade level for
each of the specified elementary schools. The data gathered were analyzed and
compared using the SPSS data analysis software. The data analysis conducted in this
study involved traditional significance testing and calculating Cohen’s D to see if
there were practical differences. Chapter 4 will provide the results of this study in
both a narrative form and in data tables.
49
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This was a quantitative study that required a quasi-experimental approach
using a non-equivalent control group design to compare the academic proficiency
levels on the California Standards Test (CST) in both English-Language Arts (ELA)
and mathematics for English learners (EL) in the elementary schools in the
Daisyville Unified School District (DUSD) to that of English learners throughout
California.
DUSD is comprised of seven elementary schools with at least 15% of the
population being EL at each school site. The EL student population varied
linguistically, culturally, and socio-economically. According to Data Quest (2006-
2007) the proportion of students receiving free/reduced meals was 67.7% district-
wide, which is 18% more than the state average. District-wide ELs made up 26.2%
of the student population with the majority being Spanish and Hmong speakers.
Reporting of Findings
The purpose of this study was to address these two research questions: How
are Grade 2 through 5 ELs at DUSD performing academically on the CSTs on ELA
as compared to ELs statewide? How are Grade 2 through 5 ELs at DUSD performing
academically on the CSTs on math as compared to elementary ELs statewide?
50
Figure 7. Grade 2 ELA Results for EL Students
The CST proficiency rate results for EL 2
nd
graders in ELA are shown in
Figure 7. The proficiency rate includes results from second graders from each
elementary school at DUSD and the EL state average. The state average for the
second grade in ELA is .31 and was based on the overall CST performance of all EL
2
nd
graders in ELA. As shown in Figure 7 EL 2
nd
graders in three schools statistically
outperformed the state’s EL average. The elementary schools in which the ELs
outperformed the EL state average were: Johnson Park, Olivehurst and Linda. Three
of the DUSD elementary schools (Ella, Cedar Lane and Covillaud) underperformed
the CA normative data. Only Kynoch was within the 95% confidence interval for the
average CA school.
51
Figure 8. Grade 2 Math Results for EL Students
Figure 8 displays the results for math CST proficiency levels for EL 2
nd
graders. ELs in Johnson Park, Olivehurst and Linda again overperformed in terms of
the state’s normative data. However, in contrast to the ELA results, Olivehurst EL
2
nd
graders were overperforming and Kynoch 2
nd
graders were underperforming
when compared to the state average. Ella and Cedar Lane were the two lowest
performing schools on both the ELA and Math CST norms. Appendices A-F contain
the results for ELA and mathematics for grades 3 to 5.
The ELA and math performance level results are summarized in Table 3. The
(+) symbol signifies the ELs at that particular school were overperforming in terms
of the state normative data, the (-) symbol signifies that the EL students were
52
underperforming, and no symbol means the EL students in that school were within
the confidence interval for the average CA school.
Table 3. ELA and Math Performance Level Results
Grade Level
2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade
School ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Cedar Lane - - + + + + +
Covillaud - + + + + +
Ella - - - -
Johnson Park + + + + + + + +
Kynoch - + + +
Linda + - - +
Olivehurst + + + + + + +
Based on Table 3 there are certain patterns that become apparent among the
elementary schools. Johnson Park’s ELs outperformed the EL state average at every
grade level in both ELA and math. Both Olivehurst and Cedar Lane schools
performed better than the state average in most of the grade levels in both ELA and
math. Overall most of the elementary schools at DUSD either were within the
confidence interval of the state of California or outperformed ELs statewide average
at all grade levels on the math CSTs. The performance levels for ELs at DUSD in
ELA were mostly within the confidence interval and an approximately equal number
of schools overperformed or underperformed the ELs statewide on the ELA CSTs.
53
Shown in Table 4 and Table 5 are the percentage difference indices of
practical significance for ELA and math based on CST performance. These were
computed by subtracting a school EL proficiency level from the state averages so a
negative number indicates a school is underperforming and a positive number
indicates a school is overperforming.
Table 4. Percentage Difference Indices-ELA
Percentage Difference ELA
Grade Level
School 2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade
Cedar Lane -.19 +.01 +.07 +.09
Covillaud -.08 +.20 +.04 -.02
Ella -.23 -.01 -.05 -.02
Johnson Park +.35 +.35 +.26 +.12
Kynoch -.03 +.09 +.02 +.03
Linda +.12 -.09 -.12 -.02
Olivehurst +.22 +.02 +.07 +.11
As illustrated in Table 4 most of the elementary schools at the Daisyville
Unified School District (DUSD) varied in the percentage difference in ELA
depending on grade level. Four of the seven schools had a negative difference in 2
nd
grade with the exception of Johnson Park, Linda, and Olivehurst schools which had
positive difference. Overall third grade and fourth grade had a positive difference
excluding Ella and Linda schools. Fifth grade had three of the four schools with a
54
small negative percentage difference in ELA. It should be noted that Johnson Park
and Olivehurst had a positive percentage difference across the board on the CST -
ELA.
Table 5. Percentage Difference Indices-Math
Percentage Difference Math
Grade Level
School 2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade
Cedar Lane -.25 +.09 +.16 +.18
Covillaud +.19 +.36 +.11 +.06
Ella -.27 +.03 +.04 -.13
Johnson Park +.46 +.41 +.06 +.12
Kynoch -.19 +.11 +.09 +.00
Linda +.06 -.05 +.00 +.14
Olivehurst +.11 +.12 +.09 +.27
Table 5 is the same as Table 4 except that it is based on math CSTs. CST
second grade results show four of the seven schools with positive percentage
difference in math with the exception of Cedar Lane, Ella, and Kynoch. Most of 3
th
and 5
th
grades had a positive percentage difference apart from Linda (3
rd
grade) and
Ella (5
th
grade). All of 4
th
grade had a positive difference in math. Across the board
in math, Covilluad, Johnson Park, Olivehurst schools had positive percentage
difference. Overall percentage difference was more positive in math as compared to
ELA for elementary school at DUSD.
55
Displayed below in Tables 6 and 7 are the effect size results. Cohen’s
standards for interpreting effect sizes are: .30 (small), .50 (medium*) and (.70
large**). The pattern in Table 6 and Table 7 are basically identical to that reported
for percentage differences in Table 4:
Table 6. Effect Size Results-ELA
Effect Size ELA
Grade Level
School 2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade
Cedar Lane -.90** .08 .39 .75**
Covillaud -.38 1.57** .22 -.17
Ella -1.10** -.08 -.28 -.17
Johnson Park 1.67** 2.75** 1.44** 1.00**
Kynoch -.14 .71** .11 .25
Linda .57* -.71** -.67* -.17
Olivehurst 1.05** .16 .39 .92**
Table 7. Effect Size Results-Math
Effect Size Math
Grade Level
School 2
nd
Grade 3
rd
Grade 4
th
Grade 5
th
Grade
Cedar Lane -1.00** .37 .67* .95**
Covillaud .76** 1.48** .46 .32
Ella -1.08** .12 .17 -.68
Johnson Park 1.84** 1.68** .25 .63*
Kynoch -.76** .45 .37 .00
Linda .24 -.21 .00 .74**
Olivehurst .44 .49 .37 1.42**
56
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to compare the academic proficiency levels on
the California Standards Test (CST) in both English-Language Arts and mathematics
for English learners at the elementary schools in Daisyville Unified School District
and to compare their performance with that of English learners in California. The
study specifically compared ELs by grade level (2
nd
-5
th
grade) at each elementary at
the DUSD to that of EL grade level (2
nd
-5
th
grade) CST performance statewide. The
results of the study uncovered distinct results in terms of EL proficiency in ELA and
in math at DUSD.
Overall, a majority of the elementary schools at DUSD did not mirror the
performance of ELs statewide on the CST in ELA. The ELA results for the DUSD
raised more questions than answers as to the education of elementary ELs. It is
evident by the fluctuating results across grade levels and schools at DUSD that the
percent of ELs proficient in ELA are inconsistent district-wide. The two elementary
schools that outperformed their counterparts within the district and across the state
were both Johnson Park and Olivehurst. Ella school unfortunately significantly
underperformed across grade levels within the district and when compared to ELs
statewide. The other three elementary schools fluctuated in the amount of EL
students proficient in ELA. The results on the CSTs for mathematics at DUSD told a
quite different story from the ELA results. Across all grade levels district-wide the
ELs performed significantly better than in ELA. Most of the schools performed at or
above the EL state average on the CSTs in math. The three schools that
57
outperformed their counterparts were Covillaud, Johnson Park and Olivehurst
schools. They each performed above the average of ELs across California. The other
three elementary schools did not fall too far behind in the percentage of EL students
proficient in math.
58
CHAPTER 5
OVERVIEW
The purpose of this study was to compare the academic proficiency levels on
the California Standards Test (CST) in both English-Language Arts (ELA) and
mathematics for English learners (EL) at the elementary schools in the Daisyville
Unified School District (DUSD) with that of ELs throughout California. The focus of
the study was primarily on the academic achievement as measured by the CSTs with
elementary ELs divided by grade level and schools at DUSD and compared with the
EL achievement statewide.
DUSD is classified as a Program Improvement (PI) year 3 district with 5
school sites in year 5 PI, and also identified as a Title III year 4 district. DUSD has a
common strand when it comes to federal and state identification, which is the EL
academic achievement. Both the PI and Title III status of DUSD is attributed to
English Learners not meeting AYP. English Learners at DUSD receive Sheltered
English Instruction (SEI), which is designed for ELs with less than reasonable
fluency, which is typically ELs scoring at the beginning to intermediate levels on the
CELDT. Instruction in an SEI classroom is in English, however the curriculum and
presentation is designed for ELs such as English Language Development, Specially
Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE), and also may include primary
language support. The review of the literature explored the background of the EL
student population in California, the requirements and challenges of the NCLB Act
59
for ELs, and the factors effecting EL achievement on the CSTs in both ELA and
mathematics. The approach used in this study was quasi-experimental using non-
equivalent control group and the data were collected from the CDE website,
specifically DataQuest.
Importance of the Study
By comparing the academic achievement of EL students at DUSD with that
of the EL in California, the study provides an understanding of challenges districts
are facing to address the academic achievement of ELs per the requirements of
NCLB and also provide guidance for next steps at DUSD.
Statewide, districts face challenges on the issue of EL achievement on
CELDT because generally once an EL student achieves the intermediate level on the
CELDT they tend to remain at this level longer than any other level, which would
give the appearance that progress is not being accomplished. There is also the
challenge of ensuring that all EL students in California are receiving the consistent
and appropriate amount of ELD instruction along with access to appropriate
materials. The academic challenges of ELs are most apparent in meeting the AYP
criteria; most of the schools and districts identified as PI are identified because the
EL subgroup did not meet targets. In PI schools and districts in which ELs did not
meet target, the CDE requires the district to modify curriculum and instructional
delivery; however, the criteria for modifying these elements are not clearly defined.
DUSD is in the midst of facing a great deal of challenges as efforts are being made to
improve student achievement district-wide given the state and federal mandates. The
60
district as a whole is pulled in multiple directions as to how to best meet the needs of
students. This study will provide a clearer picture as to the appropriate next steps and
areas that need further investigation in order to provide the best educational
opportunities for all students with a focus on ELs. It will also contribute to the body
of literature surrounding the area of the challenges of academic achievement of ELs
and provide recommendations for possible approaches that address these issues.
Summary of Findings
The findings of the study unveiled patterns in ELs academic performance on
the CST at DUSD when compared to the ELs state average on the CSTs in both ELA
and math. The comparison of ELs performance on the CSTs told two different
stories of how EL students were performing academically. The findings were
organized by the two research questions:
How are Grade 2 through 5 ELs at DUSD performing academically on the CSTs on
ELA as compared to ELs statewide?
The EL students in grades 2 through 5 at all elementary school at DUSD
varied dramatically on CST performance in ELA when compared to the ELs
statewide and schools within the district. The quality of ELA/ELD education of ELs
at DUSD comes to light when reviewing the imbalanced performance among the
elementary schools. The CST results fluctuated tremendously not only among
schools, but across grade levels as well. The two elementary schools that
outperformed their counterparts within the district and across the state were Johnson
Park and Olivehurst. Ella school significantly underperformed across grade levels
61
within the district and when compared to ELs statewide. The other three elementary
schools fluctuated in the amount of EL students proficient in ELA.
Based on the ELA CST results the EL academic performance at each school
at DUSD seemed to be functioning completely independent of each other because of
the variance of proficiency levels. This lack of consistency of EL proficiency can be
attributed to a number of factors at DUSD and beyond. The inconsistency of the EL
student performance could be a reflection of the lack of uniform ELD instruction
time and materials district-wide. It may also be the diversity of the EL population at
each school site in terms of English language proficiency levels and languages
spoken. It could also be that some schools are simply putting more of their resources
in the area of ELs. The answer may also be in the elementary schools API score.
According to Jepson and Alth (2005) study schools with a higher number of ELs
have a lower Academic Performance Index (API) score than schools with a lower
number of ELs, which also proved true in this study. The two schools that
underperformed across grade levels in ELA were Ella (598 API) and Linda (692),
which had the lowest API scores among the schools reviewed. Ella and Linda
elementary schools have one of the highest percentage of ELs district-wide in
comparison to Johnson Park and Olivehurst. It would also be beneficial to further
study Johnson Park and Olivehurst in terms of ELA to possibly examine common
practices at both of the school sites.
It is also important to note that the SEI that all EL students are supposed to be
receiving may not be well implemented at all the school sites. SEI includes three
62
basic components according to CDE, which are: (1) English Language Development
(ELD), content instruction, (2) utilizing Specially Designed Academic Instruction in
English (SDAIE), and (3) also may include primary language support. All of these
components are not monitored or implemented with fidelity at all the school sites.
This lack of consistency can probably be attributed to the unclear criteria at the state
level, and consequently many districts and schools vary on the definition of ELD
instruction, which inevitably causes inconsistency of ELD instruction statewide.
In terms of ELA proficiency on the CSTs, further investigation is needed to
identify key areas that need to be addressed to raise the level of academic proficiency
across all elementary schools at DUSD. The lack of consistency of EL proficiency
across the district can be attributed to a number of factors at DUSD. The
inconsistency of the EL student performance could be a reflection of the lack of
uniform ELD instruction time and materials district-wide. It could also be the
diversity of the EL population at each school site in terms of English language
proficiency levels. It could also be that some schools are simply putting more of their
resources in the area of ELs. It is crucial that ELA proficiency on the CSTs be
investigated further to raise the level of academic proficiency across all elementary
schools at DUSD.
How are Grade 2 through 5 ELs at DUSD performing academically on the CSTs on
math as compared to elementary ELs statewide?
The results on the CSTs for mathematics at DUSD tell a quite different story
from the ELA results. Across all grade levels district-wide the ELs performed
63
significantly better than in ELA. Most of the schools performed at or above the EL
state average on the CSTs in math. The three schools that outperformed their
counterparts were Covillaud, Johnson Park and Olivehurst schools. They each
performed above the average of ELs across California. The other three elementary
schools did not fall too far behind in the percentage of EL students proficient in
math. It is apparent that something is going right at the DUSD in the area of
mathematics.
The positive results regarding math proficiency on the CSTs across grade
levels and schools may be attributed to some specific factors. Unlike ELA, DUSD
has a set number of minutes of math instruction using the state board adopted
curriculum in each classroom. Instructional time and implementation is monitored at
each school site by either the site administrator or the math coach if available. Most
of the teachers have also participated in professional development in the adopted
curriculum. In addition to consistency of curriculum there are also trimester
benchmark assessments that are administered and reviewed by staff to adapt
mathematics instruction. It is also possible that success may be also attributed to
factors within the EL population. The finding pertaining to ELs performing at higher
level in math coincides with research by the P-16 council of California (2008), in
which CST results were reviewed for ELs as they compared to non-EL students in
both ELA and math. The review showed that ELs performed about 10% better in
math than in ELA.
64
Implications for Practice
By comparing the academic achievement of EL students at DUSD with that
of the EL in California, the study provides a lens by which to understand the
challenges districts are facing in addressing the academic achievement of ELs per the
requirements of NCLB.
This study informs the stakeholders at the DUSD about the academic
performance of ELs in both ELA and math when compared to ELs throughout the
state of California. Although the results varied for both ELA and math, the study
shed light on possible ways to improve the educational practice at DUSD.
In terms of results for ELA, this study brings to light the inconsistencies in
performances that may be attributed to the educational practices across grade levels,
and different elementary schools at the DUSD. These inconsistencies may be
addressed at both at the district and classroom level. At the district level, the
administration should address and implement the Title III plan, which is a state
requirement for the DUSD.
This Title III plan must include some important elements to begin to address
ways to increase student achievement. First, would be the requirement and
monitoring of English Language Development (ELD) instructional minutes and
materials in all elementary classrooms. Providing professional development would
be a first step in ensuring that all stakeholders at the DUSD are informed of this
requirement. The professional development would provide ways to implement the
ELD time within the instructional day. It would take place either at the school site or
65
district office and be offered on a yearly basis or until it becomes part of the DUSD
culture. To implement the monitoring portion, the DUSD will identify key people at
the district and site level that will support all site and administrative staff as they
strive to provide ELD instruction to all students identified for services. Second,
monitoring of EL student progress may be explored in a proactive way at all sites.
There are various avenues by which to monitor the progress of EL students’
language proficiency, academic proficiency or both. For example, a school site could
provide the EL profile for each student and teachers would be able to track the
language and academic proficiency at least three times a year. The administrator at
the site would track EL students to ensure they are progressing steadily. Third, more
opportunities for collaboration in the area of ELA/ELD at all levels may be
considered. Since DUSD is just beginning to explore how to implement ELD it
would be beneficial for teachers and administrators to have opportunities to share
ideas and work collaboratively to ensure EL needs are being addressed in classrooms
and at school sites.
At the classroom level, there are many ways to explore how EL students are
being taught, and how they are learning. Based on the research there is no single
program that will ensure that all the EL needs will be met. Olsen (2006) advocates
that effective programs for EL students start by first understanding the students. The
majority of the EL group at DUSD are at the intermediate level on the CELDT,
which means that they have enough conversational English to survive, however they
are lacking the academic English skills that would push them on to the next level on
66
the CSTs. Olsen proposes that all EL students, regardless of their background, need
to have a “cognitively complex, coherent, well-articulated and meaningful standards-
based curriculum taught in a comprehensible manner, and a program that will enable
them to learn English quickly enough and fluently enough to participate fully in
grade-level academic curriculum” (Olsen, 2006: p.2). DUSD currently has a current
standards-based curriculum for ELA in which 99 percent of teachers are trained in
teaching. What students and teachers need are the strategies that will boost those EL
students to the next level. Researchers at Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning (McREL) reviewed studies on various instructional strategies that can be
used by teachers, and using a meta-analysis, they analyzed over 100 studies over a
30 year period and based on that, identified nine categories of instructional strategies
that were effective in increasing student performance: (a) setting objectives and
providing feedback, (b) nonlinguistic representations, (c) cues, questions, and
advance organizers, (d) cooperative learning, (e) summarizing and note taking, (f)
homework and practice, (g) reinforcing effort and providing recognition, (h)
generating and testing hypotheses, and (i) identifying similarities and differences
(Hill & Flynn, 2006, p. 6).
Although all the nine categories are important, the following strategies would
be a good initial starting point for the elementary schools at DUSD: (1) setting
objectives and providing feedback, (2) cues, questions and advanced organizers, and
(3) cooperative learning. The strategies match the type of SEI instruction that should
be taking place for all ELs at DUSD. All three can be implemented into the ELD,
67
SDAIE strategies and if needed, provide primary language support. These strategies
also provide a tailored approach of teaching EL composition at DUSD. Marzano,
Pickering, and Pollock (2001) identify the importance of personalizing goals for EL
students to help them focus on the goal at hand. Hill and Flynn (2006) recommend
using rubrics as a way to provide feedback to students at all grade levels. Cues and
questions can be best used in the beginning of lessons to help students access their
prior knowledge and connect to the new information. Ovando and colleagues (2006)
acknowledge the importance of activating a students’ prior knowledge. Using cues,
questions, and advanced organizers teachers can serve to “enhance students’ ability
to retrieve, use, and organize what they already know about a topic” (Hill and Flynn,
2006, p. 45). It is also important to consider the use of wait time during cues and
questions. Giving wait time before accepting answers can give students time to
formulate what they want to say and lead to more quality responses overall.
Cooperative learning provides EL students with the opportunity to interact
with each other in groups in ways that promote their own learning. Marzano,
Pickering and Pollock (2001) have several recommendations when practicing
cooperative learning. First would be in terms of sparingly organizing groups by
ability level. Second, cooperative groups should be small, about three to four
members is ideal, especially for ELs, who often feel intimidated speaking in their
second language in a large group setting. Cooperative grouping should also be used
at least once a week to be most effective. Overall, Hill and Flynn (2006) provide
68
insight and concrete examples of how these strategies can be adapted for ELs based
on their level of English proficiency and to provide differentiated instruction for ELs.
In terms of mathematics, ELs at DUSD performed overall at or above what
ELs throughout California performed. It would be important to explore what is
currently taking place at DUSD in regards to mathematics and continue to support
those efforts. It would also be equally important to explore ways to continue the
success.
Given that the majority of the EL group at DUSD are at the intermediate
level on the CELDT, which means that they enough conversational English to
survive, students continue to need to be pushed to the next level on the CSTs. DUSD
has the most current standards-based curriculum for math in which 99 percent of
teachers are trained in teaching. What students and teachers need are the strategies
that will boost those EL students’ achievement. Many of the strategies described in
Hill and Flynn’s (2006) research can be used for mathematics. For example setting
objectives and providing feedback, and cooperative learning that were describe for
ELA can be used much in the same way in math.
Support in the area of mathematics can also be in the form of teacher support
and collaboration, which would be focused on discussing the 6 week assessments
given to all elementary students. They can discuss ways to meet the standards and
ways they can assess it in their own classroom to ensure their students are on the
right track. Although the results were positive for math, it is healthy to continue to
69
venture out and try new ways to support the academic proficiency of students in
mathematics
Implications for Research
Many studies focus on EL achievement based on comparing ELs to non-ELs,
however this study compared ELs to ELs at the same grade level. There is a need for
more studies to focus specifically on comparing ELs to ELs and take into account
their culture and language proficiency when comparing the two. Often ELs are
compared to their English only counterparts, which often does not depict a clear
presentation of the next steps in the teaching of ELs. For example, just by knowing
that ELs are performing below the state average does not take into account the
duration of the time they have been in the country, language proficiency, and
whether or not they are receiving systematic ELD instruction.
Currently under the 2002 No Child Left Behind ACT (NCLB) EL students'
academic success is being based on high stakes tests in a language in which they are
not proficient. Crawford (2009), suggests that schools with high percentage of ELs,
are being labeled or punished for failure based on existing tests that are unable to
measure what ELs have learned. If the NCLB is reauthorized there must be closer
look specifically with the EL population and how their success is being measured.
Further, research in general is needed in the area of English Learners
academic proficiency because of the vast diversity within the population. There is a
tremendous need for policymakers to craft a balance to be able to evaluate the
academic achievements of ELs. The findings of this study indicated how the district
70
achievement does not necessarily reflect the achievement of the schools within the
district. It would be interesting to know how many more districts are like DUSD and
what is currently being done to reach the students in these schools that are not
meeting their academic needs. There is general concern among various researchers
that testing ELs academic achievement does not adequately reflect an EL student’s
ability or competence (Jepston & de Alth, 2005).
Limitations
There were various limitations to the external validity of this study given the
narrow scope of the study. The study was limited in the scope of the type of EL
population examined because the study did not separate the CST results by how long
the ELs have been in the country, which could have shown trends for ELs who have
been in school less than 12 months. The EL population was not separated by
language proficiency levels as determined by the CELDT (data not currently
available in California). The study could have been improved by analyzing EL
achievement on the CSTs over a course of several years to see more trends in the
population, schools, the district and California as a whole. In addition the scope of
the study was based on the CST scores, which do not measure language proficiency.
I compared elementary ELs at DUSD as a whole to ELs in California and did
not compare elementary ELs at the same proficiency level. The comparison of the
EL achievement at DUSD to the EL achievement statewide does not compare ELs by
English proficiency. This comparison could be using data of the general EL
population that have language proficiencies that range from beginning to advanced.
71
The study compared the general EL population because of the type of data currently
available in the state of California, which does not include CST scores in language
arts and math proficiency levels broken down by CELDT scores.
Finally, the internal validity of the study is limited by the many unmeasured
differences between the target group (DUSD) and the comparison group (State of
California). For example, the reported success of DUSD in math could be attributed
to the characteristics of EL students in DUSD, rather than the instructional practices
in DUSD.
Delimitations
The focus of the dissertation was in specifically addressing the performance
level of elementary level EL students because an overview of K-12
th
grade would be
too cumbersome. Only one district was analyzed using all the elementary schools in
the district in regards to EL students only. The CST performance in ELA and math
were used as a measurement of achievement because it is the primary source used by
the state and federal government to measure achievement.
Conclusion
This study will contribute to the body of literature surrounding the area of
challenges in the academic achievement of ELs and provide recommendations for
possible approaches that address these issues. It brings to light the issue of
comparing EL performance at school sites to EL performance statewide versus the
current system. The results also provide a lense by which we can examine how EL
students are performing in both ELA and math at one district and how that district
72
can improve practice for the achievement of all students. At the forefront of
challenges facing educators, there is a tremendous need for policymakers to craft a
balance to be able to evaluate ELs academic achievement.
73
REFERENCES
Asher, J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: The complete
teacher’s guide. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Publication.
California Department of Education (2007). Adequate Yearly Progress Report:
Information Guide. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ayp/
California Department of Education. DATAQUEST http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Retrieved Jan. 30, 2009.
California Department of Education. English Learners in California Frequently
Asked Questions. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/ August 21, 2006 retrieved
Jan. 30, 2009
California Department of Education. CELDT Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/celdtfaq.asp February 2008. Retrieved Jan. 31,
2009
California Department of Education. Parent and Guardian Guide to California’s
2006-07, Accountability Progress Reporting System. March 2007.
California Department of Education. (2005). Relationship between English
Language Arts and English Language Development. English Learner
Accountability Unit Language Policy and Leadership Office.
California Department of Education. Standards and Assessment Division: California
English Language Development Test (Information for Parents). November
2002.
California P-16 Council. Closing the Achievement Gap. January 2008.
Canon J. and L. Karoly. Who is Ahead and Who is Behind? Gaps in School
Readiness and Student Achievement in the Early Grades for California
Children. 2007. RAND Corporation.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting
the right performance solutions. Atlanta: CEP Press.
Crawford, J. and S. Krashen.(2007). English Learners in American Classrooms 101
Questions 101 Answers. Scholastic. New York: New York.
74
Cummins, Jim. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and
pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D.J. (2000). Making content comprehensible for
English language learners: The SIOP model. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
EdSource (May 2007). Similar EL Students, Different Results.
EdSource (June 2009). California Standardized Tests.
http://www.edsource.org/1103.html
Gandara, P. and R. Rumberger. Resource Needs for California’s English Learners.
Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice. Stanford University.
March 2007.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English Learners: What the Research Does – and
Does Not – Say. Americn Educator: Summer 2008.
Hill, J. and K. Flynn. (2006). Classroom Instruction that works with English
Language Learners. Alexandria, VA, USA: Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development.
Jepson. C and Alth, S.(2005). English Learners in California Schools. Public Policy
Institute of California. San Francisco; California.
Lachat, M. (2004). Standards-Based Instruction and Assessment for English
Language Learners. Corwin Press. Thousand Oaks: California.
Marzano, R. J. Pickering, D.J. & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom Instruction that
Works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, Robert J. (2003). What Works in Schools : Translating Research into
Action. Alexandria, VA, USA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Development.
http://site.ebrary.com.libproxy.usc.edu/lib/uscisd/Doc?id=10048756&ppg=76
Olsen, Laurie. (2006). Ensuring Academic Success for English Learners. University
of California Linguistic Minority Researcah Institute. Vol.15 number 4.
Summer 2006.
75
Ovando, C., Combs, M. and Collier, V. (2006) Bilingual and ESL Classrooms:
Teaching in Multicultural Contexts (4
th
ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Padron, Y., Waxman, H. and H. Rivera. (2002). Educating Hispanic
Students:Obstacles and Avenues to Improved Academic Achievement.
University of Houston. Center For Research on Education, Diversity &
Excellence.
Rumberger R., Gandara P., and Merino. (2006). Where California’s English Learners
Attend School and Why it Matters. UCLMRIWinter 2006. Volume15 number
2.
Sanchez, Claudia. How Should We Teach English-Language Learners? Interview
with James Crawford. June, 28, 2009.
Standardized Testing And Reporting Program (STAR).
http://www.startest.org/cst.html retrieved Jan. 31, 2009
76
APPENDIX A
GRADE 3 ELA RESULTS
Figure A. Grade 3 ELA Results
School
State UB State of
CA
State LB Johnson
Park
Covillaud Kynoch Olivehurst Cedar
Lane
Arboga Ella Linda
Value g3ela
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Grade 3 ELA Results
77
APPENDIX B
GRADE 3 MATH RESULTS
Figure B. Grade 3 Math Results
School
State UB State of
CA
State LB Johnson
Park
Covillaud Olivehurst Kynoch Cedar
Lane
Ella Arboga Linda
Value g3math
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Grade 3 Math Results
78
APPENDIX C
GRADE 4 ELA RESULTS
Figure C. Grade 4 ELA Results
School
State UB State of
CA
State LB Johnson
Park
Arboga Olivehurst Cedar
Lane
Covillaud Kynoch Ella Linda
Value g4ela
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Grade 4 ELA Results
79
APPENDIX D
GRADE 4 MATH RESULTS
Figure D. Grade 4 Math Results
School
State UB State of
CA
State LB Arboga Cedar
Lane
Covillaud Olivehurst Kynoch Johnson
Park
Ella Linda
Value g4math
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Grade 4 Math Results
80
APPENDIX E
GRADE 5 ELA RESULTS
Figure E. Grade 5 ELA Results
School
State UB State of
CA
State LB Johnson
Park
Olivehurst Cedar Lane Kynoch Covillaud Ella Linda
Value g5ela
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Grade 5 ELA Results
81
APPENDIX F
GRADE 5 MATH RESULTS
Figure F. Grade 5 Match Results
School
State UB State of
CA
State LB Olivehurst Cedar Lane Linda Johnson
Park
Covillaud Kynoch Ella
Value g5math
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Grade 5 Math Results
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the academic proficiency levels on the California Standards Test (CST) in both English-Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics for English learners (EL) at the elementary schools in Daisyville Unified School District (DUSD) with that of ELs throughout California. DUSD is like many other districts in California, that are striving to find effective ways to educate students. The study specifically compared ELs by grade level (2nd-5th grade)at each elementary at DUSD to that of ELs by grade level (2nd-5th grade) on CST performance statewide. The results of the study uncovered distinct results in terms of EL proficiency in ELA and in mathematics.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of direct instruction intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
English learners' performance on the California Standards Test at Aviles Elementary
PDF
CST performance of English language learners in two neighboring districts from 2002-03 to 2012-13
PDF
The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Alternatives for achievement: a mathematics intervention for English learners
PDF
An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school
PDF
Evaluating the efficacy of the High Point curriculum in the Coastline Unified School District using CST, CAHSEE, and CELDT data
PDF
Teacher beliefs on bilingual education for English learners post proposition 227
PDF
Use of accountability indicators to evaluate elementary school principal performance
PDF
Raising student achievement at Eberman Elementary School with effective teaching strategies
PDF
The comparison of hybrid intervention and traditional intervention in increasing student achievement in middle school mathematics
PDF
The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts
PDF
Gifted Spanish speaking English learners' participation in advanced placement programs
PDF
Resource allocation in successful schools: case studies of California elementary schools
PDF
The block schedule and the English language learners: impact on academic performance and graduation rate at Oxbow High School
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district
PDF
The impact of the Norton High School early college program on the academic performance of students at Norton High School
PDF
Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners
PDF
Kū i ke ao: Hawaiian cultural identity and student progress at Kamehameha Elementary School
Asset Metadata
Creator
Soto, Iztaccíhuatl G.
(author)
Core Title
Evaluation of the progress of elementary English learners at Daisyville Unified School District
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2010-05
Publication Date
02/01/2010
Defense Date
08/10/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
elementary,English learners,OAI-PMH Harvest
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hocevar, Dennis (
committee chair
), Gokalp, Gokce (
committee member
), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
iztac.soto@gmail.com,XicanoRVS@sbcglobal.net
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2824
Unique identifier
UC1497417
Identifier
etd-Soto-3476 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-287534 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2824 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Soto-3476.pdf
Dmrecord
287534
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Soto, Iztaccíhuatl G.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
elementary
English learners