Transcript The Relationship Between the Reading Proficiency of

The Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues of California’s Implementation of No Child Left Behind
Coachella Valley Unified School District
Dr. Paul Grafton
Alma González
One Voice Conference
July 6, 2008
1
Coachella Valley Unified School District
Thermal, California
2007 – 2008
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1,200 Square Miles Attendance Area
17,750 Students
98% Hispanic
91% Free/Reduced Lunch
25% Migrant
75% Speak Spanish in the Home
64% English Language Learners
2
Statement of Our Beliefs
• Full Support of NCLB Accountability
• ELL Students Should Learn to Read, Write, and Speak English to
the Level of Native Speaker as Soon as Possible
• A Child takes from 4 to 7 years to Reach Academic English
Language Proficiency (CELDT Level 4 or Higher)
3
Implementation of NCLB in California
• Adequate Yearly Progress – Federal Measure – Based on
Percentage of Students At or Above Proficient
• Academic Performance Index – State Measure – Based on
Growth in Points on a Scale of 200 - 1000
4
California Testing Program
- English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and History Social
Science
• California Standards Test – gr. 2 through 11
• CAPA – gr. 2 through 11
• California Achievement Test – gr. 3 & 7
• California High School Exit Exam – gr. 10, 11 and 12
5
Language of the Tests Used to Calculate
AYP/API
• All Tests are printed in English
• No translation into Spanish by the teacher other than the
Directions
• Word to Word English/Spanish glossary can be used for Math
and other content areas but not ELA
• Students who can not Read, Write, or Speak English may be
Tested Together and/or have Extra Time but within one Sitting
6
Language of the Tests, con’t
• Test Results of English Language Learners are included in:
– AYP beginning the Second Year of Attendance
– API beginning the First Year of Attendance
(Second Year as of 2007)
7
What Does NCLB Say?
NCLB allows testing in the primary language for three years and up to
two additional years on a case by case basis and the results to be
counted in the calculations of AYP – States such as Ohio and New
Mexico make use of this flexibility, California does not.
8
Reading First
• NCLB Reading Program K - 3
• Evaluation Based on Reading First Achievement Index
(RFAI) Score
• District Academic Achievement Comparisons and Continued
Funding Based on RFAI
• 70% of RFAI comes from California Testing Program –
CST and CAT/6
9
Determining the
English Language Proficiency of English Language Learners
• Students (K – 12) whose Primary Language is Spanish are
given the California English Language Development Test in
Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing which result in
an Overall Score
• Students are placed into one of Five Categories: Beginning,
Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early Advanced, or
Advanced
10
English Language Proficiency, con’t
• To move from an English Language Learner to Fluent English
Proficient, a Student must be at the Overall Early Advanced
Level with No Sections of the Tests below the Intermediate
Level
• The NCLB mechanism for evaluating Adequate Progress of
English Language attainment is Title III – AMAO 1, AMAO 2,
and AMAO 3
11
What are the CELDT Levels of Students New
to our District?
• In 2005 – 2006; of the 2,374 students who took the Initial
CELDT:
– 46% were CELDT Level 1
– 60% were CELDT Level 1 or 2
– 81% were CELDT Level 1, 2, or 3
12
What are the CELDT Levels of Students New to our
District?
• In 2006 – 2007 of the 1,904 students who took the Initial
CELDT:
– 60% are CELDT Level 1
– 75% are CELDT Level 1 or 2
– 91% are CELDT Level 1, 2, or 3
13
Title III: NCLB’s Accountability Measure for ELL’s English
Language Attainment: Are We Successful at Teaching our
Students English?
• 2004: AMAO 1 = Yes; AMAO 2 = Yes; AMAO 3 = No
• 2005: AMAO 1 = Yes; AMAO 2 = No by <2%; AMAO 3 = No (ELA 13.2%/Math
18.7%)
• 2006: AMAO 1 = Yes; AMAO 2 = No by <1%; AMAO 3 = No (ELA 14%/Math
21.7%)
• 2007 (CELDT rescaled): AMAO 1 = No by 7.6%; AMAO 2 = No by 7.7%; AMAO
3 = (ELA 15.8% No/Math 24.3% Yes)
14
Failure to Meet NCLB Goals
• There is an increasing penalty
• Must Provide Transfers to Parents who Request that their
Student goes to Another School
• Must Arrange Vendor-provided Tutoring
• Change School Structure
• State Take Over or Close School
15
Questions We Asked:
• Does Giving a Test to a Student in a Language the Student does
not Understand affect the Estimates of Academic Achievement
the Test Reports for that Student?
• If so, what is the effect on the NCLB Accountability Measures
calculated from those Test Results?
16
Methodology
• Matched Case
• Isolated Students by CELDT Level
• Applied API/AYP inclusion/exclusion rules to Students in
each CELDT level
• Applied API/AYP calculations/cutpoints to Student test
results in each CELDT Level
17
Adequate Yearly Progress
2006 – 2007
18
Academic Performance Index
2006 – 2007
19
Adequate Yearly Progress
2005 – 2006
20
Academic Performance Index
2005 – 2006
21
Adequate Yearly Progress
2004 – 2005
22
Academic Performance Index
2004 – 2005
23
Academic English Language Proficiency
• What would Happen if only the Scores of ELL Students who had
attained Academic English Language Proficiency on the CELDT
(Early Advanced or Advanced) were used in calculation of
AYP/API?
24
Changes from CDE’s Accountability
Progress Report 2007
25
Changes from CDE’s Accountability
Progress Report 2006
2006 AYP
Excluding students at CELDT Levels 1,2 and 3
School
Made ELA ELA Reason
Cahuilla Desert Acacdemy
Chavez ES
Coachella Valley HS
Desert Mirage HS
Duke ES
Kelley ES
La Familia Cont HS
Las Palmitas ES
Martinez ES
Mecca ES
Mountain Vista ES
Oasis ES
Palm View ES
Peter Pendleton ES
Sea View ES
Toro Canyon MS
Valley View ES
West Shores HS
Westside ES
No
Yes*
Yes
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
No*
No
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
No
No
Yes*
Yes*
Yes
District
Yes*
All
Schoolwide
SED*
All
English Learners*
Made Math Math Reason
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No*
Yes*
No*
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
Yes
Yes
No*
No
Yes*
No
Yes
Yes*
All
English Learners*
Schoolwide
Hispanic* and SED*
All
All
In PI
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
* = change from CDE posted value
26
Changes from CDE’s Accountability
Progress Report 2005
27
Solutions? Further Research?
• Continue to test all students but EXCLUDE CELDT 1, 2,
and 3 scores from AYP/API calculations, OR
• Continue to test all students but SUBSTITUTE the
SABE/Aprenda/STS scores for CST scores in AYP/API
calculations, OR
• Continue to test all students but INCLUDE the
SABE/Aprenda/STS scores in AYP/API calculations.
28
The Myth of Similar Schools Ranking for Schools with Large
Numbers of English Language Learners: Anecdotal
• Next time you check the CDE website for your similar schools list of comparable
schools
• Go to Data Quest – CDE web site for CELDT reporting
• Look at the CELDT Levels of those schools the CDE lists as similar to your school
• If their number of students at CELDT Levels 1, 2, and 3 are lower than your school’s
number of students at CELDT Levels 1, 2, and 3
• Then they are not Similar Schools
29
Questions?
• Dr. Paul Grafton [email protected]
• Alma Gonzalez [email protected]
30