APPENDIX 1: Methods
Overview The report sought to answer the following research questions: Q1. What were the enrollment patterns of ELLs in Boston and how did they change between SY2006 and SY2009? Q2. What were the engagement and academic outcomes of ELLs compared to those of other BPS student populations in 2009? Did the outcomes of LEP students change over the period of observation (SY2006-2009)? How did outcomes differ <strong>for</strong> LEP students at different levels of English proficiency? Q3. What were the engagement and academic outcomes of ELLs in schools of different characteristics? Q4. What were the engagement and academic outcomes of ELLs in different types of programs? Q5. What were the individual and school-level factors most relevant to the outcomes of ELLs? These questions were answered through descriptive statistics conducted in SPSS and an HLM regression analysis of MCAS outcomes conducted in SAS. The methodology, along with a description of the sources of the data used and an account of how variables were constructed, is outlined in this appendix. Data Sources 1. BPS Student-Level Data The unit of analysis <strong>for</strong> this project was the student enrolled in Boston Public Schools. The research team obtained student-level data from the BPS Office of Research, Assessment & Evaluation. The database contained demographic data from SIMS 1 as well as MCAS and MEPA 2 data. The SIMS file included data <strong>for</strong> all students enrolled in BPS <strong>for</strong> the 2006-2009 school years, as of the October 2005, June 2006, October 2006, June 2007, October 2007, June 2008, October 2008, and June 2009 SIMS pulls. March SIMS files were not requested. MCAS data included ELA, Math, and Science test results from the main test administrations in spring 2006, spring 2007, spring, 2008, and spring 2009. In addition, summer, fall, and winter MCAS administrations and ELA and Math retests and appeals were included <strong>for</strong> a total of 85 MCAS test administrations. MEPA data included test results from October 2005, April 2006, October 2006, June 2007, October 2007, June 2008, October 2008, and April 2009 test administrations. The Office of Research, Assessment & Evaluation assigned each student a random identification number to ensure confidentiality and also to enable the data from all provided sources to be linked together in a single student-level database. In addition, <strong>for</strong> SY2009 the research team obtained from OELL a more detailed level of ELL program assignment than was available via SIMS. Beginning with an OELL ELL program spreadsheet, the research team worked with the OELL to identify the specific programs in which students participated school by school, based on OELL in<strong>for</strong>mation, ELL students’ native language, and ELL program codes in SIMS. Because of the time-intensive nature of this activity, these data were entered <strong>for</strong> SY2009 only. The data files were merged into one student-level database. In general, data from June were used to override any discrepancies with October data (e.g., if a student was listed as male in June but female in October of a given school year, the student was assigned a male gender). Exceptions are noted in Table 1. Improving <strong>Education</strong>al Outcomes of English Language Learners in Schools and Programs in Boston Public Schools 107
- Page 1 and 2:
Center for Collaborative Education
- Page 3 and 4:
This report, Improving Educational
- Page 5 and 6:
VII. DROPPING OUT 48 A. What Are th
- Page 7 and 8:
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
- Page 9 and 10:
Language Learners (OELL) has attemp
- Page 11 and 12:
CHAPTER II. THE STUDY
- Page 13 and 14:
epresented by the blocks in differe
- Page 15 and 16:
Table 2. Variables, Definitions, an
- Page 17 and 18:
CHAPTER III. ENROLLMENT AND CHARACT
- Page 19 and 20:
Figure 1. Change in Enrollment of S
- Page 21 and 22:
Native speakers of Haitian Creole a
- Page 23 and 24:
In Sum Following a swift decline in
- Page 25 and 26:
One of the foci of this study is th
- Page 27 and 28:
School Poverty Rate. Income status
- Page 29 and 30:
ed a significantly smaller proporti
- Page 31 and 32:
In Sum In this chapter we focused o
- Page 33 and 34:
One of the deepest and most far-rea
- Page 35 and 36:
the transfer of large numbers of LE
- Page 37 and 38:
education. There are no studies of
- Page 39 and 40:
IN DEPTH: Enrollment of English Lan
- Page 41 and 42:
Table 14. Nature of Primary Disabil
- Page 43 and 44:
choices. From the data gathered, it
- Page 45 and 46:
Becoming fully literate in English,
- Page 47 and 48:
Populations focused upon in this an
- Page 49 and 50:
Table 19. English Proficiency Level
- Page 51 and 52:
who attained the level of English p
- Page 53 and 54:
ed among those LEP students scoring
- Page 55 and 56:
High dropout rates among Boston Pub
- Page 57 and 58:
B What Is the Annual High School Dr
- Page 59 and 60:
C What Are the Rates of Attendance,
- Page 61 and 62: Table 26. Median Attendance Rates o
- Page 63 and 64: Table 29. Attendance, Out-of-School
- Page 65 and 66: Table 31. Annual High School Dropou
- Page 67 and 68: In Sum This chapter has focused on
- Page 69 and 70: The tests of the Massachusetts Comp
- Page 71 and 72: student achievement (Rumberger, 199
- Page 73 and 74: Table 34. MCAS Math Pass Rates of S
- Page 75 and 76: Table 36. MCAS ELA, Math, and Scien
- Page 77 and 78: Pass Rates in MCAS ELA, Math, and S
- Page 79 and 80: IN DEPTH: Attendance Rates of MCAS
- Page 81 and 82: portions of core academic courses t
- Page 83 and 84: D What are the MCAS ELA and Math Pa
- Page 85 and 86: LEP Students at MEPA Performance Le
- Page 87 and 88: school that they attend; if student
- Page 89 and 90: Results: English Language Arts In a
- Page 91 and 92: 1 Massachusetts meets the requireme
- Page 93 and 94: A Overall Findings and General Reco
- Page 95 and 96: Designation as student with a disab
- Page 97 and 98: B Specific Findings and Recommendat
- Page 99 and 100: Recommendation 7: Parents of LEP st
- Page 101 and 102: Recommendation 14: Monitor indicato
- Page 103 and 104: (2) We found instances in which stu
- Page 105 and 106: Recommendation 30: The quality of i
- Page 107 and 108: Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (201
- Page 109 and 110: Nathan, J., & Thao, S. (2007). Smal
- Page 111: Vaznis, J. (2011, Sept. 18). US fin
- Page 115 and 116: Table 1. Variables, Definitions and
- Page 117 and 118: In TBE learn solely in English. In
- Page 119 and 120: Table 2: Variables, Definitions and
- Page 121 and 122: ! ! ! 5. Limitations of the Data Wh
- Page 123 and 124: Table 8: MCAS ELA Pass Rates of LEP
- Page 125 and 126: Table 10. Variables Considered in H
- Page 127 and 128: APPENDIX 2: Additional Tables and F
- Page 129 and 130: ! Table 3.2. Characteristics of Eng
- Page 131 and 132: ! ! Table 6.3. English Proficiency
- Page 133 and 134: ! Table 7.3. Attendance, Out-of-Sch
- Page 135 and 136: ! ! ! Figure 8.3. Science Pass Rate
- Page 137 and 138: Table 8.2. MCAS Math Pass Rates for
- Page 139 and 140: APPENDIX 3: Characteristics and Out
- Page 141 and 142: ! ! ! ! ! ! Table 4. MCAS ELA and M
- Page 143 and 144: A discussion of our HLM analyses of
- Page 145 and 146: ELA scores on average than LEP stud
- Page 147 and 148: Improving Educational Outcomes of E