Full Report - Center for Collaborative Education

Recommendations

Info

For LEP and EP students we can only compare SY2008 data (SY2009 data are not reported in ELL Sub-Committee, 2009). Unlike for SY2009, our data show higher dropout rates than MDESE data for SY2008. In addition, the way in which some data were calculated or analyzed may also be subject to some limitations. • Grade Retention. The construction of the grade retention variable relied upon comparing a student’s grade in one school year to his/her grade in the previous school year, which means that if the student was not enrolled in BPS for two consecutive school years, we were unable to determine if the student had been retained. This may have led us to underestimate grade retention. • MCAS for LEP Students in Their First Year in U.S. Schools. When reporting MCAS ELA data, we did not exclude any LEPs in their first year in U.S. schools from our analysis. While this group of students is not required to take the MCAS ELA exam, there were some students coded as LEPs in their first year in the U.S. who had MCAS ELA scores. Because we could not verify if these students were incorrectly coded as being in their first year in U.S., we did not exclude them. In addition, including these students allowed for comparison of MCAS ELA pass rates across the four years of our study period, as the LEP in first year in U.S. schools variable was not present in SIMS data collection in SY2006-SY2007. We also compared MCAS data received for this study to BPS MCAS data reported by MDESE. MCAS pass rates calculated from data received from this study are in general only a few percentage points higher than MCAS pass rates reported by MDESE. We include the comparisons in the tables below. Table 7: MCAS ELA, Math, and Science Pass Rates for LEP and EP Students. BPS, SY2009 EP LEP MCAS ELA MCAS Math MCAS Science MCAS ELA MCAS Math MCAS Science Pass Rate Pass Rate Pass Rate Pass Rate Pass Rate Pass Rate Grade 4 Source: MDESE Source: Data 78.1% 78.1% NA 60% 67% NA received for this study 79.9% 79.9% NA 61.6% 69.7% NA Grade 8 Source: MDESE Source: Data 90.0% 59.7% 52.5% 51% 28% 16% received for this study 92.2% 61.5% 54.0% 55.6% Grade 10 31.6% 17.7% Source: MDESE Source: Data 93.5% 88.2% 82.7% 70% 72% 54% received for this study 95.2% 89.7% 82.4% 72.6% 76.3% 59.2% Source for MDESE data is MDESE (n.d., c) 116 Improving Educational Outcomes of English Language Learners in Schools and Programs in Boston Public Schools
Table 8: MCAS ELA Pass Rates of LEP Students of Different English Proficiency Levels. BPS, SY2009 MEPA L1 MEPA L2 MEPA L3 MEPA L4 MEPA L5 Grade 4 Source: MDESE 0% 3.0% 20.6% 66.8% 94.9% Source: Data received for this study 0% 8.6% 20.2% 66.9% 94.7% Grade 8 Source: MDESE 5.3% 16.4% 42.3% 83.0% 89.7% Source: Data received for this study 5.6% 15.5% 44.2% 83.3% 89.8% Grade 10 Source: MDESE 33.3% 47.6% 58.9% 92.9% 98.6% Source: Data received for this study 25.0% 50.0% 61.2% 92.6% 98.7% Source for MDESE data is English Language Learners Subcommittee (2009). Table 9: MCAS Math Pass Rates of LEP Students of Different English Proficiency Levels. BPS, SY2009 MEPA L1 MEPA L2 MEPA L3 MEPA L4 MEPA L5 Grade 4 Source: MDESE 6.7% 9.7% 38.0% 75.8% 94.3% Source: Data received for this study 23.1% 22.2% 40.6% 75.5% 94.2% Grade 8 Source: MDESE 3.8% 13.4% 23.6% 37.8% 60.0% Source: Data received for this study 3.7% 15.2% 27.1% 39.6% 61.7% Grade 10 Source: MDESE 66.7% 71.8% 66.1% 83.8% 85.7% Source: Data received for this study 69.2% 75.0% 69.7% 84.7% 86.7% Source for MDESE data is English Language Learners Subcommittee (2009). ! Another limitation of the study is that, due to budgetary and time constraints, the research team did not collect any additional quantifiable data on ELL programs other than the type of program in which the student was enrolled or by aggregating demographic and outcomes data on students enrolled in those programs. The inclusion of data on the qualifications of ELL teachers, specific instructional strategies used, and other characteristics of ELL programs would have strengthened our findings but was beyond the scope of the project. Finally, due to lack of availability in SIMS or other state-collected data sources, a number of variables were not included in the analysis for this study whose presence would have strengthened our findings (e.g., prior schooling in home country, parents’ level of education). In addition, some variables were considered but ultimately not included because the way in which they were collected or defined was not ideal for use in this study (e.g., immigrant status DOE022, country of origin DOE023). Methods 1. Literature Review This study was guided by a review of recent literature on factors affecting the academic performance of ELLS, specifically in terms of achievement tests and dropout; on studies of ELLs using HLM or linear regression models to assess achievement and dropout; and on studies conducted in California and Arizona, two other states that have similar restrictive language laws to Massachusetts’. 2. Data Analysis After cleaning and compiling the data files, basic frequencies and cross-tabulations were conducted in SPSS. Specific aggregations of categories often responded to the needs expressed by OELL. For example, MEPA SY2009 data were collapsed into three proficiency levels (1-2, 3, and 4-5) at the request of OELL. When there were fewer than 10 students in a group or subgroup for a given indicator, data were suppressed in the report to maintain student confidentiality. These analyses were conducted for each year SY2006-2009. In the report, we focus the discussion on data findings from SY2009 and highlight Improving Educational Outcomes of English Language Learners in Schools and Programs in Boston Public Schools 117
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 and 112: Vaznis, J. (2011, Sept. 18). US fin
Page 113 and 114: Overview The report sought to answe
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: ! ! ! 5. Limitations of the Data Wh
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
show all

Full Report - Center for Collaborative Education

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?