Full Report - Center for Collaborative Education

Recommendations

Info

salient trends across time. Appropriate statistical tests – chi-square, t-test, or Fisher’s Exact test, with α =.05 for all – were used to determine the significance of the differences in outcomes among populations and among LEP students enrolled in schools showing different characteristics and in different types of ELL programs. Effect size was calculated where appropriate. As noted earlier in this Appendix, the dropout analysis conducted for this report was done in the separate dropout database. Annual dropout rates were determined for students enrolled in middle school and high school grades. 3 For summer dropouts, behavioral, academic (namely MEPA and MCAS), ELL program and school characteristics data from the prior year (the last school year completed) were assigned to the student. For instance, students who dropped out during the summer of 2008 were assigned their SY2008 values for these SY2009 variables. Basic frequencies and cross-tabulations were conducted and statistical significance was determined by running chi-square 4 tests (α =.05) and by determining the effect size. In addition, an in-depth analysis was conducted to explore the impact of student-level characteristics and school environments on individual achievement as measured by MCAS performance in the English Language Arts and Math. 5 We identified hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) as the preferred method of analysis; due to the similarity of educational experiences between students in a particular school, traditional multiple regression techniques would underestimate the correlation between school-level variables and therefore the standard error, likely resulting in spuriously significant relationships. Variables of interest were identified through a review of the literature, the descriptive analyses, and in consultation with OELL. Six two-level models were tested: MCAS ELA performance for LEPs in SY2009 at elementary, middle, and high school levels and MCAS Math performance for LEPs in SY2009 at elementary, middle, and high school levels. For the MCAS ELA models, elementary grades included grades 4-5, middle school grades included Grades 6-8, and high school grades included Grades 9-12. For MCAS Math models, elementary grades included Grades 3-5, middle school grades included Grades 6-8, and high school grades included Grades 9-12. Before including all explanatory variables in the models, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to verify that a hierarchical model was needed (see Table 47). Next, we checked multicollinearity to determine the model with valid significance levels. Usually, higher correlations among independent variables will result in a higher condition index, and a variable may have to be removed from the model for accurate estimation with significance testing. Within the set of student-level variables, Attendance Rate and Mobility were highly correlated at the elementary and middle school levels. The condition index was also high. Mobility was removed from the model and Attendance Rate was retained because the attendance variable structure (ratio rather than categorical) provides the opportunity for more detailed analysis. Percent Mobility, a school-level variable representing the percentage of the student population that changes schools between October and June of a given school year, was found to be strongly associated with LEP Density. Percent Mobility was removed from the model because LEP Density was considered of more interest to this analysis. Finally, Highly Qualified Teachers, a school-level variable representing the percentage of the teaching staff that is considered highly qualified, was also removed from the analysis, because the structure of the variable biased the analysis towards schools with highly qualified teachers on staff. 118 Improving Educational Outcomes of English Language Learners in Schools and Programs in Boston Public Schools
Table 10. Variables Considered in HLM Analysis Variable Definition Status Attendance Rate Student-Level Variables The percentage of school days the student was present at school. Included in analysis. Gender Gender of student. Included in analysis. MEPA MEPA test score from the spring 2009 administration data (in this analysis the actual score was used rather than the categorical variable). Included in analysis. In SPED Student receiving special education services (i.e., student with a disability). Included in analysis. In SEI Language Specific In SEI Multilingual In Non-SEI ELL Program Not in Program for ELLs Student enrolled in a Sheltered English Immersion Language Specific program where students all speak the same language and support for students and families is available in that language. Student enrolled in a Sheltered English Immersion Multilingual program in which students speak different languages. Student enrolled in Two-Way Bilingual, TBE, or SIFE ELL programs (see Table 1). LEP student whose parent has opted out of enrolling their child in an ELL program, or, a LEP student who is otherwise not enrolled in an ELL program. A student not enrolled in an ELL program may or may not also be a student receiving special education services. Mobility Whether a student changed schools between October and June of a given school year. Included in analysis. Included in analysis. Included in analysis. Included in analysis. Removed due to lack of significance in multiple regression. Poverty Status School-Level Variables Percentage of the school population that is low-income Included in analysis. School Size Size of school enrollment (see Table 2). Included in analysis. Adequate Yearly Progress Whether a school demonstrated Adequate Yearly Progress in the subject matter (either Math or English as appropriate). Included in analysis. LEP Density Percentage of the school population that is Limited English Proficient. Included in analysis. Highly Qualified Teachers Percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers (see Table 2). Percent Mobility Percentage of the student population that changed schools between October and June of a given school year. ! Removed due to structure of variable. Removed due to high level of correlation with LEP Density. Improving Educational Outcomes of English Language Learners in Schools and Programs in Boston Public Schools 119
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 and 122: ! ! ! 5. Limitations of the Data Wh
Page 123: Table 8: MCAS ELA Pass Rates of LEP
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?