Full Report - Center for Collaborative Education
Full Report - Center for Collaborative Education Full Report - Center for Collaborative Education
Table 6. Demographic Characteristics of LEP Students Enrolled In Schools of Selected Characteristics, Pre-K to 12. BPS, SY2009 Demographic Characteristics of LEPs English Proficiency Level3 Characteristics of Schools N of LEPs % Male % Low Income1 % Mobile % SWD2 % MEPA % MEPA % MEPA Levels 1 & 2 Level 3 Levels 4 & 5 All LEP Students 11,690 53.6% 87.3% 12.9% 18.7% 23.6% 32.0% 44.4% Grade Levels Pre-K 717 50.9% 85.8% 11.4% NA NA NA NA Elementary (K-5) 6,150 52.5% 91.6% 9.8% 17.6% 23.3% 29.1% 47.5% Middle School (6-8) 1,970 56.9% 89.8% 16.3% 28.1% 23.9% 31.2% 44.9% High School (9-12) 2,837 54.5% 76.9% 17.8% 14.7% 24.1% 40.4% 35.6% School Size8 In large elementary school 1,918 53.2% 91.2% 8.7% 18.5% 22.2% 30.9% 46.9% In large middle school 11 45.5% 8 45.5% 8 0% 0% - - - In large high school 1,242 54.8% 77.7% 12.5% 17.5% 28.5% 35.2% 36.3% Poverty rate9 Poverty rate 25-75% 4 2,150 53.5% 74.5% 16.0% 17.4% 28.8% 36.8% 34.4% Poverty rate >75% 9,540 53.6% 90.3% 12.2% 19.0% 28.0% 33.5% 38.5% LEP Density10 0-10% 785 56.2% 82.8% 12.4% 33.0% 21.1% 39.6% 39.3% 10.1-30% 5,045 53.9% 86.5% 14.6% 20.6% 29.6% 33.6% 36.8% 30.1-50% 4,294 52.2% 87.9% 12.9% 15.4% 29.4% 35.0% 35.6% >50% 5 1,566 55.0% 90.7% 7.5% 14.1% 21.0% 31.7% 47.3% Accountability Status11 Met AYP in ELA6 3,736 53.7% 86.8% 12.7% 18.5% 25.9% 32.1% 42.0% Did not meet AYP in ELA 7,747 53.5% 88.5% 12.5% 19.2% 28.6% 35.1% 36.2% Met AYP in Math6 1,727 53.7% 87.4% 12.5% 18.5% 26.9% 34.2% 39.0% Did not Meet AYP in Math 9,756 53.5% 88.0% 12.5% 19.1% 27.9% 34.2% 37.9% Teacher Qualifications12 % of teachers licensed in teaching assignment, above BPS average7 7,292 53.4% 87.5% 12.7% 16.7% 26.9% 34.0% 39.1% % of teachers licensed in teaching assignment, at or below BPS average7 4,398 54.0% 87.0% 13.2% 21.9% 29.9% 34.3% 35.7% % of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers, above BPS avg7 % of core academic classes taught by 7,589 53.4% 88.6% 11.7% 20.0% 26.7% 34.5% 38.8% highly qualified teachers, at or below BPS 4,101 54.0% 85.0% 15.2% 16.5% 30.2% 33.7% 36.1% avg. 7 Notes: Dash indicates an n
In Sum In this chapter we focused on the distribution of LEP students across schools of different types, analyzing first their enrollment in different types of schools and second the significance of demographic factors in their distribution across different types of schools. We found that LEP student enrollment shows several risk factors. First of all, we find that LEP students are overwhelming enrolled in a high-poverty schools (81.6%), at a much higher rate than English proficient students (60.1%), compounding the effects of individual student poverty in this population. Secondly, we find that they are overwhelmingly enrolled in schools that did not meet accountability status in ELA (77.5%) or in Math (85.0%). These factors sharply differentiate the experience of LEPs students in BPS from that of English proficient students. On the positive side, we find that LEP students in Boston are not segregated or highly concentrated: 88.4% are in schools with less 50% LEP density. LEP students also tend to be enrolled in schools where a high proportion of core courses are taught by highly qualified teachers (72.9%). We found also that two variables have broad significance in the distribution of students across schools of different characteristics: students’ MEPA performance level and their designation as a LEP-SWD. MEPA performance level, particularly performance at the lower levels, was found to be significant in the distribution of students across schools showing all of the characteristics considered here. Designation as a LEP-SWD was also found to have broad significance in the distribution of students in schools of lower LEP densities and where a lower proportion of teachers are licensed in their teaching assignment. Other variables, such as mobility and income, were also found to be significant but they did not show the breadth of impact of the other two variables. 1 See Boston Public School’s Office of High School: www.highschoolrenewal.org/carnegieproposal.pdf and www.highschoolrenewal.org/gatesproposal.pdf (Accessed December 2007) 2 There remains debate about the impact of the size of schools on children’s academic success. Stevenson (2006) analyzes this debate in his statewide assessment of the effects of school size in north Carolina. 3 Other options for categorizing LEP density appear in Parrish et al. (2006) and Williams et al. (2007). 4 MDESE (n.d., b) 5 Though the differences described in this section were found to be statistically significant, the effect size tended to be minimal. Improving Educational Outcomes of English Language Learners in Schools and Programs in Boston Public Schools 25
- 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: ed a significantly smaller proporti
- 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
Table 6. Demographic Characteristics of LEP Students Enrolled In Schools of Selected Characteristics, Pre-K to 12. BPS, SY2009<br />
Demographic Characteristics of LEPs<br />
English Proficiency Level3 Characteristics of Schools<br />
N of<br />
LEPs % Male<br />
% Low<br />
Income1 % Mobile % SWD2 % MEPA % MEPA % MEPA<br />
Levels 1 & 2 Level 3 Levels 4 & 5<br />
All LEP Students 11,690 53.6% 87.3% 12.9% 18.7% 23.6% 32.0% 44.4%<br />
Grade Levels<br />
Pre-K 717 50.9% 85.8% 11.4% NA NA NA NA<br />
Elementary (K-5) 6,150 52.5% 91.6% 9.8% 17.6% 23.3% 29.1% 47.5%<br />
Middle School (6-8) 1,970 56.9% 89.8% 16.3% 28.1% 23.9% 31.2% 44.9%<br />
High School (9-12) 2,837 54.5% 76.9% 17.8% 14.7% 24.1% 40.4% 35.6%<br />
School Size8 In large elementary school 1,918 53.2% 91.2% 8.7% 18.5% 22.2% 30.9% 46.9%<br />
In large middle school 11 45.5% 8 45.5% 8 0% 0% - - -<br />
In large high school 1,242 54.8% 77.7% 12.5% 17.5% 28.5% 35.2% 36.3%<br />
Poverty rate9 Poverty rate 25-75% 4 2,150 53.5% 74.5% 16.0% 17.4% 28.8% 36.8% 34.4%<br />
Poverty rate >75% 9,540 53.6% 90.3% 12.2% 19.0% 28.0% 33.5% 38.5%<br />
LEP Density10 0-10% 785 56.2% 82.8% 12.4% 33.0% 21.1% 39.6% 39.3%<br />
10.1-30% 5,045 53.9% 86.5% 14.6% 20.6% 29.6% 33.6% 36.8%<br />
30.1-50% 4,294 52.2% 87.9% 12.9% 15.4% 29.4% 35.0% 35.6%<br />
>50% 5 1,566 55.0% 90.7% 7.5% 14.1% 21.0% 31.7% 47.3%<br />
Accountability Status11 Met AYP in ELA6 3,736 53.7% 86.8% 12.7% 18.5% 25.9% 32.1% 42.0%<br />
Did not meet AYP in ELA 7,747 53.5% 88.5% 12.5% 19.2% 28.6% 35.1% 36.2%<br />
Met AYP in Math6 1,727 53.7% 87.4% 12.5% 18.5% 26.9% 34.2% 39.0%<br />
Did not Meet AYP in Math 9,756 53.5% 88.0% 12.5% 19.1% 27.9% 34.2% 37.9%<br />
Teacher Qualifications12 % of teachers licensed in teaching<br />
assignment, above BPS average7 7,292 53.4% 87.5% 12.7% 16.7% 26.9% 34.0% 39.1%<br />
% of teachers licensed in teaching<br />
assignment, at or below BPS average7 4,398 54.0% 87.0% 13.2% 21.9% 29.9% 34.3% 35.7%<br />
% of core academic classes taught by<br />
highly qualified teachers, above BPS avg7 % of core academic classes taught by<br />
7,589 53.4% 88.6% 11.7% 20.0% 26.7% 34.5% 38.8%<br />
highly qualified teachers, at or below BPS 4,101 54.0% 85.0% 15.2% 16.5% 30.2% 33.7% 36.1%<br />
avg. 7<br />
Notes: Dash indicates an n
Change language