CHAPTER VIII. MCAS RESULTS
The tests of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), established as part of the Massachusetts <strong>Education</strong>al Re<strong>for</strong>m Act of 1993, have been the most prevalent measure of academic achievement in Massachusetts <strong>for</strong> more than a decade (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1993). The MCAS is used to meet the requirements of the state’s Chapter 386 and the federal No Child Left Behind Act <strong>for</strong> the yearly assessment of progress in academic areas on the part of all students¸ including LEP students. The state requires that this assessment of the academic achievement of students of limited English proficiency be conducted using a standardized test in English. 1 At the time of this study’s observations, MCAS tested English Learners in Reading (Grade 3), English Language Arts (Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10), Math (Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10), and Science (Grades 5 and 8 in SY2006-SY2008 and 5, 8, and 9/10 in SY2009) (Massachusetts Department of <strong>Education</strong>, 2008b). During the SY2006–SY2009 period, high school LEP students were required to pass Grade 10 Math and ELA in order to graduate from high school. At the center of the debate regarding the academic achievement of English language learners in the United States is the measure used to assess it. There are concerns about the validity of the standardized tests normed only <strong>for</strong> English proficient students, particularly those measuring proficiency in content areas, since the results may be more a reflection of students’ English proficiency than of their knowledge of the content tested (August & Hakuta, 1997; Menken, 2000). Others point to ELLs’ lack of cultural knowledge, knowledge that is assumed on tests standardized on an American English speaking student population (Mercer, 1989). Still others focus on the inequity of assessment practices used with ELLs: the “testing frenzy” resulting from the practice of assessing prematurely and intensely and the “violation of what we know about the relationship between academic learning proficiency and content proficiency, the validity of high-stakes tests <strong>for</strong> this population, and the matching of test to the population” (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010). Those who favor the inclusion of ELLs in taking tests developed <strong>for</strong> English proficient students express that, in spite of the limitations, testing is a vehicle <strong>for</strong> insuring that the same accountability that keeps standards high <strong>for</strong> English proficient students applies to ELLs (Coltrane, 2002). The fact is that in spite of the understanding of the inappropriateness of using standardized tests with ELLs who are not proficient in English, they continue to be widely used. In some cases, states offer accommodations modifying test questions, allowing extra time to complete the tests, translating the tests, testing content in L1, etc. (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006). Massachusetts allows few accommodations: LEP students are not required to take the ELA exam (at the district’s discretion) in the first year in which a child is enrolled in a U.S. school, but both Math and Science are required even at this early stage of English language development. Beyond that, Spanish speaking ELLs who have been in U.S. schools <strong>for</strong> less than three years may take a Math test in Spanish in Grade 10, and any LEP student is allowed to use a dictionary on all MCAS tests. In spite of the serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of the MCAS as the main (and often sole) measure of student achievement, at this point it is the measure that allows comparisons of student per<strong>for</strong>mance across time, groups, and districts. The ability to conduct these analyses in Massachusetts, in other states, and nationally is relatively recent since <strong>for</strong> many years there was concern about the dearth of in<strong>for</strong>mation regarding the outcomes of LEP students in educational programs (Coltrane, 2002). For example, DeJong, Gort, and Cobb (2005) in their review of 30 years of bilingual education in Massachusetts, found there was no evidence of assessments of the progress on English language acquisition on the part of ELL students, and concluded that their academic achievement was unknown (pp. 597-598). 2 Today, most of the research related to the academic achievement of ELLs is embedded in the evaluation of different types of programs. Researchers have often compared the outcomes of LEP students in ELL programs with those of English proficient students (usually monolingual students in general education programs). In their detailed review of this research, Lindholm-Leary and Borsato (2006) concluded that programs designed <strong>for</strong> ELLs promote equivalent (and often higher) outcomes than mainstream programs <strong>for</strong> proficient students. In comparing various ELL programs with English proficient students in regular programs, the early lag in English and math experienced by LEP students in programs <strong>for</strong> ELLs gives way to similar outcomes by the end of elementary school. At times, LEP students surpassed English proficient students by middle school, particularly in math (Burnham- Massey and Pina, 1990 as referenced in Lindholm- Improving <strong>Education</strong>al Outcomes of English Language Learners in Schools and Programs in Boston Public Schools 63
- 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: In Sum This chapter has focused on
- 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 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