Full Report - Center for Collaborative Education

Leary and Borsato, 2006, p. 179). This pattern of
educational results is also evident in other measures
of achievement such as grades, graduation rates,
and college-going. “The lower scores in the initial
grades,” conclude Lindholm-Leary and Borsato (p.
185), “may account for the popular misperception
that bilingual education is an ineffective means for
educating ELLs.”
Research on the outcomes of students in different
types of programs designed specifically for ELLs
is also relevant. These programs can be classified
according to purpose: “transitional,” “maintenance,”
and “enrichment.” Boston’s programs
include transitional programs such as SEI which are
designed to have students gain fluency in English
and move students into regular education. Transitional
bilingual programs (early and late exit) and
SIFE programs are essentially maintenance progams
that allow students to learn content in their own
language while acquiring English at their own pace.
The enrichment model – i.e., two-way or dual immersion
programs – is designed for all students to
add a language. English speakers who participate
in these programs add a second language, while
English learners preserve their home language and
acquire English (Rivera, 2002). The relative benefit
of length of time in transitional bilingual programs,
amount of language instruction, and combinations
of first and second language provided in instruction
is still ambiguous, according to Goldenberg
(2008). At this time, the debate focuses on the
relative advantage of different forms of transitional
and maintenance programs (Transitional Bilingual
Education and Sheltered English immersion, for
example) and comparisons between transitional and
additive programs (for example, Two-Way Bilingual
programs). There are concerns about the definitions
of programs and the specifics of the design and
findings of several key studies (including August &
Hakuta, 1997; Ramirez, Pasta, Yuen, Ramey, & Billings,
1991; Thomas & Collier, 2002).
Nevertheless, the review conducted by Lindholm-
Leary and Borsato (2006) points to higher achievement
in both math and reading in bilingual and
two-way programs than in SEI (Ramirez, 1992;
Thomas & Collier, 2002), while studies of SEI
emphasize the early language acquisition achieved
under immersion programs. Studies in states that
have implemented laws similar to Massachusetts’
restrictions in the use of the students’ native
language in instruction include the evaluation of
the California ELL programs by Parrish et al. (2006).
They measured outcomes in high-stakes testing, in
relation to different instructional methods, student
re-designation, and student engagement. In terms
of performance on high-stakes tests, the authors reported
that the achievement gap remained virtually
constant in most subjects for most grades. Given
the slight changes in performance overall, pending
questions about the data, the authors concluded
that overall, “there is no clear evidence to support
an argument of the superiority of one EL instructional
approach over another” (p. ix).
Far fewer studies compare the achievement of
LEP students in ELL programs to those not in ELL
programs. One such study by Thomas and Collier
(2002) focused on four school districts with LEP enrollments
and found that LEP students who had not
participated in ELL programs had the lowest testing
outcomes and the highest dropout rates compared
to students who had participated in any type of ELL
program.
The research also focuses on individual and school
factors that affect the academic performance of
ELLs. Demographic variables are described in Chapter
IV and summarized here. Gender, immigration
status, poverty status, and English proficiency have
all been found to be associated with the achievement
of LEP students. The effect of gender on
school achievement has been documented and
in some cases it has been found to favor females
and in others males (Brown et al., 2010; Callahan
et al., 2010; Rumberger & Thomas, 2000; Wang
et al., 2007).Poverty status is one of the strongest
predictors of academic achievement, both directly
and through its effects on a student’s health status,
nutrition, and the resources available to the student
(Braun et al., 2006; Hao & Bonstead-Bruns, 1998;
Lee & Smith, 1999; Rothstein, 2004; Werblow &
Duesbery, 2009). Closely related to income status
as a factor in academic achievement is a student’s
geographic mobility –that is, his/her change of
schools due to the family’s physical move within a
school year (Rumberger & Palardy, 2005; Rumberger
& Thomas, 2000). Race is also a well-documented
marker of school achievement, both on its own and
in its interaction with poverty and immigrant status
in the life of students (see Kao & Thompson, 2003
for a review). English proficiency, as was discussed
in Chapter V, is also associated with academic
performance in English (Dawson & Williams, 2008;
Hao & Bonstead-Bruns, 1998; Wang et al., 2007).
A student’s attendance and discipline history are
significant predictors of both dropout rates and
64 Improving Educational Outcomes of English Language Learners in Schools and Programs in Boston Public Schools