reclassification of english learner students in california laura hill public policy institute of...

Reclassification of English Learner Students in California

Laura HillPublic Policy Institute of California

[email protected]

http://www.ppic.org/

2

Today’s discussion

Motivation Data and Methods Research Questions

– How do reclassified (RFEP) students fare over time?

– How do California’s English Learner (EL) students get reclassified?

– Is there a link between district reclassification rates and policies?

– Do reclassification policies matter for student outcomes?

Conclusions/recommendations

3

Motivation

Persistent achievement gap for ELs and other students– ELs are 25% of K-12 student population– Districts get extra $$ for EL students

More per student with LCFF – Because RFEP do better than EL

students, interest in reclassifying more ELs

Will lowering reclassification criteria narrow the achievement gap?

Are reclassification policies linked to̶�Reclassification rates?̶� Student outcomes?

4


Motivation Data Research Questions

– How do reclassified (RFEP) students fare over time? (CALPADs data)

– How do California’s English Learner (EL) students get reclassified? (Reclassification survey)




5

Reclassification policy data: district survey

Reclassification survey developed with help of EL experts, field tested

Emailed to district Title III contacts or superintendent– June – July 2013

Classify responses by at or exceeding SBE guidelines

Current policies 2008-09 policies – target year

6

Student data: linked CALPADs

All districts Follow students within district for 6 years

– 2007-08 – 2012-2013– 4 cohorts, n=500k students

Students must be ELs at kindergarten̶�No late arrivers

No Special Ed Compare outcomes across language

groups– Still EL– Reclassified (RFEP)– English only (EO)– IFEP

7

Four student cohorts

EL Kinder.year

First year CALPADs

2007-08

Targetreclass year

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

Final year CALPADs

2012-13

Grade 2 cohort

K in‘05

2nd 3rd 6th

Grade 4 cohort

K in ‘03

4th 5th 7th

Grade 7 cohort

K in ‘00

7th 8th 12th

Grade 8 cohort

K in ‘99

8th 9th 12th +

8








9

RFEP students have better scores than EO students

% of students scoring Basic or higher on CST ELA, grade 2 cohort

2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

RFEP pre

RFEP 2008-09

RFEP post

EO

EL

Grade

Per

cent

10

RFEP students make on time progress

9th 10th 11th 12th60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

RFEP pre RFEP 2008-09 RFEP post

EO EL

On-time Grade

Per

cent

On-

time

or b

ette

r

11

Reclassified students have strong end-of-high school outcomes

Leave before graduat-ing

Diploma a-g courses complete0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

RFEP pre

RFEP target year (2008-09)

RFEP post

EO

EL

Final high school outcomes, grade 8 cohort

Per

cent

12

Results persist when add complexity

When we control for district characteristics and student characteristics, same basic findings

Those reclassified early (by 4th grade) perform– better than or as well as EO, IFEP, – vastly outperform EL

Those reclassified later (5th grade and later)– Still vastly outperform ELs– More on par with EOs– Do not do as well as IFEPs

No evidence that RFEP students’ performance falters

13








14

Reclassification Policies

SBE guidelines, but CDE doesn’t know what districts do– An example of local control, but with

unknown efficacy Just one important policy lever, but one on

the table now: SB 1108 (Sen. Padilla)– What are districts doing?– What are recommendations for

improving reclassification policies? Survey asks about 4 criteria and a variety

of other reclassification issues

15

Survey respondents are broadly representative

Responded Did Not Respond

Elementary districts 139 397

Share elm. students (%) 36 64

Average enrollment 3,037 1,744

High School districts 33 46

Share of high school students (%) 41 59


Unified districts 131 208

Share of students (%) 54 46


16

Survey respondents are broadly representative (con’t)

Responded Did Not Respond

Share of state’s students (%) 54 46

Share of Spanish-speaking ELs 58 42

Share of all other language ELs 62 38

API (average) 780 772

Low-income (average) 60 56

English Learners (average) 23 21

Reclassification rate (average) 12 10

17

More than half of respondents had “EL” in job title

Direct

or o

f EL se

rvices

EL coo

rdin

ator

/spe

cial

ist

Supe

rinte

nden

t

Direct

or o

f cur

ricul

um

Assist

ant s

uper

inte

nden

t

Teac

her o

n sp

ecia

l ass

ignm

ent

Other

05

1015202530 26

2119

10 9

2

13

Perc

en

t

18

Most districts use more rigorous reclassification policies

Fewer than 10% use SBE guidelines only Majority have more than one criteria that is more

rigorous that SBE guidelines– More than one third use at least 3 or

more rigorous criteria

19

What did we learn – English proficiency?

All districts use the CELDT OPL requirements

– 10% districts require “Advanced”– Remainder require “Early Advanced”

(SBE guideline) Subtest requirements

– 40% do not allow “Intermediate” subtests

– Remainder allow some “Intermediate” (SBE guideline)

20

What did we learn – basic skills? Basic Skills CST ELA

– More than 70% require “Mid Basic” or higher on CST ELA

– About 30% require “Proficient”– About 30% just require Basic (SBE

guideline) Over 45% also require CST Math

– More in elementary districts Over 8% History/Social Science CST

– More in HS districts

21

What did we learn – teacher evaluation?

Teacher evaluation– Hard to say what SBE guideline is– We find

65% require specific grades/GPA 45% require assessments Few “consider” assessments and

grades without specific cutoffs. Subjective teacher evaluation

– Attendance, behavior, discipline considered in a substantial minority of districts

22

Respondents believe basic skills are most challenging criteria

Elementary Middle High 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

4027 26

53

6268

Don't knowParent consultationTeacher evaluationBasic skillsEnglish proficiency

23

In your opinion, how important are each criteria in reclassification decisions?

0

10

20

30

40 37.6

25.9 22.8

5.2 5.2 4.8

24

Reclassification timing and policy change

Most districts do not assess students for reclassification until 2nd grade (~50%)

Few districts (2%) reclassify year-round– About 30% reclassify in just one season

Most district reclassification policies have remained the same since 2008– 5% changed English proficiency– 15% changed basic skills– 8% changed teacher evaluation

standards

25








26

Most districts use more rigorous reclassification policies …

… are they connected to district reclassification rates?– Classify policies from surveys– Link to district reclassification rates

We find more rigorous policies are associated with lower reclassification rates

27

More rigorous reclassification policies are linked to lower reclassification rates

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

15.1%

12.2% 12.2%11.1%

12.0%

16.0%

12.1%

20.1%

9.6%

Reclassification Criteria

Pe

rce

nt

* *** ****

***

*

*

28








29

Does it help RFEPs if reclassification policies are more rigorous?

Tested each of the more rigorous criteria in comparison to SBE guidelines– CELDT

OPL of Early Advanced Subtests can be Intermediate

– CST ELA of Basic– Consider grades/GPA and/or

assessments

30

Main findings

More rigorous policies are often, but not always, positively associated with student outcomes– Size of improvement is small– What works for early elementary may

not work for middle or high school (and vice-versa)

31

Proficient ELA requirement gets a district…

3 percentage point decline in reclassification rate– 12% to 9%

Performance– Increase in 6th grade CST ELA Proficient

scores 82% from 78%

– Increase in 8th grade CST ELA Proficient scores 66% from 61%


– Increase in on time 10th grade progress 95% from 90%

– Decrease in share earning diploma (5%)

32

More rigorous teacher evaluation requirement gets a district…

3 percentage point decline in reclassification rate– 12% to 9%

Performance– Increase in 6th grade CST ELA Proficient

scores 82% from 78%


– Decrease in 11th grade CST ELA Proficient scores 9% from 14%

– No change in on time 10th grade progress – Increase share earning diploma (3%),

decrease in share meeting a-g (10%)

33








34

Conclusions and recommendations

RFEP students do not falter– Those reclassified earlier do better

RFEP students do VERY well– Time to reconsider EL classification?

Setting higher standards makes EL and RFEP students look better, but reclassifies fewer– How will this play out with new LCFF and

LCAP?

35

Without standard reclassification policy, can’t compare districts

CST Score 100 200 300 400 500

Number ELs

1 1 1 1 1

Mean EL score

Mean RFEP score

District A: CST reclass requirement is 300

150 400

District B: CST reclass requirement is 400

200 450

Example: Two districts with equal performance among ELs, different reclassification policies:

36

Conclusions and recommendations

Trading slightly improved outcomes against lower reclassification rates is not worth it

What is the right standard?– Is it the SBE guidelines?

This research could only test against those

– Opinions of respondents suggest balance might not be right

– Smarter Balanced and new English proficiency tests are coming Time for more examination

37

Thanks for your interest!

Please contact Laura Hill ([email protected], 415-291-4424) for questions about the use of these slides.

mailto:[email protected]

38

RFEP students perform as well as EO students on CST ELA

2nd grade cohort, 6th grade CST ELA

7th grade cohort, 11th grade CST ELA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

RFEP 2008-09RFEP postRFEP preELEO

39

On time or better

RFEP tar-get year

(2008-09)

RFEP pre RFEP post EL EO76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

Language group, 7th grade cohort

Perc

en

t on

tim

e o

r b

ett

er,

1

0th

gra

de

40

End of high school outcomes, grade 8 cohort

Leaving HS before

graduating

Diploma A-g courses complete

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ELRFEP target year (2008-09)2RFEP postRFEP preEO

reclassification of english learner students in california laura hill public policy institute of...

Documents

rfep students fare

cohortrfep students

student outcomes

reclassification surveyis

reclassification criteria

student data

student characteristics

reclassification policy