Improving Educational Outcomes for ELLs

1. Improving Educational Outcomes for ELLs Selected Issues & Recommendations for ESEA Reauthorization Working Group on ELL Policy Diane August Center for Applied Linguistics Robert Linquanti WestEd

2. Working Group on ELL Policy • Diane August (Center for Applied Linguistics) • Steve Barnett (National Institute for Early Education Research) • Donna Christian (Center for Applied Linguistics) • Michael Fix (Migration Policy Institute) • Ellen Frede (National Institute for Early Education Research) • David Francis (University of Houston) • Patricia Gándara (University of California, Los Angeles) • Eugene Garcia (Arizona State University) • Claude Goldenberg (Stanford University) • Kris Gutiérrez (University of California, Los Angeles) • Kenji Hakuta (Stanford University) • Janette Klingner (University of Colorado) • Robert Linquanti (WestEd) • Jennifer O’Day (American Institutes for Research) • Charlene Rivera (George Washington University)

3. Presentation Purposes • Provide brief background and context • Review and highlight recommendations related to identification and reclassification • Review several other key recommendations • Point out challenges and dilemmas • Get your reactions and suggestions

4. Identification and Reclassification ProceduresProduce Unstable ELL Subgroup The Revolving Door Problem

5. English-Only English Learners (complete cohort) Removing successfully reclassified FEP-ELLs yields very distorted picture of how ELL cohort performs. Blue = Model District Red = California Complete ELL subgroup represents gap more accurately. Hakuta & Thompson, 2009

6. Meeting Grade-Level Performance Standards(CA 2010 CST-ELA Results) X Linquanti, 2010

7. Many students drop in academic performance years after reaching English proficiency(CA 2010 CST-ELA Results: Reclassified-FEP Students) Basic or Below: N = 263,889 38.4% of all RFEPs are are below academic proficiency in ELA content test Total N = 687,158 (In Grs. 6-11: 546,594, or 80% of all RFEPs) Linquanti, 2010

8. ELL Subgroup Identification & Classification Recommendations Require states to establish stable ELL subgroup membership for accountability purposes. States should: • Designate students as members of the ELL subgroup based on their English language proficiency status at entry into school in the state in which they reside • Distinguish among ELLs by language proficiency level to monitor achievement & deliver appropriate services • Count students who began as ELLs for purposes of accountability in ELL cohort for duration of their schooling in the state

9. ELL Subgroup Identification & Classification Recommendations Benefits: Yields more accurate progress and performance info, enhancing evaluation and improvement efforts Continued progress-monitoring recognizes developmental nature of SLA and fosters better service delivery at all ELP levels Increases fairness and legitimacy of accountability system

10. Establish a Stable ELL Subgroup For accountability, Total English Learner (TEL) group includes:

11. Strengthening ELL Accountability & Reporting

12. Other Key Recommendations Assessment, Accountability, Human Capital, and Capacity Building

13. Assessment and Accountability Establish an ELL Expert Committee to advise the Secretary on assessment and accountability: • Develop guidance and regulations pertaining to the inclusion of ELLs in state accountability and assessment systems • Develop and approve standards used by the Secretary in review of state accountability systems • Serve on Title I peer review panels to ensure that panels include ELL experts • Provide guidance in research agenda relevant to implementing ELL accountability

14. Assessment and Accountability • Allow states with an interest in bilingual language and literacy development to make appropriate modifications or adaptations to their assessment and accountability systems to include linguistic and academic progress and competencies in two or more languages.

15. Human Capital Require states to demonstrate—as a precondition for receiving funds under Title II and Title III—that their credential requirements and alternative routes to certification of teachers of core content include components that are effective in preparing these teachers to address both the content and academic language needs of English language learners.

16. Human Capital Define English as a Second Language (ESL) as an additional core academic subject for ELLs within ESEA, and apply the same Highly Qualified Teacher requirements to teachers of ESL/ELD as to teachers of other core academic content areas

17. Capacity Building Focus Title III on building national, state, and local capacity to ensure that ELLs acquire the language competence needed for academic success. ESEA, under Title III, should support the development of many more teachers from students’ language communities who are proficient in both their L1 and English

18. Key Issues Looking Ahead How will states help ELLs meet the new common core standards ? (How) will Race to the Top Assessment Consortia design and implement appropriate assessment systems for ELLs? How will the next generation ELP assessment systems (EAG-ELP) align/integrate with RTTAC? How will ESEA reauthorization foster or constrain these efforts? How will we improve quality and effectiveness of teachers of ELLs? How will value-added work?

19. Thoughts, reactions, questions?