Monitoring the Progress of English Learners: The Importance of Focusing on Current and Reclassified English Learners

• In Event: How, When, and Why Are English Language Learners Reclassified as Fluent English Proficient? New Methods for Establishing and Examining English Language Learner Assessment, Accountability, and Equity Policies

Abstract

Objective, Method and Data:

This paper examines statewide achievement results for grades 2-11 based on the 2010 and 2005 administrations of the California Standards Test (CST) of English Language Arts. Results were compiled for students from English-Only homes (EOs), for currently classified English Learners (ELs), and for former English Learners Reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEPs). Data are the percentage of students scoring Proficient or Advanced on CST and thereby meeting state established criteria for federal ESEA accountability. The descriptive analysis addressed two questions: 1) What is the size of the gap between (a) EOs and current ELs in comparison to the size of the gap between (b) EOs and ELs combined with RFEPs? 2) What, if any, changes are evident over time in those two gap estimates: (a) EO vs. EL, and (b) EO vs. ELs combined with RFEPs?

Results:
With regard to Question 1, gaps based on comparisons between EOs and current ELs are almost twice as large as gaps based on comparisons between EOs and currently ELs combined with RFEPs (-42.3% vs -23.2%). The reason for that is not complicated: Over the course of grades 2-12 the most successful ELs reclassify (approximately 50%-60% are RFEP in the grades 7-11 cohorts) and are no longer part of the “current EL” sample. Regarding Question 2, changes from 2005 to 2010 were evident. The number and proportion of RFEPs in relation to current ELs as well as the number and proportion of RFEPs scoring Proficient or Advanced were both larger in 2010 than in 2005. The paper makes no attempt to attribute particular causes to those positive changes (e.g., changes in population, test preparation, improved learning and instruction). Rather the analysis demonstrates that such positive changes are undetectable if it focuses solely on currently classified ELs and ignores RFEPs. Comparisons from 2005 and 2010 between EOs and current ELs show a large and widening gap (from -38.1% to -42.3%). In contrast comparisons for the same years between EOs and current ELs combined with RFEPs show a smaller and decreasing gap (from -26.2% to -23.1%). One simply cannot detect positive changes in achievement levels of over time of those who come to school learning English without looking at both those receiving services (ELs) and those who previously received services (RFEPs).

One might expect that it would be common practice to track the progress of current English Learners (ELs) and also English Learners that have been reclassified. However, it is not common practice for NCLB reporting, nor for the National Assessment of Educational Progress. As such, literally speaking, monitoring the progress of English Learners means students currently classified as English Learners. That RFEPs are not the object of greater scrutiny and attention is problematic. The only thorough way to evaluate the effects of those services is to track the progress of those currently receiving them along with those who had received them. Absent results for RFEPs we cannot gauge achievement levels of all students who come to school needing to learn English.

Author

• William M. Saunders, University of California - Los Angeles