1

The Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues of California’s Implementation of No Child Left Behind

Coachella Valley Unified School District

Dr. Paul GraftonAlma González

One Voice ConferenceJuly 6, 2008

2

Coachella Valley Unified School DistrictThermal, California

2007 – 2008

• 1,200 Square Miles Attendance Area• 17,750 Students• 98% Hispanic• 91% Free/Reduced Lunch• 25% Migrant• 75% Speak Spanish in the Home• 64% English Language Learners

3

Statement of Our Beliefs

• Full Support of NCLB Accountability• ELL Students Should Learn to Read,

Write, and Speak English to the Level of Native Speaker as Soon as Possible

• A Child takes from 4 to 7 years to Reach Academic English Language Proficiency (CELDT Level 4 or Higher)

4

Implementation of NCLB in California

• Adequate Yearly Progress – Federal Measure – Based on Percentage of Students At or Above Proficient

• Academic Performance Index – State Measure – Based on Growth in Points on a Scale of 200 - 1000

5

California Testing Program

- English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and History Social

Science• California Standards Test – gr. 2 through 11

• CAPA – gr. 2 through 11

• California Achievement Test – gr. 3 & 7

• California High School Exit Exam – gr. 10, 11 and 12

6

Language of the Tests Used to Calculate

AYP/API• All Tests are printed in English

• No translation into Spanish by the teacher other than the Directions

• Word to Word English/Spanish glossary can be used for Math and other content areas but not ELA

• Students who can not Read, Write, or Speak English may be Tested Together and/or have Extra Time but within one Sitting

7

Language of the Tests, con’t

• Test Results of English Language Learners are included in:

– AYP beginning the Second Year of Attendance

– API beginning the First Year of Attendance (Second Year as of 2007)

8

What Does NCLB Say?

NCLB allows testing in the primary language for three years and up to two additional years on a case by case basis and the results to be counted in the calculations of AYP – States such as Ohio and New Mexico make use of this flexibility, California does not.

9

Reading First

• NCLB Reading Program K - 3• Evaluation Based on Reading First

Achievement Index (RFAI) Score• District Academic Achievement

Comparisons and Continued Funding Based on RFAI

• 70% of RFAI comes from California Testing Program – CST and CAT/6

10

Determining the English Language Proficiency of

English Language Learners• Students (K – 12) whose Primary

Language is Spanish are given the California English Language Development Test in Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing which result in an Overall Score

• Students are placed into one of Five Categories: Beginning, Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early Advanced, or Advanced

11

English Language Proficiency, con’t

• To move from an English Language Learner to Fluent English Proficient, a Student must be at the Overall Early Advanced Level with No Sections of the Tests below the Intermediate Level

• The NCLB mechanism for evaluating Adequate Progress of English Language attainment is Title III – AMAO 1, AMAO 2, and AMAO 3

12

What are the CELDT Levels of Students New

to our District?

• In 2005 – 2006; of the 2,374 students who took the Initial CELDT:

– 46% were CELDT Level 1

– 60% were CELDT Level 1 or 2

– 81% were CELDT Level 1, 2, or 3

13

What are the CELDT Levels of Students New to our

District?

• In 2006 – 2007 of the 1,904 students who took the Initial CELDT:

– 60% are CELDT Level 1

– 75% are CELDT Level 1 or 2

– 91% are CELDT Level 1, 2, or 3

14

Title III: NCLB’s Accountability Measure for ELL’s English

Language Attainment: Are We Successful at Teaching our

Students English?• 2004: AMAO 1 = Yes; AMAO 2 = Yes; AMAO 3 =

No

• 2005: AMAO 1 = Yes; AMAO 2 = No by <2%; AMAO 3 = No (ELA 13.2%/Math 18.7%)

• 2006: AMAO 1 = Yes; AMAO 2 = No by <1%; AMAO 3 = No (ELA 14%/Math 21.7%)

• 2007 (CELDT rescaled): AMAO 1 = No by 7.6%; AMAO 2 = No by 7.7%; AMAO 3 = (ELA 15.8% No/Math 24.3% Yes)

15

Failure to Meet NCLB Goals

• There is an increasing penalty • Must Provide Transfers to Parents who

Request that their Student goes to Another School

• Must Arrange Vendor-provided Tutoring• Change School Structure• State Take Over or Close School

16

Questions We Asked:

• Does Giving a Test to a Student in a Language the Student does not Understand affect the Estimates of Academic Achievement the Test Reports for that Student?

• If so, what is the effect on the NCLB Accountability Measures calculated from those Test Results?

17

Methodology

• Matched Case

• Isolated Students by CELDT Level

• Applied API/AYP inclusion/exclusion rules to Students in each CELDT level

• Applied API/AYP calculations/cutpoints to Student test results in each CELDT Level

18

Adequate Yearly Progress2006 – 2007

19

Academic Performance Index2006 – 2007

20

Adequate Yearly Progress2005 – 2006

21

Academic Performance Index2005 – 2006

22

Adequate Yearly Progress 2004 – 2005

23

Academic Performance Index 2004 – 2005

24

Academic English Language Proficiency

• What would Happen if only the Scores of ELL Students who had attained Academic English Language Proficiency on the CELDT (Early Advanced or Advanced) were used in calculation of AYP/API?

25

Changes from CDE’s Accountability

Progress Report 2007

26

Changes from CDE’s AccountabilityProgress Report 2006

School Made ELA ELA Reason Made Math Math Reason In PICahuilla Desert Acacdemy No All No All YChavez ES Yes* Yes YCoachella Valley HS Yes Yes YDesert Mirage HS Yes* Yes NDuke ES Yes* No* English Learners* YKelley ES Yes* Yes* YLa Familia Cont HS No* Schoolwide No* Schoolwide YLas Palmitas ES No SED* Yes* YMartinez ES Yes* Yes* YMecca ES Yes* Yes* YMountain Vista ES Yes* Yes* YOasis ES Yes* Yes* YPalm View ES Yes* Yes YPeter Pendleton ES Yes* Yes YSea View ES No All No* Hispanic* and SED* YToro Canyon MS No English Learners* No All YValley View ES Yes* Yes* YWest Shores HS Yes* No All YWestside ES Yes Yes Y

District Yes* Yes* Y

* = change from CDE posted value

2006 AYPExcluding students at CELDT Levels 1,2 and 3

27

Changes from CDE’s AccountabilityProgress Report 2005

28

Solutions? Further Research?

• Continue to test all students but EXCLUDE CELDT 1, 2, and 3 scores from AYP/API calculations, OR

• Continue to test all students but SUBSTITUTE the SABE/Aprenda/STS scores for CST scores in AYP/API calculations, OR

• Continue to test all students but INCLUDE the SABE/Aprenda/STS scores in AYP/API calculations.

29

The Myth of Similar Schools Ranking for Schools with Large Numbers of English Language

Learners: Anecdotal

• Next time you check the CDE website for your similar schools list of comparable schools

• Go to Data Quest – CDE web site for CELDT reporting

• Look at the CELDT Levels of those schools the CDE lists as similar to your school

• If their number of students at CELDT Levels 1, 2, and 3 are lower than your school’s number of students at CELDT Levels 1, 2, and 3

• Then they are not Similar Schools

30

Questions?•Dr. Paul Grafton paulg@coachella.k12.ca.us

•Alma Gonzalez agonzalez@coachella.k12.ca.us