english learners in california:what the numbers say

16
English Learners in California: What the Numbers Say ALMOST HALF OF PUBLIC SCHOOL students in California live in homes where the most frequently spoken language is not English. Of those, about half are designated as “English learners” by their school district. State data make it clear that as a whole the “English learner” group faces particular hurdles to academic success. One key to understanding and addressing the challenge of effectively educating these students is to see beyond the English learner (EL) label to the diversity of students included in this subgroup. This report describes the state’s English learners with respect to their primary languages, distribution across the grades, and location in California. It also discusses varia- tions in English proficiency and progress toward proficiency, including how it is defined in one county that represents the state’s diver- sity. Finally, the report considers how well these students are meeting the state’s rigorous academic standards by describing their achievement levels on the California Standards Tests in English language arts and math and on the California High School Exit Exam. Who are California’s English learners? In California, a public K–12 pupil is called an “English learner” if the student’s home or primary language is not English and his or her district has not reclassified the student as “fluent English proficient” based on state test scores and other criteria. State law requires that districts identify and assess English learners A student’s primary language is identified through the Home Language Survey. For decades the state has required school districts to collect this information on all students with limited English proficiency and report it to the California Department of Education (CDE). Districts generally administer the survey to all parents as part of their new- student registration process. The Home Language Survey asks four questions pertain- ing to the first language the student learned to speak and the language used most frequently at home. If the parents indicate, or the district learns through further inquiry, that the home language is not English, the student is consid- ered to have a non-English primary language. Since 2001–02, schools must assess the English proficiency of all students whose primary language is not English using the Cali- fornia English Language Development Test (CELDT). Students who score in the lower three levels (of five) are considered English learners. (CELDT scores and their use are discussed in more detail beginning on page 6.) One quarter of the state’s public school students are English learners Data from 2006–07, the most recent published by CDE, show that California had 6.3 million pupils in grades K–12. Of those, 1.6 million (25%) were considered English learners. This percentage has been very stable over the last decade, ranging from 24.6% to 25.6%, though the defi- nition of “English learner” has varied somewhat depending partly on what standardized assessments were used. California’s English learners comprise about one-third of the nation’s ELs, according to 2005–06 data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). A survey of a few large, diverse states reveals that their definitions of “English learner” appear quite similar, but the specific assessments and criteria used to determine EL status likely differ somewhat. California’s ELs are found across all grades and throughout the state The vast majority of English learners in Cali- fornia are Spanish-speaking; the others speak a wide variety of languages. English learners are only classified as such until their districts redesignate them as fluent English proficient based on performance on state tests, teacher evaluation, and parent consultation. With a significant portion of ELs entering the state’s schools in kindergarten, the early grades have a disproportionate share. The percentages diminish in the later grades as ELs are either reclassified as fluent in English or leave the public school system. Just as English learners are spread unevenly among all grades, they are also spread unevenly throughout the state, though they are found in rural, suburban, and urban areas of California. Data from the state’s 10 largest school districts presented in this report provide more detail re- garding variations in how these students are distributed and the mix of primary languages represented. EdSource ® is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization established in California in 1977. Independent and impartial, EdSource strives to advance the common good by developing and widely distributing trustworthy, useful information that clarifies complex K–12 education issues and promotes thoughtful decisions about California’s public school system. MARCH 2008 REPORT © Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc.

Upload: danghanh

Post on 03-Jan-2017

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

English Learners in California: What the Numbers Say

ALMOST HALF OF PUBLIC SCHOOLstudents in California live in homeswhere the most frequently spokenlanguage is not English. Of those,about half are designated as“English learners” by their schooldistrict. State data make it clear thatas a whole the “English learner”group faces particular hurdles toacademic success. One key tounderstanding and addressing thechallenge of effectively educating thesestudents is to see beyond the English learner(EL) label to the diversity of studentsincluded in this subgroup.

This report describes the state’s Englishlearners with respect to their primarylanguages, distribution across the grades, andlocation in California. It also discusses varia-tions in English proficiency and progresstoward proficiency, including how it is definedin one county that represents the state’s diver-sity. Finally, the report considers how wellthese students are meeting the state’s rigorousacademic standards by describing theirachievement levels on theCalifornia StandardsTests in English language arts and math andon the California High School Exit Exam.

Who are California’s English learners?In California, a public K–12 pupil is calledan “English learner” if the student’s home orprimary language is not English and his orher district has not reclassified the student as“fluent English proficient” based on statetest scores and other criteria.

State law requires that districts identifyand assess English learnersA student’s primary language is identifiedthrough the Home Language Survey. For

decades the state has required school districtsto collect this information on all studentswith limited English proficiency and report itto the California Department of Education(CDE). Districts generally administer thesurvey to all parents as part of their new-student registration process. The HomeLanguage Survey asks four questions pertain-ing to the first language the student learned tospeak and the language used most frequentlyat home. If the parents indicate, or the districtlearns through further inquiry, that the homelanguage is not English, the student is consid-ered to have a non-English primary language.

Since 2001–02, schools must assess theEnglish proficiency of all students whoseprimary language is not English using the Cali-fornia English Language Development Test(CELDT). Students who score in the lowerthree levels (of five) are considered Englishlearners. (CELDT scores and their use arediscussed in more detail beginning on page 6.)

One quarter of the state’s public schoolstudents are English learnersData from 2006–07, the most recentpublished by CDE, show that California had6.3 million pupils in grades K–12. Of those,1.6 million (25%) were considered Englishlearners. This percentage has been very stable

over the last decade, ranging from24.6% to 25.6%, though the defi-nition of “English learner” hasvaried somewhat depending partlyon what standardized assessmentswere used.

California’s English learnerscomprise about one-third of thenation’s ELs, according to2005–06 data from the NationalCenter for Education Statistics

(NCES). A survey of a few large, diversestates reveals that their definitions of“English learner” appear quite similar, butthe specific assessments and criteria used todetermine EL status likely differ somewhat.

California’s ELs are found across allgrades and throughout the stateThe vast majority of English learners in Cali-fornia are Spanish-speaking; the others speaka wide variety of languages. English learnersare only classified as such until their districtsredesignate them as fluent English proficientbased on performance on state tests, teacherevaluation, and parent consultation. With asignificant portion of ELs entering the state’sschools in kindergarten, the early grades havea disproportionate share. The percentagesdiminish in the later grades as ELs are eitherreclassified as fluent in English or leave thepublic school system. Just as English learnersare spread unevenly among all grades, they arealso spread unevenly throughout the state,though they are found in rural, suburban, andurban areas of California. Data from thestate’s 10 largest school districts presentedin this report provide more detail re-garding variations in how these studentsare distributed and the mix of primarylanguages represented.

EdSource® is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization established in California in 1977.

Independent and impartial, EdSource strives to advance the common good by developing and widely distributing trustworthy, usefulinformation that clarifies complex K–12 education issues and promotes thoughtful decisions about California’s public school system.

M A R C H 2 0 0 8R E P O R T

©Copyright

2008byEdSource,Inc.

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

2 � English Learners in California � March 2008 © Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc.

California’s English learners speak morethan 50 different languagesCDE reports on 55 individual non-Englishprimary languages plus an “all other non-English languages” category, for a total of 56categories. According to 2006–07 data,Spanish is the primary language for 85% ofELs, and those students are predominantly ofMexican heritage.The Census Bureau’s 2006American Community Survey found thatamong a sample of California children ages5–18 who speak Spanish at home, 83% wereof Mexican heritage, 4% were Salvadoran,2% were Guatemalan, and the rest had rootsin other, primarily Latin American, countries.

After Spanish, the most common primarylanguage among California’s ELs is Viet-namese, spoken by 2.2% of English learners.Rounding out the top five are Filipino(consisting of Pilipino orTagalog, spoken inthe Philippines), Cantonese (a Chinesedialect), and Hmong (a group of dialectsamong an ethnic minority population inChina and southeast Asia). Figure 1 displaysdata on the primary languages spoken by atleast 1% of California’s English learners.

These data have changed somewhat overtime. The percentage of Spanish-speakingELs has increased moderately, causing corre-sponding decreases in the percentages of theother top languages. Spanish speakers, whocomprise 85% of ELs today, constituted83% in 2001–02 and 80% five years earlier.In addition, slight changes in already smallpercentages of Filipino, Hmong, andCantonese speakers have caused their “rank-ings” to shift somewhat during the last fewyears, with Filipino growing slightly andHmong shrinking a little.

The makeup of English learners in Cali-fornia generally mirrors that of ELs in theUnited States except that Spanish speakersare a somewhat larger percentage of thewhole in California. According to 2002data, 77% of ELs in the nation speak Span-ish. Vietnamese speakers comprise 2.4%,and Hmong, Korean, and Arabic are thethird through fifth most common primarylanguages. (Korean and Arabic are, respec-tively, the sixth and 10th most commonprimary languages among California’s ELs.)

The percentage of English learnersdecreases as students move through schoolStudents are identified as ELs until theyachieve district-specified scores on state testsand meet other academic criteria (discussedin detail on pages 6–7). The distribution ofELs across grade levels reflects that students,as they get older, are moved out of the ELcategory. About 8% of English learners arereclassified as fluent English proficient(RFEP) each year, and the imprecise dropout

This report does not cover many issues that are importantto the education of English learners (ELs). First, it does notdelve into debates about the best curricular or instructionalapproaches for ELs. Nor does it cover the statistics on a numberof issues affecting ELs, such as the qualifications of teacherswho work with these students, the condition of their schoolfacilities, or availability of instructional materials. Finally, itdoes not, except in limited instances, discuss the socioeco-nomic status of English learners. Rather, as indicated in thetopics listed below, this report focuses on who these studentsare, where they are located in California, and what we knowabout their academic achievement.

What Do the Data IndicateAbout English Acquisition? ......................................6

Performance Data Offer Another View ....................11

The Numbers Show That DespiteSome Progress, English LearnersFace Considerable Challenges ..............................15

This report was researched and written by:Brian EdwardsJulian LeichtyKathy Wilson

Edited by:Mary Perry

EdSource thanks the S. H. Cowell Foundation for helping to sup-port the research, production, and dissemination of this report.

InsideThis Report

Primary Languages of English Learners in 2006–07

Vietnamese2.2%

Filipino1.4%

Cantonese1.4%

Hmong1.3%

Korean1.1%All Other Languages*

7.3%

Spanish85.3%

figure 1 Spanish is the primary language for 85% of English learners; but among theremaining 15%, a large variety of languages is spoken

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

*This includes 49 other CDE-identified languages, which comprise 6.4%, and CDE’s “all other non-English languages” category, which comprisesseveral other languages totaling 0.9%.

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

data that the state has indicate that ELs dropout of high school disproportionately. As aresult, ELs are not equally distributed across

grades kindergarten through 12. In kinder-garten, about 42% of students are ELs, andthe percentage generally decreases at each

successive grade until it is 11.3% in grade 12.(See Figure 2.) During the last five years, theconcentration of ELs in the lower grades hasdeclined very slightly and in the higher gradeshas increased very slightly.

Data on first-time CELDT takers indi-cate the entry point of students whoseprimary language is not English. (About18% of those students are not designated asELs because of strong CELDT scores.)Since the state began administering theCELDT in 2001–02, about half of thefirst-time CELDT takers have been inkindergarten, with the remainder spreadamong the other grades in generally declin-ing percentages with each higher grade.Figure 3 displays the percentages of first-time CELDT takers in five grade spans in2006–07.The pattern has remained similarsince the test was initiated.

ELs are found throughout the stateCalifornia’s EL students defy stereotypes inmany ways, including the schools theyattend.They are found throughout the state,not just in urban or agricultural areas. Ingeneral, English learners are distributedacross the major regions of Californiaconsistent with the overall distribution ofK–12 students, except that they are some-what over-represented in Los AngelesCounty. The majority of ELs are in South-ern California, but sizable portions live inthe San Francisco Bay Area and the mostpopulated counties within the CentralValley.The sparsely populated areas along themountainous northern and eastern edges ofthe state have few students and—with theexception of Imperial County in the farsouth—have few English learners.

The five most populous counties in Cali-fornia are all in the southern part of the stateand include Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange,San Bernardino, and Riverside. Together,these counties have about 55% of the state’spopulation and 56% of its schoolchildren.The schools in these counties educate about59% of the state’s English learners.With theexception of the eastern portions of River-side and San Bernardino counties, this regioncan be considered urban and suburban.

© Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc. March 2008 � English Learners in California � 3

Proportion of English Learners by Grades, 2006–07

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Kindergarten

Gra

des

Number of Students

EL Enrollment

State Enrollment

11%

14%

16%

19%

18%

20%

22%

26%

30%

32%

36%

38%

42%

figure 2 The concentration of English learners decreases as grade levels increase

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

Percentages of First-time CELDT Takers in Five Grade Spans in 2006–07

Kindergarten53%

1st–2nd Grade12%

6th–8th Grade10%

3rd–5th Grade12%

9th–12th Grade14%

figure 3 About half of students whose primary language is not Englishenter California’s public schools in kindergarten

Students whose primary language is not English must take the CELDT when they first enter California publicschools. This chart indicates the distribution of first-time CELDT takers across five grade spans. Data from2006–07, which are similar to the five prior years, are shown here.

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

Note: The percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding.

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

4 � English Learners in California � March 2008 © Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc.

The five counties have 35 cities of morethan 100,000 people, with the largest beingLos Angeles. Los Angeles County aloneserves 27% of the state’s schoolchildren and32% of its English learners. Of the nearly500,000 EL students in Los AngelesCounty, about half attend school in LosAngeles Unified School District.

The state’s other large metropolitan area isthe San Francisco Bay Area. In the nine coun-ties most often included as part of the region,the schools serve 15% of all K–12 studentsand about 207,000 EL students, or roughly13% of English learners in the state.The BayArea is dominated by its three big cities—Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose—buthas a total of 13 cities with more than100,000 people. For themost part, the rest ofthe region can be characterized as suburban.

California’s Central Valley is muchmore difficult to fit neatly into an urban,

suburban, or rural category. Vast stretches ofthe region are agricultural, and in some ofthese areas the schools serve high percentagesof English learners. At the same time, theregion houses the state capital and the suburbsthat surround it. It also includes Fresno andBakersfield, which have 470,000 and 312,000residents, respectively. All told, there are eightcities of more than 100,000 in the region’sseven largest counties. Eleven other countiescan reasonably be considered part of theCentral Valley. Some are suburban, and someare rural and agricultural.Together, the schoolsin these 18 counties serve 20% of the state’sschoolchildren and 19% of its English learn-ers. Sacramento and its surrounding suburbsserve a somewhat smaller number of ELstudents than their population would predict.

This look at the percentage of the state’sEL students in various regions does notmake clear the extent to which some counties

have a particularly high or low concentrationof EL students compared to the 25% in thestate as a whole.

Themap in Figure 4 shows the portion ofstudents in each California county who areEnglish learners. Counties with relatively fewEL students—including 15 counties with lessthan 10%—are generally in the north andnortheastern parts of the state. In contrast,the six counties that have more than 30% ELsare—with the exception of Los Angeles—generally rural, heavily agricultural counties.In five of these six counties, at least 95% ofthe ELs speak Spanish. In the sixth county,Merced, 86% of ELs speak Spanish, 9%Hmong, and the rest a variety of languages.

Districts and schools also differ intheir percentage of English learnersThe section above describes the landscapeof the state and each county as a whole; buteven within counties, the concentration ofELs and the mix of primary languages canvary substantially.

Figure 5 shows the average percentageof EL students and number of primarylanguages spoken by ELs for districts andschools. Districts are separated by type:elementary, unified, and high school. Simi-larly, the data for schools are categorized byschool type: elementary, middle, and high.In addition, Figure 5 shows the number ofdistricts and schools with high concen-trations of English learners—at least twicethe average for the respective type.

Although elementary grades have greaterpercentages of English learners than the highergrades, elementary districts do not have the high-est average percentage of ELs. Unified districtshave on average 20% ELs, which is slightlymore than the 19% average for elementarydistricts. And because unified districts tend tobe larger, they typically serve greater numbersofELs spread over larger attendance areas, whichis why they also have the highest averagenumber of primary languages represented.

Although on average elementary districtshave only 19% ELs, 109 of the state’s 559elementary districts have at least twice thatpercentage (38% ELs). In addition, one keystatistic that is not apparent in Figure 5 is

Percentage of English Learners

30% and above

20%–29.9%

10%–19.9%

Below 10%

figure 4 California’s 58 counties have different concentrations of English learners

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

that the 20 districts with the highest ELpercentages in the state are elementarydistricts in rural counties. Small and isolatedelementary districts such as these may strug-gle to provide the resources—especiallyqualified teachers—needed to help ELssucceed; but a thorough investigation of thisissue is outside the scope of this report.

Among schools (as opposed to districts),the data are somewhat predictable, given thatEnglish learners are more heavily concen-trated in the early grades. Elementaryschools have on average higher percentages ofELs than middle schools, which have higherpercentages than high schools. (However,differences among school types would not be

as large if students who have been reclassifiedfrom EL to fluent English proficient wereincluded.) Across all schools, the averagenumber of primary languages is six.

One noteworthy statistic from the datain Figure 5 is that 735 elementary schoolshave 60% or more ELs. Similarly, in 230 ofthe state’s high schools, at least 26% ofstudents are labeled English learners.Thosehigh schools must devote much of theirenergy to helping students attain fluency inEnglish along with imparting the contentcalled for in the state standards. (Thedifference between what is required forEnglish proficiency and what is required formastery of the state’s academic contentstandards starts out very small in the earlyelementary grades. It becomes moresubstantial as a student progresses throughthe grades into high school.) For all threeschool types—elementary, middle, andhigh—schools with twice the averagepercentage of English learners can be foundthroughout the state.

California’s 10 largest districts serve morethan one quarter of the state’s ELsCombined, the state’s 10 largest districtsserve 21% of the state’s students—but 28%of California’s English learners. Several ofthe individual districts have EL percentagesthat are greater than the 25% in the state asa whole. (See Figure 6.) For example, SantaAna Unified’s percentage (54%) is morethan double the state proportion. In contrast,some of the 10 largest districts—such asCapistrano Unified with 11% ELs—havelower proportions than the state as a whole.EdSource investigated whether any of theselarge districts had a substantially dispropor-tionate share of ELs with little or noproficiency in English (as measured by theCELDT) and found none.

These large districts also have manyprimary languages represented among theirEnglish learners. Considering the 55 specificlanguages that the state reports on, LongBeach Unified has the smallest number (26)and Los Angeles Unified the largest (54).

Although sizable numbers of primarylanguages are represented within each of the

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

© Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc. March 2008 � English Learners in California � 5

figure 5 Percent English Learners and Number of Languages in Districts and Schoolsin 2006–07

Total Statewide Average Average Number Number of Districts/Enrollment in Percent EL of Primary Schools with TwiceDistricts/Schools Languages the Averageof This Type Percentage EL

District Type (976 districts in total)

Elementary (559 districts) 1,229,048 19% 7 109Unified (330) 4,355,233 20% 17 33High (87) 624,215 12% 13 15

School Type* (8,563 schools in total)

Elementary (5,776 schools) 3,076,548 30% 6 735Middle (1,354) 1,161,000 20% 6 169High (1,433) 1,868,062 13% 6 230

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

*Excludes alternative and Special Education schools as designated for “adequate yearly progress.”

figure 6 In 2006–07 the state’s 10 largest districts tend to serve high percentagesof English learners, and the ELs speak numerous primary languages

Enrollment Number English Learners Number ofof English as a Percentage LanguagesLearners of District Spoken*

Enrollment

California 6,286,943 1,568,661 25% 55Los Angeles USD 707,626 266,088 38% 54San Diego USD 131,034 37,264 28% 40Long Beach USD 90,663 20,975 23% 26Fresno USD 77,555 22,194 29% 31Elk Grove USD 61,881 10,728 17% 48San Bernardino City USD 57,397 19,321 34% 38Santa Ana USD 57,346 31,189 54% 31San Francisco USD 56,183 15,461 28% 43Capistrano USD 51,512 5,694 11% 41Corona-Norco USD 49,865 8,314 17% 37

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

*This column indicates the number of languages spoken among the 55 languages that California reports on.The California Department ofEducation combines several additional languages in a 56th category called “all other non-English languages.”That category is not part ofthe figures presented here.

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

6 � English Learners in California � March 2008 © Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc.

10 largest districts, the proportion of eachlanguage can vary substantially. For example,Spanish is the primary language for 98% of

ELs in Santa Ana Unified; but in San Fran-cisco Unified, the figure is only 39%. And inElk Grove Unified,Vietnamese is the primary

language for 11% of ELs, but only 0.3% inFresno Unified. Furthermore, some languagesthat are relatively uncommon statewide havesubstantial representation in large districts.For example, 7% of ELs in Long Beach speakKhmer (Cambodian), and 4% speak Farsi(Persian) in Capistrano Unified.

Figures 6 and 7 show the percentage ofstudents who are ELs, the number of primarylanguages represented, and themix of primarylanguages in the state as a whole and in these10 districts.These districts illustrate how vari-able the distribution of EL students can be interms of their background, a variability thatcan be found throughout the state.

What do the data indicate about Englishacquisition?State law requires that students whoseprimary language is not English be evaluatedfor their English proficiency when theyenter school. The majority of these new-comers are identified as English learners,and their progress toward, and attainmentof, English proficiency are subjects ofintense interest. State policies have stan-dardized some measures of this, but thedecision about when students are officiallyremoved from EL status still ultimatelyrests with local districts.

The state uses the CELDT as the measureof English proficiencyStudents whose primary language is notEnglish take the California English LanguageDevelopmentTest (CELDT) within 30 daysof their initial enrollment in the state’s publicschools. According to CDE, the CELDT isdesigned to measure English proficiencyrather than performance on the state’s aca-demic content standards. Depending on theresults, a student is identified as “initiallyfluent English proficient” (IFEP) or as anEnglish learner.When the test is used in thisway, it is referred to as the “Initial CELDT.”(See the flow chart on page 7.)

Students who are identified as ELs musttake the CELDT in subsequent years duringthe summer/fall assessment window (July1–Oct. 31) until they have met all district-specific criteria (described later) to be

91%

84%

39%

98%

97%

45%

69%

88%

79%

94%

85%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Corona-Norco USD

Capistrano USD

San Francisco USD

Santa Ana USD

San Bernardino City USD

Elk Grove USD

Fresno USD

Long Beach USD

San Diego USD

Los Angeles USD

California

Spanish Vietnamese Filipino Cantonese Hmong Other

figure 7 The state’s 10 largest school districts have different mixes of primarylanguages among their English learners

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

Note: The “other” category in this figure includes all English learners whose primary languages are not Spanish,Vietnamese, Filipino, Cantonese,or Hmong.

45% 36% 34% 32%

24%

12% 10% 12%

19%

26%

19% 21%

8%

17%

21% 21%

3%9%

16% 15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

K–2257,290

3–546,011

6–840,505

9–1254,167

Grade Span

%S

cori

ngat

Eac

hL

evel

Advanced

Early Advanced

Intermediate

EarlyIntermediate

Beginning

Number Tested

figure 8 Overall scores on the 2006–07 Initial CELDT vary by grade span

Note: This chart displays only overall CELDT scores. It does not show the percentage of students who achieved the combination of overall anddomain scores needed to be considered “initially fluent English proficient” (IFEP). Generally, the percentage of CELDT takers with scores qualify-ing them as IFEP is about one to three points lower than the percentage with overall scores in the top two levels. In addition, the percentagesmay not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

© Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc. March 2008 � English Learners in California � 7

reclassified as fluent English proficient(RFEP). When students take the CELDTafter having been identified as ELs, the testis referred to as the “Annual CELDT.”

The CELDT tests different material ateach of four grade spans (kindergartenthrough grade two, grades 3–5, 6–8, and9–12). All four versions are aligned with therelevant grade-level English language develop-ment (ELD) standards, according to CDE.

The CELDT assesses four skill areas,referred to as “domains.”The domains as-sessed vary according to the student’s grade.In kindergarten and first grade, the CELDTassesses only listening and speaking.The testsfor students in grades two through 12 addreading and writing. Students receive an over-all score and scores for each of the domains.

Student performance is rated using fiveperformance levels:

1. beginning,2. early intermediate,3. intermediate,4. early advanced, and5. advanced.A combination of an overall score of

early advanced or advanced and domainscores of at least intermediate is referred toas an “English proficient” score. Studentswho achieve the “English proficient” scoreon the Initial CELDT are designated asinitially fluent English proficient (IFEP),and students who do not achieve that scoreare identified as English learners.

AnEL’sAnnualCELDTscores are one ofat least four criteria districts must use whenconsidering students for reclassification. TheState Board of Education recommends thatdistricts use Annual CELDT scores as thefirst criterion and that students achieving the

“English proficient” score should move on tothe next recommended criterion—results onthe California Standards Test in Englishlanguage arts (CST ELA).

The state recommends that studentsscoring at least “basic” on the CST ELA beconsidered for reclassification. (There arefive performance levels: advanced, proficient,basic, below basic, and far below basic.)However, districts set their own minimumscore. Other criteria for student redesigna-tion include teacher evaluation (which can bebased on a number of factors such as gradesand district assessments) and consultationwith parents. Districts may add other criteriaat their discretion.

About 1.7 million students took the CELDTin 2006–07Across the state in 2006–07, about 398,000students who were new to California’sschools and had a home language other thanEnglish took the CELDT for initial iden-tification. In addition, slightly more than1.3 million continuing students who hadbeen classified at some point in the past asEnglish learners took the Annual CELDT.

Most students entering California’s schoolswith primary languages other than Englishare identified as English learnersStudents with primary languages other thanEnglish enter the state’s schools with dif-fering degrees of English proficiency. In2006–07 more than 326,000 (82%) of the398,000 newcomers did not score “Englishproficient” on the Initial CELDT and wereclassified as English learners. The other71,000 (18%) hit the mark and were consid-ered initially fluent English proficient (IFEP).As Figure 8 on page 6 illustrates, results varysomewhat by grade span, with youngerstudents generally not doing as well. Thefigure displays only overall scores and notdomain scores, so it does not precisely indi-cate the percentage of students who qualifiedas IFEP. Note also that the CELDT under-went major changes in 2006–07 that led tolower scores as compared to prior years. (Formore on the changes and their effect onscores, see the box on page 9.)

English Learner Designation/Redesignation Process

Student enters school.

Parent completes Home Language Survey.

Student’s primary languageis other than English.

Takes CELDT (“Initial CELDT”).

Does not attain “English proficient” score on CELDT as defined by the state.*

Takes CELDT (“Annual CELDT”).Tested every year until redesignated (see below).

CELDT score, California Standards Test in English language arts score, teacher evaluation, and parentalconsultation all indicate that the student is fluent English proficient based on district-developed criteria.

Attains “English proficient” score on CELDT as defined by the state.*

Student’s primary languageis English.

Labeled English learner.

Not an English learner.

District labels student as Redesignated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP).

Labeled Initial Fluent English Proficient (IFEP).

* The state defines “English proficient” on the CELDT as the overall score of early advanced or advanced, with no score below intermediate inlistening/speaking (grades K–12) and reading and writing (grades 2–12).

EdSource 3/08

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

8 � English Learners in California � March 2008 © Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc.

Students with different primary languagesenter school with different levels ofEnglish proficiencyInitial CELDT results vary not only bygrade span, but also by primary language.

For example, Filipino speakers tend to havesubstantially higher English proficiencylevels when they enter school than studentswith other primary languages. In 2006–07,36% of Filipino speakers had overall scores

in the advanced or early advanced range, butonly 16% of Spanish speakers scored atthose levels.

The results for students who speakCantonese, Vietnamese, and Hmong fellsomewhere in between those of Filipino-and Spanish-speaking students. Figure 9shows the results for the state as a whole andthe top five primary languages from2006–07, which are similar to the prioryear’s results in terms of the relative successof these major language groups.

Among ELs taking the Annual CELDT in2006–07, 29% scored “English proficient”In contrast to Initial CELDT takers, who arenew to California’s schools, students whotake the Annual CELDT have generally beenin the state’s public education system for atleast one—and in most cases—several years.Acquiring English proficiency is influencedby many factors, such as parent educationlevel and income, age of entry to the UnitedStates, number of years in this country,Special Education status, mobility rates,whether English was taught as a secondlanguage in their country of origin, andwhether they are literate in their nativelanguage. Although publicly available datado not allow for an examination of ELs’English proficiency by any of these factors, asnapshot of the group’s performance brokendown by grade span is possible.

In 2006–07, 381,000 (29%) ofAnnual CELDT takers scored “Englishproficient.” Figure 10 shows the overallscores from the 2006–07 Annual CELDT.As compared to the Initial CELDT results,the percentages scoring at the beginningand advanced levels are generally smaller,and the portions scoring at the middlethree levels are larger. The students whotake the Annual CELDT have typicallybeen in the United States for at least a yearand did not qualify as IFEP in the prioryear.The extra year in this country can helpsome students score above “basic,” butthose who lack initial proficiency tend toneed several years of English instructionbefore they can score advanced on theAnnual CELDT.

Advanced

Early Advanced

Intermediate

EarlyIntermediate

Beginning15%9% 8% 9%

26%

16%13%

16%

37%

45%

37%36%

18%24%

32%30%

4% 6%11% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

K–2335,139

3–5422,176

6–8285,609

9–12268,188

Grade Span

%S

cori

ngat

Eac

hL

evel

Number Tested

figure 10 Overall scores on the 2006–07 Annual CELDT vary by grade span

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

%S

cori

ngat

Eac

hL

evel

Advanced

Early Advanced

Intermediate

EarlyIntermediate

Beginning

41% 45%36%

15%

33%41%

20%20%

23%

21%

22%

22%

20%19%

20%

29%

19%

21%

12%11%

12%

21%14%

12%

7% 5% 9%15% 13%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State397,973

Spanish305,825

Vietnamese10,209

Filipino10,041

Cantonese6,891

Hmong3,483

Results for the Entire State and the Five Most Common Primary Languages Among ELs

Number Tested

figure 9 Overall scores on the 2006–07 Initial CELDT differ by primary language

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

Note: The percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Note: The percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

© Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc. March 2008 � English Learners in California � 9

Much like the Initial CELDT results,the Annual CELDT scores in 2006–07were generally lower than in previous yearsbecause of changes to the CELDT in2006–07. (See the box on this page.)

The state monitors how well California’slocal agencies help ELs progress towardand attain English proficiencyThe Initial and Annual CELDT resultsprovide important information aboutstudents’ English proficiency at a point intime, but what is perhaps more important istheir progress. Unlike other state assessmentdata, individual students’CELDT results aretracked from one year to the next. Thisallows the state to measure growth.The rateof improvement in the state as a whole andthe variation in improvement among localagencies are important for assessing schooland district success in addressing the chal-lenge of effectively educating ELs.

Measuring growth also allows the stateto satisfy the funding conditions of Title IIIof the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).This federal program provides supplementalfunding to states to help ELs and immigrantstudents attain English proficiency and meetthe state’s academic content standards. Thelegislation requires states to monitor theperformance of local entities receiving TitleIII funding. Specifically, Title III measuresperformance against three annual measurableachievement objectives (AMAOs).

AMAO 1 calculates the percentage ofEnglish learners who make annual progresstoward English proficiency, as measured bytheir performance on the CELDT. Studentsat different proficiency levels have differentgrowth targets: those performing at thebeginning, early intermediate, and interme-diate levels overall are expected to gain oneproficiency level annually; those at the earlyadvanced or advanced level the prior year areexpected to score “English proficient” onCELDT; and those already scoring “Englishproficient” are expected to score similarlyuntil they are reclassified.

AMAO 2 calculates the percentage ofEnglish learners who score “English profi-cient” out of those students who could be

reasonably expected to, based on their previ-ous CELDT score and how long they havebeen in the United States. (For more details,see the box on page 10.)

AMAO 3 is the same as the “annualmeasurable objective” that is part of making“adequate yearly progress” (AYP) underTitle I of NCLB. Schools are monitored forELs’ participation in and performance on atest covering English language arts contentstandards. (Performance on this measure isdiscussed on pages 11–13.)

Figure 11 on page 10 indicates thespecific targets for AMAOs 1 and 2 for2003–04 through 2005–06 and the per-centage of local entities (county offices of

education, specified charter schools, districts,and consortia of districts) receivingTitle IIIfunds that met those objectives. In 2005–06,the most recent year for which AMAOresearch databases are available, local agenciescould meet the first objective if slightly morethan half of their ELs made the desiredannual progress.They could meet the secondobjective if about one-third of ELs attainedEnglish proficiency. Most agencies were ableto meet those performance objectives in2005–06: 86% met the first objective, and87% met the second.

The data described in Figure 11 are usefulfor understanding the portion of districtsmeeting performance targets, but they do not

The CELDT has undergone major changes

The important changes to CELDT were made in 2006–07 and included:� the creation of a common scale with linking across grade spans to allow comparisons of test scores

from adjacent grades; and� new cut scores for differentiating among the five performance levels.

The changes described above led to a substantial drop in overall scores in 2006–07 after five yearswhen CELDT results had been quite similar. For example, the number of K–2 Annual CELDT takers scoringat the highest two performance levels fell from 31% in 2005–06 to 22% a year later. (See below.) Differenceswere even greater in the other grade spans.

Changes to the CELDT in 2006–07 resulted in lower scores as compared with prior years

2005–06 vs. 2006–07 Annual CELDT Results for K–2

8%15%

18%

26%

43%

37%

25%18%

6% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005–06 2006–07Year

%o

fK–2

Stu

dent

sS

cori

ngat

Eac

hL

evel

Advanced

Early Advanced

Intermediate

EarlyIntermediate

Beginning

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

10 � English Learners in California � March 2008 © Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc.

indicate how many students across the stateare progressing toward or attaining “Englishproficient” scores on the CELDT.

CDE research files indicate that of1.28 million students counted in calculationsof AMAO 1 in 2005–06, 62% met theirannual growth targets. With regard toAMAO 2, 609,000 students were deemedwithin reach of English proficiency in thatsame year, and 40% of them attained profi-ciency. Both of those percentages are similarto the results of the prior two years.

Progress toward English proficiency variesby primary language and socioeconomic statusNot only do students with different primarylanguages vary in English proficiencywhen theyenter school, but they also progress at differentrates. A study of 2002 and 2003 data by thePublic Policy Institute of California (PPIC)found that differences in the improvementof CELDT scores varied by ELs’ primarylanguage. However, the study showed that

students varied not only in their primarylanguage, but also in socioeconomic status.Overall, 85% of California’s English learnersare economically disadvantaged (asmeasured byparticipation in the free and reduced-pricemealsprogram) compared with 41% of the non-ELpopulation, according to a 2007 report by theLegislative Analyst’s Office (LAO).

Using CDE data, the PPIC authorsreported that students who spoke Korean,Mandarin, and Russian had the highest ratesof CELDT growth. Using 2000 censusdata, the authors noted that students fromthese language groups also had relativelywell-educated parents.The parent educationlevel and rate of growth for Filipino-speaking ELs were in the mid-range (though,as mentioned earlier, Filipinos are the mostlikely among the major primary languagegroups to test initially fluent Englishproficient). Hmong- and Khmer-speakingstudents, who overall had parents with thelowest education rates, showed the lowest

rates of CELDT growth. Similarly, parentsof Spanish speakers tend to have less educa-tion and higher rates of poverty, and Spanishspeakers’ gains on the CELDT were belowthe gains of speakers of most otherlanguages. According to Census datareported in the study, parents of Spanish-speaking ELs had on average 9.6 years ofeducation, which was more than Hmong-(6.1 years) and Khmer-speaking (7.3 years)parents, but less than, for example,Mandarin-speaking parents (16.2 years).

Reclassification rates: An illustrative focuson Sacramento CountyRegardless of English learners’ startingpoints or rates of progress, one importantgoal is for them to be redesignated as fluentEnglish proficient. Once a student hasattained proficiency according to stateguidelines and district policy, the districtis supposed to redesignate that student.As mentioned earlier, districts vary in theirredesignation policies and practices.

A multitude of variables is at play whenexamining districts’ reclassification rates, whichmakes a statewide analysis difficult. Limitingthe analysis to one county reduces some of thevariables and makes an investigation moremanageable. EdSource chose to focus onSacramento County for several reasons:� its students represent a wide variety of

primary languages;� it has urban, suburban, and rural locales;� it has three of the state’s 20 largest

districts but also has some small- andmedium-sized districts; and

� the vast majority of its students attendunified districts, which allows for “applesto apples” comparisons across most ofthe county.Focusing on the unified districts of Sacra-

mento County, EdSource compared the2006–07 reclassification rates with 2005–06performance on the CELDT and CST ELA.The goal was to see the extent to whichdistricts’ 2006–07 reclassification rates reflectthe percentage of ELs who scored “Englishproficient”on the CELDT and basic or aboveon the CST ELA in the prior year. The staterecommends that ELs earning those scores be

How California Defines an English Learner as Being Within Reach of English Proficiency

To meet federal Title III requirements for measuring English learners’ progress in English proficiency,California counts ELs as being within reach of proficiency in a given year if they were one of the following:

� At the intermediate level overall in the prior year;

� At the early advanced or advanced level overall but not English proficient because of a lower-than-intermediate rating in one of the domains in the prior year; or

� At the beginning or early intermediate level overall in the prior year and were first enrolled in U.S.schools four or more years ago.

figure 11 Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives 1 and 2 and the Percentageof Local Agencies Meeting Those Objectives, 2003–04 through 2005–06

AMAO 1 AMAO 2

Year Requirement: Percent of Requirement: Percent ofPercent of Annual CELDT Agencies Meeting Percent of Annual Agencies MeetingTakers Expected to Meet AMAO 1 CELDT Takers AMAO 2Annual Growth Target Expected to Attainfor Learning English English Proficiency

2005–06 52.0% 86% 31.4% 87%2004–05 51.5% 85% 30.7% 84%2003–04 51.0% 90% 30.0% 83%

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

considered for reclassification. Large gapsbetween such CELDT and CST ELAperformance on one hand and reclassificationrates on the other can highlight differencesbetween districts’ criteria on those two meas-ures and what the state recommends. Suchgaps may also reveal the role of teacher evalua-tion and parent consultation in reclassificationdecisions. Finally, differences among districts withsimilar performance levels but different reclas-sification rates highlight the variation indistricts’ approaches to reclassifying students.

As can be seen in Figure 12, the percent-age of ELs scoring “English proficient” on

the CELDT is often close to the percentageof ELs scoring basic or above on the CSTELA (though technically speaking, the twogroups may not contain the same individualstudents). Although some districts havesimilar test scores and reclassification rates,others have similar test scores but very differ-ent reclassification rates.

Sacramento City and River Delta aretwo districts with similar test scores andreclassification rates. In contrast, Natomasand Elk Grove have similar performancedata but quite different reclassification rates.In Natomas in 2005–06, more than half of

its ELs scored “English proficient” on theCELDT and basic or above on the CSTELA, but it reclassified only 6% of its ELsin 2006–07. In contrast, Elk Grove, withsimilar CELDT and CST scores, reclassi-fied 15% of its ELs.

These data alone do not make it clearwhy Natomas has a low reclassification rate.One possibility is that the district has anextremely high bar for students to reachbefore they can be reclassified, or thedistrict could be lax in reclassifyingstudents. A third possibility is studentmobility. The lack of a statewide system totrack individual students’ data over timemeans the data do not indicate whether thestudents represented in the chart are thesame students in both years (2005–06 and2006–07). Finally, Figure 12 does notconsider all factors that go into reclassi-fication decisions; for example, teacherevaluation and parent consultation are notreflected here.

In addition, as stated above, districts havethe authority to establish their own reclassi-fication policies, so different approachesshould be expected. However, it does raisethe possibility that students in two nearbydistricts could have very similar levels ofproficiency in English but could receive verydifferent services, in part because of thefunds the districts receive for English learn-ers. For example, Economic Impact Aid is astate program that provides extra funding inpart to help districts address the specialneeds of English learners. (See the box onthis page.)

Performance data offer another viewAlthough it is important for students toattain English proficiency, the state’s ulti-mate goal is to help them learn California’sacademic content standards. Schools anddistricts are monitored for English learners’academic achievement, as measured by theCalifornia Standards Tests (CSTs) andCalifornia High School Exit Exam(CAHSEE). Which students are countedin measures of achievement matters.When the “English learner” subgroupincludes specified RFEP students, the

© Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc. March 2008 � English Learners in California � 11

56%57%

52%

40%

55%52%

49%

54% 53%

42%

43%

51%

4% 5% 6%

10%12%

15%17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

SacramentoCity Unified

River DeltaJoint Unified

NatomasUnified

San JuanUnified

Folsom-CordovaUnified

Elk GroveUnified

Center JointUnified

Unified Districts in Sacramento County

%o

fE

nglis

hL

earn

ers % of ELs Scoring

Basic or Aboveon the English Language ArtsCST in 2005–06

% of ELs Scoring“English Proficient” on the 2005–06 Annual CELDT

Reclassification Rate in 2006–07

47%

figure 12 Reclassification rates in Sacramento County’s unified districts do notalways track with CELDT and CST performance data

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

Districts receive funds based partly on the number of English learners they have

Economic Impact Aid (EIA), a $994-million state program in 2007–08, provides funding to support addi-tional services for English learners and students from low-income families. Under the program, studentcounts and funding formulas are complex, but in rough terms, districts receive on average $318 per Englishlearner and $318 per low-income student each year. (Districts receive double-funding for students who areboth EL and low-income.) This means that reclassifying a student from “English learner” to “fluent Englishproficient” costs a district $318 for each year that the student would otherwise be considered an EL.

In addition to EIA funding, districts receive federal monies earmarked to support the education of immi-grants, English learners, and migrants.

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

12 � English Learners in California � March 2008 © Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc.

group’s achievement is still lower than thestate as a whole; but the rates of improve-ment are similar in percentage-point terms.

The English learner subgroup has shownimprovement on the English language arts CSTMeasuring the academic performance ofEnglish learners is complex because studentsare kept in this subgroup in part because oflow academic achievement.When ELs begincompeting equally with native Englishspeakers, they are reclassified and thus are nolonger considered English learners. By defi-nition, then, the performance level ofEnglish learners will always be lower thantheir counterparts.

If, however, membership in the ELgroup is kept more stable, these students’

improvement can be seen more clearly. Forexample, for measuring performance against“adequate yearly progress” benchmarksunder NCLB, the state includes in the ELsubgroup students who have been redesig-nated fluent English proficient (RFEPs)until they have scored proficient or above onthe CST ELA three times. Using thisapproach, the EL subgroup has shownprogress similar to that shown by the state asa whole in terms of the percentage-pointincrease over time.

Over the last three years, the percentagesof ELs—plus the specified RFEPstudents—scoring proficient or above inEnglish and math has increased. For exam-ple, in 2006–07, 25.7% scored proficient orabove in English, and 35.7% did so in math.

This compares with 24.8% in Englishlanguage arts and 34.8% in math in2005–06.The scores also improved between2004–05 and 2005–06. Comparisons witheven earlier years are not appropriate becausethe rules for whose scores were included inthe percent-proficient calculation for thissubgroup were slightly different.

Figure 13 shows how this “EL plus spec-ified RFEP” subgroup has performed inboth subjects. In addition, the data for thestate as a whole are presented to put the ELresults in context. The portion of the “ELplus specified RFEP” subgroup scoringproficient or above has increased by a largerpercentage than is true for the state as awhole. Consider the results on the Englishlanguage arts test as an example.The percentproficient in the subgroup increased from21.9% to 25.7%, a 3.8 percentage pointincrease that translates to 17.4% growth.That compares to growth of 8.6% in theportion of students in the state as a wholescoring proficient or above. However, thereis still a large gap between the subgroupand the state as a whole that has not changed.

In any case, this comparison is problem-atic because the state results include theachievement of the “EL plus specifiedRFEP” subgroup. (Unfortunately, it is notpossible to compare the subgroup’s improve-ment with that of other students because thestate does not report the performance of thetwo distinct groups of RFEP students: thosewho have scored proficient or above on theCST ELA at least three times and those whohave not. Only the data for the “EL plus spec-ified RFEP” subgroup are publicly available.)

Setting aside the issue of improvementand instead focusing on how various typesof students perform on the CST ELA at amoment in time, it is possible to delineateperformance of four major groups ofstudents based on their English fluency.Figure 14 shows the 2006–07 results forgrade 7. Results are broken down by thefour English fluency categories—initiallyfluent, reclassified, EL, and studentswho speak only English. The highest-performing group is the IFEPs—thosestudents whose primary language is not

figure 13 The progress of the English learner subgroup* on California StandardsTests has been similar to that of the state as a whole

Percent Proficient or Above Percent Proficient or Abovein English Language Arts in Math

Year ELs* State ELs* State2006–07 25.7% 45.5% 35.7% 48.5%2005–06 24.8% 44.8% 34.8% 48.0%2004–05 21.9% 41.9% 31.9% 45.0%

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

*Includes RFEP students who have not yet scored proficient or above on the CST in English language arts three times since being reclassified.

Proposition 227 curtails bilingual instruction

In 1998 voters passed Proposition 227, a statewide ballot initiative intended to curtail the use of bilingualinstruction for English learners. Although under Proposition 227 parents wanting bilingual instruction fortheir children may request it, only 8% of the state’s EL students are currently taught using bilingual educa-tion techniques. This compares with 29% before the proposition’s passage.

The overwhelming majority of ELs are taught in regular classroom settings with a variety of instructionalmodifications and strategies intended to provide meaningful access to the core curriculum as well as toaccelerate their English language development. Under such structured or sheltered immersion, nearly allclassroom instruction is in English but with a curriculum and presentation designed for children who arelearning the language. Local districts determine when a student has a “good working knowledge” of Englishand can be placed in a mainstream classroom.The intention under Proposition 227 is that such structuredimmersion should not normally exceed one year.

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

© Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc. March 2008 � English Learners in California � 13

English but who scored “English proficient”on their Initial CELDT. The RFEPs hadthe next highest scores, followed by the“English-only” students and English learners.

Results from other grades are different.In the early grades, RFEPs performed best,followed by IFEPs and English-onlystudents. And in the upper grades, initiallyfluent students scored highest, English-onlystudents came next, and RFEPs scoredlowest overall.

Two common themes emerge fromthese data: English learners had the lowestoverall scores in every case, as expected, andIFEPs consistently outperformed English-only students. The fact that IFEPs tend toscore higher than English-only studentsraises interesting questions. Does familiar-ity with two languages help IFEPs graspCalifornia’s English language arts contentstandards? If so, why don’t RFEPs haveconsistently high performance?What is thesocioeconomic status of the differentgroups, and how strongly does that relateto their performance?

CAHSEE passage rates for ELs lagJust as English learners generally score lowerthan their peers on the CSTs, they also passthe California High School Exit Exam atlower rates. Take, for example, the estimatedcumulative passage rates for the classes of2006 and 2007.

According to estimates by the state’sevaluator of the CAHSEE program, HumanResources Research Organization (HumRRO),92%of all students in the class of 2006passedboth the English language arts and mathportions of the exam by the time they finished12th grade; but only 78% of ELs passed bothportions. For the class of 2007, the disparitywas greater, with 91% of all students clearingthehurdle and72%of ELspassing. (Note thatin both years the results of “all” studentsincludes the results for English learners.)

The pass rates described above areimportant because they pertain to students’ability to receive a high school diploma.However, they do not indicate how manyattempts students needed to pass. Data onthe number of attempts required are not

available, but the rates of passage onstudents’ first attempt speak to differencesamong groups’ readiness for the test.

Reclassified and initially fluent Englishproficient students are more likely to passthe CAHSEE on the first attempt thanEnglish-only and English learner studentsResults from the “census”CAHSEE admin-istration—in which all students take the testfor the first time in 10th grade—reflect asso-ciations between passing the test and Englishlearner status. Within the EL category,the data can be broken down by English-proficiency level, primary language, andlength of time in U.S. schools.

Data from the 2007 census administra-tion, reflecting the performance of 10thgraders in the class of 2009, show that ELsare far less ready to pass the exam than theirpeers. HumRRO estimates that 65% of allstudents in the class of 2009 (numberingabout 502,000) passed both portions of theexam as 10th graders, but only 26% of theroughly 84,000 10th grade ELs did so. Onthe English language arts portion, 73% of allstudents passed and 34% of ELs cleared thebar. Although the gaps are large, it must beremembered that status as an English learneris partly determined by test performance thatindicates a low level of academic proficiency,particularly in English. In math, the passagerate for all students—72%—was similar tothe results on the English portion, but ELsdid better here, with 44% passing.

Figure 15 on page 14 displays theCAHSEE passage rates of 10th graders in2007 (the class of 2009), broken down byEnglish-fluency category. It shows thatreclassified and initially fluent English pro-ficient students performed better thanEnglish-only and EL students.

Passage rates on the CAHSEE differ byprimary languageJust as performance on the CELDT variesby primary language, so does CAHSEEperformance. Among the 14 primarylanguage categories that HumRRO reportson, including “other/unknown” and“Chinese,” which combines Cantonese and

2006–07 Grade 7 CST English Language Arts Results

4% 2% 7%

23%10% 9%

13%

36%

25% 34%25%

31%

36%

41%34%

9%

26%15%

21%

1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Initially Fluent English Proficient

38,688

Redesignated FluentEnglish Proficient

77,303

English-only

265,049

English Learners

101,080

English Fluency Category

%S

cori

ngat

Eac

hPe

rfo

rman

ceL

evel

Advanced

Proficient

Basic

Below Basic

Far Below Basic

Number Tested

figure 14 IFEP students consistently score higher than English-only students on the CSTin English language arts, and English learners consistently have the lowest scores

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 3/08

Note: The percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

14 � English Learners in California � March 2008 © Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc.

Mandarin, passing rates vary substantially.For 10th graders in 2007, passage ratesranged from 31% (Khmer) to 63%(Korean) on the English portion. In math,pass rates went from 41% (Spanish) to95% (Korean). However, the higher-scoringgroups tend to have relatively few members.

The CAHSEE passing rate for allEnglish learners reflects the fact that thevast majority of ELs are Spanish-speaking(83% of 10th grade test-takers in 2007)and that these Spanish-speaking Englishlearners struggle to match the performanceof ELs with other primary languages.

Figure 16 shows the 2007 10th gradeCAHSEE performance of the seven primarylanguage groups with 1,000 or more students.It shows that Spanish-speaking English learn-ers score at or near the bottom in English andmath. Korean-speaking students perform verywell on both, and other groups fall somewherein between. (The passing rate for Khmer-speaking ELs—not displayed in the figurebelow because the group is comprised offewer than 1,000 students—is lower than therate for Spanish speakers.)The socioeconomicstatus data from the Public Policy Institute ofCalifornia noted earlier suggest that parenteducation levels and poverty among thesegroups could be important variables.However, HumRRO does not provide datathat connect primary language with socioeco-nomic status.

The relationship between time spent inU.S. schools and CAHSEE passage ratesis complexIt may seem reasonable to assume that thelonger students spend in U.S. schools, themore likely they would be to pass theCAHSEE. However, with English learners,the relationship between the number of yearsin American schools and performance on theCAHSEE is complex. The English learnergroup in grade 10 has recent arrivals withstrong academic backgrounds and otherswith little schooling; it also has those whohave been in California schools since kinder-garten but have not yet been reclassified.

The relationship between time in Amer-ican schools and CAHSEE performance isdifferent for English language arts and math.HumRRO reports the passage rates of 10thgraders in 2007, broken down by thenumber of years of schooling the studentshave had in the United States.

For the English language arts section,passage rates generally increase with thenumber of years spent in American schools.The major exception is students with morethan 11 years of schooling (those who haverepeated at least one grade). Their perform-ance is below that of all other ELs exceptthose with two or fewer years of schoolingin the United States.

10th Grade CAHSEE Results in 2007

95%

86% 88%

62% 63% 61%

41%

63%58%

50% 49% 47%

38%33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Korean

1,024

Vietnamese

1,323

Chinese

1,936

Filipino

1,132

Other/Unknown 2,948

Hmong

1,569

Spanish

65,421

Primary Language

%o

f10t

hG

rade

rsP

assi

ng

Percent Passing Math

Percent Passing English

Number Tested inEnglish Language Arts*

figure 16 CAHSEE first-time passage rates vary substantially by primary language

Data: Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) EdSource 3/08

*Similar to number tested in math.

Note: This figure displays only the results of groups with more than 1,000 students.

89%85%88% 85%83%

79%

36%

46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

English Language Arts Math

Subject Tested

%P

assi

ng

RFEP

IFEP

English-only

English Learner

figure 15 10th grade RFEP and IFEP students have higher passing rates on the 2007CAHSEE than their English-only peers, but English learners lag far behind

Data: Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) EdSource 3/08

Note: The passing rates indicated in this figure are based on test-takers, which is in contrast to the passing rates for the class of 2009 and itsEnglish learners described on page 13. Those rates are based on the estimated total enrollment.

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

© Copyright 2008 by EdSource, Inc. March 2008 � English Learners in California � 15

In contrast, 10th grade students whohave spent 3–5 years in U.S. schools havethe highest passage rates (54%–56%) onthe math portion. Students who have beenin U.S. schools for somewhat less time orsomewhat more time pass the CAHSEE atslightly lower rates—about 50%. Those ateither end of the spectrum—students whohave been here less than one year and thosewho have been here for nine or moreyears—have the lowest passing rates. (SeeFigure 17.)

These data raise a number of questions.Why do the English language arts resultsfollow a pattern that is different from themath results? If these students are trulyEnglish learners, how are they able to pass theexam at all?What are the appropriate crite-ria for labeling students as English learners?Should students not be reclassified becauseof difficulty with academic English asopposed to a lack of English fluency?

English learners appear to have adisproportionately high dropout rateInformation on dropouts in California isalways an estimate because the state doesnot have a system of tracking individualstudents over time. That said, CDE

publishes data that school districts reportabout dropouts, with students categorizedin a number of ways. The most recent dataavailable from 2005–06 show that Englishlearners constituted 33% of the roughly68,000 dropouts from grades 9–12. WithELs comprising 15% of students enrolledin those grades, it is clear that ELs are over-represented among the dropouts. Whethera lack of English proficiency was the sole ormajor factor that drove students to stopattending school is unclear, but the dataraise questions about the relationshipbetween proficiency in English—or at leastthe “English learner” designation—andstudents’ persistence in high school.

The numbers show that despitesome progress, English learners faceconsiderable challengesEnglish learners make up 25% of thestate’s students, but they are found indifferent proportions throughout thegrades and regions of the state. Althoughthey are predominantly Spanish-speaking,California’s ELs represent more than 55primary languages. They also come toschool with different levels of Englishfluency and socioeconomic backgrounds.

In addition, EL students achieveEnglish proficiency at varying rates. In2005–06, 62% of English learners metannual growth targets, and 40% of ELsdeemed within reach of English profi-ciency actually attained it. However, localagencies’ targets for student improvement(“AMAOs”), established under federalTitle III regulations, are structured suchthat nearly nine in 10 agencies met theirannual goals that year. The high rate ofdistrict success causes some to questionwhether the bar is high enough. Othersare happy to see that the state has anassessment of English proficiency andthat ELs’ progress toward fluency is beingmonitored—which was not the caseseven years ago. However, CaliforniaHigh School Exit Exam results and thisreport’s close look at Sacramento Countyunified districts’ relationship betweenperformance data and reclassificationrates raise questions about the consistencyof the criteria used to reclassify studentsas fluent.

Through the CST ELA, the state alsomonitors English learners’ and recentlyredesignated students’ mastery of theacademic content standards (not simply fluency)in English language arts. The results are insome ways positive: the percentage of thatsubgroup scoring proficient or above hasgrown faster than the portion of allstudents statewide scoring at that level.However, there is still a large and persistentgap between the subgroup and the state’sstudents as a whole.

Despite some progress being made bythe state’s English learners, the statisticspresented in this report confirm thatmeeting their educational needs remainsan ambitious and difficult task for Cali-fornia’s public schools. The challengesvary from school to school and fromdistrict to district throughout the state.This report has described the extentof that variation, which can help informpolicymakers, educators, and communityleaders as they take on their importantwork on behalf of California’s Englishlearners.

More time in U.S. schools leads to higher pass rates on the English section, but not math

16%

22%

30%32%

36% 37%39% 40% 40% 39% 41% 42%

31%

41%

50% 51%

56% 57%54%

51% 51%49%

44% 44%46%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Less than 1906

15,511

28,111

33,940

43,590

52,991

62,734

72,435

82,015

91,854

103,736

1127,162

More than 1112,293

(Repeated atleast one grade.)

Number of Years in U.S. Schools

%o

f10t

hG

rade

EL

sP

assi

ngin

2007

ELs who have been in U.S. schools for 3–5 years have the highest passing rates on the math section.

English Language Arts

Math

rtsOn the English language a, the more time spent in U.S. sections, the better the chance of school

except for grade repeaters). passing (

Number Tested inEnglish Language Arts*

figure 17 English learner CAHSEE passage rates differ as length of enrollment changes

Data: Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) EdSource 3/08

*Similar to number tested in math.

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

Davis Campbell, PresidentPresident, California School Boards AssociationGovernance Institute

Lawrence O. Picus, Vice PresidentProfessor, Rossier School of Education,University of Southern California

Martha Kanter, Fiscal OfficerChancellor, Foothill-De Anza CommunityCollege District

John B. Mockler, SecretaryPresident, John Mockler & Associates, Inc.

Susan K. BurrExecutive Director, California County SuperintendentsEducational Services Association

Carl A. CohnDistinguished Leader in Residence, Collegeof Education, San Diego State University

Christopher CrossChair and CEO, Cross & Joftus, LLC

Kenneth F. HallExecutive in Residence, Universityof Southern California

Gerald C. HaywardCo-director (Retired), Policy Analysis for CaliforniaEducation

Janis R. HirohamaPresident, League of Women Voters of California

Santiago JacksonDirector, Office of Legislative and GovernmentalAffairs, Los Angeles Unified School District

Kelvin K. LeeSuperintendent (Retired), Dry Creek JointElementary School District

Donna LillyCo-president, American Association of UniversityWomen–California

Jo A.S. LossPresident-elect, California State PTA

Paul J. MarkowitzTeacher, Las Virgenes Unified School District

Amado M. PadillaProfessor, School of Education, Stanford University

Don ShalveyCEO and Co-founder, Aspire Public Schools

Krys WulffImmediate Past Director-at-large, AmericanAssociation of University Women

2007–08 EdSource Board of Directors

Trish WilliamsEdSource Executive Director

There exists a large body of resources representing a variety of perspectives on EL issues. The following list is asampling of reports or data sources that may be useful for readers wishing to do further research into some of thetopics presented in this report.

� California Department of Education� CELDT home page: www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/� DataQuest allows users to look up information on English learners and “fluent English proficient” (FEP) students,

such as their primary languages, distribution among grades, and instructional settings.http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/

� To see the evaluations of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/evaluations.asp

� Ed-Data: A wealth of information can be found on this interactive website, including financial, demographic, andaccountability data for schools, districts, counties, and the state. The site also provides powerful school and districtcomparison functions. www.ed-data.k12.ca.us

� EdSource� Williams, T., Hakuta, K., Haertel, E., et al. Similar English Learner Students, Different Results: Why Do Some

Schools Do Better? A follow-up analysis, based on a large-scale survey of California elementary schools servinglow-income and EL students. May 2007. www.edsource.org/pdf/SimELreportcomplete.pdf

� California State Auditor: Bureau of State Audits� Department of Education: School Districts’ Inconsistent Identification and Redesignation of English Learners

Cause Funding Variances and Make Comparisons of Performance Outcomes Difficult. June 2005.www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2004-120.pdf

� Public Policy Institute of California� Jepson, C. and de Alth, S. English Learners in California Schools. 2005.

www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_405CJR.pdf

� Legislative Analyst’s Office� The Progress of English Learner Students: Update 2002–2004. Jan. 26, 2006.

www.lao.ca.gov/2006/eng_lrnr_updt/eng_lrnr_updt_012606.pdf

� A Look at the Progress of English Learner Students. Feb. 12, 2004.www.lao.ca.gov/2004/english_learners/021204_english_learners.pdf

� American Institutes for Research, et al.Evaluations of Proposition 227 done from 2001 through 2004.www.air.org/publications/pubs_ehd_school_reform.aspx

� University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute’s website contains links to data sources and the manyreports it has issued, including some listed below. In addition, it has a searchable database that allows users toview and search through research reports published by outside sources. www.lmri.ucsb.edu� Gándara, P. and Rumberger, R. Resource Needs for California’s English Learners. Dec. 30, 2006.

http://irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/STUDIES/22-Gandara-Rumberger/22-Gandara-Rumberger(3-07).pdf

� Hakuta, K. “How Long Does It Take English Learners to Attain Proficiency?” Jan. 1, 2000.http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=lmri

� Linquanti, R. The Redesignation Dilemma: Challenges and choices in fostering meaningful accountability forEnglish learners. September 2001. http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=lmri

� Scarcella, R. Academic English: A Conceptual Framework. April 2003.www.lmri.ucsb.edu/publications/03_scarcella.pdf

To Learn More

520 San Antonio Rd, Suite 200, Mountain View, CA 94040-1217 • 650/917-9481 • Fax: 650/917-9482 • [email protected] • www.californiaschoolfinance.org • www.ed-data.k12.ca.us