Understanding  Language  Learning  Among  Students  with  Limited  or  Interrupted  Formal  Educa:on  

(SLIFE)    

AAAL  2014  Colloquium  March  22,  2014  

Organizer:      Andrea  DeCapua              Discussant:        Elaine  Tarone  

     

Presenter  Christopher  Browder  

   

Do  High  School  English  Learners’  Previous  Formal  Schooling  Backgrounds  Affect  Their  English  Proficiency  Gains?          

Research  quesHon:    Do  high  school  English  learners’  (EL)  previous  formal  schooling  backgrounds  affect  their  English  proficiency  gains?  

Chris  Browder  [copyright  2014]  

3  

Why  is  it  important?  •  Policy  implica:ons  – No  Child  LeY  Behind  &  Race  to  the  Top  •  schools  and  teachers  held  accountable  for  EL  students’  rate  of  English  learning    

(U.S.  Congress,  2002;  Duran,  2008,  New  York  State  Educa:on  Department,  2014)  

4  

Why  is  it  important?  •  Policy  implica:ons  – Need  to  accurately  iden:fy  students  for  interven:ons  

5  

Why  is  it  important?  •  Research  –  Lack  of  research    (DeCapua,  Smathers,  &  Tang,  2010;  Tarone,  Bigelow,  &  Hansen,  2009;  Tarone,  2010;  Zehr,  2009)  

6  

Sample:  •  199  high  school  students  classified  as  EL    –  diverse  popula:on  •  racially/ethnically  •  socio-­‐economically  

–  school  context  • well-­‐resourced  •  suburban/semi-­‐urban  •  east-­‐coast  school  district      

[See  supplementary  materials  for  more  demographic  data  and  preliminary  analyses.]  

7  

Methods:  •  Quan:tatve:    –  bivariate  and  mul:variate  regression  analyses  –  student  survey  and  school  system  data  

8  

Dependent  variable:  English  gains  •  English  as  a  second  language  acquisi:on    

(2012  WIDA)  –  (2011  LAS)  =  gain  2011-­‐12    (CTB/McGraw-­‐Hill  LLC,  2007;  Kenyon,  2006;  WIDA  Consor:um:  World  Class  Instruc:onal  Design  and  Assessment,  2007)  

9  

Key  independent  variable:    students’  previous  formal  schooling  backgrounds    

How to operationalize previous formal schooling?  

10  

TIME  SPENT  IN  SCHOOL  (SCHOOLING)    as  an  indicator  of  previous  formal  schooling  

•  Interrupted  formal  educaHon  (NYSDOE)  –  2  years  or  more  of  missing  schooling  on  arrival  

dichotomous  variable  (1  =  yes,  0  =  no)  SIFE:  student  with  interrupted  formal  educaHon  (New  York  State  Department  of  Educa:on,  2011)  

11  

THE  PRODUCTS  OF  SCHOOLING  (EDUCATION)  as  an  indicator  of  previous  formal  schooling  

•  Below-­‐grade-­‐level  math  skills  on  arrival  –  dichotomous  variable  (1  =  below,  0  =  on  or  above)    Example)  incoming  9th  grader  no  pre-­‐algebra  skills  

12  

THE  PRODUCTS  OF  SCHOOLING  (EDUCATION)  as  an  indicator  of  previous  formal  schooling  

•  self-­‐reported  L1  literacy  on  arrival  from  student  survey  in  2012    –  L1  literacy  con:nuous  variable  (1  to  4  with  1  being  lowest)  

–  Low  L1  literacy  (scores  of  2  or  lower)  

13  

Other  independent  variables  being  controlled  for  

•  ESOL  classes:  –  number  of  sheltered  ESOL  classes  the  student  took  in  2011-­‐2012  school  year  

14  

How  common  was  limited  formal  schooling  for  ELs?  

Similar  to  other  es:mates  (DeCapua,  Smathers,  &  Tang,  2007;  Fleischman  &  Hopstock,  1993;  Ruiz-­‐de-­‐Valasco  &  Fix,  2000;  Walsh,  1999;  Zehr,  2009)   15  

Did  SIFE  have  lower  English  proficiency  in  2012?  

16  

a  strong  and  significant  negaHve  

associaHon  

Do  SIFE  learn  English  more  slowly?  

17  

no  significant  associaHon  

Does  arriving  with  below-­‐grade-­‐level  math  skills  predict  slower  English  learning?  

18  

a  significant  negaHve  

associaHon  

stronger  when  controlling  for  

ESOL  

Does  arriving  with  low  L1  literacy  predict  slower  English  learning?    

19  

a  significant  negaHve  

associaHon  

sHll  significant  when  controlling  

for  ESOL  

Is  L1  literacy  a  product  of  schooling?  

20  

a  significant  posiHve  

associaHon  

Are  math  skills  a  product  of  schooling?  

21  

a  strong  and  significant  negaHve  

associaHon  

FINDINGS  

•  The  prevalence  of  limited  formal  schooling  – Nearly  14%  of  the  students  had  at  least  two  fewer  years  of  grade-­‐rela:ve  schooling  and  would  be  classified  as  SIFE  in  New  York  State.  

– Nearly  59%  had  arrived  with  below-­‐grade-­‐level  math  skills.  

– Nearly  20%  reported  low  L1  literacy  skills.  

22  

FINDINGS  

•  English  proficiency  aWainment  –  SIFE  tended  to  have  lower  English  proficiency  later  because  they  had  arrived  with  lower  English  proficiency  not  because  of  slower  learning.  

23  

FINDINGS  

•  The  effect  of  Hme  spent  in  school  (formal  schooling)    –  Students’  grade-­‐rela:ve  years  of  schooling  (SIFE)  not  significantly  associated  with  English  gains    

24  

FINDINGS  

•  The  effect  of  arriving  with  lower  academic  skills?  –  Significantly  associated  with  lower  English  gains.  •  Arriving  with  below-­‐grade-­‐level  math  skills  •  Arriving  with  lower  L1  literacy    

25  

APPLICATIONS  •  Consider  students’…  – Math  skills  –  L1  literacy  skills  

–  as  more  reliable  predictors  of  their  rate  of  English  learning  than  grades  completed  in  school  before  coming  to  the  U.S.  

   –  to  measure  the  adequacy  of  a  student’s  previous  formal  schooling  

26  

APPLICATIONS  

•  ELs  should  be  given  math  and  L1  literacy  tests  during  intake.  

•  Newcomer  programs  and  other  services  for  SIFE  should  consider  more  than  just  missing  years  of  schooling  as  eligibility.  

27  

Bibliography Abedi, J. (2008). Classification system for English learners: Issues and recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17-31. Advocates for Children. (2008). Know your rights: A guide to immigrant students and parents in the New York City Public Schools. New York, NY. Advocates for Children of New York. (2010). Students with interrupted formal education: A challenge for the New York City Public Schools. Batalova, J., & McHugh, M. (2010). Number and growth of students in U.S. schools in need of English instruction. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Bigelow, M., delMas, R., Hansen, K., & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 665-689. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. CTB/McGraw-Hill LLC. (2007). LAS links: Connecting assessment, language, and learning. Monterey, CA: McGraw-Hill . DeCapua, A., Smathers, W., & Tang, L. (2007). Schooling, interrupted. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 40-46. DeCapua, A., Smathers, W., & Tang, L. (2010). Meeting the needs of students with limited or interrupted schooling. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Duran, R. P. (2008). Assessing English-language learners' achievement. Review of Research in Education, 12, 292-327. Fleischman, H., & Hopstock, P. (1993). Descriptive study of services to limited English proficient students, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Freeman, Y., Freeman, D., & Mercuri, S. (2001). Keys to success for bilingual students with limited formal schooling. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(1 & 2). Kenyon, D. M. (2006). The Bridge Study between Tests of ENglish Language Proficiency and ACCESS for ELLs (R): Part II B: LAS Results. Washington, DC: The Center for Applied Linguistics. New York State Department of Education. (2011). Guidelines for educating limited English proficient students with interruptted formal education. NYSDOE. New York State Education Department. (2014, February 7). Race to the Top. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from NYSED.gov: http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/teachers-leaders/ Passel, J. S., & Fix, M. (1994). Myths about immigrants. Foreign Policy, 95, 151-161. Ruiz-de-Valasco, J., & Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Short, D. (2002). Newcomer programs: An educational alternative for secondary immigrant students. Education and Urban Society, 34(2), 173-198. Slavin, R. E. (1990). IBM's writing to read: Is it right for reading? Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 214-216. Somerset County Public Schools. (2013). Acronyms and definitions. Retrieved March 3, 2014, from Somerset County Public Schools: Success and nothing less: http://www.somerset.k12.md.us/BOE/Departments/Instruction/ELL/Definitions.htm Stoops, N. (2004). Educational attainment in the United States: 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. Tarone, E. (2010). Second language acquisition by low-literate learners: An under-studied population. Language Teaching, 43(1), 75-83. Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy and second language oracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. U.S. Congress. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public law 107-110. January 8, 2002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress. Walsh, C. (1999). Enabling academic success for secondary students with limited formalschooling: A study of the Haitian literacy program at Hyde Park High School in Boston. Providence, RI: Brown University. WIDA Consortium: World Class Instructional Design and Assessment. (2007). Understanding the WIDA English Language Proficiency Standards: A Resource Guide. WIDA Consortium. Zehr, M. A. (2009). N.Y.C. test sizes up ELLs with little formal schoolinng. Education Week, 28(23), 13.

28