Presentation by C Browder at the Colloquium "Understanding Language Learning Among Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education (SLIFE )." AAAL 2014 Convention, Portland, OR

1. 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

2. Presenter
Christopher
Browder
Do
High
School
English
Learners’
Previous
Formal
Schooling
Backgrounds
Affect
Their
English
Proficiency
Gains?

3. Research
quesHon:
Do
high
school
English
learners’
(EL)
previous
formal
schooling
backgrounds
affect
their
English
proficiency
gains?
Chris
Browder
[copyright
2014]
3

4. 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

5. Why
is
it
important?
• Policy
implica:ons
– Need
to
accurately
iden:fy
students
for
interven:ons
5

6. Why
is
it
important?
• Research
– Lack
of
research
(DeCapua,
Smathers,
&
Tang,
2010;
Tarone,
Bigelow,
&
Hansen,
2009;
Tarone,
2010;
Zehr,
2009)
6

7. 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

8. Methods:
• Quan:tatve:
– bivariate
and
mul:variate
regression
analyses
– student
survey
and
school
system
data
8

9. 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

10. Key
independent
variable:
students’
previous
formal
schooling
backgrounds
How to operationalize previous formal schooling?
10

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Other
independent
variables
being
controlled
for
• ESOL
classes:
– number
of
sheltered
ESOL
classes
the
student
took
in
2011-­‐2012
school
year
14

15. 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

16. Did
SIFE
have
lower
English
proficiency
in
2012?
16
a
strong
and
significant
negaHve
associaHon

17. Do
SIFE
learn
English
more
slowly?
17
no
significant
associaHon

18. Does
arriving
with
below-­‐grade-­‐level
math
skills
predict
slower
English
learning?
18
a
significant
negaHve
associaHon
stronger
when
controlling
for
ESOL

19. Does
arriving
with
low
L1
literacy
predict
slower
English
learning?
19
a
significant
negaHve
associaHon
sHll
significant
when
controlling
for
ESOL

20. Is
L1
literacy
a
product
of
schooling?
20
a
significant
posiHve
associaHon

21. Are
math
skills
a
product
of
schooling?
21
a
strong
and
significant
negaHve
associaHon

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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