Search

Students who drop out of high school are at increased risk of a range of negative social and economic consequences, including lower earnings and poorer health. To reduce dropout rates and lessen these negative consequences, districts around the country are using early warning indicators to identify and provide supports for students at risk of dropping out. Typically, these early warning indicators include some combination of attendance, course failures, grade point average, and suspensions or expulsions. It is not clear whether these commonly used early warning indicators work equally well for English learner students. National data suggest that English learner students drop out of high school at higher rates than other students do. English learner students are a heterogeneous group that includes students born in the United States, new immigrants, and refugees, all with varying degrees of prior exposure to English and, for those not born in the United States, different education experiences prior to arrival. Some English learner students start kindergarten in this country, while others do not arrive here until they are in high school. Some English learner students may receive only two or three years of English language services, while others may receive eight or more years. Current national data do not capture the variation in dropout and graduation rates for those different types of English learner students. This study compares data for a particular group of students--those who were classified as English learner students at any point in their K-12 education (referred to as "ever-English learner students" in this report) with data for students who were never classified as English learner students (referred to as "never-English learner students"). It also compares outcomes across subgroups of the ever-English learner student population. Specifically, the study addresses how the graduation and dropout rates of different subgroups of ever-English learner students compare with one another and with those of never-English learner students. And it examines whether two early warning indicators used to predict dropping out (six or more absences in grade 9 plus at least one course failure in grade 9, and at least one suspension or expulsion in grade 9) are accurate and useful indicators for different groups of ever-English learner students compared with never-English learner students. The students in the study are from six school districts in the south King County area of Washington state. The districts are part of the Road Map Project, a cradle-to-career initiative that seeks to double the number of students on track to graduate from college or earn a career credential between 2010 and 2020. As part of the initiative, the districts have been using a common set of early warning indicators since 2011. The initiative also has a work group focused on the large number of English learner students in the region. Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest has partnered with the work group since 2012 to use data and evidence to better understand the needs and challenges of English learner students and to inform decisions about policy and practice. The study findings highlight notable differences in graduation and dropout rates among subgroups of English learner students. Key findings from the study include: (1) Students who had ever been English learners had four-year graduation rates that were 9.5 percentage points lower and dropout rates that were 0.7 percentage point higher than those of students who had never been English learners; (2) Certain subgroups of English learner students had considerably different graduation and dropout rates from those of other English learner students; relative to long-term proficient English learner students, newcomer English learner students' four-year graduation rates were 33.8 percentage points lower and their dropout rates were 5.8 percentage points higher; and (3) The Road Map Project's early warning indicators, originally developed for Seattle Public Schools, were unable to accurately identify many future dropouts, especially among newcomer English learner students. Given that the accuracy of the Road Map Project indicators varied for subgroups of English learner students and may be evidence of the need to select and validate indicators specifically for the population of interest, the Road Map Project and other states and districts may want to examine the accuracy of their own indicators for different student populations. If early warning indicators are weaker for a specific subgroup of English learner students, then teachers, counselors, and others may want to monitor the needs of that group in other ways. The following are appended: (1) Data and methodology; and (2) Supplemental results.

English learners and students with disabilities both need educational supports to succeed in school. However, the kinds of support these two groups of students need may be different, and not receiving appropriate supports may have negative consequences on student learning (Callahan, 2013; Scott, Boynton Hauerwas, and Brown, 2014). To provide appropriate supports, schools need to accurately identify students who are both English learners and have disabilities. Research that examines the proportion of English learners identified for special education often has contradictory findings. Depending on the population examined or the method used, English learners may be over- or underrepresented in special education compared to students who are not English learners (Morgan et al., 2015; Skiba, Artiles, Kozleski, Losen, and Harry, 2016). Either way, these students are at risk of not receiving appropriate educational supports. This study uses 2012/13 data from Washington state to compare the percentages of current and former English learners ("ever-English learners") in special education to the percentage of never-English learners in special education. It also compares the grades at which ever- and never-English learners are first identified for special education. The study further examines whether representation in and identification for special education varies by gender, home language, race and ethnicity, English learner status, and level of English proficiency. The study found that overall, ever-English learners were as likely to be in special education as never-English learners. During the 2012/13 school year in K-12 schools, 13 percent of both ever- and never-English learners were in special education. The study also found that ever-English learners were identified for special education in later grades than never-English learners. Some groups of ever-English learners were under- or overrepresented in special education or identified in later grades compared to never-English learners. (1) Girls were underrepresented in special education and identified for special education in later grades than boys, regardless of their English learner status; (2) American Indian/Alaska Native ever-English learners were overrepresented in special education and identified in earlier grades than other never- and ever-English learners; (3) English learners who spoke home languages other than Somali or Spanish were underrepresented in special education compared to never-English learners; (4) English learners who had been classified for five or more years, without attaining proficiency in English, were overrepresented in special education compared to never-English learners, and former English learners who had been proficient in English for two or more years were underrepresented in special education; and (5) English learners with beginning and intermediate English proficiency were overrepresented in special education and identified in later grades than never-English learners. Methods and Data Tables are appended.

With the increased population of English learners (ELs), educators need programs that help students access academic content while learning to understand, speak, read, and write English (Tharp, Estrada, Dalteen, & Yamaguchi 2000; Echevarria, Short & Powers, 2006). ELs come into U.S. schools needing to learn the same grade-level content as their nonEL peers, but with the additional challenge of learning English--usually the language of instruction--as well. Although some approaches separate the two tasks, many researchers and practitioners call for integrating them, so that students do not miss content area instruction while they are learning English. One way to combine the two is sheltered instruction, which provides intentional linguistic and other supports to ELs to facilitate their learning of grade-level content (Echevarria, Short & Powers, 2008). As a recent review of the research makes clear, however, there is limited evidence to show the effectiveness of sheltered instruction (Goldenberg, 2013). Since the early 1990s, Project GLAD (Guided Language Acquisition Design) has made claim to be a program that helps teachers meet diverse language and content needs within the mainstream classroom (Brechtel, 2001). Project GLAD is a multi-component K-12 instructional model designed to build academic English and grade-level content knowledge for students at varying levels of English language proficiency. The study discussed herein was a two-year cluster randomized trial in fifth-grade classrooms from 30 Idaho schools across 21 different districts. It focused on two research questions: (1) What is the impact of Project GLAD teacher training on fifth-grade students' reading comprehension, vocabulary, writing and science achievement in the treatment classrooms during the first of implementation, compared to a "business as usual" control group? and (2) Is the program impact different for ELs? Twelve tables are appended.

In 2009, the United States Department of Education conducted a competition for a second round of Striving Readers grants. Its dual purpose was to: (1) Raise middle and high school students' literacy levels in Title I-eligible schools with significant numbers of students reading below grade level; and (2) Build a strong, scientific research base for identifying and replicating strategies that improve adolescent literacy skills through a required experimental study design. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), Washington's state education agency, joined together with evaluators at Education Northwest to submit a proposal for the competition. Washington state was one of just eight states to be awarded Striving Readers grants in the second round. The grant originally included a planning year, followed by three years of implementation in selected schools. However, Congress eliminated the funding for the program in spring 2011, three-quarters of the way through the first year of implementation. Existing funding was sufficient to complete the first year of program implementation and data collection, but the second and third years of implementation did not take place. Therefore, this Year 1 evaluation report is the only report about the program's implementation and outcomes. Five schools from three districts in Western Washington participated in Washington Striving Readers. Across the five schools, a total of 176 students participated in the treatment condition and 182 students were in the control condition. The program offered 70 hours of professional development for teachers, and all teachers participated in at least 90 percent of these offerings. All teachers also received the intended amount of in-class support, defined as at least 12 visits from a project coach with each visit lasting at least one hour. The study examined four aspects of program implementation: teachers' receipt of the intended professional development, their receipt of in-class coaching, their delivery of the programs as intended, and the completion of all the lessons that were supposed to be covered. Researchers used three different assessments to measure impact: (1) "Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test"; (2) two subtests from the "Woodcock Reading Mastery" assessment--the word attack and word identification subtests; and (3) scores from the "Measure of Student Progress" ("MSP"). Researchers examined the overall impact of Washington Striving Readers using a fixed effects regression model that accounted for the random assignment of students within schools and groups. The findings demonstrated that it is possible to make a statistically significant difference in struggling students' overall literacy achievement in the course of one school year. Students in the Washington Striving Readers intervention performed better on the state reading assessment than did students in the control condition, who did not receive any supplemental reading support. The following are appended: (1) Washington Striving Readers Implementation Measures; (2) Baseline Equivalence of Treatment and Control Groups; and (3) Detailed Regression Analysis Results.

This study describes the proficiency levels of limited English proficient (LEP) students and LEP student subgroups on the Idaho English Language Assessment (IELA). The report addresses two research questions: (1) What is the distribution of LEP students across proficiency levels on the total IELA scale and its five domains?; and (2) How does the distribution of proficiency levels differ across LEP student subgroups? Key findings include the following: (1) Most LEP students had an intermediate, early fluent, or fluent level of proficiency. Students at these levels can participate in classroom activities, although they still require support, particularly with the development of academic English; (2) In both kindergarten and grades 1-12 in 2010, the proficiency levels with the smallest percentage of LEP students was at the beginning or advanced beginning levels of proficiency (16.4 percent in kindergarten and 7.6-9.3 percent of students in grades 1-12); (3) In kindergarten, more than half (58 percent) of LEP students were at the early fluent or fluent proficiency level in 2010. More kindergarten LEP students were at the beginning level than at the advanced beginning level; (4) In grades 1-12, the largest percentage of LEP students was at the early fluent or fluent proficiency level, the second largest percentage at the intermediate level, the third largest percentage at the advanced beginning level, and the smallest percentage at the beginning level; (5) There were few differences in the proficiency levels of LEP students across the five IELA domains, with more than half of students at the early fluent/fluent level in each domain. In all grade spans except kindergarten (where the percentage was somewhat larger), fewer than 8 percent of students were at the beginning level in any domain. In elementary school, the writing domain had the largest percentage of students at the beginning level; in middle and high school, speaking had the largest percentage. The pattern of language proficiency for nearly all LEP student subgroups was similar to the pattern in the overall LEP population. Generally, the largest percentage of LEP students was at the early fluent or fluent proficiency level, and the smallest percentage was at the beginning level; and (6) Some LEP student subgroups had achievement patterns that differed from the pattern of the overall LEP student population. In each grade span, more female LEP students than male LEP students scored at the early fluent or fluent level. Except in kindergarten, students new to U.S. schools within the previous 12 months and students in special education had lower levels of English language proficiency than did other LEP student subgroups. [For the full report, "English Language Proficiency Levels of Limited English Proficient Students in Idaho. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 125," see ED528962.]

One of the largest initiatives using coaching has been Reading First, a federal project whose purpose is to improve reading outcomes for students in low-performing K-3 schools. The present study addressed two questions: (1) Who becomes a reading coach, and what background, skills, and qualifications do coaches bring to their jobs? and (2) How do coaches actually perform their jobs? That is, how do they spend their time, and what do they see as their focus? The research answers these questions with data from and about Reading First coaches. The answers are relevant for Reading First--which includes about 1,550 districts and 5,200 schools across the nation. They are also relevant for the many other schools and districts emulating Reading First. Simply knowing that literacy coaches are in schools does not imply anything about how those individuals spend their time--there is a difference between being a coach and doing coaching. The researchers identified five categories of coaches: data-oriented; student-oriented; managerial; and two teacher-oriented categories, one that works largely with individual teachers; and another that works with groups. The article begins by describing what the literature says about coaching and coaching. It defines coaching and explains what coaches do besides coaching, how coaching affects teachers and student achievement, and how coaching is done in the Reading First program. The article then details the findings of the present study which builds on the findings of the previous literature and looks at who becomes a Reading First coach and how coaches actually spend their time. Methods are presented in an appendix. (Contains 9 tables, 1 box, and 3 notes.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education by Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest administered by Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.]