department of evaluation and accountability

100 Pages·2011·0.47 MB·English

Dallas Independent School District

FINAL EVALUATION OF THE DUAL LANGUAGE,
TRANSITIONAL BILINGUAL EDUCATION
AND ESL PROGRAMS
2010-2011

EA11-126-2

DEPARTMENT OF EVALUATION
AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Alan King, CPA
Interim Superintendent of Schools
This page intentionally left blank.
Dallas Independent School District

Alan King, CPA
Interim Superintendent of Schools

FINAL EVALUATION OF THE DUAL LANGUAGE,
TRANSITIONAL BILINGUAL EDUCATION
AND ESL PROGRAMS

2010-11

EA11-126-2

Rosemary Garcia-Rincón

Approved Report of the Department of Evaluation and Accountability

Nancy Kihneman, Ph.D. Cecilia Oakeley, Ph.D.
Director – Program Evaluation Executive Director
Evaluation and Accountability

Dallas, Texas
August 2011
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents

Page
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION………………………………………………………………………. 3
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION……………………………………………… 7
MAJOR EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND RESULTS………………………………………… 8
2.1 What were the demographic characteristics of grades prekindergarten through 12
English Language Learners?.............................................................................. 8
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………..………. 8
Results………………………………………………………………………………….……… 8
2.2 What were the demographic characteristics and credential status of Dual Language
and ESL program teachers?........................................................................................... 15
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
Results……………………………………………………………………………………….… 15
2.3 What was the level of Dual language and ESL program implementation in 28
2010-11?.........……………………………………………………………………………..…
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………..… 28
Results………………………………………………………………………………..……..… 28
2.4 What were the BE/ESL teachers’ impressions of the Instructional Coaching Program? 32
Methodology………………………………………………………………………….……..… 33
Results……………………………………………………………………………….………... 33
2.5 What was the effect of the Dual Language/ESL programs on raising ELL students’
English proficiency level and general academic achievement in 2010-11?………….... 36
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………..… 36
Results……………………………………………………………………………………..…. 38
2.6 What progress have the Dual Language cohort One- and Two-way groups made in
closing the achievement gap with non-ELL students in 2010-11?................................ 62
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………..…. 62
Results…………………………………………………………………………………………. 63
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………….… 66
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………….… 71

i
List of Tables
Table Page
1 Number and Percent of Identified ELL, Exited ELL and Non-ELL Students
by Grade, 2010-11 .............................................................................................. 11
2 Most Frequently Spoken Languages Among ELL Students 2009-10 and
2010-11 ............................................................................................................... 13
3 Characteristics of Identified ELL Students by Grade Group, 2010-11 ............... 14
4 Number and Percent of First-year and Long-term ELL Students by Grade
Group and Birth Country, 2010-11 ..................................................................... 15
5 Number of Dallas ISD, Grades Prekindergarten through 12 Teachers,
Working Directly with ELL Students by Program and Grade Group, 2010-11 ... 16
6 Demographic Characteristics of Elementary Dual Language and ESL
Teachers, 2010-11.............................................................................................. 17
7 Demographic Characteristics of Middle School Teachers Working with ELL
Students by Course, 2010-11 ............................................................................. 18
8 Demographic Characteristics of High School Teachers Working with ELL
Students by Course, 2010-11 ........................................................................... 19
9 Number and Percent of Elementary Dual Language and ESL Teachers by
Certification Type and Program, 2009-10 ......................................................... 20
10 Number and Percent of Elementary Dual Language and ESL Teachers by
Certification Field and Program, 2010-11 ......................................................... 20
11 Number and Percent of Secondary ELI, ESL and Sheltered Content
Teachers by School Level and Certification Type, 2010-11 ............................. 21
12 Number and Percent of ELI, ESL and Sheltered Content Teachers by
Certification Field and Secondary School Level, 2010-11 ................................ 21
13 Professional Development Sessions and Attendance of M-LEP Personnel,
Fall 2010 ........................................................................................................... 22
14 Responses to the M-LEP Professional Development Survey by Elementary
and Secondary Teachers, 2010-2011 ............................................................... 25
15 Elementary Bilingual and ESL Teachers’ Comments and Suggestions
Regarding M-LEP Professional Development Training, 2010-11 ..................... 27
16 Number and Percent of Served ELL and Non-ELL Students and Not
Served ELL Students by Service Status, Program and Grade Group,
2010-11 ............................................................................................................. 29
17 Number and Percent of Tested ELL Students Served in the T-CALL
Program by Grade and Summer School Site, 2010 .......................................... 30
18 2011 TELPAS Composite Ratings for ELL Students Who Participated in
the T-CALL Program in Summer 2010 by Grade and School Site ................... 31
19 Elementary BE and ESL Teacher’s Comments Regarding Their
Interactions with Campus M-LEP Instructional Coach ...................................... 34
ii
List of Tables (Continued)
Table Page
20 Secondary ESL Teachers’ Comments Regarding Their Interactions with
the Campus M-LEP Instructional Coach ……. .............................................
36
WMLS-R Broad Ability Level Results for All ELL Students Tested by
21
Grade, Spring 2011 ........................................................................................ 38
22 WMLS-R Broad Ability Levels for Served ELL Students by Grade and
Program, Spring 2011 .................................................................................... 39
23 ELL Students Not Served In DL, BE or ESL Programs Due to Parent
Denial by Grade and WMLS-R Broad Ability Levels, Spring 2011 ................ 41
24 Annual Progression of WMLS-R Broad Ability Levels of Served Students
by Grade, Spring 2010 and Spring 2011 ....................................................... 42
25 Annual Progression of WMLS-R Broad Ability Levels for Elementary
School Students by Program Served, Spring 2010 and Spring
2011...…......... .............................................................................................. 44
26 Annual Progression of WMLS-R Broad Ability Levels for Middle School
Students by Program Served, Spring 2010 and Spring 2011...…......... ....... 45
27 Annual Progression of WMLS-R Broad Ability Levels for High School
Students by Program Served, Spring 2010 and Spring 2011...…......... ....... 46
28 Comparison of Total Percent of WMLS Broad Ability Levels for ELL
Students in Grades 5-12, Spring 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 ...................... 46
29 TELPAS Composite Ratings by Grade, Spring 2011 .................................... 48
30 TELPAS Composite Ratings by Grade Group and Program Served,
Spring 2011 .................................................................................................... 49
31 English Language Arts Curriculum for ELL Students by Program Level
and Years as ELL, 2010-11 ........................................................................... 50
32 TELPAS Composite Ratings by Grade Group and Program Level,
Spring 2011 .................................................................................................... 50
33 Attainment: TELPAS Composite Ratings for ELL Students by Sub-
Groups, Spring 2011 ...................................................................................... 52
Percent of Grades Three through 11 ELL Students Who Met Standard
34
on TAKS (English) Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science and Social
Studies by Limited English Proficiency Status and Grade, Spring
2011...................... 54
35 Percent of Grades Three through 11 ELL Students Who Met Standard
on TAKS (English) Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science and Social
Studies by Grade and Program, Spring 2011...…................................... ...... 55
36 Percent of Grades Three through Five Non-ELL Students Opted-in the
DL Program Who Met Standard on TAKS (English) Reading, Writing,
Mathematics, Science and Social Studies by Grade and Program,
Spring 2011...…................................... .......................................................... 57
37 Percent of ELL Students Who Met Standard on TAKS (Spanish)
Reading, Writing and Science and Grade, Spring 2011 ................................ 58
iii
List of Tables (Continued)
Table Page

38 Number and Percent of Grades Kindergarten through Two, Dual
Language Students At or Above the 40th Percentile on Logramos
Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension, Spring 2011 ............................. 59
39 Number and Percent of Grades Kindergarten through Two,
Non-Spanish ELL Students At or Above the 40th Percentile on ITBS
Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension, Spring 2011 ............................. 60
40 Number and Percent of Grades Kindergarten through Two, Dual
Language and ESL Students At or Above the 40th Percentile on ITBS
Mathematics Total Without Computation, Spring 2011 ............................... 61
41 Percent of ELL and Non-ELL Students Scoring Above the 40th
Percentile on ITBS Mathematics Total Without Computation by Grade
and Limited English Proficient Status, Spring 2010 and Spring 2011 ......... 61
42 Total Number of ELL Students in Cohort Groups One through Three by
Year and Grade ........................................................................................... 63
43 Percent Met Standard on 2010-11 TAKS by Cohort .................................. 64
44 Percent Commended on 2010-11 TAKS by Cohort ................................... 65
45 Percent of TELPAS Composite Ratings by Cohort .................................... 65

List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Yearly Stages of Implementation for Gómez & Gómez 50/50 Dual
Language Enrichment Content Based Model .............................................. 6
2 Number of Identified Dallas Independent School District ELL Students
by School Level, 1999-2000 to 2010-11 ..................................................... 10
3 Number and percent of training sessions attended in 2010-2011. .............. 24

Appendices

Appendix Title Page
A Professional Development Online Survey Results, 2010-11 ....................... 73
B M-LEP Instructional Coaches, 2010-11 ....................................................... 83
C Annual Progression: TELPAS Composite Ratings, Spring 2010 and
2011 ............................................................................................................. 89

iv
FINAL REPORT

EVALUATION OF THE DUAL LANGUAGE, TRANSITIONAL BILINGUAL EDUCATION
AND ENGLISH-AS-A-SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAMS:
2010-11

Project Evaluator: Rosemary Garcia-Rincón
ABSTRACT
The Multi-Language Enrichment Program (M-LEP) provided various Bilingual Education
(BE) and English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) programs in grades prekindergarten
through 12 to meet the affective, linguistic and academic needs of English Language
Learners (ELL). Instructional models in elementary schools included Dual Language
(DL), Newcomer Program for recent immigrant students and English-as-a-Second
Language (ESL). Instructional models implemented in secondary schools included ESL,
Sheltered content courses and English Language Institute (ELI) for recent immigrant
students. This evaluation looked at the effects of the Dual Language, BE and ESL
programs on raising ELL students’ English proficiency level and general academic
achievement in 2010-11.
In 2010-11 58,957 (38%) of the total Dallas ISD student population, in grades
prekindergarten through twelve, were identified as English Language Learners (ELL),
72 percent of whom were served in the DL program (One-/Two-way). ELL students were
administered assessments to determine annual progress in learning the English
language and academic achievement.
The annual progression of WMLS-R (language proficiency assessment) broad ability
levels of served ELL students between Spring 2010 and 2011 showed that a higher
percentage of ELL students in grades five, six (middle school) and seven, who performed
at levels one through three (limited English proficient) in 2010, progressed to broad ability
levels four and five (English proficient) in 2011 compared to students in other grades.
Results from the 2011 TELPAS showed a higher percentage of ELL students in the
Two-way model in grades four through six scored at the Advance High composite rating
compared to students in the One-way, Transitional Bilingual, ESL and Newcomer
programs. Secondary school level ELL students in sheltered classes who scored at the
Advanced High composite rating, outperformed students in the ESL programs.
ELL students were tested in the language of instruction on academic assessments. In
general, the Logramos vocabulary and reading test outcomes for grades kindergarten
through two showed ELL students made yearly progress in each program of instruction
and by grade level. ITBS Mathematics data showed that more than 50 percent of
kindergarten ELL students in the Two-way and grades one and two in ESL programs
scored at or above the 40th percentile, outperforming students served in other programs.
The achievement gap between ELL and Non-ELL students taking the 2010 and 2011
ITBS Mathematics Total without Computation was lower in 2010 than in 2011. The gap in
2011 however, decreased as ELL students moved from kindergarten to grade two. TAKS
data showed that ELL students in the Two-way program in grades three through five,
outperformed students in other programs within the same grades in reading, writing,
mathematics and science (except grade three, mathematics). At the secondary level, ELL
students in sheltered classes performed better in all subjects tested, compared to
students in ESL classes for grades seven, ten and eleven.

1
This page intentionally left blank.

2