USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Educational policy analysis archives

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Educational policy analysis archives
Physical Description:
Serial
Language:
English
Creator:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Publisher:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E11-00385
usfldc handle - e11.385
System ID:
SFS0024511:00384


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright is retained by the first or sole author who grants right of first publication to the Education Policy Analysis Archives EPAA is a project of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory. Articles are indexed in the Dir ectory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org). Volume 12 Number 36 July 30, 2004 ISSN 1068-2341 Reclassification of English Learners James B. Grissom1 California Department of Education Citation: Grissom, J. B. (2004, July 30) Reclassification of English learners, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12 (36). Retrieved [date] from ht tp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n36/. Abstract Ron Unz, originator of Proposition 227, claime d, prior to the passage of Prop. 227, that the five percent annual reclassification rate of English learners to fluent English proficient indicated bilingual education was a failure. Cr itics of Prop. 227 have countered that the annual reclassification rate has changed little si nce the passage of Prop. 227, indicating the new legislation had no effect on reclassifi cation rates. Unfortunately, the annual reclassification rate does not provide a clear indi cator of how long it takes students to be reclassified after entering the school system. To better estimate reclassification rates for English learners in California, cohorts were cr eated to track the same groups of students over time. Ron Unz also claimed that test scores for immigrant students improved dramatically after the passage of Prop. 227. To evaluate his claim, average test scores were 1 The opinions expressed are of the author al one and do not reflect opinion or policy of the California Department of Education.

PAGE 2

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 2 calculated by language fluency. Based on st atewide data from three different cohorts tracked across four years, Prop. 227 has ha d no effect on reclassification rates or test scores. Introduction Ron Unz, originator of Proposition 227, stated, prior to the passage of Prop. 227, that a five percent annual reclassification rate of English learne rs (EL) to fluent English proficient (R-FEP) in California implied to him a failure rate for bilingual education of 95 percen t (Unz, 1997). Critics of Prop. 227 (Crawford, 2003; Hakuta, 2002; Mora, 2000) have challenged Unz’s statements about EL reclassification two ways. Firs t, they present evidence that recl assification rates, available from the California Department of Education (CDE) were closer to seven than five percent and were rising prior to the passage of Prop. 227 (CDE, 2004 ). Second, the annual reclassification rate, since the passage of Prop. 227, has stabilized around ei ght percent, indicating that Prop. 227 has had little or no effect on reclassification rates. In addi tion, critics of Prop. 227 have emphasized that less than 30 percent of EL students were enrolle d in bilingual programs prior to the passage of Prop. 227 (Gandara, 2000). As such, annual r eclassification rates could not be interpreted as evidence that bilingual education programs were failing since more than 70 percent of EL students were not in bilingual programs. Although Unz ha s claimed Prop. 227 a success, he has been quiet about its effect on reclassification rates. It is the contention of this study that the recl assification rates cited by Unz and his critics are misleading in two ways. First, the data upon wh ich these reclassification rates are based do not account for students moving into and out of the California school system. The EL student population is not stable. It is increasing each yea r (CDE, 2004). When there are more EL students entering the school system than leaving, the denominator is inflated and the proportion of students who have been reclassified (i.e., the number of reclassified students divided by the number of EL students) is underestimated. Sec ond, the reported reclassification rates are simply the proportion of EL students who have been recla ssified in a particular year. The rates do not provide an indicator of how long it takes students to be reclassified after they have enrolled in the California school system.

PAGE 3

Reclassification of English Learners 3 According to Unz, most EL students ca n learn English in just a few months ( Ron Unz Exposes 2001) and so, the EL designation should not last much longer than a year. The language of Prop. 227, now part of California Law’s Educat ion Code (EC), reflects this philosophy. Children who are English learners shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition pe riod not normally intended to exceed one year… Once English learners have acquired a good working knowledge of English, they shall be transferred to English language mainstream classrooms (EC, Section 305). The notion that EL students can learn English in just a few months has been called into question by researchers in language development. Hakuta Butler, & Witt (2000) reported that English oral proficiency takes 3 to 5 years to develop and academic proficiency takes 4 to 7 years. They considered academic proficiency to be academic success in an English speaking classroom. This seems to be a tautology because the number of years to achieve academic proficiency was based on the length of time it took to reclassify students. Reclassifying students from EL to R-FEP status is a process that uses multiple criteria (EC, Sec. 313), which include: 1) Assessment of English language proficiency 2) Teacher evaluation 3) Parent opinion and consultation 4) Comparison of performance in basic skills The intent of using multiple criteria is to protect EL students from being reclassified before they are ready. It is thought if stud ents are reclassified before they have achieved academic language skills or content-area knowledge and abilities they are at risk of academic failure. The first reclassification criterion, language prof iciency, is determined by an English language proficiency test. English language proficien cy tests are designed to measure students’ communication, reading, and writing skills in Eng lish. In May 2001 all Local Education Agencies (LEAs) were mandated by law (EC, Sec. 313) to use the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) to evaluate the English language proficiency of students whose home language is

PAGE 4

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 4 other than English. Prior to this date, LEAs were free to select from a list of CDE-approved English language development tests. The other crucial reclassification criterion is the assessment of basic skills. Scores on a standardized achievement test are used to evalua te basic skills. In September 2002, all LEAs were advised to use the California Standards Test (CST) to evaluate the proficiency of EL students in basic skills. Prior to this date, LEAs had discreti on in determining academic proficiency. It was common for districts to require EL students to score at or above the 36th percentile on one or more portions of the statewide norm-referenced test (NRT), the Stanford Achievement Test version 9 (SAT/9), form T, to be reclassified. Ho wever, proficiency could be defined as higher or lower than the 36th percentile. Academic proficiency as defined by Hakuta, Butler, & Witt (2000) is a tautology because the length of time to achieve academic proficiency was based on the length of time it took students to be reclassified, and reclassification depends on acad emic performance. School districts report the biggest barrier to reclassification was not Englis h proficiency but academic proficiency (Parrish, Linquanti, Merickel, Quick, Laird, & Esra, 2002). That is, students might be English fluent, based on results from an English language proficiency tes t, but would not be reclassified R-FEP because they could not meet the threshold (e.g., the 36th percentile) on a standardized achievement test. As a result, it could not be known if students would be able to demonstrate academic proficiency in the classroom if they only had to demonstrate proficiency in English to be reclassified. Whatever length of time it takes EL students to be academically proficie nt, Hakuta, Butler, & Witt (2000) argued that linguistic competence is complex, and even th e most privileged second language learners take a significant amount of time to attain mastery, especially for the level of language required for school success. Given that reclassification rates have been used by proponents of Prop. 227 to support its passage and opponents to criticize its effectiveness, there shou ld be interest in how long it takes students to be reclassified. Toward that end, the purpose of this study is to track three different cohorts of

PAGE 5

Reclassification of English Learners 5 EL students over a span of time in order to ca lculate the proportion of EL students reclassified RFEP during this span. Although Unz has been quiet about the effect of 22 7 on reclassification rates, Unz claims that test scores for EL students have improved dramatical ly since the passage of Prop. 227. Unz’s claims are based on an initial CDE achievement test report in which EL and R-FEP scores were mistakenly combined and reported as EL. Whe n R-FEP scores were disaggregated from EL scores, the dramatic EL improvement disappeared However, even after being informed of the error, Unz refused to modify his statements (Weintraub & Chey, 1999). Test scores of over one million immigrant st udents in California have risen by more than 50% since 1998, with those distri cts most rigorously embracing Prop. 227 having actually doubled their academic performance (Unz, 2001). A second purpose of this study is to evaluate Unz’s claim that EL test scores have improved dramatically since the passage of Prop. 227. Method Each spring California public schools administer a series of standardized achievement tests: the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) progra m. These tests are administered to all public school students enrolled in grades two throug h eleven. As part of the testing program, demographic information, including language fluency, is collected. Students are classified into one of four language fluency categories: (1) English Only (EO), (2) Fluent English Proficient (FEP), (3) Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (R-FEP), or (4) English Learner (EL). The STAR tests were first administered in the sp ring of 1998. Through 2002, the standardized NRT, SAT/9, form T, was administered as part of the STAR program. In 2003, the NRT was changed to the California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT/6). This study uses data from tests administered from the spring of 1998 through 2003. STAR data were used to create thre e matched cohort files. For the first cohort file second-grade students tested in 1998 were matched with thir d-grade students tested in 1999, fourth-grade students tested in 2000, and fifth-grade students tested in 2001. Students were matched on the county/district/school (CDS) code, birth date, and gender. Each public school in California has a

PAGE 6

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 6 unique CDS code. The matched-cohort file cont ained information about the same group of students in the same school for four years at fo ur different grade levels. Students who left the school, entered the school after grad e two, or were held back were not part of the matched cohort. There could be errors in the matching process bu t there was no reason to believe matching errors biased the results. The second cohort file was cr eated by matching second-grade students in 1999 with third-grade students in 2000, fourth-grade students in 2001 an d fifth-grade students in 2002. The third cohort was created by matching second-gra de students in 2000 with third-grade students in 2001 fourth-grade students in 2002 and fifthgrade students in 2003. Again, these files contained information about the same group of students in th e same school for four years at four different grade levels. The first cohort file (i.e., 1998-2 001) included 192,023 students and the 1999-2002 and 2000-2003 cohort files had 224,425 and 277,373 students, respectively. Matching students on home language generated a sub-sample of students, since the data field for home language could be missing or contain inconsistencies. If home language for a student was missing or inconsistent, a match could not be ma de and the student was dropped from the sample and the sample size was reduced. After the matching process, home language was constrained to two categories: Spanish (i.e., EL students whose home language was Spanis h) and other language (i.e., EL students whose home language was so mething other than Spanish). The sub-sample for the 1998-2001 cohort had 57,348 students and was created to compare reclassification of Spanish EL students with other EL students. Three different types of analyses were conducted. In one set of analyses the probability that EL students would be reclassified as R-FEP between second and fifth-grade was estimated. Toward that end the number and percent of students reclassified as RFEP between second and fifth-grade were calculated. These analyses also calculated the number and percent of students not reclassified (i.e., the students who remained EL) between se cond and fifth-grade. These percents can be interpreted as probabilities. Analyses were also conducted for subgroups: gender (i.e., females compared to males), the national school lunch program (NSLP) participation (i.e., students receiving free and reduced lunch compared to those who do not), and home language (i.e., students whose home language is Spanish compared to students whose home language is neither English or Spanish).

PAGE 7

Reclassification of English Learners 7 A second series of analyses used logistic regression to test for subgroup differences in reclassification rates after accounting for differen ces in achievement. Reclassification, defined as whether a student had been reclassified or not by the end of fifth-grade, was regressed on gender, NSLP, and home language and NRT scores. A third series of analyses evaluated academic pe rformance by language fluency. Average Stanford 9 total reading NCE scores were calculated for EO FEP, R-FEP, and EL students across four years. For the 2000-2003 cohort the CAT/6 was ad ministered in fifth-grade. The fifth-grade CAT/6 average reading NCE scores were conver ted to SAT/9 average reading NCE scores through equipercentile equating. These analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of Prop. 227 on the test scores of EL and R-FEP students. Results Students in the matched cohorts have higher test sc ores on average than the state as a whole. It is assumed that scores are higher because students have remained in the same school for at least four years. Figure 1 compares the SAT/ 9 mean total reading scale scores for the whole state and for the 1998-2001 cohort sample.

PAGE 8

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 8 Figure 1. Average SAT/9 total reading scale score for all students compared to the 1998-2001 matched cohort sample 571 604 633 649 578 615 642 657 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4Grade 5Reading Scale Score All Students Statewide Cohort Sample Figure 1 shows that the 1998-2001 cohort samp le on average had higher SAT/9 mean total reading scale scores than the state as a whole. Figure 2 shows these same data for EL students.

PAGE 9

Reclassification of English Learners 9 Figure 2. Average SAT/9 total reading NCE score for EL students statew ide compared to the 1998-2001 matched cohort sample 545 574 602 618 547 580 607 622 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4Grade 5Reading Scale Score EL Students Statewide Cohort Sample EL students in the 1998-2001 cohort sample on averag e scored slightly higher in total reading than EL students for the state as a whole. Results wer e consistent across other cohorts and indicate that subsequent analyses are based on groups of students that have higher test scores than the state as a whole. Results and conclusions need to be interpreted with these results in mind. Reclassification Rates Figure 3 shows the reclassification rate for the 1998 -2001 matched cohort. It is a truer indicator of the reclassification process than annual reclassifi cation rates because students did not move in or out of the group and a single group of students was tracked for four years.

PAGE 10

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 10 Figure 3. Proportion of EL stude nts reclassified R-FEP for the 1998-2001 cohort, n = 58,775 1.5% 5.4% 15.5% 29.7% 98.5% 94.6% 84.5% 70.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Grade 2-1998Grade 3-1999Grade 4-2000Grade 5-2001 Grade Level School YearPercent of Students R-FEP EL Results indicate the length of time to be reclassifi ed is different than what might be imagined from the annual reclassification rates reported by Unz an d his critics. That is, the percent of students reclassified each year is neither 5 nor 8 percent but varies from year to year. Within a year or two of being classified EL, few students are reclassified as R-FEP. It is not unreasonable to think that most of the second-grade EL students in this cohort were also first-grade EL students. In any case, less than 2 percent of EL students who star ted second, and possibly first grade, as EL were reclassified R-FEP by the end of the school year. By the end of third-grade, only an additional 4 percent of these same students had been recla ssified. However, after two or three years of EL designation the reclassification rate began to increa se. By the end of fourth-grade, an additional 10 percent were reclassified and by the end of fift h-grade, 14 percent more were reclassified. The pattern indicates that few students were reclassi fied within one to three years of entering the school system. State law asserts th at the EL designation should not normally exceed one year, but after four or five years of sc hooling, only 30 percent of EL students had been reclassified.

PAGE 11

Reclassification of English Learners 11 These results can be interpreted as probabilities. That is, after four or five years of schooling (i.e., by the end of fifth-grade) EL students had a 30 percent probability of being reclassified as R-FEP and a 70 percent probability of remaining EL. Since reclassification is based in part on achievement data and the 1998-2001 cohort is higher achieving th an the state as a whole, the true rate may be something less than 30 percent. Figure 4 shows the same results for the 1999-2002 cohort. The 1999-2002 cohort is the class that is one year behind the 1998-2001 cohort. Figure 4. Proportion of EL stude nts reclassified R-FEP for the 1999-2002 cohort, n = 72,806 1.4% 6.9% 20.4% 32.3% 98.6% 93.1% 79.6% 67.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Grade 2-1999Grade 3-2000Grade 4-2001Grade 5-2002 Grade Level School YearPercent of Students R-FEP EL The pattern is the same but the probability of being reclassified by the end of fifth-grade improved slightly. EL students now had a 32 percent pr obability of being reclassified and a 68 percent probability of remaining EL.

PAGE 12

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 12 Figure 5 shows results for the 2000-2003 cohort. Figure 5. Proportion of EL stude nts reclassified R-FEP for the 2000-2003 cohort, n = 78,729 2.2% 10.5% 23.5% 32.2% 97.8% 89.5% 76.5% 67.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Grade 2-2000Grade 3-2001Grade 4-2002Grade 5-2003 Grade Level School YearPercent of Students R-FEP EL The pattern is comparable to both the 1998-2001 and 1999-2002 cohorts. EL students had a 32 percent probability of being reclassified and a 68 percent probability of remaining EL. Data were available to estimate the reclassificati on rates through sixth-grad e. Therefore, 1998-2002 and 1999-2003 cohorts could have been created. However, creating a matched file with the additional year/grade reduced the number of st udents in the cohort samples considerably. For example, the number of students in the cohort drops from 192,023 to 71,429 when the 1998-2001 cohort becomes the 1998-2002 cohort. In addition, the pattern of reclassi fication changes rather dramatically when sixth-grade is added. For the 1998-2002 cohort, there is only a 24 percent probability of an EL student being reclassified by the end of fifth-grade as opposed to a 30 percent probability for the 1998-2001 cohort. Given the larger sample and the consistency of

PAGE 13

Reclassification of English Learners 13 reclassification rates across cohorts, results ar e not reported for the 1998-2002 and 1999-2003 cohorts. Data across three different cohorts indicates the pr obability of remaining an EL student after four (or five) years of school is approximately 70 per cent. The passage of Prop. 227 has not produced a one or even two year transition process described in law. Reclassification Rates by Subgroups Next, reclassification rates were calculated for three subgroups: gender (i.e., females compared to males), NSLP participation (i.e., students who receive free or reduced lunch compared to those who do not), and home language (i.e., students whose home language is Spanish compared to students whose home language is neither Englis h nor Spanish). Figure 6 shows reclassification rates by gender for the 1998-2001 cohort. Figure 6. Proportion of EL stude nts reclassified R-FEP for the 1998-2001 cohort by gender, n = 58,7751.4% 1.6% 5.1% 5.8% 14.5% 16.6% 27.8% 31.6% 98.6% 98.4% 94.9% 94.2% 85.5% 83.4% 72.2% 68.4%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% MaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemale Grade 2-1998Grade 3-1999Grade 4-2000Grade 5-2001 Percent of Students R-FEP EL

PAGE 14

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 14 Figure 6 shows female EL students were more likel y to be reclassified than males. By the end of fifth-grade the probability of females being recl assified R-FEP was 32 percent and for males the probability was 28 percent. Figure 7 shows reclassification rates for NSLP students and non-NSLP students. Figure 7. Proportion of EL stude nts reclassified R-FEP for the 1998-2001 cohort by NSLP, n = 58,7750.9% 5.1% 3.9% 14.9% 13.1% 30.9% 27.0% 46.4% 99.1% 94.9% 96.1% 85.1% 86.9% 69.1% 73.0% 53.6%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% NSLPNo NSLP NSLPNo NSLP NSLPNo NSLP NSLPNo NSLP Grade 2-1998Grade 3-1999Grade 4-2000Grade 5-2001 Percent of Students R-FEP EL Figure 7 indicates that EL NSLP students had a 27 percent chance of being reclassified R-FEP by the end of fifth-grade and EL no NSLP students had a 46 percent chance. NSLP serves as a proxy for socio-economic status (S ES). Participation in NSLP is an indicator of lower SES. No NSLP is an indicator of higher SES. Parent education was another available proxy

PAGE 15

Reclassification of English Learners 15 for SES. However, analyses of parent educati on were consistent with NSLP and results are not displayed. Figure 8 shows the reclassification rates for Spanis h EL students compared to other language EL students. Figure 8. Proportion of EL stude nts reclassified R-FEP for the 1998-2001 cohort by home language, n = 57,3480.7% 3.8% 3.4% 11.6% 12.3% 26.3% 26.7% 39.7% 99.3% 96.2% 96.6% 88.4% 87.7% 73.7% 73.3% 60.3%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% SpanishOther NonEnglish SpanishOther NonEnglish SpanishOther NonEnglish SpanishOther NonEnglish Grade 2-1998Grade 3-1999Grade 4-2000Grade 5-2001 Percent of Students R-FEP EL In Figure 8 Spanish EL students had a 27 percent chance to be reclassified R-FEP by the end of fifth-grade and other language EL students had a 40 percent. Results were consistent across cohorts. The data suggest that male, NSLP, and Spanish EL students have a lower probability of being recl assified R-FEP than fe male, non-NSLP, and other language EL students. However, the reclassification process relies on multiple criteria and a crucial aspect of the reclassification process was the assessment of basic skills. Scores on a standardized

PAGE 16

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 16 achievement test were used to ev aluate basic skills. To account for the relationship between academic achievement and reclassification, lo gistic regression was used to test for group differences after holding achievement constant. Re classification, defined as to whether a student had been reclassified or not by the end of fi fth grade, was regressed on gender, NSLP, home language, and NRT total reading normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores for four years. Table 1 shows these results for the 1998-2001 cohort. Table 1 Reclassification regressed on gender, NSLP, language, and reading scores for the 1998-2001 cohort Maximum Likelihood Estimates Parameter DF Estimate Standard Error ChiSquare Pr > ChiSq Intercept 1 -5.3359 0.0579 8502.53 <.0001 Gender (female) 1 0.0511 0.0192 7.09 0.0077 NSLP (NSLP) 1 0.0227 0.0195 1.36 0.2441 Language (Spanish) 1 0.1009 0.0198 25.99 <.0001 Gender*NSLP 1 -0.0418 0.0192 4.74 0.0296 Gender*Language 1 -0.0448 0.0192 5.44 0.0197 NSLP*Language 1 0.1373 0.0192 51.24 <.0001 Gender*NSLP*Language 1 0.0173 0.0192 0.81 0.3683 Reading_NCE98 1 0.0252 0.0012 444.14 <.0001 Reading_NCE99 1 0.0251 0.0015 300.59 <.0001 Reading_NCE00 1 0.0286 0.0015 389.21 <.0001 Reading_NCE01 1 0.0366 0.0014 708.65 <.0001 The intercept (i.e., -5.3359) represents the proba bility of being reclassified. This logit value represents approximately .005%. Parameter estimates with positive values move this percent closer to 1 (i.e., increase the likelihood of being recla ssified) and negative values move the value away from 1 (i.e., decrease the likelihood of being r eclassified). For example, holding achievement and other variables constant, females wer e significantly, at the .008 level of significance, more likely than males to be reclassified.

PAGE 17

Reclassification of English Learners 17 Even though NSLP students were more likely to be reclassified after holding achievement and other variables constant, the difference between reclassification rates for NSLP and non-NSLP EL students was not significant, at a .01 level of si gnificance. Non-NSLP students scored higher than NSLP EL students on the SAT/9 reading test and were thus more likely to be reclassified. However, when achievement was held constant the difference in reclassification rates disappeared. Home language was significant at the .0001 level of significance. After controlling for the effects of achievement and other variables, Spanish EL students were more likely to be reclassified R-FEP than other language EL students. If both home la nguage groups were being treated in the same way, controlling for test score differences should have the same effect as NSLP. That is, the differences between the groups would have no long er been significant. However, the direction of the parameter estimate raises the suspicion that a large number of other language EL students, who were eligible for reclassification, given their NRT test scores, were not reclassified. To test this suspicion, test scores for EL studen ts from the two different home language groups were compared. Table 2 shows these results. Table 2 Mean Reading NCE Score Test Other Non-English Spanish Reading_NCE98 48.4 31.5 Reading_NCE99 47.7 32.7 Reading_NCE00 51.5 35.6 Reading_NCE01 51.1 37.0 Other language EL students on average had higher SAT/9 reading scores than Spanish EL students and were thus more likely to be reclassified. The next analysis attempted to determine if other language EL students were under-represented in the R-FEP language category. If so, that would ex plain the regression results. For each year in the 1998-2001 the EL students who had not been reclassified and who had scored at or above the 36th

PAGE 18

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 18 percentile on the SAT/9 were identified. The 36th percentile was selected because it has been a traditional score to determine student recl assification. Figure 9 shows these results. Figure 9. Percent of EL students scoring at or above the 36th pecentile by home language for the 1998-2001 cohort, n = 26,970 7.6% 11.0% 14.5% 17.7% 5.3% 5.4% 6.8% 7.1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Grade 2 1998Grade 3 1999Grade 4 2000Grade 5 2001 Grade Level School YearPercent of Students Spanish Other Non-Eng 12.9% 16.4% 21.3% 24.8% Figure 9 shows a couple of different things. Firs t, it shows the percentage of students who were possible candidates for reclassification based on scoring at or above the 36th percentile on the SAT/9 reading test. In 1998, 12.9 percent (i.e., 5.3% + 7.6%) met the recl assification threshold of the 36th percentile but were not reclassified. In 1999 16.4 percent met the threshold value, and in 2000 and 2001 there were 21.3 and 24.8 percent, respectively, that met the threshold value. Each year there were a certain percentage of students who were strong candidates for reclassification but were not reclassified and each year this percen tage increased. By grade five, 25 percent of EL students who were strong candidates for r eclassification had not been reclassified. Second, Figure 9 shows the percent of other la nguage and Spanish EL students who met the reclassification threshold of the 36th percentile but were not reclassi fied. In 1998 for example, the

PAGE 19

Reclassification of English Learners 19 percent of other language EL students was 5.3 percent. For Spanish EL students it was 7.6 percent. Continuing to use 1998 as an example, other language EL students represented 41.2 percent of the 12.9 percent total and Spanish EL students represented 58.8 percent. However, for the full 1998-2001 cohort, other language EL stud ents represented 26 percent of the total and Spanish EL students represented 74 percent. The other language EL students represented a larger percentage of EL students that met the NR T threshold for reclassification but were not reclassified than they did of EL students overall. That is why the regression analysis indicated that Spanish EL students were more likely to be reclassified than other language EL students when achievement was controlled. Figure 3 the shows the number of EL students after grade 5 for the 1998-2001 cohort as 41,143. Figure 9 shows this same value as 26,970 students The number of students in Figure 9 represents those EL students who had reading test scores for grades 2 through 5 and non-missing home language information. The requirement to have non-missing data for the four different reading tests and home language reduced the sample size. Back to Table 1, there is also a significant interaction effect for NSLP and home language. The interpretation is that even though Spanish EL st udents were more likely to be reclassified than other language EL students, the Spanish / NSLP students were even more likely than the Spanish / non-NSLP students to be reclassified after hol ding achievement and other variables constant. The regression analysis indicates that the strong est predictors of whether students would be reclassified were reading test scores. As test scor es went up, the probability of being reclassified increased. In addition, when achievement was he ld constant Spanish students were more likely, rather than less likely, than other language EL students to be reclassified. Table 3 shows the regression analysis for the 1999-2002 cohort. Results for the 1999-2002 cohort were consistent with the 1998-2001 cohort. Reading test scores and language (i.e., Spanish) were again the variable s most strongly related to reclassification. And again, female EL students were more likely to be reclassified than males after controlling for the effects of achievement and other variables.

PAGE 20

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 20 Table 3 Reclassification regressed on gender, NSLP, language, and reading scores for the 1999-2002 cohort Maximum Likelihood Estimates Parameter DF Estimate Standard Error ChiSquare Pr > ChiSq Intercept 1 -5.8563 0.0520 12661.58 <.0001 Gender (female) 1 0.0464 0.0167 7.75 0.0054 NSLP (NSLP) 1 0.0491 0.0169 8.49 0.0036 Language (Spanish) 1 0.1496 0.0171 76.48 <.0001 Gender*NSLP 1 -0.0108 0.0166 0.42 0.5177 Gender*Language 1 -0.0376 0.0166 5.09 0.0240 NSLP*Language 1 0.0818 0.0166 24.12 <.0001 Gender*NSLP*Language 1 0.1330 0.0166 0.64 0.5177 Reading_NCE99 1 0.0259 0.0010 674.71 <.0001 Reading_NCE00 1 0.0377 0.0013 914.17 <.0001 Reading_NCE01 1 0.0265 0.0012 463.52 <.0001 Reading_NCE02 1 0.0355 0.0012 918.04 <.0001 However, for the 1999-2002 cohort the differen ce in reclassification rates for NSLP and nonNSLP students was statistically significant at th e .01 level. Students receiving free and reduced lunch were more likely to be reclassified R-FEP after controlling for achievement and other variables. Table 4 shows the regression analysis for the 20 00-2003 cohort. Results are consistent with the other cohorts except female EL students were neithe r more nor less likely to be reclassified than male EL students holding achievement and other variables constant. EL students receiving NSLP were neither more or less likely to be reclassi fied than non-NSLP EL students and Spanish

PAGE 21

Reclassification of English Learners 21 speaking EL students were neither more or less likely to be reclassified than non-Spanish EL students. Again, there was a significant intera ction effect for NSLP and home language but the direction was reversed from the other cohorts. The interpretation is that, even though there was no relationship between being reclassified, NSLP and home language, the NSLP / non-Spanish students were more likely than the NSLP / Spanis h students to be reclassified after holding achievement and other variables constant. As with the other cohorts, the strongest predictors of reclassification were reading test scores. Table 4 Reclassification regressed on gender, NSLP, language, and reading scores for the 2000-2003 cohort Maximum Likelihood Estimates Parameter DF Estimate Standard Error Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Intercept 1 8.9398 0.1219 5382.05 <.0001 Gender (female) 1 -0.0170 0.0163 1.09 0.2986 NSLP (NSLP) 1 0.0232 0.0163 2.02 0.1555 Language (Spanish) 1 -0.0325 0.0165 3.89 0.0486 Gender*NSLP 1 0.0033 0.0162 0.04 0.8376 Gender*Language 1 0.0170 0.0162 1.09 0.2956 NSLP*Language 1 -0.0502 0.0162 9.57 0.002 Gender*NSLP*Language 1 0.0195 0.0162 1.45 0.228 Reading_NCE00 1 -0.0440 0.0009 218931.00 <.0001 Reading_NCE01 1 -0.0366 0.0012 887.70 <.0001 Reading_NCE02 1 -0.0272 0.0012 529.96 <.0001 Rreading_CST_SS03 1 -0.0115 0.0005 640.87 <.0001

PAGE 22

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 22 Academic Performance by Language Fluency Academic performance was estimated by calculat ing average SAT/9 total reading NCE scores by language fluency (i.e., EO, FEP, R-FEP, & EL) across four years. Figure 10 shows these results for the 1998-2001 cohort. Figure 10. Average SAT/9 total reading NCE score by language fluency for the 1998-2001 cohort, n = 145,873 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Grade 2 1998Grade 3 1999Grade 4 2000Grade 5 2001 Grade Level School YearReading NCE Score EO FEP R-FEP EL The average reading NCE scores for EO, FEP, and R-FEP students were comparable, but for EL students the average reading scores were much lowe r. For EO and FEP students there was a slight upward trend in the average reading score but for R-FEP students there was a slight downward trend. For EL students the average reading scores remained fairly constant over time. For EO and FEP students, the test scores were computed for th e same students each year. For R-FEP and EL students test scores were computed for different students each year. Each year the number of RFEP students increased and the number of EL students decreased because each year more students were reclassified.

PAGE 23

Reclassification of English Learners 23 Students reclassified as R-FEP in 1998 were the most academically precocious EL students by virtue of the fact that they were the first to meet both language and academic reclassification requirements. Students reclassified as R-FEP in 2001 were the least academically proficient of those reclassified by virtue of the fact that it took them the longest time to meet the reclassification requirements. The downward trend in test scores for R-FEP students should not automatically be interpreted to mean R-FEP performance was declining. The lower scores indicate that each year less able students joined the R-FEP group. Even so, the R-FEP average in 2001 was above the 50th percentile of the norming sample. The low EL test scores represent the opposite trend of R-FEP. Each year the most academically proficient students left this group and were r eclassified R-FEP. The continuously low academic performance of EL students should not be interpr eted to mean that EL students never improve or were failing to close the gap between themselves and the other language categories. Each year the EL group represented those students who were left behind after the most academically able were reclassified as R-FEP. Test scores in Figure 10 are average scores. Th ere was variance around these scores. In 2001 for each language designation, the individual NCE scores ranged from 1 to 99. The standard deviations for EO, FEP, R-FEP, and EL students scores were 19, 18, 15, and 14 respectively. The overall standard deviation for the 2001 grade 5 reading NCE scores was 21. Therefore, even though average EL scores were noticeably lower than EO, FEP, and R-FEP average scores there were EO, FEP, and R-FEP students scoring lower than the average for EL students. Figure 11 shows the pattern of test scores acro ss years by the grade in which students were reclassified. The number of students represents th e total number of students who were reclassified in grades 2 through 5.

PAGE 24

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 24 Figure 11. Average SAT/9 total reading NCE score for 1998-2001 cohort R-FEP students by the gr ade in which students were reclassified, n = 17,436 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Grade 2 1998Grade 3 1999Grade 4 2000Grade 5 2001 Grade Level School YearReading NCE Score re-designated in 2nd re-designated in 3rd re-designated in 4th re-designated in 5th Students reclassified in 1998 had a pattern of high est test scores. Students reclassified in 2001 had the pattern of lowest test scores. These data support the contention that students reclassified in second-grade were more academically precocious than students reclassified in grade five. However, students reclassified in fifth-grade s howed the most improvement over time. Average performance of students reclassified in second-gra de had stabilized while students reclassified in the fourth and fifth-grades were closing the achievement gap. Figures 12 and 13 show achievement results for the 1999-2002 and 2000-2003 cohorts.

PAGE 25

Reclassification of English Learners 25 Figure 12. Average SAT/9 total reading NCE score by language fluency for the 1999-2002 cohort, n = 195,082 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Grade 2 1999Grade 3 2000Grade 4 2001Grade 5 2002 Grade Level School YearReading NCE Score EO FEP R-FEP EL Results for the 1999-2002 cohort show the same pattern as the 1998-2001 cohort. However, the average score across language groups improved. This was not surprising since it has been widely reported that when the same test series is used year after year, test scores tend to improve as teachers become more aware of test content (Li nn, Graue, & Sanders, 1990). For the 2000-2003 cohort, the average reading score across groups improved even more and the EO, FEP, and EL trends are comparable to the 1998-2001 and 1999-2002 cohorts. However, the R-FEP students in the 2000-2003 cohort did not demonstrate the down ward trend in test scores seen in the other cohorts.

PAGE 26

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 26 Figure 13. Average SAT/9 total reading NCE score by language fluency for the 2000-2003 cohort, n = 214,830 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Grade 2-2000Grade 3-2001Grade 4-2002Grade 5-2003 Grade YearReading NCE Score EO FEP R-FEP EL For the 2000-2003 cohort the STAR NRT changed from the SAT/9 to the CAT/6 in 2003. An equipercentile equating was done to make scores comparable over time. However, there might be error around the equating process that negates the downward trend. The downward trend was slight and slight error might disguise it. Or, it could be that the R-FEP average reading scores for the 2000-2003 cohort improved in fifth-grade and there was no longer a downward trend. Academic Performance by Language Fluency in a Single District Unz often references a particular school district in California as a model of the positive effects of Prop. 227 (Nishioka, 1999). Unz claims that the 50 percent rise in test scores was evidence that the English immersion practiced in this model district and Prop. 227 were working (Sailer, 2002).

PAGE 27

Reclassification of English Learners 27 Figure 14 shows average total reading NCE scores and reclassification rates for the 1998-2001 EL and R-FEP students in the model district. Figure 14. Average SAT/9 reading NCE score for 1998-2001 RFEP and EL students in th e model district, n = 2390.8%4.6%4.6% 30.5% 99.2% 95.4%95.4% 69.5%38 44 44 26 29 34 30 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Grade 2-1998Grade 3-1999Grade 4-2000Grade 5-2001 Grade YearPercent of Students20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80Reading NCE Score R-FEP EL R-FEP EL Test scores are not reported for grade two R -FEP students because CDE has a policy of not reporting scores for less than ten students. Th ere were only two R-FEP students in grade two. Data indicate that reclassification rates and test scores for this district’s EL and R-FEP students were lower than the state average. Test scores for EL students did not rise 50 percent between second and any of the other grade levels. Test scores did not rise 50 percent between third and any of the other grades for R-FEP students.

PAGE 28

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 28 Perhaps it was too soon for Prop. 227 to affect th e 1998-2001 cohort. Figure 15 reports results for the 2000-2003 cohort. Figure 15. Average SAT/9 reading NCE score for 2000-2003 RFEP and EL students in th e model district, n = 3271.2% 30.6% 37.6% 39.4% 98.8% 69.4% 62.4% 60.6%49 51 54 40 35 34 37 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Grade 2-1999Grade 3-2000Grade 4-2001Grade 5-2002 Grade YearPercent of Students20 30 40 50 60 70 80Reading NCE Score R-FEP EL R-FEP EL Data in Figure 15 indicate that test scores were still a bit lower than the state average for EL and R-FEP students. Reclassification rates have impr oved over the district’s 1998-2001 cohort and the reclassification rate at the end of fifth-grade is high er than the state average. Even so, students in this model district take much longer than a year to be reclassified and test scores for their R-FEP and EL students were lower than the state average. Discussion To better estimate reclassification rates, cohorts were created so the same group of students could be tracked over time. Based on data from three co horts, the probability that EL students would be reclassified R-FEP by the end of fifth-grade was 30 to 32 percent. Conversely, the probability that

PAGE 29

Reclassification of English Learners 29 EL students would not be reclassified R-FEP by the end of fifth-grade was 68 to 70 percent. The goal of reclassifying EL students as R-FEP within a year or two of entering the school system has not been achieved with the passage of Prop. 227. It is unlikely Prop. 227, as written, had or will have any effect on reclassification rates. Reclassification is dependent on the multiple cri teria used in the reclassification process. These criteria existed before and after the passage of Prop. 227. One of these criteria, performance in basic skills, was reported by districts to be the biggest barrier to reclassification. Unz was critical of the basic skills requirement. Children from immigrant or Latino backgr ounds are categorized as not knowing English if they merely score below averag e on English tests, meaning that unknown numbers of children whose first and only language is English spend their elementary school years trapped in Spanish-only bilingual programs (Unz, 1997). However, when Unz drafted Prop. 227, the reclassi fication criteria were not addressed in the new legislation. Reclassification rates for the 1999-2002 and 2000-20 03 cohorts were slightly higher than the 19982001 cohort. This slight improvement, if it is improvement rather than random year-to-year fluctuation, was more likely the result of better trac king at the local level. Rather than Prop. 227, CELDT testing and the requirement to includ e EL students in California’s statewide accountability index have pushed districts to impr ove the tracking of EL students. Since it is less likely for students to fall through the cracks, reclassification rates improved. There were differences in reclassification rates for subgroups. Females were more likely to be reclassified than males. Non-NSLP students wer e more likely to be reclassified than NSLP students, and other language EL students were mo re likely to be reclassified than Spanish EL students. However, regression analyses revealed when achievement was held constant these differences generally disappeared. Females were still mo re likely to be reclassified than males when achievement was held constant for the 1998-200 1 and 1999-2002 cohorts but not for the 20002003 cohort. When achievement was held constant the difference in reclassification rates between non-NSLP students and NSLP students either disa ppeared or reversed (i.e., NSLP students are

PAGE 30

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 30 more likely to be reclassified) and when achievem ent was held constant Spanish EL students were either more likely to be reclassified than other language EL students or there was no difference. The regression analyses further indicate that a ma jor factor for reclassification was performance on standardized tests. Multiple classification criteria exist to protect students from being reclassified too quickly. However, there may be an overpro tected group of EL students. That is, by the end of fifth-grade 25 percent of EL students in the 1998-2 001 cohort who were strong candidates for reclassification, based on standardized test scores, had not been reclassified. This finding warrants further study to better understand how LEAs use the reclassification criteria. The 30 to 32 percent reclassification rate of EL to R-FEP after four or five years of schooling raises questions about the reclassification process itself. Educators of English learners need to evaluate whether students are being reclassified at an appropriate rate or too slowly. Are the safe guards to protect students from being reclassified too quickly helping or hindering the academic achievement of EL students? What are the adva ntages and disadvantages of long term EL designation? Although Unz claimed a dramatic improvement in EL test scores after the passage of Prop. 227, his claims seemed questionable even before lookin g at the data. First, the dramatic improvement was based on the change in scores from 1998 to 1999 data. The initial CDE STAR report for 1999 had an error that was not caught until after data were released. The error consisted of combining EL and R-FEP scores and reporting the combined data as EL. At first, EL scores seemed to have improved dramatically. When the error was discov ered and corrected by disaggregating the R-FEP from EL scores, the dramatic EL improvement disappeared. Even though Unz was well aware of the error in the initial 1999 report, he has failed to modify his statements about dramatically improved EL test scores. Second, when EL stud ents demonstrate higher academic performance they are reclassified R-FEP. So, it is difficult to track improvement in EL scores because higher performing EL students would no longer be classified EL. Third, other large scale assessments such as NAEP do not support dramatic year-to-year change in student performance. It is very difficult to dramatically improve student achievement, even when that is the specific focus. Shepard, Flexer, Hiebert, Marion, Mayfield, & Weston (1996) found no achievement differences

PAGE 31

Reclassification of English Learners 31 between experimental and control subjects after a year-long project focused on modifying teacher pedagogy to improve student achievement. After looking at achievement data, it appears Prop. 227 had no effect on student test scores. For EO and FEP students, there was a slight upward trend in the average reading score. Much of this change was likely due to using the same test year -to-year. For R-FEP students, there was a slight downward trend, except for the 2000-2003 cohort. The downward trend was likely due to less academically able EL students (i.e., less able th an the already reclassified R-FEP students) being reclassified R-FEP. This should not be interpreted to mean that students who take longer to be reclassified are not academically capable. It simply means they tend to be less capable than students who have already been reclassified. For EL students, the average reading score remained consistently low over time. Scores remained low be cause the more academically proficient students were reclassified R-FEP. There was no dramatic improvement in test scores across years within a cohort or from cohort to cohort for any of the language fluency categorie s. For example, for the 1998-2001 cohort there was no dramatic improvement in reading scores fr om grade two to grade th ree and there was also no dramatic improvement in reading scores from the 1998-2001 to the 2000-2003 cohort for any of the language fluency categories. Test scores changed in a manner that might be expected when the same test battery was admi nistered year after year. Data from Unz’s model district do not support his claims that English immersion programs dramatically improved EL and/or R-FEP test scores. Test scores from Unz’s model district did not show any dramatic upward trend. Scores wer e even lower than the statewide average. In addition, EL students in Unz’s model district took considerably longer than a year to be reclassified. Hakuta (2002) reported comparable results. Prop. 227 has had no effect on EL reclassification ra tes or test scores. Yet, a review of magazine and newspaper articles indicated that reporters generally accepted and reported Unz’s data and anecdotal evidence without question. It is difficult to find a clear coherent criticism of Unz’s statements in the press. For example, Unz’s critics were correct when they said the annual reclassification rate was closer to 7 than 5 percent. Yet, Unz’s 5 percent rate was reported over and

PAGE 32

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 32 over again. Aryal (1998) reported there were specific reasons why Unz’s message was more widely reported than his critics. During the Prop. 227 campaign, Unz repeated the same message, promptly returned phone calls, provided sound bites, and was the clear point person for the initiative. In contrast, opponents of Prop. 227 were a diverse group with a profusion of messages and difficult to reach. Even so, reporters could have verified or at least called into question Unz’s statistics by visiting CDE’s web site but failed to do so. The unfortunate aspect of not verifying data is that Unz has been given free reign to re port misinformation that has influenced educational policy. The false claim, that there was a 50 pe rcent improvement in EL achievement, has been reported so often in so many different sources th at it has assumed a reality that this study is unlikely to undermine. References Aryal, M. (1998). He says, she says: How Calif ornia’s major papers have covered prop. 227. MediaFile 17 (3). Retrieved April 2, 2004, from http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/173/mediafile.html. California Department of Education (2004) Web site: http://www.cde.ca.gov. California Law (2003). Education Code. Web si te: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Crawford, J. (2003). A few things Ron Unz would prefer you didn't know about English learners in California Retrieved March 24, 2004, from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/castats.htm. Gandara, P. (2000). In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the post-227 era. Bilingual Research Journal Online 24(1&2). Retrieved May 14, 2003, from http://brj.asu.edu/v2412/articles/ar2.html. Gandara, P. & Merino, B. (1993). Measuring th e outcomes of LEP programs: Test scores, exit rates, and other mythological data. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15(3), 320-338.

PAGE 33

Reclassification of English Learners 33 Hakuta, K. (2002). What Can We Learn About the Impact of Proposition 227 from SAT-9 Scores? Retrieved May 14, 2003, http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ehakuta/SAT9/index.htm. Hakuta, K., Butler, Y., & Witt D. (2000). How long does it take English le arners to attain proficiency? Santa Barbara: University of California Lingui stic Minority Research Institute (UCLMRI) Policy Report 2000-1. Retrieved May 14, 2003, from http://lmri.ucsb.edu/index.htm. Linn, R.L., Graue, M.E., & Sanders, M.N. (1990) Comparing district and state test results to national norms: Interpretations of scoring “above the national average.” CSE Technical Report 308 University of California, Los Angeles: Na tional Center for Research, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Retrieved April 2, 2004, from http://cresst96.cse.ucla.edu/andmore_set.htm. Linquanti, R. (2001). The redesignation dilemma: Challenges and choic es in fostering meaningful accountability for English learners Santa Barbara: University of Calif ornia Linguistic Minority Research Institute (UCLMRI) Policy Report 20001. Retrieved May 14, 2003, from http://lmri.ucsb.edu/index.htm. Mora, J.K. (2000). Proposition 227’s second annive rsary: Triumph or travesty? Retrieved March 24, 2004, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Prop227/227YearTwo.htm. Nishioka, J. (1999, June 25). Scores show Prop. 227 works, Unz says. AsianWeek 20(3). Retrieved April 2, 2004, from http://www.asianweek.com. Parrish, T., Linquanti, R., Merickel, A., Quick, H. Laird, J., & Esra, P. (2002). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the educatio n of English learners, K-12: Year 2 Report. Palo Alto and San Francisco: American Institu tes for Research and WestEd. Retrieved May 14, 2003, from http://lmri.ucsb.edu/index.htm. Ron Unz exposes folly of bilingualism. (2001, June 6). NewsMax.com. Retrieved March 29, 2004, from http://www.newsmax.com/archives.shtml.

PAGE 34

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 34 Sailer, S. (2002, September, 25). Q&A with Ron Unz on bilingual education. United Press International. Retrieved March 29, 2004, from http://www.upi.com. Shepard, L.A., Flexer, R.J., Hiebert, E.H., Mari on, S.F., Mayfield, V., & Weston, T.J. (1996). Effects of introducing classroom perfor mance assessments on student learning. Education Measurement: Issues and Practices 15 (3), 7-18. Unz, R. (1997, October 19). Bilingual is a damaging myth. Los Angeles Times Unz, R. (2001, October 26). Rocks fa lling upward at Harvard University. National Review Online Retrieved March 29, 2004, from http:// www.english4children.org/0110/102601.htm. Weintraub, D.M. & Chey, E. (1999, July 1). Com puter glitch clouds any gauge of Prop. 227’s effectiveness. Orange County Register About the Author James B. Grissom Standards and Assessment Division California Department Education 1430 N Street Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 319-0361 E-mail: jgrissom@cde.ca.gov B.A. California State University, San Bernardino, 1970 M.A. University of Colorado, Boulder, 1984 Ph.D. University of Colorado, Boulder, 1988

PAGE 35

Reclassification of English Learners 35 Education Policy Analysis Archives http:// epaa.asu.edu Editor: Gene V Glass, Arizona State University Production Assistant: Chris Murr ell, Arizona State University General questions about appropriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, glass@asu.edu or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: casey.cobb@uconn.edu. EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin David C. Berliner Arizona State University Greg Camilli Rutgers University Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State Univeristy Richard Garlikov Birmingham, Alabama Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Ontario Institute of Technology Patricia Fey Jarvis Seattle, Washington Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Les McLean University of Toronto Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Los Angeles Michele Moses Arizona State University Gary Orfield Harvard University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Jay Paredes Scribner University of Missouri Michael Scriven University of Auckland Lorrie A. Shepard University of Colorado, Boulder Robert E. Stake University of Illinois—UC Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University John Willinsky University of British Columbia

PAGE 36

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 36 EPAA Spanish & Portuguese Language Editorial Board Associate Editors Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State University & Pablo Gentili Laboratrio de Polticas Pblicas Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Founding Associate Editor for Spanish Language (1998—2003) Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Argentina Alejandra Birgin Ministerio de Educacin, Argentina Mnica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Argentina Mariano Narodowski Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Argentina Daniel Suarez Laboratorio de Politicas Publicas-Unive rsidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina Marcela Mollis (1998—2003) Universidad de Buenos Aires Brasil Gaudncio Frigotto Professor da Faculdade de Educao e do Pr ograma de Ps-Graduao em Educao da Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Vanilda Paiva Lilian do Valle Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Romualdo Portella do Oliveira Universidade de So Paulo, Brasil Roberto Leher Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil Nilma Limo Gomes Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte Iolanda de Oliveira Faculdade de Educao da Universi dade Federal Fluminense, Brasil

PAGE 37

Reclassification of English Learners 37 Walter Kohan Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Mara Beatriz Luce (1998—2003) Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGS Simon Schwartzman (1998—2003) American Institutes for Resesarch–Brazil Canad Daniel Schugurensky Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada Chile Claudio Almonacid Avila Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educacin, Chile Mara Loreto Egaa Programa Interdisciplinario de Invest igacin en Educacin (PIIE), Chile Espaa Jos Gimeno Sacristn Catedratico en el Departamento de Didctica y Organizacin Escolar de la Universidad de Valencia, Espaa Mariano Fernndez Enguita Catedrtico de Sociologa en la Un iversidad de Salamanca. Espaa Miguel Pereira Catedratico Universidad de Granada, Espaa Jurjo Torres Santom Universidad de A Corua Angel Ignacio Prez Gmez Universidad de Mlaga J. Flix Angulo Rasco (1998—2003) Universidad de Cdiz Jos Contreras Domingo (1998—2003) Universitat de Barcelona Mxico Hugo Aboites Universidad Autnoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco, Mxico Susan Street Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Supe riores en Antropologia Social Occidente, Guadalajara, Mxico

PAGE 38

Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 12 No. 36 38 Adrin Acosta Universidad de Guadalajara Teresa Bracho Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmica-CIDE Alejandro Canales Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Rollin Kent Universidad Autnoma de Puebla. Puebla, Mxico Javier Mendoza Rojas (1998—2003) Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Humberto Muoz Garca (1998—2003) Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Per Sigfredo Chiroque Instituto de Pedagog a Popular, Per Grover Pango Coordinador General del Foro Latinoameri cano de Polticas Educativas, Per Portugal Antonio Teodoro Director da Licenciatura de Cincias da Educa o e do Mestrado Universidade Lusfona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Lisboa, Portugal USA Pia Lindquist Wong California State University, Sacramento, California Nelly P. Stromquist University of Southern Californi a, Los Angeles, California Diana Rhoten Social Science Research Council, New York, New York Daniel C. Levy University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York Ursula Casanova Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona Erwin Epstein Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois Carlos A. Torres University of California, Los Angeles Josu Gonzlez (1998—2003) Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20049999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00385
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 12, no. 36 (July 30, 2004).
260
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c July 30, 2004
505
Reclassification of English learners / James B. Grissom.
650
Education
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e11.385


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 12issue 36series Year mods:caption 20042004Month July7Day 3030mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2004-07-30