Percentage of EL (2004-05) | Percentage of EL (2005-06) | Percentage of EL (2006-07) | Percentage of EL (2007-08) | Percentage of EL (2008-09) | |
Percentage of Students Who Have Been Reclassified | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.08 | 0.05 | -0.06 |
Reclassification rates were also compared to percentages of English learners who scored in the proficient range on the California Standards Tests (CSTs). Pearson correlations were conducted to assess the relationship between the percentages of students who were proficient each year and the percentage of students reported as reclassified for each year (2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09). Results for all of the correlations were not significant, suggesting that there was no relationship between percentages of EL scores and percentage of reclassified students for each year. Results of the correlations are presented in Table 6.
EL (2004-05) | EL (2005-06) | EL (2006-07) | EL (2007-08) | EL (2008-09) | |
Percentage of Reclassified Students | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.10 |
Exceptions to the overall findings
Even though the overall findings described some important trends, there were several schools that stood out as exemplary exceptions to these findings. For example, a few schools showed a significant closure of the academic achievement gap between English learners and the English only students attending the same school (See schools # 1 and #2 in Table 7). The White students attending these two schools had significantly better achievement than English learners in 2004-05. These schools managed to maintain and improve that achievement level in the White students while showing dramatic improvement in achievement in the English learners. What can school leaders learn from these success stories? What role does leadership play in the success of the students? These questions and others must be explored by leaders.
Other schools also showed growth in both groups, yet the gap between the groups grew over the five school years that were targeted in this study. While many schools fell somewhere in between, English Learners in schools 1 and 2 made significant growth while English Learners in schools 3 and 4 suffered significant losses.
2004-05 EL | 2004-05 White | 2004-05 Gap | 2008-09 EL | 2008-09 White | 2008-09 Gap | Gap Difference | |
School 1 | 30.8 | 63.2 | 32.4 | 46.1 | 65.7 | 19.6 | - 12.8 |
School 2 | 27.7 | 58.7 | 31.0 | 47.7 | 64.4 | 16.7 | - 14.3 |
School 3 | 10.4 | 18.8 | 8.4 | 27.7 | 46.7 | 19.0 | + 10.6 |
School 4 | 5.5 | 9.1 | 3.6 | 31.1 | 72.7 | 41.6 | + 38.0 |
Implications
What can school leaders learn from this study? Possibly the greatest implication from the findings of this study is that while a growing overall assessment score often indicates a growing English learner subgroup score, the achievement gap still persists which indicates that schools still have a long way to go to achieve equity and equality. Although the percentage of English learners who are academically proficient has grown, the White subgroup has grown even more implying that changes in curriculum and instruction are benefiting all students. In spite of that overall benefit, the changes are most likely still general strategies that benefit all students but are not specifically designed to meet the needs of English learners.
Read also:
- Mirci, p., loomis, c., & Hensley, p. (september 2011). social justice, self-systems, and engagement in learning: what students labeled as “at-risk” can teach us Online Chapter
- Cunniff, d. (september 2011). university partnerships with teachers and students to enhance the teaching/learning experience Online Chapter
- Educational leadership and Textbook