University of Iowa
Iowa Research Online
Theses and Dissertations
Spring 2014
A comparison of English and Spanish assessment
measures of reading and math development for
Hispanic dual language students
Lisa M. Stevenson
University of Iowa
Copyright 2014 Lisa M Stevenson
This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4764
Recommended Citation
Stevenson, Lisa M.. "A comparison of English and Spanish assessment measures of reading and math development for Hispanic dual
language students." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2014.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4764.
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd
Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons
A COMPARISON OF ENGLISH AND SPANISH ASSESSMENT MEASURES
OF READING AND MATH DEVELOPMENT
FOR HISPANIC DUAL LANGUAGE STUDENTS
by
Lisa M. Stevenson
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Doctor of
Philosophy degree in Educational Policy and Leadership Studies
(Educational Administration)
in the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
May 2014
Thesis Supervisor: Associate Professor Liz Hollingworth
Copyright by
LISA M. STEVENSON
2014
All Rights Reserved
Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
________________________
PH.D. THESIS
________________
This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of
Lisa M. Stevenson
has been approved by the Examining Committee
for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Educational Policy and Leadership Studies (Educational Administration)
at the May 2014 graduation.
Thesis Committee:
Liz Hollingworth, Thesis Supervisor
James Maxey
Lia Plakans
Pamela Wesely
Ernest Pascarella
Howard Smith
To Maya, Malik, and Macy
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe my most abundant thanks to my patient advisor, Dr. Liz Hollingworth. She
believed in me through all of the revisions and my job changes. I also would like to
thank my committee members for their time, knowledge, and expertise: Drs. James
Maxey, Ernest Pascarella, Lia Plakans, Pam Wesely, and Howard Smith. Each of the
committee members shared their wealth of resources with me and encouraged me to
reflect and finish. I did not have many classes with most of the members as I had
transferred back to The University of Iowa, but all of the members listened to me and
understood my passion about the topics of bilingual education, language acquisition,
standardized testing, and No Child Left Behind. My courses, comprehensive
examinations, and dissertation spanned the course of five years which also gave me a
chance to learn from so many other great professors including Drs. Susan Lagos-Lavenz,
Marc Haack, and Alan Henkin.
I am also extremely grateful for the most patient husband in the entire world. He
never once told me to stop and for far too many years has been the constant stable in our
home for our three children. My oldest daughter Maya always encouraged me by telling
me that I had to finish since we were both not going to be in college at the same time.
My son Malik and my daughter Macy have never had a “mom” who wasn’t a full-time
elementary principal and doctoral student. They are going to be so happy to have me
“back” after graduation.
I am thankful for my extended family and friends both old and new. My mother
Vicki Danner and father Joe Danner haven’t always understood why I am so driven to
write about bilingual education and standardized testing, but they never questioned me.
My sisters Jennifer Gorrell and Gretchen Steines have been waiting a long time for me to
get through school and I know they, their husbands, and my nieces and nephew will be
here to cheer me on and celebrate. My childhood friends from Dubuque and my friends
iii
from adulthood also deserve a big thank you from me as they have pitched in and helped
in so many ways whether it was an encouraging message online or driving one of my
children to an event. Their encouragement is priceless.
Lastly, I would like to thank my past and present colleagues and superintendents
who supported my efforts. It is extremely difficult to be a full-time public school
administrator and doctoral student at The University of Iowa. There were many times
when I had to step back from projects at work, but my fellow principals, my teachers, my
staff, and my superintendents all have waited patiently cheering me on. They are as
excited as I am that I have finished my study and can share my research with others.
Teaching and language acquisition have been my passion for almost 25 years. I
have always loved languages and studying other cultures. I have been so fortunate to be
able to learn, live, and grow as a student, teacher, and administrator in environments
surrounded by my passions. I hope that my work inspires others to advocate for those
that cannot always advocate for themselves.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) ............................................................................... 5
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 6
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 8
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 10
Iowa’s NCLB Approach ................................................................................ 12
Impact of NCLB in Iowa ............................................................................... 14
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 15
Federal Policy Effects on ELs ....................................................................... 17
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 18
Organization .......................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................................................... 22
Program Models for Bilingual Education ............................................................. 22
Bilingual Program Type Overview ............................................................... 27
Program Approaches ..................................................................................... 27
Study Model .................................................................................................. 37
History of Two-Way Immersion Programs .......................................................... 38
The Models of Bilingualism: Separate Underlying Proficiency or Common
Underlying Proficiency (CUP) ............................................................................. 40
Benefits of Bilingualism ................................................................................ 42
Barriers Impacting Bilingual Education Programming ................................. 47
Achievement and Standardized Testing................................................................ 49
Native Language Standardized Testing ......................................................... 50
Monolingual Assessment Practices ............................................................... 51
Native Language Testing: Translation, Adaptation, or Parallel Development ..... 53
Validity .......................................................................................................... 54
Reliability, Consistency and Equity .............................................................. 55
Accountability ............................................................................................... 57
Standardized Testing Concerns ..................................................................... 58
Bilingual Program Student Testing Outcomes ..................................................... 60
Assessing the Assessments ................................................................................... 61
Case Studies in Dual Language and Related Fields ...................................... 65
Summary ............................................................................................................... 65
CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 66
Data Sources ......................................................................................................... 67
The Research Site .......................................................................................... 67
Regal Community School District Funding .................................................. 69
Participants ............................................................................................................ 70
Participant Selection ...................................................................................... 70
Testing Groups .............................................................................................. 71
v
Test Instruments .................................................................................................... 74
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) ................................................................. 74
Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) .......................................... 78
Logramos ....................................................................................................... 81
Assessment Summary.................................................................................... 85
Data Analysis Methods and Procedures ............................................................... 85
Consenting/Assenting Procedures ................................................................. 85
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................... 86
Sampling Procedures and Sample Size ......................................................... 86
Data Sources .................................................................................................. 88
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 91
Summary ............................................................................................................... 91
CHAPTER IV - RESULTS ............................................................................................ 94
Results for Research Question One ...................................................................... 95
National Grade Level Equivalency Reading Comparisons ........................... 95
Percentage Proficient Reading Comparisons ................................................ 98
ITBS/ITED Reading and Logramos Percentage Proficiency
Comparison by Graduating Cohorts .............................................................. 99
Results for Reading ..................................................................................... 100
Results for Research Question Two .................................................................... 101
National Grade Level Equivalency Math Comparisons .............................. 101
Percentage Proficient Math Comparisons ................................................... 103
ITBS/ITED Math and Logramos Math Percentage Proficiency
Comparison by Graduating Cohorts ............................................................ 104
Study Results ............................................................................................... 104
Matched Pairs Comparison ................................................................................. 105
All Cohorts .......................................................................................................... 106
Summary ............................................................................................................. 108
CHAPTER V - DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS ..................... 111
Summary of the Study ........................................................................................ 111
Summary of the Findings and Implications ........................................................ 111
Research Question One ............................................................................... 112
Research Question Two............................................................................... 114
Comparison of Research Question Results ................................................. 116
Limitations of the Study...................................................................................... 118
Implications for Education .................................................................................. 120
School Leadership Influence on ELs’ and Hispanics’ Development .......... 121
Language Acquisition and Dual Language Future Programs ..................... 124
Public Policies and Support of Bilingualism ............................................... 124
NCLB and Native Language Testing .......................................................... 125
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 125
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................. 128
APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY of TERMS .................................................................... 130
APPENDIX B - SAMPLE TEST ITEMS .................................................................... 135
APPENDIX C - SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD APPROVAL .................................... 138
vi
APPENDIX D - UNIVERSITY OF IOWA INSTITUTIONAL
REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ....................................................... 146
APPENDIX E - PERCENTAGE PROFICIENT READING COMPARISONS ......... 148
APPENDIX F - PERCENTAGE PROFICIENT MATH COMPARISONS ................ 157
APPENDIX G - COMPARISONS OF MATCHED PAIRS RESULTS ..................... 165
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 173
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Critical Dates in Bilingual Education History ................................................. 2
Table 2.
Non-English Primary Languages in Iowa ...................................................... 16
Table 3.
English Language and Bilingual Program Models ........................................ 23
Table 4.
Effects of Aging on Bilinguals and Non-Bilinguals ...................................... 45
Table 5.
Student Class Cohort Size for English Reading and Math Assessment ........ 72
Table 6.
Student Class Cohort Size Comparison for Spanish Reading and Math
Assessment .................................................................................................... 73
Table 7.
Levels of Testing for ITBS ............................................................................. 75
Table 8.
ITBS/ITED/Logramos Testing Windows and Forms Used ............................ 85
Table 9.
Demographics of Study Participants............................................................... 87
Table 10. Data Sources by Research Question .............................................................. 92
Table 11. Comparisons on Reading National Grade Level Equivalency (NGE)
Between Logramos and ITBS/ITED for the Combined 2011-2018
Cohorts .......................................................................................................... 96
Table 12. Comparisons on Math National Grade Level Equivalency (NGE)
Between Logramos and ITBS/ITED for the Combined 2011-2018
Cohorts ........................................................................................................ 101
Table 13. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading
(All Cohorts by Grade) ................................................................................ 106
Table 14. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (All
Cohorts by Grade) ....................................................................................... 107
Table 15. Reading and Math Test Results Comparisons ............................................. 117
Table E1.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National
Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2018
(3-6 Years in Dual Language Program) ...................................................... 148
Table E2.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National
Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2017
(3-7 Years in Dual Language Program) ...................................................... 149
Table E3.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National
Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2016
(4-8 Years in Dual Language Program) ...................................................... 150
viii
Table E4.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National
Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2015
(5-8 Years in Dual Language Program) ...................................................... 151
Table E5.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National
Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2014
(6-10 Years in Dual Language Program) .................................................... 152
Table E6.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National
Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2013
(7-11 Years in Dual Language Program) .................................................... 153
Table E7.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National
Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2012
(8-12 Years in Dual Language Program) .................................................... 154
Table E8.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National
Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2011
(9-12 Years in Dual Language Program) .................................................... 155
Table F1.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile
Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2018 (3-6 Years in
Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 157
Table F2.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile
Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2017 (3-7 Years in
Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 158
Table F3.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile
Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2016 (4-8 Years in
Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 159
Table F4.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile
Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2015 (5-8 Years in
Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 160
Table F5.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile
Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2014 (6-10 Years in
Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 161
Table F6.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile
Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2013 (7-11 Years in
Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 162
Table F7.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile
Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2012 (8-12 Years in
Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 163
Table F8.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile
Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2011 (9-12 Years in
Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 164
ix
Table G1. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading
(Class of 2018) ............................................................................................ 165
Table G2. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math
(Class of 2018) ............................................................................................ 165
Table G3. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading
(Class of 2017) ............................................................................................ 166
Table G4. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math
(Class of 2017) ............................................................................................ 166
Table G5. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading
(Class of 2016) ............................................................................................ 167
Table G6. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math
(Class of 2016) ............................................................................................ 167
Table G7. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading
(Class of 2015) ............................................................................................ 168
Table G8. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math
(Class of 2015) ............................................................................................ 168
Table G9. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading
(Class of 2014) ............................................................................................ 169
Table G10. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math
(Class of 2014) ............................................................................................ 169
Table G11. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading
(Class of 2013) ............................................................................................ 170
Table G12. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math
(Class of 2013) ............................................................................................ 170
Table G13. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading
(Class of 2012) ............................................................................................ 171
Table G14. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math
(Class of 2012) ............................................................................................ 171
Table G15. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading
(Class of 2011) ............................................................................................ 172
Table G16. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math
(Class of 2011) ............................................................................................ 172
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. English Achievement of ELs: Long-Term K-12 Standardized Tests in
English Reading Across Seven Programs ....................................................... 36
Figure 2. Ethnic Breakdown of Regalville Population .................................................... 68
xi
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, a former teacher who believed that equal
access to education was vital to a child's ability to lead a productive life, worked with
Congress to provide funding to improve the educational opportunities of economically
disadvantaged students (Weisbrod, 1965). The nation's largest federal elementary and
secondary education program, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and
the legislation that has come after it shape educational policy and practice in classrooms
throughout the United States.
The law initially consisted of six “titles” that result in the federal government
providing funding to 90% of the nation's public and parochial schools. As originally
conceived, Title I provided funding and guidelines; Title II funded the purchase of library
materials and audio/visual equipment; Title III provided funding for programs for
students "at risk" of school failure, including after-school, radio and television,
counseling, and foreign language programs; Title IV provided funding for college and
university research on education; Title V provided funding to individual state
departments of education; and Title VI laid out the law's general provisions (Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965).
Because educational conditions change over time, Congress reviews and revises
the law as necessary, reauthorizing ESEA several times since its initial passage in 1965.
Critical dates relative to ESEA and bilingualism are presented in Table 1. ESEA was
amended in 1968 to include Title VII, the Bilingual Education Act (BEA), to
“educate limited English proficient children and youth to meet the same rigorous
standards for academic performance expected of all children and youth, including
meeting challenging State content standards and challenging State student
performance standards in academic areas by developing systemic improvement
and reform of educational programs serving limited English proficient students
through the development and implementation of exemplary bilingual education
programs and special alternative instruction programs…(Bilingual Education Act,
1968).
2
Table 1.
Critical Dates in Bilingual Education History
Event
Public
Law
Date
Passed
Purpose
Elementary
and Secondary
Education Act
(ESEA)
89-10
1965
ESEA originally provided legal authority for the
U.S. government’s financial support of K-12
education, setting funding limits and establishing
legal requirements for state and local education
agencies, universities, Native American tribes, and
other entities receiving federal assistance through
programs such as Title I.
Elementary
and Secondary
Education Act
Amendments
of 1969
91-230
1969
These amendments to ESEA authorized
comprehensive planning and evaluation grants to
state education agencies (SEAs) and local education
agencies (LEAs) and established a National
Commission on School Finance.
Bilingual
Education Act
(BEA)
90-247
93-380
95-561
98-511
100-297
103-382
1968
1974
1978
1984
1988
1994
Added Title VII, BEA, which provided
discretionary, supplemental funding (federal aid)
for school districts that established programs to
meet the special educational needs of children with
limited English speaking ability.
Lau v. Nichols
414 U.S.
563
1974
Ruling on Limited English Proficient education, in
Lau v. Nichols the Supreme Court ruled that school
districts must provide remedies for non-Englishspeaking children for meaningful education.
(Identical is not equal.)
Department of
Education
Organization
Act
96-88
1979
Signed by President Carter, established the cabinetlevel department known as the Department of
Education.
Educational
Consolidation
and
Improvement
Act (ECIA)
97-35
1981
ESEA consolidated and simplified the
administration of Federal elementary and secondary
education programs to eliminate unnecessary
paperwork and undue Federal interference in our
nation's schools.
The 1978 amendment to the act (PL 95-561)
provided a transition to English-speaking classes.
BEA also was amended in 1974 (PL 93-380), 1984
(PL 98-511), 1988 (PL 100-297), 1994 (PL 103382), and 2001 as part of No Child Left Behind
(NCLB).
3
Table 1. (cont.)
Event
Public
Law
Date
Passed
Purpose
Goals 2000:
Educate
America Act
(EAA)
103-227
1994
EAA added two goals to the National Educational
Goals—increased parental involvement and
professional development for teachers. Also
provided support to states to develop standards and
assessments.
Improving
America’s
Schools Act
(ISEA)
103-382
1994
Through ISEA, Title I was revised to require all
students (including economically disadvantaged)
be assessed against the same standards, which
states were developing with support from Goals
2000; schools with low performance were to be
identified and provided extra assistance as schools
"in need of improvement."
No Child Left
Behind Act
(NCLB)
107-110
2001
NCLB requires that all students be “proficient”
(determined by individual state Department of
Education) in reading, mathematics, and science by
2014, with Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
measures to determine school success; annual
standardized tests (developed by the states) in
grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics; reports
from all schools by disaggregated groups of
students; sanctions on schools not meeting AYP
requirements; plans to close achievement gaps.
English
Language
Acquisition
Act (ELAA)
107-110
2001
Sections 3101 and 3102 of NCLB constitute the
ELAA, which replaces the Bilingual Education Act
and requires that LEP students be tested in English
after three years in the U.S.
This act also changed the name of the US
Department of Education Office of Bilingual
Education and Minority Language Affairs to Office
of English Language Acquisition, Language
Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for
Limited English-Proficient Students (OELA).
Source: Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and
Academic Achievement for Limited English-Proficient Students (OELA), retrieved from
http:// http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html.
Note: Tables containing important terms and acronyms used in this document are
provided in Appendix A.
4
Title VII focuses on language instruction for limited English-proficient (LEP) and
immigrant students, helping to ensure that LEP and immigrant children attain English
language proficiency and meet the same challenging academic content and achievement
standards that all children are expected to meet.
The 1971 Supreme Court case, Lau v. Nichols, raised public awareness of equal
education opportunities for K-12 English language learners. This class action suit was
brought when the San Francisco, California, school system was integrated with 2,800
Chinese students who did not speak English. A portion of these students received
additional courses in English, while more than half did not. According to the U.S.
Supreme Court, as stated in their 1974 decision, “When children arrive in school with
little or no English-speaking ability, ‘sink or swim’ instruction is a violation of their civil
rights” (Lau v. Nichols, 1974).
During the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Education Consolidation
and Improvement Act (ECIA) in 1981 to reduce federal regulations of Title I, placing
resource control in the hands of states and local jurisdictions rather than at a federal level
and cutting federal aid to schools (Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act). An
attempt to remedy these alterations occurred in the 1994 Improving America’s Schools
Act (IASA), which significantly revised the original ESEA. The IASA attempted to
coordinate federal resources and policies with the pre-existing efforts at the state and
local levels in order to improve instruction for all students. This reform made three major
changes to Title I: (1) adding math and reading/language arts standards to be used to
assess student progress and provide accountability; (2) reducing the threshold for schools
to implement school wide programs from 75% poverty to 50%; and (3) increasing the
opportunity to use federal funding from multiple programs to dispense funds at a school
wide level (Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994).
The most recent and significant alteration to ESEA was made by President
George W. Bush in 2001 when Congress reauthorized the legislation as No Child Left
5
Behind (NCLB), including the English Language Acquisition Act (ELAA), which
changed the way that non-English speaking students are tested in the United States.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Prior to 2001, the ESEA recognized the unique educational disadvantages faced
by non-English speaking students. The BEA established a federal policy to assist
educational agencies serving students with limited English proficiency by authorizing
supporting funding (Bilingual Education Act of 1968), but the change from the BEA to
NCLB increased accountability for ELs on English language proficiency and content area
standards on the state and local level while removing federal financial support for
bilingual education programs. With the onset of NCLB, Crawford (2002) stated,
Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which transformed the
way language minority children are taught in the United States - promoting equal
access to the curriculum, training a generation of educators, and fostering
achievement among students- expired quietly on Jan. 8, 2002. (p. 124)
Under ESEA, state and local educational agencies worked under the direction of
federal agencies, but were not held publicly accountable for the educational achievement
of ELs. Under NCLB, yearly standardized tests in reading, math, and science under the
direction and responsibility of state and local education agencies were mandated to
measure how schools were performing against the achievement bars set by Title I, but did
not provide the funding to perform this education and testing. Title III of NCLB included
EL students as Limited English Proficient (LEP) children, addressing the EL students’
needs so that EL students “attain English language proficiency, develop high levels of
academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging state-determined levels of
academic content” (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001).
To accomplish these goals, each state was instructed to create an integrated
system of English language proficiency standards (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001).
NCLB also provides for accountability and measuring of progress. The shift in policy
was evident even in the change of the name of the office responsible for addressing the
6
needs of ELs from the Office of Bilingual Education and Language Minority Affairs to
the Office of English Language Acquisition (Crawford, 2002). .
Statement of the Problem
Since 2000, the federal government has built a case for the need for bilingual
education by focusing on the international and economic advantages of bilingualism for
American youth. Even though the international and economic advantages have been
noted, there appears to be a disconnect between the government’s support of bilingual
education as it relates to national growth compared to the government’s message in
NCLB which requires annual standardized testing for all students, including ELs, with
sanctions involved for those schools and districts that do not show adequate yearly
progress with all students including ELs. Richard W. Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education
from 1993 to 2001, addressed the nation on April 19, 2000 with his vision for bilingual
education for the country.
I am a strong supporter of high-quality dual-immersion schools that help children
to learn English and another language. We currently have 260 of these types of
schools in the United States. I believe we should raise that number to at least
1,000. Currently, we are requesting $310 million in bilingual education programs
that could support these types of schools. This is a $54 million increase over last
year. (Riley, 2000)
His support was crucial to ongoing funding for the development and research of best
practices in dual language education in the last decade. According to Jose RuizEscalante, president of the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE), Riley’s
vision, along with other factors, has contributed to nearly 2,000 dual language programs,
while other bilingual education programs have decreased in number (Wilson, 2011).
The legislative and philosophical changes have caused issues revolving around
the methods, techniques, and strategies used to promote the reading and writing skills of
ELs in three major areas: teacher availability, teaching resources, and testing assessment.
Bilingual education in the United States does not always incorporate English-Spanish, but
the majority of programs use that combination (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2012).
7
The availability of native speakers of Spanish in the elementary school lends itself to the
choice of Spanish instead of other less spoken languages in the United States. According
to the Center for Applied Linguistics (2012b), 394 of the 427 dual language programs in
the United States use Spanish and English as their languages of instruction; other
languages include Chinese, French, Korean, Japanese, German, and Italian.
NCLB did not prohibit states from utilizing assessments that were written in
languages other than English. The lack of native language assessments in the federal
accountability workbooks may have been due more to fiscal and time constraints than of
intentional decisions by state-level administrators. However, the level of competence can
interfere with the test performance of students who are not yet proficient in the language.
The content test is also a language test for those students, which means that a reading test
or math test may be a test of both reading ability and English language skills, not just
reading ability, which is a problem for students who are not yet fluent English speakers
(Abedi, 2004).
The underlying hypothesis of this study is that academic skills may be more
appropriately assessed in the student’s first language. By definition, students who qualify
for EL services are non-English or limited-English speakers. Their second language
limitations have a direct impact on their ability to understand, speak, read, and write the
English language. The annual reading comprehension tests are much more a measure of
a student’s level of English language skills than of a student’s reading skills. Abedi and
Dietel (2004) supported this claim:
The test becomes a measure of two skills for the ELL student: subject and
language. When ELL students are allowed to demonstrate their ability to apply
reading comprehension skills in their dominant language, they generally have
higher levels of performance as compared to their performance in English which
is their second language. (p. 2)
Given this knowledge—that more accurate assessment occurs when testing in a student’s
native or dominant language—then why do some states and districts continue to only test
8
ELs in English? This study concentrates on this dilemma, focusing on testing and
assessment in both English and the EL’s native language.
Significance of the Study
There is an increasing number of students for whom English is a second language.
Achieving high levels of achievement at the same pace as native English speakers is
unrealistic for ELs. Fry (2009) reported that as a result of the rapid growth in minority
students and flat growth among white students, 287 of the nation’s 2,808 suburban school
districts have become majority-minority school districts since 1993-94. According to the
2000 U.S. Census, the number of Americans who speak a language other than English
increased by 47% between the years 1990 and 2000. School-aged children representing
heritage (language spoken in the home) languages other than English and who spoke the
English language with difficulty increased 114% between 1979 and 2004 (Planty et al.,
2009). The growing EL population presents large challenges for public education to meet
the federal requirements of NCLB for providing bilingual solutions in schools.
Various program models across the United States serve the English language
acquisition needs of K-12 students identified as in need of specific English language
instruction in addition to their general education curriculum. These program models
serve students who use English only at home and those who use a language other than
English at home, which is the framework used by De Jesús (2008). All of the bilingual
program models, both transitional and dual language, are used throughout the United
States and have had empirical research conducted to gauge their effectiveness in relation
to increasing academic achievement for ELs. A review of that research is presented in
Chapter II. Basic characteristics of program models as characterized by De Jesús (2008),
Baker (2011), Howard et al., (2007) and Rennie (1993) are explained in Chapter II.
This study focuses on testing results for Hispanic students in a dual language twoway immersion (TWI) model program. TWI is the chosen program design for this school
district for a variety of reasons including student demographics, teacher qualifications,
9
community support, and financial feasibility. The community, including the school
board, administrators, parents, teachers, and community have voiced strong feelings that
TWI is the best model as it is how the ELs learn best in their community and that it is
best for non-ELs, too, to learn a language in addition to their native language. The TWI
model in the study includes a 50/50 Spanish/English model for K through 5 and then a
class period Spanish/English model approximately 65% English and 35% Spanish in
terms of language of the course for grades 6 through 12. Finally, this program includes
both native and non-native speakers of Spanish to represent the language majority and
language minority balance needed in a TWI program model. Features and empirical
research associated with TWI programs are detailed in Chapter II.
The premise of TWI programs is to provide academic success, to value the
heritage language and cultures represented in the classroom, as well as to erase the stigma
of students deemed as subordinates in other programs (Collier, 1992). This type of
additive bilingualism, in which all students are provided the opportunity to acquire a
second language at no cost to their home language (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000),
is the basis for a model in local schools that can be a benefit for ELs and language
majority students, but can still carry the pressures created by NCLB for accountability.
According to Abedi (2004), if ELs are taking only the assessments for reading and math
in English, they may not be accurately represented in terms of their proficiency with
grade level skills due to issues of English language acquisition levels, not due to issues
with reading and/or math skills. These lower levels of proficiency contribute in NCLB to
schools and school districts being labeled as failing and/or in need of assistance.
This is the challenge faced by the states—they have flexibility in meeting English
language proficiency standards, but must make wise choices, since their funding is
dependent on their success. The main reported benefits of additive bilingualism focus on
academic achievement, English language acquisition, and engagement in the learning
process (Collier, 1995). School districts and states are willing to balance the pressure of
10
achieving high levels of academic achievement with the benefits of acquiring a second
language while learning English because research demonstrates that additive bilingualism
models like TWI or dual language produce results. Thomas and Collier (2002) found that
ELs who enroll in dual language programs achieve a greater academic level compared
with ELs enrolled in other bilingual program models.
The results of this research study are important because they may impact what
program models and methods that local school districts choose to use to help Hispanic
and/or EL students learn grade level content material and learn the English language. If
students in dual language programs like the one found in this school district show that,
when tested in reading and math in their native language of Spanish, students achieve at
significantly higher levels, then more school districts might consider dual language
programming as an option. Also, if the student achievement data show different levels of
achievement for reading as compared to math in English or Spanish, then the study may
lead to further conversations about how to close the gap between the two content areas of
reading and math for ELs.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which the language of
testing in reading and math had a positive effect on 50/50 dual language program
Hispanic students’ reading and math achievement level as measured by a standardized
achievement test. This chapter focuses on the history of educational policies, but
introduces the present and anticipated effects of educational testing practices related to
No Child Left Behind. This study examines a school district in Iowa serving students in
pre-kindergarten through 12th grade that chose to offer dual language TWI
(Spanish/English) instruction to its students. Iowa, like other states, has experienced a
large increase in ELs since NCLB began in 2001. There were 20,000 EL students in
Iowa during the 2008-2009 school year, which was more than double the number
reported in 1998-1999 (Iowa Department of Education, 2009a, p. 55). Over 1,245
11
students were being educated in the district according to 2011-2012 student enrollment
data, with more than half of the enrolled students classified as Hispanic. The district in
this study uses the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), the Iowa Tests of Educational
Development (ITED), both presented in English, and the Spanish test Logramos to
evaluate student achievement. The reading and math results of Hispanic students are
compared in this study by content area and by language of the test to determine if the
Hispanic students, on average, achieve at higher levels as measured by national grade
equivalency (NGE) when testing in Spanish versus English.
According to Iowa state standards, English language assessments may include
utilizing state, local or nationally recognized tests, as well as teacher observations and
recommendations (Iowa Administrative Code, 2009). Additionally, the “Iowa Title III Enrollment Status Descriptors” provide specific guidance for placing students in
educational programs based on both English language proficiency and general
achievement levels and provides specific guidance for placing students in educational
programs based on both English language proficiency and general achievement levels.
English language use both in the classroom and outside of school is positively associated
with the development of English proficiency (CAL, 2011). The Hispanic students in this
study were tested for reading and math standardized achievement results in both the
English and Spanish versions of the grade level assessments. In Iowa, the reported
assessments are written in English.
This study is an examination of the academic progress of eight cohorts toward the
goal of math and reading proficiency in Spanish and in English over a five-year window
of collected testing data. According to the data collected in the Iowa Department of
Education (DOE) Annual Condition of Education (2009b) report, Spanish is the first
language of over 73.8% of the identified ELs in Iowa. The second and third most
reported primary language in Iowa after Spanish were Bosnian and Vietnamese, which
were the only other languages that had more than 500 speakers. Bosnian and Vietnamese
12
were each reported at 4.2% of the total EL student population in Iowa. In 2008-2009,
there were more than 15,000 ELL students and almost three of every four or 73.7% of
those EL students in Iowa reported that Spanish was their primary language (Iowa
Department of Education, 2009b, p. 55). The results of this study will be generalizable to
other states, as ELs are a rapidly growing subgroup in most of the United States and
according to the 2000 U.S. Census, the number of Americans who speak a language other
than English increased by 47% between the years 1990 and 2000.
The growing subgroup is required to attain proficiency in math and reading on
standardized assessments, even though students might not yet have reached proficiency in
the English language. When the Hispanic subgroup fails to achieve a high enough level
of proficiency in reading and math on state standardized assessments, local school
districts face sanctions by the state department of education and programming options for
Hispanic students who are learning English come under scrutiny by the public.
Iowa’s NCLB Approach
When NCLB was enacted, state departments of education were required to create
accountability workbooks that delineated which reading, math, and science assessments
would be used at particular grade levels, including the testing of ELs (No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001). The chosen assessments in Iowa received rigorous evaluation and
scrutiny in terms of their ability to demonstrate reliability and validity as technical
instruments. The results (Badgett, Buckendahl, & Rodeck, 2006) suggested that the Iowa
Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) for grades 2 through 8 and Iowa Tests of Educational
Development (ITED) for grades 9 through 11 were well aligned with Iowa’s content
standards. These results were used by the Iowa Department of Education (DOE) and
school districts to evaluate local curriculum and instruction. The Buros Center for
Testing, an independent organization, completed a report for the Iowa DOE that provided
another source which validated the alignment of the ITBS and ITED tests to state
standards for the state (Badgett, Buckendahl, & Rodeck, 2006). ELs were assessed in
13
reading, math, and science with the ITBS and/or ITED (Iowa Consolidated State
Application Accountability Workbook, 2011b, p.8). The only permissible modification
from the Iowa DOE was that ELs in the first year of schooling in Iowa were exempt from
the Reading test and instead were allowed to count as participants since they were
assessed with the state English language development assessment in reading (Iowa
Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2011b, p.8).
In 2012, local school districts in Iowa only report students’ English reading
comprehension scores per the Iowa Accountability Workbook. The Iowa Accountability
Workbook states that “all limited English-proficient (LEP) students participate in
statewide assessments: general assessments with or without accommodations or a native
language version of the general assessment based on grade level standards” (Iowa
Accountability Workbook, 2011b, p. 28). Further, according to the Iowa Accountability
Workbook, all ELs must participate in an English language proficiency assessment
annually, as per Title III guidelines. For ELs in their first year of enrollment in US
schools (defined as up to 180 school days of enrollment), English language proficiency
assessment constitutes their participation in reading for purposes of reporting Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) (participation rate calculation) only. Students participate in the
state’s accountability assessment in math, which constitutes their participation in
mathematics for AYP purposes (participation rate calculation); however, these students
will not be included in calculations for annual measurable objectives (AMO) for reading
or mathematics in any appropriate membership subgroups (as per US ED guidance).
(Iowa Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2011b, p.28).
In Iowa, the state accountability workbook application noted the need to use the
required assessments, ITBS and ITED, even though “the increased number of Iowa
students with non-English primary language is clearly evident” (Iowa Department of
Education, 2002, p. 24). The Buros Report further recognized the need for a more
14
delineated system of assessment for ELs and those resources available to districts seeking
additional measurements of ELs’ reading and mathematical skills.
Impact of NCLB in Iowa
Iowa education agencies are required to identify Schools in Need of Assistance
(SINA) and Districts in Need of Assistance (DINA). NCLB requires that SINAs and
DINAs develop a two-year plan to address deficiencies. A search of the schools and
districts in Iowa named as deficient shows disproportionality because schools with higher
than average numbers of ELs are identified more frequently as SINAs. For the 20092010 school year, 24 school districts in Iowa were considered DINAs out of the 364 total
school districts. Of these 24 districts, eight comprise the Urban Education Network,
which refers to the eight largest school districts in Iowa in terms of student enrollment
and includes Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Des Moines, Dubuque, Council Bluffs, Waterloo,
Sioux City, and Davenport. Of the other DINA districts, seven contain some of the
highest concentrations of Hispanics and ELs, including Ottumwa, Muscatine, West
Liberty, Denison, South Tama, and Marshalltown (Iowa Department of Education, 2010).
The highest percentages of students in Iowa who speak a language other than English and
qualify for LEP status come from the ethnic subgroup of Hispanic.
The districts with the highest percentages of ELs are disproportionately
represented on the Iowa DINA list for not meeting AYP in reading or math as measured
by the ITBS or ITED. According to the Iowa DOE website, of the 16 public school
districts with the highest percentage of ELs (>10%) 8 of the 16 are on the Iowa DINA
list. This means that of the 24 school districts on the Iowa DINA list, about one-third are
in DINA status due to Hispanic and/or EL subgroup data. Though some groups may
reach proficiency in as little as two years, according to Collier (1992), it is projected that
EL students on average will take four to eight years of second language acquisition to
fully master social English language and academic English language as measured on
standardized tests. Given the observations noted from former and current EL consultants
15
at the state level, local school districts are faced with an assessment situation for ELs that
language acquisition research has shown will result in non-proficient status for the
students (Dr. Carmen Sosa, personal communication, 2008).
The number of ELs in Iowa, similar to the rest of the United States, has risen
considerably in recent years and reached 500,601 or 4.76% EL students in grades PK
through 12 in 2012 (Iowa Department of Education, 2013). Table 2 demonstrates the
growth and diversity of languages spoken in Iowa. For example, Iowa’s status as a
refugee home for the United Nations explains the sudden increase in population from
South Sudan. If the Iowa policy is set at a one-year exemption and then a student is fully
accountable, what other options exist for EL students who are learning English and
academic content simultaneously? One option permissible via the Iowa Federal
Accountability Workbook is to use native language math, reading and/or science tests in
place of or in addition to the ITBS and ITED.
Conceptual Framework
Historically, the United States excluded the participation of ELs from large scale
student assessment programs, which brought about concerns regarding the influences of
language proficiency and academic achievement. The Abedi et al. study (2004) frames
the problem for the Hispanic dual language students in this study because these students
take standardized assessments in their second language (English) and these results are
used for AYP decisions as an example of their academic achievement without regard for
language proficiency levels among the EL subgroup. Discussion on the validity and
reliability of instruments administered in the student’s second language (L2) has been
ongoing by experts in the field, administrators, and teachers in the classroom. Chapter II
will explore the literature on standardized testing issues for ELs more thoroughly.
16
Table 2.
Non-English Primary Languages in Iowa
Language
2000-2001
2009-2010
2010-2011
Spanish; Castilian
7,014
15,552
15,886
Vietnamese
766
823
881
Bosnian
363
828
810
Serbian, Srpski
434
0
0
Serbo-Croatian
556
0
0
Tai Dam
142
0
0
Arabic
81
383
413
Lao
409
360
324
Chinese
80
288
311
Karen languages
0
130
217
Russian
65
202
195
Somali
0
150
159
Swahili
0
136
158
Rundi
0
100
146
German
153
123
142
Marshallese
0
121
136
Korean
76
122
125
Nilo-Saharan (Other)
0
115
112
Dinka
0
90
97
Creoles and pidgins, English
based (Other)
0
57
91
Cambodian
101
56
0
Nepali
0
55
80
Hmong
0
51
78
17
Table 2. Continued
Language
2000-2001
2009-2010
2010-2011
Burmese
0
0
76
Tagalog
0
55
67
French
0
0
65
Ukrainian
0
58
62
Urdu
0
61
62
Pohnpeian
0
0
59
Other
1024
1358
1352
Source: Iowa Department of Education, Bureau of Information and Analysis, Basic
Educational Data Survey and EASIER, www.educateiowa.gov, 2011b.
Federal Policy Effects on ELs
As of February 2004, the U.S. DOE allowed states to “not count” the scores of
newly arrived ELs in their AYP for the first year, but still encouraged all ELs to be tested
(Echevarria et al., 2006). That allowance has had a negative result for ELs because most
tests now used were designed for native English speakers. As the acting director of the
National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) in 2004, Crawford summarized the
failure of NCLB to improve programming or academic results for ELs, noting that NABE
supported NCLB in 2001 initially, as the NABE hoped that NCLB would bring attention
to the lack of public accountability and limited sources of funding and attention that ELs
were receiving. Many ELs were not receiving an intellectually challenging educational
experience or sufficient material resources to promote English language acquisition
(Crawford, 2004). He further noted that NCLB failed to recognize what makes the EL
subgroup unique as how the EL subgroup “itself is a problematic construct”. The EL
subgroup needs benchmarks and valid assessments to measure growth, though according
18
to Crawford (2004), NCLB guidelines do not recognize the pressing issues of mobility,
diversity, socioeconomic status, level of prior education, type of instructional program
experience, and linguistic and cultural background.
Hursh (2005) observes that NCLB marks a change in the level of school control
as it moves from local educational agencies to state and federal agencies. By requiring
standardized achievement tests and state accountability systems, principals, teachers, and
students will be responsible for schools that fail, but many schools across the United
States are failing to meet the NCLB accountability requirements for AYP due to these
very testing constraints. According to Hursh (2005):
…Even if the tests were well constructed and valid, the yardstick by which
schools are measured—adequate yearly academic progress (AYP)—often
discriminates against schools serving students of colour and living in poverty.
The determination of whether a school is making AYP tells us little about whether
a school is improving. Not only can we question the validity of the tests but the
determination of success or failure may have little to do with whether the school
is improving (pp. 612-613).
NCLB, according to Hursh (2005), has transferred control from local and state
agencies to the federal level under the guise that standardized testing and accountability
would cause teachers to be more responsible and students to achieve at higher levels.
The push for competitiveness in a global economy, the lessening of inequality, and the
presence of more objective assessments were the driving forces behind the NCLB reform.
Although these goals were admirable, Hursh (2005) reflects that the NCLB reform has
not met its goals, as indicated by the fact that the achievement gap between advantaged
and disadvantaged students has increased.
Research Questions
This study examines the results on the reading and math achievement on
standardized English and Spanish assessments of Hispanic students who are enrolled in a
50/50 English-Spanish dual language program. The design features analysis of the
assessment results of Hispanic dual language students’ reading and math skills over a
five-year window in both English and Spanish which provided the researcher the
19
opportunity to examine the development and interrelationships among skills in the two
languages. The research questions guiding this study are:
1. Is there a statistical difference in reading achievement for Hispanic 50/50 EnglishSpanish dual language program students when testing data is disaggregated
linguistically?
To resolve this question, the following null hypothesis was examined and tested:
Null Hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the
reading achievement of Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language
program students when testing data is disaggregated linguistically.
2. Is there a statistical difference in math achievement for Hispanic 50/50 EnglishSpanish dual language program students when testing data is disaggregated
linguistically?
To resolve this question, the following null hypothesis was examined and tested:
Null Hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the math
achievement of Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language program
students when testing data is disaggregated linguistically.
If the Hispanic dual language students are assessed in reading and math in
Spanish in accordance with NCLB standards, the students will achieve at higher levels of
proficiency than when they are assessed in English. Those higher levels of achievement
are a result of participation in a dual language program, where the Hispanic students
benefit from math and reading content and instruction without the interference of lack of
proficiency in English.
The results of this study will potentially inform second language program design,
standardized testing practices, native language testing use, and policy modifications to
NCLB regarding AYP for ELs. In terms of second language program design, if the
results of this study demonstrate that Hispanic students and/or ELs achieve at higher
levels and/or at grade level in reading and math when measured by Spanish language
20
assessments, then more schools and districts may consider implementing additive
bilingual programs like dual language to replicate these results. Standardized testing
practices may change as a result of this study because ELs are a fluid group that
combines newcomers with little to no English with ELs who are ready to transition to
general education classes only. Their results as one subgroup are not representative of
EL achievement due to these vast differences in language proficiency; therefore, ELs
need more time before being accountable to AYP for math and reading. Native language
testing use might become more widespread for AYP purposes if schools, districts, or
states see that Hispanic and/or EL students are able to make AYP if tested at grade level
in reading and math, but on an assessment written in their native language. Finally, there
might be policy modification to NCLB to account for this research and prior research that
demonstrates that ELs are not able to demonstrate adequately their knowledge or
command of grade level reading and math skills on an assessment written in English
without more systemic modifications or accommodations. All of these implications will
inform the field of educational leadership as teachers, administrators, and politicians
work to best understand how to serve and teach ELs in such a way that produces the
greatest academic achievements for all.
Organization
This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter I is an introduction to this
research study and includes general introductory information, NCLB background, a
statement of the problem, significance and purpose of the study, NCLB in Iowa and its
impact, conceptual framework including discussion of programming, control,
accountability, and standardized testing concerns, and the study’s research questions.
Chapter II includes a review of the related research and literature regarding theories of
bilingual education, models of bilingualism, achievement and standardized testing, native
language testing, and bilingual testing outcomes. Chapter III describes the research
methodology, which includes data sources, participants, test instruments, and data
21
analysis methods and procedures. Chapter IV presents results from data collected during
the study in relation to the research questions, an analysis of the matched pairs' results,
and a qualitative analysis of those results. Chapter V details a summary of the study,
findings, implications for further research, limitations of this research, and
recommendations for future research. Appendices A through G provide a glossary,
NCLB and Title I/III definitions, bilingual program model explanations, sample test
items from ITBS/ITED and Logramos, charts of percentage proficient comparisons for
reading and math, charts of matched pairs’ test results, and The University of Iowa
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to conduct the study.
22
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This review includes theories of bilingual education, bilingualism, achievement
and standardized testing, native language testing, and testing outcomes for bilingual
students. Because many factors impact the success or failure of educating bilingual
students, it is critical to examine the five factors as they relate to this study. The first
factor involves a review of program models for bilingual education, an overview of
bilingual program types and approaches, as well as the bilingual program used in this
research study. Secondly, the literature review includes a history of Two-Way
Immersion (TWI), theories of bilingualism, and barriers that impact bilingual education
programming. Then the review includes information about achievement and
standardized testing including information about native language testing and
accommodations for English Language Learners (ELs). The literature review ends with a
review of the research about testing outcomes for students in bilingual programs.
Program Models for Bilingual Education
Although standardized testing is the means used to assess the knowledge of ELs,
of equal importance is the program model selected by state and local administrators to
educate ELs. Various program models across the United States serve the English
language acquisition needs of K-12 students identified as in need of specific English
language instruction in addition to their general education curriculum. The models can
be divided into those that use English only and those that use a language other than
English, which is the framework used by De Jesús (2008). Both transitional and dual
language models are used throughout the United States and have had empirical research
conducted to gauge their effectiveness in relation to increasing academic achievement for
ELs. The program models, along with each model’s research source, are provided in
Table 3.
23
Table 3.
English Language and Bilingual Program Models
Program
English
Language
Only
Model
Source(s)
English-Only
Pull-Out or Class
Period or Resource
Center
Rennie (1993)
English-Only
Sheltered English
or Content-based
Instruction
Rennie (1993)
Baker (2011)
Structured English
Immersion (SEI)
Rennie (1993)
Description








Submersion
Baker (2011)


Transitional
Bilingual
Bilingual Early
Exit
De Jesús
(2008)


Bilingual Late Exit
(maintenance or
enrichment)
De Jesús
(2008)



DualLanguage
Two-Way (TWI)
Baker (2011)
De Jesús
(2008)
Howard et. al
(2007)


Students learn English as a standalone subject/class.
Common in elementary and middle
schools
Students learn English while in other
academic content classes such as
science and math.
Common in high schools
Teacher has English as a Second
Language (ESL) or bilingual
credentials or training
ELs’ native language is only used
for clarification
English is taught through the content
areas
No explicit English instruction
Students are completely immersed in
mainstream language classroom with
no specialized language services.
This has been referred to as the “sink
or swim” approach.
Initial instruction in students’ first
language to teach English, to teach
reading in the second language,
and/or clarify.
First language use is phased out over
1 to 2 years.
Initial instruction in students’ first
language to teach English and to
clarify instruction.
First-language use is maintained at
initial level of student in
maintenance model
First language use is expanded for
student in enrichment model
Instructional group includes
language minority and language
majority students.
Instruction is provided in both
languages at a 50/50 ratio, but may
be at a 90/10 ratio depending on
program goals.
24
Table 3. Continued
Program
Model
Source(s)
One-Way
Howard et al.,
(2007)
Description


Heritage
Baker (2011)


Instructional group includes
language minority students who all
speak a single language.
Instruction is provided in both
languages at a 50/50 ratio, but may
be at a 90/10 ratio depending on
program goals.
Instructional group includes
language minority students who all
speak the same ethnic language
Goal is preservation of the ethnic
language and culture
There are five models for English Language only including pull-out, class period,
resource center, sheltered English/content-based, and structured immersion. Empirical
research indicates that sheltered English/content-based programming is the most effective
in regards to increased student achievement for ELs.
The two bilingual program models (Bilingual Early Exit and Bilingual Late Exit)
use the students' home language, in addition to English, for instruction to enable students
to be transitioned into an English-only program. These programs are most easily
implemented in districts with a large number of students from the same language
background. Students in bilingual programs are grouped according to their first
language, with teachers proficient in both English and the students' home language.
The three dual language programs, which include both Two-Way and One-Way
bilingual program models, group language minority students from a single language
background in the same classroom with language majority (English-speaking) students.
Native English speakers and speakers of another language have the opportunity to acquire
proficiency in a second language while continuing to develop their native language skills.
Students serve as native-speaker role models for their peers.
25
Across the United States, English-only models are frequently used. Kindler
(2002) notes some of the non-English-only states include Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois,
Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and New Mexico. In English-only programs, students
are given a number of minutes or class periods of English language instruction by a
certified ESL teacher, but then are educated in a general education environment without
direct ESL services for the rest of the school day. This approach is ineffective for ELs
who have newly arrived in the United States because many may not have proficiency in
their native language or in English (Kindler, 2002). Many of these newly arrived ELs
enter the American school system with little to no formal education experiences from
their home country. In contrast, some newly arrived ELs have had adequate formal
education experiences prior to arriving in the United States and some have had English
language instruction as well. This heterogeneity in the EL population or classroom
challenges administrators and educators. It is a challenge to administrators and educators
as they try to design programs, curriculum, and interventions to meet the needs of such a
diverse group within the EL subgroup. ELs enroll in American schools with a broad
range of language proficiencies and content area knowledge, both in their native language
and in English (Short & Boyson, 2003).
States such as Massachusetts, California, and Arizona, have joined the Englishonly movement in the last decade. California’s Proposition 227 was approved by 61% of
the California electorate in June 1998 and Proposition 227 has also been called the
“English for the Children” initiative (García and Curry-Rodriguez, 2000, p.4). The main
focus of this legislation was to mandate Structured English Immersion (SEI) and to
reduce bilingual or native language program options for ELs. In place of the bilingual
program options, students were placed in SEI classes, programs, or schools to learn
English as rapidly and effectively as possible and to enter general education, grade level
classrooms with age-appropriate peers (Garcia and Curry-Rodriguez, 2000).
26
In Arizona, similar legislation called Proposition 203 was passed in 2000 and
required pupils who are English learners to be taught in English immersion classes during
a temporary transition period not normally to exceed one year (Arizona State Legislature,
2000). When pupils have acquired a good working knowledge of English and are able to
do regular schoolwork in English, they are required to be transferred to classrooms in
which the students are native English language speakers or students who already have
acquired reasonable fluency in English. These classrooms are called English language
mainstream classrooms (Arizona State Legislature, 2000).
Arizona’s Proposition 203 has caused similar programmatic changes for ELs in
the last 9 years. Research has indicated that one year of English language instruction,
even in a sheltered, intensive program model, is not comprehensive or long enough for
ELs to learn English (Zehr, 2008). According to Zehr (2008), cumulative and
comparative studies based on National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP)
scores suggest that statewide mandates limiting bilingual education in California,
Arizona, and Massachusetts have produced “less-than-stellar” results (p.10).
The growth, expansion, and success of TWI/Dual language programs have helped
to dispel many of the negative perceptions of the American public about bilingual
education and to counter the criticisms of English-only supporters (Collier & Thomas,
2004). Students learn academic content most effectively when given opportunities to
learn and test with material in their native language. Krashen (1997) notes this about
quality bilingual education programs:
The best bilingual education programs include all of these characteristics: ESL
instruction, sheltered subject matter teaching, and instruction in the first language.
Non-English-speaking children initially receive core instruction in the primary
language along with ESL instruction. As children grow more proficient in
English, they learn subjects using more contextualized language (e.g., math and
science) in sheltered classes taught in English, and eventually in mainstream
classes. In this way, the sheltered classes function as a bridge between instruction
in the first language and in the mainstream.
27
Bilingual Program Type Overview
Villarreal (1999) identified two dimensions that he proposed are connected to the
success or failure of a bilingual program—“Support of the program at all levels of the
school hierarchy and level of knowledge of bilingual education as evidenced through
curriculum and instructional activities implemented in the program” (p.11). His purpose
was also to provide insights to school administrators on campuses with bilingual
education programs to encourage appropriate bilingual education practices and policies.
For example, to maximize program support and commitment to ELs, a positive learning
climate must be established (Villarreal, 1999). This can be assessed by observing
whether EL staff and bilingual education staff are included in school leadership teams
and on curricular alignment committees. If these staff members are not included in
curricular decisions, the outcomes for ELs may be less positive than for non-ELs.
Having a voice from the EL program promotes the knowledge that bilingual
education and EL programs are not remedial and that they play an important role in the
school. Additionally, programs can be evaluated by reports or anecdotes received from
students, teachers, parents, and administrators. Effective language acquisition programs
celebrate and validate language diversity from the first day of school (Villarreal, 1999).
Setting goals for ELs and the programs in which they participate is an effective way to
monitor program effectiveness over time within a school and across schools within a
district and to align with the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requiring yearly growth in
reading and math for all subgroups.
Program Approaches
There are three major approaches to language acquisition from which educational
programming decisions are derived—the English Language Only Model, the Transitional
Bilingual Model, and the Maintenance Bilingual/Dual Language Model. Each of these
theories or models has advantages and disadvantages as well as supporters and critics.
These theories in second language acquisition impact how public school districts and
28
state departments of education identify ELs, determine programming for ELs, and assess
ELs. In addition, the research over time and political climate reflect swings in which
model or theory the federal government is supporting both publically and financially.
English Language Only Models
English-only is a program model that promotes the use of English exclusively as
the medium for teaching all content in English to students. There is no use of the
students’ native language, and in many cases use of the native language is discouraged or
illegal.
Pull Out and Class Period
The empirical research from Cornell (1995) for the ESL pull-out and class period
programs indicate that ESL pull-out model programs have been “less than satisfying” in
helping ELs acquire English language skills. Cornell (1995) performed an evaluation of
ESL programs for ELs by synthesizing other studies in the field and focusing on pull-out
programs and concluded that EL dropout rates have been disproportionately high and the
academic achievements of ELs in pull-out programs has been limited to a few ELs.
Cornell (1995) also reviewed studies and concluded that ESL pull-out programs resulted
in fewer than two hours of English instruction per day for secondary EL students in
particular. As a result, content area instruction and English language instruction became
the responsibility of general education teachers who may or may not have had formal
training in ESL methods. Also, Cornell (1995) noted that the content of the ESL pull-out
classes became homework completion from the general education classes in place of
direct instruction in the English language.
ESL Resource Center
Many school districts have established self-contained newcomer programs or sites
that concentrate on delivering intensified English acquisition courses, comprehensible
content-area courses, and courses to help students adjust to the cultural norms of the
United States (Short & Boyson, 2004). Resource Center or Newcomer programs are an
29
alternative to the traditional ESL pull-out programs in which many secondary-level ELs
are placed upon entering the U.S. public schools.
Matas (2012) conducted empirical research comparing an ESL Resource
Center/Newcomer Center model to an ESL pull-out model in the San Diego Unified
School District and compared traditional ESL program placement and newcomer
program placement results in both a qualitative and quantitative design. Variables
studied included: student self-concept scale, academic self-concept scale, interviews and
focus groups with stakeholders and students’ attitudes, classroom observations, and
quantitative data related to student redesignation rates. The quantitative results show that
the redesignation rates for the ESL program were at a slightly higher rate than the
newcomer program, suggesting more successful language acquisition among ELs within
the ESL program. Matas (2012) hypothesized that the self-contained newcomer program
would “far exceed the ESL program in terms of language acquisition, the attainment of
academic skills, and a higher overall student academic self-concept level, as well as by
utilizing students’ home cultures and languages in students’ daily activities” (p. 300).
The conclusion, though, was that the newcomer program produced results similar to the
traditional ESL program which, according to Matas, is evidence of a movement towards a
monolingual English-only educational environment for ELs.
Sheltered English/Content-Based Instruction
Stoller (2004) wrote that Content-Based Instruction (CBI), when compared to
other ESL models, is “distinguished by its dual commitment to language and contentlearning objectives” (p. 261). CBI, in the last decade, has presented in practice in myriad
ways to meet the needs of both ELs and foreign language learners. Stoller explored the
general characteristics of and challenges of CBI by reviewing case studies that document
outcomes of CBI programs at elementary, secondary, and higher education levels and
curricular models that have been implemented in first and second language contexts. The
findings indicate that the CBI framework is an umbrella term that covers Cognitive
30
Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), Concept-Oriented Reading
Instruction (CORI), and Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) to name a few variations.
One form of Sheltered English or CBI is Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR).
CSR has also been the subject of empirical research. Klingner and Vaughn (2000)
investigated the frequency and means by which 37 bilingual and EL students in a 5th
grade elementary classroom helped each other while implementing CSR with science
textbook reading. Results indicated that ELs used about half of their time identifying and
clarifying ‘clunks’ (i.e., difficult words and concepts), with the rest of the time divided
among three other CSR strategies. ELs assumed responsibility for learning content for
themselves and assisting others to do the same. Klinger and Vaughn (2000) report that
results of pre- and post-English vocabulary measures indicated gains in vocabulary
learning as well.
Structured Immersion
Structured immersion programs teach academic content to ELs using English as
the language of instruction. Teachers have knowledge or proficiency of the students’
native language(s), and, though it is not used for instruction, the native language may be
used for clarification for English. Chamot (1995) described an EL program for 450
middle and high school students from the Arlington Public Schools, a small suburban
district in Virginia. The EL population was about 20% of the total study body, about
75% of the ELs were native Spanish speakers, the majority was from low-income homes,
their previous schooling was limited or interrupted, and a total of 51 languages were
spoken by the ELs. This EL program used CALLA, an instructional model that focuses
academic achievement of ELs learning through a second language, helps ELs by
providing them with opportunities to learn grade-appropriate content; develops the
speaking, listening, reading, and writing proficiencies needed for grade-level classrooms;
and focuses on direct instruction in learning strategies (Chamot, 1995).
31
The empirical evidence for Chamot’s structured immersion model indicates that
on criterion-based, standardized, self-evaluation, and performance-based assessments, the
EL students made faster gains than the national comparison group in computation and
even larger gains in mathematical concepts and applications EL students’ evaluations for
the mathematics program have shown consistently above-average student achievement
from 1992-1996 (Chamot, 1995).
Transitional Bilingual Models
The ultimate goal for students participating in a Transitional Bilingual program is
to transition to or join his or her grade level peers in a general education monolingual
English classroom as quickly as possible. Transitional bilingual programs are divided
into early exit and late exit models. Rennie (1993) noted that schools or districts that
utilize the early exit model generally do so because of community influence or parental
support. In addition, many schools and districts face a shortage of qualified native
language teachers to support all of the ELs, so this method benefits a larger number of
students even if for a short period of their school years.
The late exit model is a modification of transitional bilingual education theory,
differing from the early exit model in the amount of time that English is used as the
language of instruction as well as the length of time that the EL participates in the
program. Generally, ELs in a late exit transitional bilingual program receive at least 40%
of their daily instruction in their native language from a bilingual teacher (Rennie, 1993).
Bilingual Early-Exit
Combs et al. (2005) conducted a study to discover the effects of early-exit or SEI
models on students, teachers, and administrators in an urban Arizona school with a large
number of ELs following the passage of Proposition 203 in Arizona in 2000. Combs’
team of researchers studied civil rights issues surrounding the students’ options and also
the qualitative factors for teachers including preparedness to teach ELs in an early exit or
SEI model. The results indicated concerns in three areas:
32

Foremost, teachers interviewed felt ill-prepared to teach in an early-exit/SEI model.
This, in turn, caused problems with teacher turnover, recruitment, and retention.

The second area of concern centered on the lack of academic achievement of the
students in grades K through 2 in this study. The ELs did not indicate enough growth
in the one-year window to transition out of early exit-SEI and into the next level.

The last area of concern was civil rights, as this research indicated that the ELs’ civil
rights might have been violated as curricular changes and access to curriculum was
impaired by the implementation of the early-exit/SEI model.
Bilingual Late Exit
Thomas and Collier (2002) used a multivariate model to analyze a broad range of
U.S. public schools and staff. Their report described a five-year longitudinal study
(1996-2001) that included qualitative and quantitate data from urban and rural schools
with the goal of results that provide data to assist in policy decision making as ESL
program models are designed, implemented, evaluated, and reformed to meet the needs
of the growing EL population. Over 210,000 student records were used and over 80
languages were represented among the ELs.
The empirical research reviewed by Thomas and Collier (2002) indicate that
students with no proficiency in English should not be placed in short-term or early exit
bilingual programs of only one to three years. The early-exit programs cannot remedy
the large achievement gap. This assertion is supported in other research:
“Losing one's first language (L1) as second language (L2) is acquired generally
leads to lower achievement in school; whereas additive bilingualism acquiring L2
at no cost to L1 generally leads to high achievement in school.” (Lambert, 1975)
Elementary ELs immersed in the English mainstream because their parents denied
bilingual programming showed large decreases in reading and math achievement by
grade five when compared to students who received late-exit bilingual services (Thomas
& Collier, 2002). According to Thomas and Collier (2002), the fact that bilingually
schooled high school students outperform the monolingually schooled high school
33
students indicated that effective programs must be maintained five to six years to affect
the achievement gap. Data to support this includes the 100,000 secondary level ELs in a
central, large urban area that had mean National Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores on the
Stanford 9 of 46 in reading that were in a bilingual late-exit model compared to native
English speakers who scored a NCE of 47 in reading and ELs with no bilingual support
who scored a NCE of 40 in reading (Thomas & Collier, 2002).
Maintenance Bilingual/Dual Language Models
Similar to the previous language acquisition models, maintenance bilingual or
dual language model also has two strands—One-Way Immersion and TWI. In One-Way
developmental bilingual education, the majority of ELs are language minority students
learning content area subjects in both their native language and English. These students
are also learning English together. In a TWI model, the ELs are balanced with native
English speakers during instruction. These approaches afford educators the ability to
address the distinct goals of academic achievement in English and another language, to
encourage ongoing development of bilingual and biliterate skill sets, and to develop
mutually positive cross-cultural understandings and relationships. These goals can be
accomplished through deliberate attention given to protecting and valuing the minority
language’s role in instruction and throughout the program. Torres-Guzmán (2007) noted
that these academic and language goals are driven by the principles of language, learning,
and cognition and their relationships to each other.
Linguistic principles that are followed within this model include (a) formal
separation of the two languages during instruction, (b) deliberate planning to ensure
equality in language distribution, (c) no simultaneous language translation, (d) teaching
both English and the second language to students through the content areas, (e) using
whole language or thematic teaching, and (f) grouping students in a heterogeneous
manner (Torres-Guzmán, 2007). All of these principles require the students, teachers,
and community to respect the time needed for language learning and to focus on content
34
rather than production during the process. The issue of time will be addressed later in the
literature review as EL students are required to participate in and demonstrate proficiency
on state standardized achievement tests after one year of schooling in the United States.
Given the pressures and sanctions related to testing and time requirements, some states
and communities have chosen not to follow the dual language model of language
acquisition when designing English language acquisition programs.
One-Way Immersion
Empirical research that supports bilingual education, including One-Way
programming, can be found in the comprehensive evidence-based review by the National
Literacy Panel (NLP) on Language-Minority Children and Youth (August & Shanahan,
2006). The NLP report included experimental, quasi-experimental and multiple baseline
studies published in peer review journals, dissertations, and technical reports. These
studies were then divided by program characteristics and examined statistically through a
meta-analysis by an independent reviewer. The NLP concluded that promoting firstlanguage literacy was a benefit when learning a second language due to positive transfer
of skills between languages. The NLP further concluded that bilingual education had a
positive effect on ELs’ literacy skills in English as compared to ELs in English-only
instruction. The implications of this study validate the goals of One-Way Immersion for
developing literacy in ELs’ primary language while acquiring English literacy.
Two-Way Immersion
Two-Way Immersion (TWI) is an example of an additive bilingualism model.
Local school districts that seek to develop TWI programs have faced numerous struggles,
including negative public perception, lack of certified teachers, lack of bilingual teachers,
fewer available native language resources, and lack of assessment materials in the native
language (Freeman, Freeman, & Mercuri, 2005).
The empirical research about TWI includes a focus on academic achievement as
an outcome goal. Studies that have examined long-term, academic data of language-
35
minority students (Collier, 1992; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Thomas & Collier, 2002) have
supported the theoretical constructs of how ELs learned best when their native language
was valued and taught in academic settings along with the learning of cognitive tasks in
English. Collier supported this notion by stating,
The greater amount of L1 instructional support for language-minority
students, combined with balanced L2 support, the higher they are able to
achieve academically in L2 in each succeeding academic year, in comparison
to matched groups being schooled monolingually in L2. (p. 205)
Two longitudinal, large-scale comparative studies have been conducted to research ELs’
academic achievement across various programs in TWI (Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Thomas
& Collier, 2002).
The first study demonstrated the efficacy of TWI programs in a large scale, 15year national longitudinal study of various programs for ELs. Thomas and Collier (2002)
shared results from 23 local schools districts in 15 states with a longitudinal analysis of
more than 2 million students’ assessment results to show that dual language programs can
eliminate the achievement gap for ELs. The national study spanned from 1985 to 2001
including K-12 students in seven program models:
1) TWI (90:10 and 50/50 programs),
2) Late-Exit Bilingual (primary language and English instruction through the
upper elementary grades),
3) Early-Exit Bilingual (primary language and English instruction through the
early elementary grades),
4) Traditional English as a Second Language (ESL),
5) ESL through Academic Content (sheltered English instruction),
6) ESL Pull-Out (English language development instruction outside the context
of the regular classroom),
7) Native English Speakers (monolingual education).
36
Thomas and Collier (2002) summarized that only TWI and late-exit bilingual programs
enabled ELs to meet or exceed the 50th percentile on standardized tests on English
reading achievement (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. English Achievement of ELs: Long-Term K-12 Standardized Tests in English
Reading Across Seven Programs
________________________________________________________________________
Source: California Department of Education Language Policy and Leadership Office,
Copyright 2004 by Wayne P. Thomas & Virginia P. Collier.
The 45 results showed that TWI programs promoted the most desired levels of
English language proficiency in standardized tests and found the programs to have the
greatest long-term results for ELs. Thomas and Collier (2002) went on further to find that
37
the fewest high school dropouts came from TWI programs. After four to seven years of
the TWI model, ELs in 90/10 and 50/50 TWI programs were found to outperform native
English speakers, who had been educated in English only. The achievement gap between
ELs in segregated ESL programs and their TWI EL classmates was found to widen even
after the ELs from segregated programs reached levels set to join mainstream classes.
Study Model
The model that is the focus of this study is the dual language or TWI model. TWI
is the chosen program design for this school district for reasons including student
demographics, teacher qualifications, community support, and financial feasibility. This
community, including the school board, administrators, parents, teachers, and community
have voiced that they feel strongly that TWI is the best model as it is how the ELs learn
best in their community and that it is best for the non-ELs, too, to learn a language in
addition to their native language (Nancy Gardner, personal communication, 2009).
Finally, this study includes both native and non-native speakers of Spanish to represent
the language majority and language minority balance needed in a TWI program model.
Research on academic achievement of ELs consists primarily of evaluations of
the various program models, standardized test results, graduation rates, and qualitative
data from teachers, students, administrators, and families. Menken (2009) conducted a
meta-analysis of studies on the effects of NCLB on EL policies and language education
policies. She notes that NCLB legislation has an English-only focus that has had a ripple
effect on local school districts’ implementation of English language acquisition
programs. Menken’s research states that government policies related to education and
testing outcomes like NCLB have had damaging effects on the instruction that ELs
receive and choices that local schools and districts make in regard to EL programming.
Menken observes that the wording of NCLB and the focus on English will
“clearly have negative impacts on programs that have as their goals the development of
bilingualism and biliteracy” (p. 106). The language policies are shaping the local
38
educational decisions as administrators and state education agencies make instructional
decisions regarding how much bilingual instruction and assessment should be provided
compared to how much English-only instruction should be provided. Collier and Thomas
(2004) note that students learn academic content most effectively when given
opportunities to learn and test with material in their native language.
English learners just beginning acquisition of the English language should be
tested in their primary language and not in English on a norm-referenced
curricular test, while they are acquiring basic academic English. (In a dual
language program, the primary language testing continues throughout the
program.) (Collier & Thomas, 2004, p.12)
History of Two-Way Immersion Programs
Dual language or TWI programs have expanded across the United States from one
in 1962 to 424 in 2011 (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2011). When a language
minority learner is not able to “meaningfully participate in a mainstream classroom
because of limited English proficiency” (p.3), the student is considered an EL (Ragan &
Lesaux, 2006). In dual language or TWI programs, students for whom English is their
first language may be learning a second language by choice.
TWI programs began in 1963 in the United States (Center for Applied
Linguistics, 1998). One of the first programs is called Coral Way, a Spanish/English
TWI program located in Miami, Florida, where children of Cuban political refugees were
educated not only to learn English, but also to remain fluent in Spanish and hold onto
their culture. TWI programs have been operating for over five decades, but the overall
number of programs in the United States remained low until the mid-1980s (Howard,
Sugarman, & Christian, 2003). The purpose of the Howard, Sugarman, & Christian
report was to summarize the research that had been collected up to 2003 regarding TWI
programs including issues related to “program design and implementation, student
outcomes, instructional strategies, cross-cultural issues, and the attitudes and experiences
of students, parents, and teachers” (Howard, Sugarman, and Christian, 2003, p.5). The
benefits of the TWI approach, according to Howard et al. show that “student academic
39
outcomes are generally favorable in that both language minority and language majority
students tend to do as well or better on standardized achievement tests than their peers
who are educated in alternative educational settings, such as general education, ESL, or
transitional bilingual programs” (Howard, Sugarman, and Christian, 2003, p. 60).
EL students in TWI programs are afforded the opportunity to learn grade-level
content in their native language while simultaneously learning English. Genesee,
Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, and Christian (2005) conducted a meta-analysis that
reviewed findings from scientific research completed in the United States in the 1980s
and 1990s on the educational progress of ELs. Their meta-analysis concluded that the
TWI program model has proved to be the most effective way over the long term to
promote English language acquisition while increasing academic achievement in reading,
mathematics, and science. The studies selected for the review by Genesee et al. (2005)
are representative of the body of research conducted during that time period and conclude
that ELs who received any specialized program (bilingual or ESL) were able to catch up
to, and in some studies outperform, the achievement levels of their EL and Englishspeaking comparison peers who were educated in English-only mainstream classrooms
and that educational programs for ELs should seek to develop their full bilingual and
biliterate competencies to take advantage of the developmental interdependencies of
learning content in two languages.
Cummins (1992) shows in his overview of immersion programs’ outcomes that
even though there is no formula for how much of each language should be used at each
age or grade, there is considerable evidence of interdependence of literacy-related or
academic skills across languages such that the better developed the children’s L1
conceptual foundation, the more likely they are to develop similarly high levels of
conceptual abilities in their L2. The moderate to strong correlation between academic
skills in L1 and L2 suggests that “L1 and L2 abilities are manifestations of a common
underlying proficiency” (Cummins, 1992, p. 95).
40
The Models of Bilingualism: Separate Underlying
Proficiency or Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP)
Cummins (1980) introduced the Separate Underlying Proficiency Model of
bilingualism, where experience with either language in a bilingual environment can,
theoretically, promote the development of the proficiency underlying both languages in
the brain, given adequate motivation and exposure to both, either in school or wider
environments. Cummins elaborated upon this idea, presenting a set of visuals to help
explain language acquisition in the bilingual brain where the brain is compared to a
balloon. A monolingual person has one well-developed balloon in his or her brain, and
as he or she learns more of the first language or native language, the balloon expands.
For a bilingual person, however, one would have to envision two half-filled balloons in
the brain, with each balloon representative of a language. These two balloons operate
separately—as one language becomes predominant, that balloon fills and takes up more
space in the brain, while the balloon representing the second language deflates a bit to
make space for the more predominant language.
Baker (2011) examined Cummins’ theory using a balance or scale where, as a
monolingual begins the process of becoming bilingual, the scale begins to tip to one side
to represent the cost associated with the first or native language as an individual becomes
bilingual. The theory appears to indicate that becoming bilingual or even multilingual is
not a process where knowledge is added, but rather it is a process that lessens skills that
the individual already has acquired in the first language. Baker (2011) disproved both his
and Cummins’ postulations, providing evidence that languages work together in the same
cognitive system, allow for transfer, and interact with each other. Concepts, skills, and
objectives that an EL learns in English during math do not have to be relearned in
Spanish. Conversely, concepts, skills, and objectives that a native English speaker learns
in Spanish do not have to be relearned in English.
41
Cummins (1980) then developed his Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP)
model and presented his theory through the visual of an iceberg, showing distinct points
on the top of the iceberg that are visible above the water. These distinct points symbolize
the different languages that an EL is learning or has learned. The part of the iceberg that
is underwater represents how the two or more languages of the EL fuse and interact with
each other. Baker (2011) elaborated on the CUP model, using six points that are related
to this literature review’s focus on how to most accurately assess ELs’ academic
achievement when they are learning in two languages in a dual language program:
1) Despite the language being used, thoughts come from a single brain. Even
with two or more languages, thought comes from a single source.
2) Bilingualism is possible because the brain has the capacity to store two or
more languages.
3) Information processing skills can be cognitively developed in more than one
language.
4) The language used in the classroom needs to be sufficiently well developed to
be able to do that cognitive processing.
5) Speaking, listening, reading, or writing in any language helps to develop the
cognitive skills.
6) Failure of one or both languages to fully function may result in poor cognitive
or academic performance.
This explanation by Baker of the CUP model is an indicator for the success of an EL
because, in order to achieve academically, the language that the student is using in school
needs to be fully developed (Baker, 2011).
In a dual language model, students are simultaneously developing the second
language while learning content in both languages. If an EL is not in a dual language
environment, but rather in an English-only environment, it is likely that educational
attainment will be less developed due to the complexity required to process complex
42
curriculum in a second language that is not yet fully developed. These negative effects
can also occur for the EL who feels pressure to replace the first language with the second
language in order to fully integrate within the mainstream classroom. Performances on
standardized tests of reading and math for an EL in his or her second language connect to
the previous analysis of the CUP model because the EL may be asked to perform on an
assessment at a level that is above his or her second language development (Baker, 2011).
Benefits of Bilingualism
Baker (2011) also noted many benefits of bilingualism. He reported that these
benefits are not universal to all bilinguals, but have been researched and validated by
other scholars. The catch in the benefits debate is not to look at the question of bilingual
benefits as a simple positive or negative situation. According to Baker (2011), studies in
multiple disciplines have presented cognitive advantages and disadvantages that
bilinguals have on a variety of tasks including divergent thinking, field independence
skills, as well as on self-reported measures by individual bilinguals (Baker, 1988).
It is important to compare the benefits of bilingualism to results observed for
balanced bilinguals. Baker (2011) defines a balanced bilingual as “someone who is
approximately equally fluent in two languages across various contexts” (p. 8).
Individuals may self-report themselves as balanced bilinguals and/or a particular
assessment may be used to determine if an individual is a balanced bilingual. However,
if a person is not developing in his or her proficiency in both languages, the benefits
reported may not be evident because as Baker (2011) concludes there is a difference
between language ability and language use. If the ability and use are constantly
developing in bilinguals, then the benefits noted are also developing and improving.
A major benefit of bilingualism or second language acquisition is increased
cognitive ability. Numerous studies have both supported and refuted the cognitive
benefits of bilingualism. A meta-analysis by Adesope, Lavin, Thompson, and
Ungerleider (2010) also found that there are positive cognitive benefits associated with
43
bilingualism. Adesope et al. (2010) chose 157 articles from electronic database searches
for the words immigrants, bilingualism, and cognition. After reading these 157 articles,
39 articles that covered 63 studies and an n=6022 participants then met the final criteria.
The researchers, after calculating effect size and bias, summarized the results and
concluded that bilingualism is positively associated with a range of cognitive benefits.
Monolinguals were outperformed by bilinguals on several measures including
metalinguistic awareness, metacognitive awareness, abstract representation, symbolic
representation, control of attention, and problem solving.
Bialystock and Craik (2010) also confirm the benefits of bilingualism as it affects
cognitive and linguistic processes in general. They report that bilinguals have an
advantage in their level of executive functioning. In studies where bilinguals are given
tasks related to detecting grammatical violations in sentences, bilingual children present
with an attention advantage in selectivity and inhibition which are skills connected to
executive function. Bialystock and Craik (2010) hypothesize that the internal system
called to navigate the potential conflict from the two language systems and select
appropriately from the tested or situationally relevant language is some piece of the
system connected to executive control. The constant push to utilize this conflict
management system repeatedly improves its function and results in advantages in both
language and non-language situations.
Bialystock et al. (2004) also researched bilinguals and the effect of aging on
bilinguals and non-bilinguals. They concluded:
Children’s cognitive development is characterized by a growth in both control of
attention and representational complexity, whereas aging leads to a decline in the
effectiveness of attentional control, but not in the ability to utilize habitual
procedures and representational knowledge. Bilingual children, therefore,
experience a boost in the development of the types of cognitive processing that
typically decline with aging. (p. 291)
The research that Bialystock et al. (2004) conducted was focused on performance of
congruent and incongruent tasks and working memory and actually involved three
44
separate studies or trials. Table 4 summarizes the three trials that focused on
bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control, with memory tasks measured through the
Simon task. The Simon task is a nonverbal test that looks at aspects of processing that
decline as people age. The researchers wanted to know if a person’s ability to attend to
the stimulus in the Simon task and to ignore the irrelevant location information given
during the Simon task requires the same kind of cognitive control that is grown in
development by bilingualism (Bialystok et al., 2004). If the hypothesis was correct,
young bilingual children would be “less affected by the irrelevant spatial code of the
target than the performance of comparable monolingual children; bilinguals, that is,
should show a reduced Simon effect” (Bialystok et al., 2004, p. 291). The researchers
also investigated this effect in regard to aging and memory loss, but these topics are not
applicable to this dissertation. After three separate studies were conducted with both
young and old monolingual and bilingual persons, the researchers concluded that
bilingualism increases inhibitory control as evidenced in the smaller Simon effect results.
These results are significant as inhibitory control is a benefit of bilingualism.
An unanticipated, positive effect of bilingualism also noted by Bialystok et al.
(2004) was that bilinguals had greater working memory. The researchers speculated that
the actual benefits of bilingualism are even greater than its effect on inhibitory control.
The effects may also be seen in executive control functioning (like high-level abilities
that influence more basic abilities like attention, memory and motor skills) in bilinguals
and in less negative impact during aging on executive control functions. The researchers
summarize the three studies with:
Thus, the effect of bilingualism may be more general than hypothesized,
influencing a variety of executive functions including both inhibition and at least
some measures of working memory. The bilingual advantage, that is, resides in
complex processing requiring executive control. (Bialystok et al., 2004, p. 302)
These research results support the claims that bilingualism is an advantage and this was
demonstrated across age levels in this particular study by Bialystok et al. (2004).
45
Table 4.
Effects of Aging on Bilinguals and Non-Bilinguals
Trial 1
Participants
Trial 2
Trial3
n=40
n= 94
n=20
10 monolingual younger
adults & 10 bilingual
younger adults
32 monolingual younger
adults, 32 bilingual
younger adults, 15
monolingual older adults,
& 15 bilingual older adults
10 monolingual adults
and 10 bilingual
adults
10 monolingual older
adults & 10 bilingual
older adults
Language
background
questionnaire
Yes
Yes
Yes
Peabody
Picture
Vocabulary
Bilinguals had higher
results than monolinguals
Same for both age &
language groups
Bilinguals had higher
results than
monolinguals
Raven’s
Standard
Progressive
Matrices
No significant differences
for age or language
groups
Not applicable
Not applicable
Simon Task
Bilingual speed
advantage larger for
incongruent items, but
also congruent items
Smaller Simon effect for
bilinguals, reduced
working memory costs
with age for bilinguals, &
age-related increases for
the Simon effect &
working memory were
attenuated in bilinguals
Bilinguals
outperformed
monolinguals, but
performances
converged at end
Cattell
Culture Fair
Intelligence
Test
Not applicable
Same for both age &
language groups
Bilinguals performed
at higher level
Alpha Span
Task
Not applicable
Younger scored higher
than older, but no
differences for mono/bilingual groups
Bilinguals performed
at higher level
Sequencing
span task
Not applicable
Younger scored higher
than older, but no
differences for mono/bilingual groups
Bilinguals performed
at higher level
Source: Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism,
Aging, and Cognitive Control: Evidence from the Simon Task. Psychology and Aging,
19(2), 290–303.
46
In addition to the cognitive benefits of bilinguals compared to monolinguals, other
personal and social benefits have been reported. Whiting and Feinauer (2011) conducted
a study to explore why parents enroll their children in TWI programs. There was a
minimal difference in response rate for parents whose primary language was Spanish
(81%) and English (77%), but the difference was not statistically significant. Sample
sizes were almost the same (English 142; Spanish 145), with 143 parents responding with
at least one reason for sending their child (ren) to Sunny Creek Elementary.
The researchers wanted to expand on the traditional characteristics that had been
studied including the language and ethnicity of the parents involved. They added the
variables of parents’ education level, family income level, family religion, household
distance from school, and the family structure including members of the household to
reveal a deeper look. The Whiting and Feinauer study looks at the relationship between
the reasons that parents give for enrolling their child in the TWI program and how those
reasons relate to the background characteristics mentioned above. The Whiting and
Feinauer study helped identify and acknowledge the complexity of the various parent
groups who make the choice for TWI. Whiting and Feinauer (2011) described six
benefits that parents shared about the bilingual programs of their own children. The first
benefit was biliteracy, which was reported by both language majority and language
minority parents. Parents also noted that being bilingual was beneficial because it
allowed for the students to have a greater variety of educational experiences. Parent
survey results included comments such as:
“Some parents even talked about the process of learning language as a reason for
enrollment, as in it is ‘academically challenging to study two languages’ or
‘research showing bilingual people as more flexible thinkers.’ These responses
show that parents connect bilingualism itself with good educational opportunities
and experiences.” (Whiting & Feinauer, 2011, p. 643)
This comment affirms the importance to parents of dual language students for
participation in dual language programming. Even though bilingualism and biliteracy
were overarching themes in the qualitative study of open-ended answers from parents,
47
many parents gave specific cognitive and academic reasons for participation like greater
educational experiences and increased career opportunities in the future.
Future career opportunities were another benefit of bilingualism reported by
parents (Whiting & Feinauer, 2011). Being bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural was
viewed as a means to more career opportunities, a view expressed by both language
minority and language majority parents. Parents articulated the importance of the dual
language program and career choice as noted in quotes like this:
For example, one parent remarked that he or she thought he will have better
opportunities in the future (en el futuro tendrá mejores oportunidades). Similar to
parent responses about educational opportunities, many parents talked about
future opportunities talked explicitly about how being bilingual might provide
these future opportunities. For example, one parent said, ‘she knows Spanish
perfectly and because, in the future, she’ll have more opportunities if she’s
bilingual’. (Whiting & Feinauer, 2011, p. 643)
Another benefit of participation in bilingual programs in school was that the
students learned about diversity and other cultures on a daily basis as they studied in both
languages. A final benefit for the EL students as reported by their parents was that they
were able to retain their heritage by learning their native language in an academic setting
(Whiting & Feinauer, 2011).
Barriers Impacting Bilingual Education Programming
Despite the many benefits to bilingualism and dual language programming, public
school districts often elect not to incorporate first language skills in educational
programming. This section will explore why public school districts pass or refrain from
adopting dual language methodologies. Foremost in this discussion of barriers are the
topics of policy and planning issues as they establish the framework at the national and
state levels from which local school districts plan and implement programming.
Language policy implementation in public schools is a state-level policy decision.
Some states, such as Colorado, Florida, and Nebraska, include in their
constitutional amendments that English is the official language of the state. According to
Crawford (2012), as of 2012, 25 states have resolutions or statutes noting the official
48
status of English. In contrast, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington
passed English Plus resolutions in 1989 supporting English proficiency for all in tandem
with the learning of other languages and cultures (Combs, 1989).
Planning can be a major barrier affecting bilingual programming. There are
endless details involved in planning for and maintaining a dual language program at the
local school district level. The decisions that are made can be challenging especially as
local administrators wrestle with the fact that many of these decisions will then become
precedent for future decisions. Decisions about language goals would be an example of a
crucial planning decision as noted when Tarone and Swain (1995) explained the diglossic
situation that may occur in dual language or bilingual programs, where second language
(L2) proficiency is contained within academic environments because the students most
often do not choose to use the L2.
The decisions are also complicated because theories and their accompanying
research must always be tempered with the local school district’s reality of
implementation. In 1995, Donna Christian was one of the keynote speakers at a
conference called “Research and Practice in Immersion Education: Looking Back and
Looking Forward” in Bloomington, Minnesota. The conference was hosted by members
of the Immersion Project of the National Language Research Center in the Center for
Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) of the University of Minnesota
in collaboration with the Minnesota Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(MCTFL) and was designed to study the four themes: policy and planning issues,
immersion pedagogy, culture and diversity, and assessment issues within immersion
education. Christian (1998) categorized the areas of concern or potential barriers as
program variations, language proficiency development and maintenance, languages of
immersion education, articulation of programs, teacher resources, parent and community
support and involvement, and assessment. The researcher did not explicitly establish new
49
data or research, but rather addressed and gave an overview of how language of
instruction or funding policy affects language immersion programs.
Christian (1998) concluded that bilingual teacher shortages, ongoing parent
support, and decisions regarding native language and second language assessments are
also important concerns to address when planning and implementing a bilingual or dual
language program. Given the ramifications of testing accountability for ELs with NCLB
and the financial pressures of providing an enrichment or additive program in an era of
dwindling school funding, it is critical to identify and address all barriers to effective dual
language or bilingual programming for ELs and language majority students.
Achievement and Standardized Testing
English Learners enroll in American schools with a broad range of language
proficiencies and content area knowledge, both in their native language and in English
(Short & Boyson, 2003)—however, as Mora (2009) noted, the approach adopted by some
states fails to recognize that language minority children or ELs also are confronting two
challenges. These ELs must learn English while simultaneously mastering grade-level
reading, math, and science standards and benchmarks. Mora (2009) concludes that the
English-only laws and school programs do not align with past federal laws that explicitly
establish the rights of second language learners to an equitable educational experience.
Although NCLB regards suitable English programs for ELs to be those focused
on research-based scientific and empirical studies concluding with analysis of the data
(Baker, 2011), NCLB lacks instructions or support for bilingual programs or strategies of
instruction for ELs (Baker, 2011). The legislation solely required states to: a) identify the
languages of ELs, b) include ELs in statewide assessments, c) develop annual
achievement objectives, and d) provide appropriate accommodations for assessments in
third through eighth grades (Baker, 2011). Many states have interpreted these
requirements to read that ELs must be tested in English when being assessed. However,
there is empirical evidence to bolster the concept of using standardized tests in the
50
student’s native language so that, in the end, a combination of the test results and a
program model beneficial to the advancement of language instruction will serve as the
best assessment of each EL student’s progress.
Native Language Standardized Testing
Bowles and Stansfield (2008) point out that research on K-12 achievement tests in
the native language for ELs is sparse. Information is limited and individual states have to
consider what languages represented in the EL student population should be the focus,
which of the current assessments should (or can) be validly translated, if written or oral
translations are most appropriate for groups of ELs, and how to best perform translations
that ensure comparability to the original English test. There are multiple issues to review
from the empirical research in the standardized testing field when advocating for EL
students to take state standardized achievement tests in the students’ primary language.
Having a primary language version of a state’s English version of a standardized test
might seem like a simple solution, but the situation is complex and demands careful
consideration of the issues related to standardized test administration, appropriate uses of
standardized test results, and implications of equity for all ELs. Kopriva (2000) noted
that there is a large risk when directly translating a test into another language or when
two tests are simultaneously developed in two languages that the end results will be two
tests that are different in both content and construct.
Even when the test is available in the native language, critical factors still need to
be addressed within the assessment itself. Abedi & Dietel (2004) note the challenges for
any EL in a testing environment including historically low performance, slow
improvement, concerns related to accuracy of the measurement tool, and other factors
behind the teacher or school’s control. The authors spelled out challenges, including
technical and educational issues.
Specifically, Abedi and Dietel (2004) determined that EL students’ scores on state
tests generally are 20 to 30 points lower than non-EL students and show slow
51
improvement over time and that the language demands present in the test negatively
affect the ELs’ performance. EL performance, according to Abedi and Dietel (2004),
even on translated native language tests or on modified English versions is still low in
comparison to other subgroups’ performance. This poor performance cannot solely be
the issue of the test itself, but rather the intricate web woven by intrinsic language skills
in either the native or second language as they relate to student performance. Abedi and
Dietel did not conduct a study, but rather examined the implications of the NCLB
requirements for ELs and offered recommendations to increase the progress of ELs. For
dual language programs that use Spanish and English, it may seem appropriate to use
available achievement tests written in Spanish in lieu of the achievement tests written in
English for EL students whose first language is Spanish. However, the issues of validity,
reliability, consistency, and equity must be considered.
Monolingual Assessment Practices
Shohamy (2011) describes the costs associated with the ongoing practices of
monolingual testing (testing in only one language) for individual students who are
bilingual or multilingual in her research. In the Shohamy (2011) study, monolingual
testing was in Hebrew and multilingual testing would have included Amharic, Arabic,
and Russian. The goal of her empirical research was to further the conversation about
using bilingual or multilingual testing and assessment practices for students, especially
immigrants. Shohamy (2011) explains how bilingual and multilingual functioning
demonstrated by individuals garners little or no attention as language testing practices are
created. Her argument is that using non-monolingual testing holds more construct
validity and allows for a greater demonstration of knowledge in meaningful ways by
bilinguals and multilinguals.
The research conducted by Levin and Shohamy (2008) and Levin, Shohamy, &
Spolsky (2003) was a project for Israel aimed at comparing Hebrew academic test results
of immigrant students from the former USSR and Ethiopia with the native Israeli Hebrew
52
speakers. Hebrew was the language of all of the tests in the study and is the language of
instruction in all of the schools. The results that Shohamy et al. (2003) discovered were
that it took about 9 to 11 years for the immigrants from the former USSR to eliminate the
gap with the native Israeli students, but that the immigrants from Ethiopia were never
able to eliminate the gap. Shohamy (2011) remarks that, in this situation, the test results
actually were comparing “groups of incomparable conditions” (p. 419). This study and
its results led to inaccurate conclusions regarding the levels of achievement for the
immigrant students, as the Hebrew tests did not allow these students to demonstrate the
knowledge they had acquired in their native language, the growth they were making in
Hebrew, and contributed to the body of studies that point out the gaps for second
language learners in hopes that policies or ideologies will be impacted.
The data from Levin and Shohamy (2008) showed the performance of students
from Ethiopia and from the former USSR in grade 9 and grade 11 when tested in Hebrew
according to the standard score received and then those scores were broken down into
bands according to how many years of residence the immigrants from both groups had
resided in Israel. In grade 5 there were gaps in achievement. The gaps show that it takes
immigrants from the former USSR nine to eleven years to meet the same academic
achievement score of a native speaker in mathematics when tested in Hebrew (Levin and
Shohamy, 2008).
The immigrant students from Ethiopia were never able to reach as high of a level
of achievement as the native Hebrew speakers, even for second generation Ethiopians
(Levin and Shohamy, 2008). Other empirical data collected in this research showed the
results when the immigrant students from the former USSR were tested with a bilingual
Hebrew-Russian test and compared to another group of immigrant students from the
former USSR who tested in Hebrew only. The results were that the group that received
the bilingual Hebrew-Russian tests significantly outperformed the group that received the
monolingual Hebrew test and that this advantage lasted for 12 years after the students
53
immigrated indicating that second language learners continue to rely on their native
language as a resource for processing new content in Hebrew. Given these research
findings, Shohamy (2011) concluded that future tests of academic knowledge for
bilingual or multilingual students should incorporate the competencies and advantages
that bilinguals and multilinguals present rather than the deficit view of the lack of
proficiency in the dominant language.
Native Language Testing: Translation, Adaptation, or
Parallel Development
Stansfield (2003) writes about the theoretical and practical issues related to the
translation or adaptation of academic achievement tests in the United States including
how the level of English language proficiency of the EL and the native language
academic background affect performance. Stansfield (2003) also explains the factors that
are taken into consideration when deciding which language a student should be tested in
as well as what translation methods are used during standardized test translations.
The theoretical issues related to translating student tests include determining the
actual language proficiency level of the EL and making the best choice regarding which
assessment to give. Stansfield (2003) cautions:
If the LEP examinee does not have the kind of native language proficiency called
for by the test, then the native language version will not produce a score that
reflects the examinee’s true ability. (p.192)
Given this knowledge, an EL’s performance or score is largely dependent on proficiency
in the language of the assessment until the EL’s language proficiency starts to meet the
language proficiency of the native speaking student. Therefore, irrespective of the
construct reported to be measured by the assessment, for the EL, the assessment is
primarily a measure of English language proficiency.
Stansfield (2003) also describes the importance of recognizing whether or not the
state test that is being presented in a native language for an EL has been translated by a
process called back translation or not. According to Stansfield (2003), back translation is
54
when one or more bilinguals translates the original assessment to the target language and
then another bilingual translates it back to the original language which is English in this
case. The two English versions are compared and conflicts are remedied. Stansfield
(2003) listed three reasons why back translation is an inefficient and ineffective way to
translate achievement tests:
(1) A translated test has the same exact content rendered into a non-English
language. The standard test and translated test are different only in language, but not in
content covered.
(2) An adaptation is a modified version of the standard assessment. Some tests
and test items require adaptation in order for the standard test to be appropriately
rendered into a non-English language.
(3) According to Stansfield (2003), when modifying a standardized assessment,
“adaptation may involve removing some items and replacing them with others that are
more appropriate for the native language or more valid for the examinee population or for
the language of the new test” (p.197).
At times, states consider planning for a different test in the native language due to the fact
that the EL population might share a common native language, but that the common
native language is very different in culture, dialect, prior academic experiences, etc.
which leads to the issue of validity.
Validity
Validity, as defined in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
(American Educational Research Association et al., 1999), is “the degree to which
evidence and theory support the interpretation of test scores entailed by the proposed uses
of tests” (p. 9). It is further noted:
The process of validation involves accumulating evidence to provide
a sound scientific basis for the proposed score interpretations. It is the
interpretations of test scores required by proposed uses that are
evaluated, not the test itself. When test scores are used or interpreted in
more than one way, each intended use must be validated. (p 9)
55
Validity, as defined by Popham (2008), refers to the accuracy of a score-based inference
about a test taker's status. Kane (2013) builds further on the concern over how a test is
used and calls for an Interpretation/Use Argument (IUA) to accompany the validity
argument as part of his framework. It is important to be clear about what is actually
being claimed and to be cautious about overemphasizing the results or claims. Kane
(2013) says that “validation has a role in helping to facilitate the effective use of scorebased evidence in education” (p.116). It is crucial that the tests taken by dual language
program students in Spanish in addition to or in place of the English tests are valid.
Without proof of validity, future research and expansion of dual language programs will
be compromised. In addition, if high-stakes decisions are being made at the local district,
state, or federal levels with native language achievement test results, then these results
must have validity.
Reliability, Consistency and Equity
Bowles and Stansfield (2008) addressed how assessment in the native language
can have an effect on reliability and score comparability which is defined as “ the degree
to which the scores obtained on the original and translated versions of the test have the
same meaning or demonstrate the same level of mastery of the content standards”
(Bowles and Stansfield, 2008, p.24). In terms of reliability, translated assessments
normally show lower reliability than the English versions of the assessments, however for
ELs the translated version is likely to produce a more accurate score than the English
version. This is accurate if the student is literate in the language of the translation and has
been instructed in the content area material in the native language. Even though the
original English version of the assessment may show higher statistical reliability than the
translated assessment, it would be inaccurate to state that the English version is a more
accurate measurement for an EL. The Kuder-Richardson Formula (K-R-20) reliability
coefficient for level nine is 0.896 for reading comprehension for ITBS (Hoover et al,
56
1996) The reliability coefficient for the Logramos at level nine has a K-R-20 reliability
coefficient of 0.845 for the fall and 0.874 for the spring (Riverside Publishing, 2003a).
Reduced reliability can affect the results of validity studies on the native language
assessment. By definition, “reliable measurement is a prerequisite for correlation
between two measures” (p.23); therefore, reduction in reliability negatively impacts the
correlation between the native language assessment and the original version. When the
sample of ELs is small, the range and variation in test scores by ELs is affected. Bowles
and Stansfield (2008) note that
“A reduction in reliability will lower the correlation between the translated
measure and any other measure or variable. Again, this is to be expected with a
sample of examinees that exhibits restriction of range and variation in test scores.
However, there are common statistical corrections for this, such as the correction
for attenuation or unreliability in test scores” (p.23)
A high level of reliability ensures that the Spanish or other native language
version will produce comparable results over time. With the confidence of high levels of
reliability, local district educators and administrators as well as state and federal officials
can make program and policy decisions with greater confidence. If validity and
reliability have been determined for native language assessments for students in place of
or in addition to the English versions, then the next issue to consider is consistency of
administration of the standardized test. The test administrator also holds a responsibility
during testing to ensure fairness and should “adhere to standardized protocols during
administration” (Plake, 2009). In a chapter titled, “U.S. Legal Issues in Educational
Testing of Special Populations”, Phillips (2011) noted that nonstandard test
administration is available as a means to provide access to the content and skills that are
being measured on a particular assessment.
Abedi and Gándara (2006) caution that even if native language assessments are
created and utilized for second language learners, it is important to ensure that
appropriate accommodations are being offered just as with the English language versions
of these assessments. Abedi, Courtney, Mirocha, Leon, and Goldberg (2005) note that in
57
order to reduce language factor effects, accommodations must be available so as to “level
the playing field” (p. ix) regardless of what language the assessment is presented. EL
performance in Spanish or English is intertwined with language proficiency and contentbased knowledge regardless of the language of testing so in order to lessen the subgroup
performance gaps, improvements must be made in the assessments while controlling for
language factors (Abedi & Gándara, 2006).
A challenge for EL nonstandard test administration is determining which
accommodations are necessary, including options of extended time, a separate testing
room, a reader, or a native language glossary. In addition, local test administrators must
ascertain if the nonstandard test administration is interfering with the construct or skills
being assessed. Unless the students are afforded proper accommodations to ensure fair
testing, the validity and reliability of the testing data can be compromised. This issue is
critical in both English and native language standardized test environments.
Accountability
Kim and Sunderman (2005) examined at testing achievement results in six
different states, focusing on subgroup accountability rules, and determined that there was
an over-identification of schools failing to meet AYP requirements based on poverty and
ethnicity factors. They further noted that Hispanics should receive particular attention
from legislators and educators for two reasons—Hispanics are a fast-growing subgroup in
the United States and Hispanics face a disadvantage when compared to students in other
subgroups who are fluent English speakers. The disadvantage persists after Hispanics
become eligible to attend general education or English-only classes and/or have to take
high-stakes standardized achievement tests. If mean proficiency is the primary indicator,
then AYP is unlikely to improve student achievement for the affected subgroups.
The ability of Hispanic students and ELs to demonstrate proficiency on high
stakes tests is becoming increasingly critical as schools across the United States grow in
linguistic diversity. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, between
58
1980 and 2009 the number of school-age children (ages 5 through 17 years) speaking a
language other than English at home increased from 4.7 to 11.2 million, or from 9% to
21% of the population in this age range (NCES, 2010). This linguistically diverse student
population has not only presented local school districts with opportunities to provide
multicultural or bilingual learning environments, but it also has created larger problems
with the perceived lack of growth in student achievement data.
Standardized Testing Concerns
Coltrane (2002) discusses the role of high-stakes standardized tests, why ELs
should be included in the testing, problems that ELs face when taking high-stakes tests,
possible accommodations for ELs during testing, and ideas for teachers to consider when
testing ELs. It is important to include ELs in standardized testing to ensure that
accountability is in place and that high standards are being implemented, but Coltrane
notes that there must be a “balanced approach to interpreting and using test data”
(Coltrane, 2002, p.2) with ELs and non-ELs held to the same academic learning
standards.
Cosentino de Cohen, Deterding, and Chu (2005) reviewed two critical issues that
schools with ELs face: how to address high concentrations of ELs and how to most
effectively use the school resources provided. The report analyzed three areas:
immigrant elementary student enrollment across the United States, the characteristics of
the principals in these schools, and the characteristics of the teachers in these schools,
using the 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) as a data source. Their
findings show that incidences of poverty and health problems are significantly higher in
high-EL schools, that high-EL schools are more likely to offer Title I services, and native
language instruction adapted to meet the needs of limited English proficient (LEP)
students is more prevalent in high-EL schools. Cosentino de Cohen et al. (2005) note the
relevance of these findings in conjunction with NCLB in this summary:
59
Children who are limited English proficient are also likely to be racial or ethnic
minorities and economically disadvantaged. As such, these students may come
under NCLB’s accountability requirements multiple times…schools that serve
LEP students who fall into multiple NCLB categories may encounter difficulties
addressing the multiple disadvantages posed by different conditions (say,
language and poverty) that may require different types of interventions. (p.17)
Most critically, though each state has identified applicable mandatory
achievement tests, it has not been proven or determined whether the standardized tests
that are being used to evaluate ELs validly and reliably measure reading and math
academic proficiency. The actual English language demands of the standardized tests
negatively affect an accurate measurement of ELs’ performance (Abedi & Dietel, 2004).
Many questions exist relative to how to most accurately measure EL's reading and math
academic performance in the second language acquisition field.
Abedi and Dietel (2004) more specifically outlined the implications of NCLB
testing for ELs, noting that the goals of NCLB are worthy for ELs, but that technical
issues exist—low EL academic performance, slow EL growth, whether the assessment
tool is accurately measuring content knowledge or merely English language knowledge,
group instability as EL students move in and out of the subgroup based on entrance and
exit criteria, and factors outside of the school’s control like EL identification, parental
levels of education, poverty, EL subgroup size, and diversity within the EL subgroup.
The researchers provide recommendations on addressing these technical issues,
including focusing instructional time on reading, closely monitoring each EL student’s
performance, modifying the language of the test to account for linguistic complexity and
bias whenever possible, advocating including redesignated, or former, ELs’ scores into
the AYP for the school and district, and evaluating and providing the most important
accommodations during testing for ELs (Abedi and Dietel, 2004). Abedi and Dietel
(2004) summarize that “the test becomes a measure of two skills for the ELL student:
subject and language” (p.783). The challenge is to identify an assessment tool that
measures subject area knowledge at grade level without cultural or economic bias.
60
Bilingual Program Student Testing Outcomes
Cheung and Slavin (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of research on English
reading achievement results for all types of instructional programs for Spanish-dominant
ELs in elementary schools. Research that was included looked at a review of language of
instruction and the second on reading approaches for ELs holding constant the language
of instruction. A total of 13 qualifying studies were included for language of instruction
as they met the criteria.
Within the 13 qualifying studies, approximately 2,000 elementary school children
met the inclusion requirements for language of instruction. Inclusion was limited to
studies where a unique comparison where a unique comparison of experimental and
treatment effects was present. Two were published articles and 11 were unpublished
reports such as technical reports or dissertations. The majority of the studies (n = 10)
were carried out in the 1970s, with one in the 1990s and two after 2000. Only three used
random assignment and the rest were matched control studies. There were only two fiveyear longitudinal studies including one in 1977 and one in 2011. The majority of the
studies included a model of paired bilingual programs (n = 9) that taught reading in both
English and Spanish at different parts of the school day. The overall findings showed a
positive effect (effect size = .21) in favor of bilingual education; however, the evaluations
with the largest sample size and that lasted the greatest length of time did not find any
differences in reading achievement results at the end of elementary school for students
who were either instructed in Spanish and transitioned to English or taught only in
English. The conclusion from this empirical research review by Cheung and Slavin
(2012) is that effective programs may instruct in the native language to a greater or lesser
extent, but it is just one of many proven ways to improve academic outcomes for
Hispanic ELs.
61
Assessing the Assessments
Standardized tests are one tool to measure student learning. Solorzano (2008)
discussed the issues and implications of high-stakes tests on ELs especially as the tests
are linked to NCLB, analyzed the tests according to the norming sample and validity
when used with ELs, and after his synthesis of the literature he remarked that the tests as
constructed currently are not appropriate for ELs. The standardized tests chosen for ELs
for NCLB reporting purposes are not chosen at the local level. The tests are chosen by
the state education agencies. Solorzano (2008) also cautioned that the purpose and users
of standardized assessments are critically important. If standardized tests are used with
ELs and non-ELs in a similar fashion, then there should be in-depth study of any
potential technical concerns related to norming and validity (Solorzano, 2008).
Many ELs are required to take both English language proficiency and
standardized content area (reading, math, etc.) assessments due to their EL status. ELs
participate in many states in high-stakes language proficiency tests that evaluate the ELs’
individual language proficiency level and the ELs’ instructional program in general
(Solorzano, 2008). Again, it is important to assess the technical quality of the language
proficiency tests and the alignment of these tests with the definitions of English
proficiency. The outcomes of these assessments can result in retention in EL programs or
dismissal from EL programs into mainstream English classrooms.
Empirical research conducted by Jimerson, Hong, Stage, & Gerber (2013)
explored students’ oral reading fluency growth from first through fourth grade and its use
to predict the students’ achievement on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9) using a
latent growth model. The authors studied how the two variables—first, EL with low
socioeconomic status (SES), then low socioeconomic status (SES) alone—affected
reading performance. There were 85 students in the low SES/EL group and 70 in the low
SES/monolingual English student group. Longitudinal data were collected beginning in
grade one annually until grade four for students who attended schools in a Southern
62
California school district. The data collected measured oral reading fluency through the
use of the Oral Reading Assessment Level (ORAL-J) by Jimerson (Jimerson, 2000) in the
first and last month of each school year.
The Jimerson, Hong, Stage, & Gerber data showed that both the EL/low SES and
the monolingual English/low SES status groups’ results reliably predicted low
performance in 1st grade on the oral reading which then later predicted performance in 4th
grade on the SAT-9. However, there are limitations to the kinds of decisions that can be
made with these data. The authors recognize that the subgroup EL is a “generic language
classification” (p.9) that was used in this study and that it is difficult to predict a reading
trajectory for ELs in this manner. Jimerson, Hong, Stage, & Gerber (2013) note that:
While normative indices of academic progress for monolingual English speaking
students have long been established (Fuchs et al., 1993; Hasbrouck & Tindal,
1992; Shinn, 1989) additional evidence is needed for a critical examination of
these same indices when acquiring a second language and learning to read. Future
research should be conducted that utilizes English language classification in
greater detail (i.e. beginning; early intermediate; and intermediate proficiency
levels). This information could provide more insight into whether the same
developmental trend found in this study holds constant when adding different
English language proficiency levels as determined by standardized tests. (p.9)
Solorzano (2008) found that the ELs’ assessment results and placement decisions
cannot be taken lightly as there is a presumption of predictive validity for success in a
mainstream English classroom or program based on these results. As an example,
Stevens et al. (2000) studied the predictive relationship between an English proficiency
test—the Language Assessment Scales (LAS)—and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills
(ITBS). The authors found that the LAS was “less complex, more discrete and
decontextualized, and more limited in its range of grammatical constructions than the
language of the ITBS” (p. 22). The authors conclude that:
The level of language measured by the LAS is not sufficient to indicate student
ability to process the language of these assessments. The increase in level of
syntactic complexity, variety of sentence structures, and the expanded
vocabulary on the ITBS require a more sophisticated language associated
with academic discourse. (p. 22)
63
Many of the ELs are also members of the Hispanic subgroup for NCLB and
therefore these students have the accountability pressure from the individual student,
school, and district point of view as their academic achievement and progress affects
more than one area of assessment and crosses over into more than one subgroup. As
Abedi (2004) cautions, “students in poor performing subgroups might be blamed for a
school’s poor performance rating…teachers might blame students if the school receives
sanctions” (p. 5).
In addition to ELs being part of other subgroups held accountable for NCLB, the
subgroup of EL must also be considered. The subgroup EL consists of students ranging
from beginners to fluent. Empirical research by Sotelo-Dynega, Ortiz, Flanagan, and
Chaplin (2013) found that there was a relationship between the level of English language
proficiency (ELP) and performance on the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive
Abilities-Third Edition (WJ III) which were administered in English. The 61 grade 2
students in this study attended public school in a suburban New York school district and
were bilingual, limited English proficient (LEP) identified students. These students took
the WJ III in addition to the annual New York state standardized tests of English
language proficiency. The findings showed that there was a “linear, inverse relationship
between ELP and performance on tests that required higher levels of English language
development and mainstream cultural knowledge” (p.781). The researchers note that
there are many issues related to standardized assessments and ELs including test
reliability, validity, bias, etc., but that it also must be noted that the continually
developing variables of English language proficiency and cultural knowledge affect
student test performance leading to concerns about the interpretation of tests results for
ELs on high stakes tests.
Given the high stakes nature of these language proficiency and standardized
achievement tests, the tests must be scrutinized for fairness and bias. This includes bias
that may be present in scoring for ELs. Kopriva (2000) noted that there are increasing
64
worries connected to the answers that ELs give on assessments as there are worries that
the answers of the ELs might not be scored appropriately as a result of the large quantity
of tests, the test deadlines, and the fact that almost 99% of the scorers are monolingual
English speakers (p.71). Fairness and bias are concerns because an EL might face
redesignation status from a current EL to a former EL. Without assurances of fairness
and removal of bias, it is possible that ELs are learning in a system that maintains barriers
to their educational success. Kopriva (2000) summarizes that “In some cases, items
expect students to recognize certain things or events, or to have had certain experiences
growing up…[or] sometimes items ask a question using an object common in Western
culture but less common in other cultures” (p.43). The stakes for ELs on the assessments
used for NCLB are high and, as summarized, must be chosen, normed, and validated with
research as the results are used for so many purposes in public education.
With so much attention focused on using high stakes tests to evaluate students,
teachers, administrators, schools, and programs, there seems to be no limit as to how a
test will be used and to whom it will be administered. This includes using test results to
evaluate whether a teacher is effective and also to decide if a student should be retained
in a grade. According to Solorzano (2008):
Latino students, who make up the majority of ELLs, have traditionally performed
poorly on standardized tests, whether administered in elementary, middle, or high
school or at the national (e.g., National Assessment of Educational Progress
[NAEP]), state (e.g., Stanford Achievement Test [SAT9], California Achievement
Tests [CAT6]), or district level. As a result, these students are not academically
prepared or eligible to apply to and/or attend college. (p. 261)
Given the relatively poor performance of the EL subgroup on local, state, and
national standardized tests, it is understandable that the public is concerned. The
concern, however, should not lead to drastic policy decisions or reform movements that
impact EL and dual language programming unilaterally within an entire state or across
the country. The EL population is too heterogeneous to allow for a single assessment to
adversely affect an entire EL or dual language program or model. In a position statement
65
on high stakes testing in K-12, the American Educational Research Association (AERA)
has advised that “unless a primary purpose of a test is to evaluate language proficiency, it
should not be used with students who cannot understand the instructions or the language
of the test” (AERA, 2000).
Case Studies in Dual Language and Related Fields
To complete this review of the literature, the field had to be expanded to include
case studies not only in dual language programs in general, but also in other areas such as
the effects of time in a dual language program for Hispanic dual language students, the
differences in achievement on math versus reading for Hispanic dual language students,
and the overall achievement of Hispanic dual language students on assessments in
English versus assessments in Spanish.
Summary
Bilingual education, though shown to have distinct benefits, is a challenge for
legislators and school administrators. Empirical research has validated that nativelanguage standardized testing can play a positive role in the bilingual educational process
for Hispanic and/or ELs. There is strong scientific research on bilingual programs with
rich data sources on Hispanics’ and ELs’ academic achievement in reading and
mathematics as measured by standardized assessments.
This chapter has reviewed the literature available for considering the role of
assessment of Hispanic and/or EL students and the impact of TWI programs on bilingual
students’ achievement, examining bilingual education as a whole and the impact of
NCLB and associated legislation. This particular study is relevant because it examines
the outcomes not only of Hispanic students in a TWI program, but also on the subareas of
reading and math achievement over time as indicated on both English and Spanish
language versions of the assessments. The next chapter will describe the research
methodology and procedures used in this study.
66
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This study examines the differences in student achievement in both reading and
math for Hispanic students in a dual language 50/50 English and Spanish dual language
education program by comparing standardized achievement results as measured by the
English Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), the English Iowa Tests of Educational
Development (ITED), and the Spanish Logramos. The design provided the researcher the
opportunity to examine the development and interrelationships among skills in the two
languages. The research questions guiding this study are:
1. Is there a statistical difference in reading achievement for Hispanic 50/50 EnglishSpanish dual language program students when testing data is disaggregated
linguistically?
To resolve this question, the following null hypothesis was examined and tested:
Null Hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the
reading achievement of Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language
program students when testing data is disaggregated linguistically.
2. Is there a statistical difference in math achievement for Hispanic 50/50 EnglishSpanish dual language program students when testing data is disaggregated
linguistically?
To resolve this question, the following null hypothesis was examined and tested:
Null Hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the math
achievement of Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language program
students when testing data is disaggregated linguistically.
To achieve this end, the approach was to develop a quantitative, longitudinal
research study around a community-based Hispanic student data source with a strong
dual language program in a single school district. This chapter will describe the data
source including the demographics of the community and the study participants, the test
67
instruments used, the data analysis methods and procedures, and a chapter summary.
Information is presented in both narrative and supporting data tables. Testing
instruments are explained—the tests used in this study (ITBS, ITED, and Logramos),
along with test content descriptions, score interpretation and method of use by the school
district—as well as a description of data collection processes and an examination of
methods used to analyze the quantitative data.
Data Sources
The Research Site
The Regal Community School District1 has been a unique example of the negative
consequences of English-only assessment practices in Iowa. Over 1,245 students were
being educated in the district according to 2011-2012 student enrollment data, serving
students in pre-kindergarten through grade 12. Regal Community School District is
located in the city of Regalville (also a pseudonym1), which has maintained steady
enrollment growth due to ongoing Hispanic migration to the area. The estimated city
population is approximately 3,736 residents (U. S. Census, 2010). The district also
serves students from two local towns, New City and Atlas (also pseudonyms), which
have about 400 residents each.
Most rural communities and their school districts in Iowa have experienced
declining enrollment in the last decade. Regalville is an exception to that trend.
Regalville began to see Hispanic growth in the community decades ago when there was a
vegetable manufacturing plant and then an animal processing plant. In 2010, Regalville
served as the hub for one of the largest animal processors in the country, Regalville
Company. This animal processing plant creates food for local, state, and national
consumers. Regalville Company serves as a constant draw to the Hispanic population
1
Pseudonyms were used in place of actual names in this study in accordance with the
confidentiality protocols required in conducting qualitative research. Pseudonyms disguise critical case
material without altering critical elements of the data.
68
because many relatively high-paying labor positions are available, including food
preparation, slaughtering, packaging, and shipping. The highest paid labor positions
include killing and cleaning the animals. These positions have starting wages at about
$12.00 per hour with no high school degree or level of English proficiency required.
Indeed, the populations of both the city and the school district have maintained
steady growth in the 21st century due to the immigration of Hispanic residents to the
community. Figure 2 shows the total population breakdown of Regalville by ethnicity
(U. S. Census, 2010).
Figure 2. Ethnic Breakdown of Regalville Population
________________________________________________________________________
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.
69
As a result of the growing Hispanic population in Regalville, members of the Regal
Community School District applied for a large, federal grant to create a 50/50 dual
language English and Spanish two-way immersion (TWI) program in the community
under the auspices of Title VII (Bilingual Education Act) of the Elementary and
Secondary Act (ESEA).
Regal Community School District Funding
The application for the federal Title VII grant was prepared and completed by a
veteran English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher, the superintendent, the at-risk
coordinator, and the current prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers who were
Spanish-English bilinguals in the mid- to late-1990s. The goal was to utilize the best,
most effective research-based model of language acquisition to ensure that the young,
Hispanic students receiving the foundation for their careers in the Regal Community
School District would have opportunities to achieve the highest levels of success. A team
of elementary teachers, school administrators, current school board members, parents,
and community members spent a year studying and visiting various dual language
program models prior to applying for the grant, attempting to determine the best possible
program for the Regal district.
In 1997, the district received a five-year, $1.7 million dollar federal Title VII
grant from the United States Department of Education. The team of community leaders
was ready with a program of choice and immediately engaged in teacher training upon
award of the grant. Community meetings and pre-registration for pre-kindergarten and
kindergarten were held in the summer of 1998. The first year of implementation was in
the fall of 1998 at grades pre-kindergarten and kindergarten with two classroom sections
at each grade level. From 1999 to 2002, additional grade levels were added as the oldest
group advanced to the next grade. In June 2002, after completion of the five-year grant,
the program was established through 3rd grade. From July 2002 to the present, the district
has continued to support the program. The program extends through 12th grade.
70
Participants
The participants in this study included 157 Hispanic students in 2nd through 12th
grades in the Regal Community School District who were enrolled in the 50/50 English
and Spanish dual language program. The study was conducted over a five-year window
from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 with eight unique graduating cohorts of students that are
identified as the Class of 2011, Class of 2012, Class of 2013, Class of 2014, Class of
2015, Class of 2016, Class of 2017, and Class of 2018. Testing group data shows
specific graduating class cohorts by school year over the five-year window.
Participant Selection
In this study, the term Hispanic is used to reference the students in this local Iowa
school district who were identified by their parents/guardians during enrollment on their
registration card as Hispanic. The annual registration card is given to all parents in the
school district in English and Spanish.
The card includes a section where parents answer the question, “Is this student
Hispanic/Latino?” Parents/guardians can select a box “No, not Hispanic/Latino” or the
other box “Yes, Hispanic/Latino (a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or
Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.” The next step in
the identification process on the registration card asked for the race(s) of the child.
Options included:

American Indian or Alaska Native: a person having origins in any of the original
peoples of North and South America, including Central America, and who maintains
tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Asian: person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast
Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India,
Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Black or African American: person having origins in any of the Black racial groups
of Africa.
71

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: a person having origins in any of the
original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

White: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle
East, or North Africa.
The label “Hispanic” and the label “Spanish L1” (first language) are not synonyms. A
student may be Hispanic, but may have a language other than Spanish as his or her first
language. The first language may be English or another language. Also, there may be a
case where a student speaks Spanish as his or her first language (L1), but he or she is not
Hispanic. For the purposes of this study, the Hispanic students who were included in the
cohorts were all Spanish L1. Every student’s family fills out an annual home language
survey as part of the district registration process. This survey asked a few questions to
determine the L1 for the child. The Hispanic students in this cohort all were determined
to have Spanish L1 based on data from the home language surveys and district
demographic data on the test databases.
Testing Groups
Eight unique cohorts of students were included in the study, based on a standard
graduation date which translates into the expected year for completing high school. This
methodology resulted in eight distinct groups from the Class of 2011 through the Class of
2018. Testing was performed in both English and Spanish. Table 5 shows the number of
participants in each cohort for English-based assessments (ITBS and ITED), while Table
6 shows this same data for Spanish-based assessment (Logramos). These were the same
individuals according to class cohort year (Class of 2011, etc.).
Overall, the scores on a standardized achievement reading and math tests for a
total of 157 Hispanic students were considered for inclusion. Ten of the students did not
have any Spanish reading or math scores entered in the system during the five-year
testing window of the school years, including 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-
72
Table 5.
Student Class Cohort Size for English Reading and Math Assessment
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
(n=16) (n=13) (n=15) (n=25) (n=22) (n=17) (n=23) (n=26)
2nd ITBS
Reading
2nd ITBS
Math
3rd ITBS
Reading
3rd ITBS
Math
4th ITBS
Reading
4th ITBS
Math
5th ITBS
Reading
5th ITBS
Math
6th ITBS
Reading
6th ITBS
Math
7th ITBS
Reading
7th ITBS
Math
8th ITBS
Reading
8th ITBS
Math
9th ITED
Reading
9th ITED
Math
10th ITED
Reading
10th ITED
Math
11th ITED
Reading
11th ITED
Math
12th ITED
Reading
12th ITED
Math
23
26
23
26
17
23
25
17
23
26
19
16
22
26
20
16
22
26
24
22
15
22
26
24
22
15
22
26
14
24
21
15
23
14
25
21
15
23
13
13
24
21
14
13
13
24
21
14
16
13
13
24
21
16
13
13
24
21
16
13
13
24
16
13
13
24
16
12
13
16
12
13
15
11
13
15
11
13
73
Table 6.
Student Class Cohort Size Comparison for Spanish Reading and Math Assessment
Class
of
2011
(n=16)
2nd Logramos
Reading
2nd Logramos
Math
3rd Logramos
Reading
3rd Logramos
Math
4th Logramos
Reading
4th Logramos
Math
5th Logramos
Reading
5th Logramos
Math
6th Logramos
Reading
6th Logramos
Math
7th Logramos
Reading
7th Logramos
Math
8th Logramos
Reading
8th Logramos
Math
9th Logramos
Reading
9th Logramos
Math
10th Logramos
Reading
10th Logramos
Math
11th Logramos
Reading
11th Logramos
Math
12th Logramos
Reading
12th Logramos
Math
Class
of
2017
(n=23)
Class
of
2018
(n=26)
21
26
22
26
17
22
24
17
23
25
20
16
22
26
21
16
22
26
22
21
15
22
26
0
21
15
20
26
11
22
20
14
21
0
22
20
14
21
13
11
20
19
14
13
10
20
18
14
12
11
19
19
12
11
19
19
13
12
6
19
13
12
0
19
13
10
4
13
10
4
11
9
11
9
11
11
Class
of
2012
(n=13)
Class
of
2013
(n=15)
Class
of
2014
(n=25)
Class
of
2015
(n=22)
Class
of
2016
(n=17)
74
2010, and 2010-2011. As a result, the data for 147 students with at least one, two, three,
or four years of Spanish reading and math scores were included in this study. All
participants received a curriculum of reading and math in both Spanish and English
throughout the elementary school years of kindergarten through grade5.
Access to the study site and the data were obtained after a formal application was
approved by the Regalville Community School District(Appendix C) Access to the data
was officially approved via the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at The University of
Iowa in October 2010 (Appendix D.)
The data sources obtained from the IRB include the ITBS, ITED, and Logramos
math and reading results from all Hispanic dual language students in grades 2-12 over
five academic school years from 2006-2012. The data set were presented an Excel
spreadsheet with individual student data including gender, grade level, special education
status, free/reduced lunch status, ethnicity, and EL status that included reading and math
national standard scores (NSS), national grade level equivalency (NGE), and national
percentile rank (NPR).
Test Instruments
Three test instruments were used in this research study—the Iowa Tests of Basic
Skills (ITBS), the Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED), and Logramos. Both
the ITBS and ITED are norm-referenced tests used by the Regal School District to
compare all students to a nationally normed sample. Logramos, the Spanish language
equivalent of the ITBS and ITED was given to all students in the dual language program.
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS)
The ITBS were administered with grades 2 through 8. This was not an
experimental administration for purposes of this study, but rather the regular
administration of the ITBS for state accountability purposes. For this study, Levels 8
through 14 of ITBS were used. Testing levels for ITBS are shown in Table 7.
75
Table 7.
Levels of Testing for ITBS
ITBS Level
Grade Level
Level 7
2nd grade
Level 8
2nd grade (used by Regal CSD)
Level 9
3rd grade
Level 10
4th grade
Level 11
5th grade
Source: Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., Frisbie, D. A., Oberley, K. R., Bray, G. B., Naylor,
R. J., Qualls, A. L. (2003b). The Iowa tests interpretive guide for school administrators.
Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing
Note: During the years included in the study, there were two forms available for Levels 7
through 14. School districts alternated between Forms A and B every year.
ITBS Content Descriptions
For each level there are multiple batteries offered depending on the age of the
student including a machine-scorable Complete Battery, Survey Battery, and Core
Battery. In the Regal CSD, the students are ordered the Complete Battery which includes
13 separate tests. The students, however, only take the Reading Comprehension, Math
Concepts and Estimation, Math Problem Solving and Data Interpretation, and Science.
These tests are the minimum required by the Iowa Department of Education to meet the
state assessment requirements for No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
The Reading Comprehension test for Levels 9 through 14 is actually two separate
tests that take 25 and 30 minutes respectively to administer. The Math Concepts and
Estimation test for Levels 9 through 14 is two separate tests that take 25 and 5 minutes
respectively to administer. The Math Problem Solving and Data Interpretation test for
Levels 9 through 14 takes 30 minutes to administer. The Level 8 or Grade 2 ITBS tests
76
for Reading Comprehension and Mathematics are slightly different as they are read to the
students as allowed on the non-reading comprehension test and the students mark
answers in a machine-scorable booklet instead of a machine-scorable answer sheet. All
questions for the reading and math tests are presented in a multiple-choice format with a
choice of three, four, or five answers depending on the age of the student. Students
answer between 37 and 52 questions for the Reading Comprehension test depending on
the age of the student or level of the test, with 37 questions assessed for Grade 3 and 52
questions assessed for Grade 8.
The Reading Comprehension tests measure factual understanding,
inference/interpretation, and analysis/generalization which are listed as the three main
process skills (Hoover et al., 2001). The subskills for these process skills include
understanding stated information, understanding words in context, drawing conclusions,
making inferences, inferring traits, interpreting information or nonliteral language,
determining main ideas, identifying purposes, and analyzing style. The ITBS Reading
Comprehension tests have a balance of one-third focused on the skill of understanding
stated information or literal comprehension. The other two-thirds of the ITBS Reading
Comprehension tests focus on higher levels of thinking and place greater reading
demands on the reader.
The Math Concepts test for Level 8 (Grade 2) was designed and prioritized with
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) framework in mind. It covers
many concepts in a broad manner instead of focusing on a few concepts in depth. It most
heavily emphasizes number operations and properties. The four main math process skills
are number properties/operations, algebraic concepts, geometry, and measurement.
There are 31 questions at Level 8 for Math Concepts (Hoover et al., 2001).
The second math test that comprises the Math Total score is the Math Problems
test. This test at Level 8 is comprised of problem solving questions for about two-thirds
of the questions and reading to interpret data from graphs and tables for the other one-
77
third of the test. The specific content or process skills measured in the Math Problems
tests at Level 8 include single-step and multiple-step problem solving, use of approaches
and procedures in problem solving, reading amounts for data interpretation, and
comparing quantities to interpret data, and interpreting trends and relationships in data
(Hoover et al., 2001). There are 30 questions at Level 8 for Math Problems.
The Math Concepts and Estimation test for Levels 9 through 14 (Grades 3
through 8) also was designed with consideration given to the NCTM standards (Hoover
et al., 2001). The content and process math skills that are included on the Levels 9
through 14 Math Concepts and Estimation test are number properties and operation,
algebra, geometry, measurement, probability and statistics, and estimation. There are
between 31 and 49 questions for this test depending on the age level of the student with
Level 9 including 31 questions and Level 14 including 49 questions.
The second test that makes up the Math Total score is the Math Problem Solving
and Data Interpretation test. It also was heavily influenced during development by the
NCTM standards and has a large focus on math problem solving with multiple-step
problems and on data interpretation focusing on probability and statistics. The problemsolving portion becomes increasingly difficult as the grade levels increase and the
questions include more steps, more difficult arithmetic, and larger numbers. The data
interpretation section also becomes increasingly more difficult as the grade levels
increase and the level of critical thinking required increases, too (Hoover et al., 2001).
There are between 22 and 32 questions for this test depending on the age level of the
student with Level 9 having 22 questions and Level 14 having 32 questions.
ITBS Score Interpretation
The test publisher, Riverside Publishing, and the test developer, The University of
Iowa, note that there are many purposes for testing with the ITBS. These purposes can
include identifying students’ subject area strengths and weaknesses, monitoring yearly
skill growth, and discovering developmental levels for students in certain content areas.
78
Additionally, school districts like Regal CSD use the ITBS to ensure compliance with the
Iowa Department of Education’s regulations which are connected to the Iowa
Accountability Workbook created in accordance with NCLB.
School districts receive scores from each test taken in multiple formats including
raw scores, percentage correct, grade equivalence (GE) which is a decimal number
ranging from P.1 for first month of preschool to 13 which is beyond the 12th grade year of
high school. Additionally, students can receive a GE of K.8 which indicates kindergarten
in the eighth month. GE has many opportunities for misinterpretation and
misunderstandings and percentile ranks are recommended for looking at strengths and
weaknesses (Hoover et al, 2003). Other scores available include the developmental
standard score, the percentile rank, the stanine, and the normal curve equivalent. The
Regal CSD uses all of these available scores and reports to analyze student progress,
curriculum coverage, and areas for remediation or enrichment. Student scores are shared
with students’ parents at parent teacher conferences in Regalville and are a focus of
professional development by content and grade level teams throughout the PK-12 system.
The Regal CSD used the national grade level equivalency and national percentile rank
metrics for internal curriculum and program review. The national grade level
equivalency and national percentile rank metrics were both used by teachers when
communicating with students and parents.
Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED)
The ITED were administered to students in grades 9 through 11. ITED measures
educational achievement in the nine subject areas of vocabulary, reading comprehension,
language, spelling, mathematics concepts and problem solving, computation, social
studies, science, and sources of information. The ITED battery was designed to be given
periodically to all high school students regardless of courses taken. The ITED emphasize
the critical thinking skills that students must have to become successful, educated
citizens. The main emphasis of the ITED is to look at individual and group growth over
79
time across a wide variety of skills and concepts. The primary purpose of the ITED
battery is to gather information (Forsyth et al., 2003b) and the major goals are to
understand students’ level of achievement with respect to the goals of interpreting
reading materials, solving novel quantitative problems, recognizing effective writing,
critical analysis of science and social issues, and using sources of information.
The ITED has a Level 15 for 9th grade, Level 16 for 10th grade, and a Level 17/18
for 11th and/or 12th graders. All questions on the ITED are multiple choice and have four
or five answers to select from on the answer sheet. Students select an answer and fill in a
circle on a separate answer sheet. The battery tests range in time from ten minutes for the
spelling test that contains thirty items to forty minutes for the reading comprehension,
language, social studies, and science batteries that contain between 44 and 56 questions.
The ITED Core battery includes the vocabulary, reading comprehension, language,
spelling, mathematics, and computation tests. The social studies, science, and sources of
information tests are not considered part of the core battery (Forsyth et al, 2003a).
For purposes of accountability to the Iowa Department of Education to meet the
NCLB workbook guidelines for Iowa, all school districts are required to test all 11th
graders in the areas of Reading Comprehension, Mathematics, and Science. Giving the
ITED in grades 9, 10, or 12 is optional. The ITED have been normed and standardized
on a national level ensuring proportional representation of subgroups including special
education, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic status (Forsyth et al, 2003b). The validity of
the ITED ultimately rests on local analysis of the content and the appropriateness
(Forsyth et al, 2003b), but the experts at Iowa Testing Programs evaluate the validity of
the ITED for all test takers by focusing on content and process standards and how the
results or statistics are interpreted.
ITED Subtest Descriptions
The ITED Reading Comprehension test includes multiple selections that mirror
the reading that adults do beyond high school. The passages represent writers of diverse
80
backgrounds and range in form from poems to fiction narratives to science articles to
nonfiction essays. Each student reads five passages that range from 400 to 650 words
each. The questions that follow the passages revolve around three main themes of
reading comprehension including factual or literal understanding, inferential
understanding, and analytic/evaluative understanding (Forsyth et al, 2003b).
Factual or literal understanding involves finding information that is explicit in the
passage. It can be found in ideas presented in the text or can ask the reader to focus on
vocabulary words in context. Inferential understanding asks the reader to make
inferences about the characters in a passage including their motives for behavior and
feelings. It also asks readers to infer relationships between events in the passage, to
determine the explanation for a situation, or to interpret figures of speech. The last level
of reading comprehension required is analytic and evaluative understanding which
requires the reader to determine main ideas, identify author’s point of view or purpose,
and determine style and structure of a passage.
The ITED Mathematics: Concepts and Problem Solving test includes content and
processes connected to the main concepts and reasoning skills that the NCTM has
identified for high school math. The central purpose of this math test is to measure how
well students can solve quantitative problems. The content covered does not include
course specific skills for advanced math nor does it provide such basic content that
advanced students would not be challenged. All of the questions on the math test ask the
students to perform basic arithmetic, measure, estimate, interpret data, and think logically
(Forsyth et al, 2003b). There is a strong emphasis on probability and statistics and the
questions are grounded in real-life applications with some instances of abstract thinking.
The overall goal is to present students with math problems that are novel to them that
require students to use creative or non-routine ways to solve the problems. Calculator
use is allowed, but is not required.
81
Logramos
Students receiving instruction in dual language classrooms were given the
Logramos, a Spanish-language norm-referenced test that provides a comprehensive
assessment of student progress in basic skills. The Logramos is comparable to the ITBS
or ITED. Like the ITBS and ITED, Logramos has fall and spring norms based on the
2001 standardization sample. The standardization process mirrors the development of the
ITBS and ITED process. In fact, test specifications are developed that parallel ITBS and
ITED. Logramos is a group administered achievement test battery in Spanish.
According to Riverside Publishing,
Logramos Second Edition measures the reading, language and mathematics
achievement of Spanish-speaking students in grades K-12. While Logramos was
developed to parallel the scope and sequence of The Iowa Tests, it is not a
translation of an English language instrument. Logramos was developed and
designed to reflect the unique needs of the Spanish-speaking population.
(Riverside Publishing Company, 2012b)
Logramos Content
The second edition of Logramos became available for purchase in 2006 and used
2005 norms. The 2006 edition offered new content and used Spanish vernacular that is
common among many Spanish-speaking countries and common among the students.
Logramos is a group administered test battery in Spanish and is available for students in
grades K through 12. The subtests are Vocabulary, Word Analysis, Reading
Comprehension, Language, and Mathematics, and each subtest takes from 30 to 60
minutes to administer. The students in Regal CSD participated in the Reading
Comprehension and Mathematics subtests in the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010,
2010-2011, and 2011-2012 school years, but only participated in the Reading
Comprehension subtest in the first year which was 2006-2007.
The Reading Comprehension subtest is a measurement of students’ ability to
construct meaning. Reading prompts from different genres that vary in length and
reading difficulty are included. At the second grade level or Level 8, students’ reading
82
comprehension skills are assessed using different reading tasks that include reading
words, phrases, sentences, and short stories that become increasingly more complex. All
Logramos subtests except reading, vocabulary, and math computation are orally
administered at Level 7/8 and students mark their answers in a machine-scorable booklet
(Riverside Publishing, 2003b).
By 3rd grade or Level 9, the reading tests are separated into two separate tests.
Each of the two tests includes reading passages from varied genres of reading including
fiction, poetry, and non-fiction. Different content areas like science and social studies are
used in the non-fiction reading section. The content of Spanish reading passages is
related to the varied regions or countries of Hispanics (Riverside Publishing, 2003b). In
high school or Level 16, students are presented with questions that require the student to
demonstrate literal understanding, inference and interpretation skills, and analysis and
generalization skills.
The Mathematics subtests, Math Concepts and Estimation and Math Problem
Solving and Data Interpretation, were administered to the students at all grade levels.
The Computation subtest was not given. The Math Concepts and Estimation subtest
focuses on the areas of number properties, number operations, algebra, geometry,
measurement, and probability and statistics. Additionally, this subtest assesses mental
arithmetic and estimation skills.
The Math Problem Solving and Data Interpretation subtest assesses the students’
ability to solve multi-step word problems. The students are asked to solve these word
problems or choose which strategy or method to solve the problems without actually
solving the problem. The Data Interpretation section of the subtest focuses on assessing
the students’ abilities to read graphs and displays, think critically about the presented
information, and identify relationships and trends found in the data. The high school test,
or Levels 16-18, assesses the students’ ability to solve problems that include arithmetic,
83
measurement, estimation, interpretation of data, and logical thinking skill application
(Riverside Publishing, 2003b).
After test specifications have been developed, the items are reviewed to ensure
that Spanish linguistic and cultural issues have been addressed. Materials and test items
are reviewed by teams to deem interest of items, age/grade appropriateness, and removal
of bias for Spanish-speaking children. Individual items, passages, and questions are field
tested, reviewed for fairness, and then standardized at a national level. The “Logramos
Fall/Spring Norms and Score Conversions with Technical Information” manual included
research and data that aligned with the five principal sources of validity (Riverside
Publishing, 2003a).
Logramos Score Interpretation
Logramos student score sheets report student scores as RS (raw score), SS (scale
score), NPR (national percentile rank), NGE (national grade level equivalency) and ST9
(stanine score). The “Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (K-R 20) procedures” (Riverside
Publishing, 2003a) give the Logramos reliability data. The two statistical indices
according to the authors include a reliability coefficient “always between 0.00 and 0.99
and generally between 0.60 and 0.95” (Riverside Publishing, 2003a). Also, “the closer
the coefficient approaches the upper limit, the greater is the evidence of a wellconstructed test” (p.11). Indices are provided with information on mean scores, standard
deviations, standard errors of measurement, and K-R 20. All levels are vertically equated
with valid standards scores on a common scale like ITBS and ITED. The Mathematics
and Reading content objectives on the Logramos tests parallel the ITBS and ITED.
The results of the individual students’ Logramos were shared by the district with
the dual language teachers, building administrators, and with parents at parent-teacher
conferences or were mailed home. These results were used by the dual language
committee to gauge areas of strength and areas of weakness for Hispanic and nonHispanic students in the dual language program. These strengths and weaknesses then
84
helped drive decisions about program expansion, teacher selection, and instructional
materials. The assessment results for Logramos were used in comparison with the ITBS
and ITED to look at individual students who might need interventions like Title I reading
support or Reading Recovery in Spanish, acceleration through the Talented and Gifted
(TAG) program, or possibly special education services.
Use of Logramos
The Regal CSD began to use the Logramos assessment in the 2006-2007 school
year as an internal measure of the 50/50 Spanish-English dual language program’s
effectiveness and as a means to report student growth in Spanish to stakeholders. All of
the dual language students in grades 2-12 took the Logramos test starting in 2007-2008.
Three grade levels piloted the Logramos test in 2006-2007. All of these dual language
students also took the ITBS and/or ITED if they were in grades 3-11. The leadership
team in the school district did not select the ITBS and/or ITED, but rather used those
assessments like 100% of the school districts in Iowa for state reporting requirements.
The Logramos test was selected by the district leadership team as it was available from
the Riverside Publishing Company and the Iowa Testing Program provided scoring
services similar to the reports generated for ITBS and/or ITED.
The 2006-2007 school year was the tenth year of the program and the program
had a waiting list for kindergarten enrollment for a few years. Some members of the
district and the community wanted to see the program expand at the kindergarten level,
but others wanted to see evidence that the program was effective. The superintendent
and the school board approved the use of the Logramos assessment as well as a
comprehensive audit by an external source to measure the programs’ strengths and
weaknesses. Logramos was not required for NCLB accountability to the state or federal
government, but served as an additional measure of student growth and a measure of dual
language program effectiveness. There was no published comparison of reliability for
85
ITBS/ITED and Logramos, but the Regal CSD chose to use Logramos since both it and
ITBS/ITED had established reliability respectively.
Assessment Summary
Table 8 summarizes which form of the Logramos, ITBS, or ITED assessments
that students in Regal CSD were assessed with by individual school years. Additionally,
it shows whether the testing window was fall, mid-year, or spring for Logramos, ITBS, or
ITED. This information is relevant because the proficiency rates may indicate an
increase or decrease from one school year to the next depending on the form of the
assessment used.
Table 8.
ITBS/ITED/Logramos Testing Windows and Forms Used
School Year
ITBS/ITED
window
Form
Logramos
window
Form
2006-2007
Fall
B
Spring
B
2007-2008
Fall
A
Spring
A
2008-2009
Fall
B
Spring
B
2009-2010
Mid-year
A
Spring
A
2010-2011
Mid-year
B
Fall
B
Data Analysis Methods and Procedures
Consenting/Assenting Procedures
To answer the research questions, access to individual student data was needed.
These data were requested from the Regal CSD in accordance with the policies and
procedures established by the Superintendent and Board of Education. The district has a
86
document, “Regalville Community School District Research and Survey Procedures”,
found in Appendix C, that must be completed and approved by the Curriculum Director
and Superintendent prior to approval for research activities with students, staff, or
recorded data. This document ensures confidentiality and alignment with the Family
Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Written consent was provided on October
11, 2010.
Additionally, approval for the study was required from The University of Iowa
Institutional Review Board (IRB) as found in Appendix D. To receive IRB approval, an
online application was completed in October 2010 following approval from the
Regalville CSD. Formal IRB approval was granted on November 2, 2010. Project
approval was granted by the IRB committee after a successful description of the project’s
research questions, significance, and relevant literature review. Additionally, it was
noted to the IRB that this was a secondary data analysis of student assessment results;
therefore, a waiver of consent from the students was not necessary as there was no
inherent risk to the students.
Data Collection Procedures
The data for this study were collected with the consent of the Regal CSD and The
University of Iowa’s IRB. The reading and math test results were collected and each
student’s confidentiality was protected. The student data did allow for results to be
viewed according to the subgroups of gender, socioeconomic status, special education
status, and English Language learner (EL) status, but that data were not analyzed through
this particular study. Data were shared electronically via Excel files and via confidential
discs from the Iowa Testing Programs available over the five-year time period that these
groups were involved in both the English and Spanish assessments.
Sampling Procedures and Sample Size
All students in the dual language program in Regal CSD were potential members
of the pool for this research study. This study was designed to pinpoint student academic
87
achievement for a subset of that program—the Hispanic students who participated in dual
language. There are some Hispanic students who choose not to participate in the dual
language program when they enter kindergarten, but instead enroll in the English-only
classes. No Hispanic students in the dual language program opted out of the study as
they are required to take the reading and math assessments and this study was an analysis
of that student achievement data. Students in the dual language program who are nonHispanic will not have their Logramos or ITBS/ITED data included as part of the sample.
The goal of this research study was to see how the Hispanic student population
grows over time in reading and math achievement while participating in a dual language
program. Data were not requested through IRB related to the non-Hispanic dual
language program students because those students are native English speakers who were
tested with ITBS and ITED and have scores reported for accountability in their dominant
language. These non-Hispanic dual language program students did take the Logramos
test, but their data is not included in this study.
The sample included a total of 157 Hispanic students who attended the Regal
CSD from 2006 to 2012. Table 9 summarizes the demographic information of the
students included in this study.
Table 9.
Demographics of Study Participants
Gender
Free/reduced lunch
program
Special education
Qualified for ESL
services
45% male
N=71
72% eligible
N=114
6% eligible
N=10
36% eligible
N=57
55% female
N=86
28% non-eligible
N=43
94% non-eligible
N=147
64% non-eligible
N=100
88
Data Sources
The quantitative, longitudinal data were analyzed by variables—grade level,
graduating class cohort, language of assessment, and content specific test of math or
reading. SPSS software was used to tally proficiency status and average grade level for
reading and math in both the English and Spanish versions of the assessments. The data
was summarized by cohort and across cohorts by language of assessment and content
area of assessment. All of these analyses were collected, charted, and analyzed to
determine trends and any statistically significant differences related to proficiency levels.
The criteria for proficiency on ITBS/ITED are the 41st national percentile rank (NPR)
which is the state determined cut score in Iowa. There is no set level of proficiency for
Logramos as it is not used for NCLB reporting, but for purposes of this study the 41st
NPR was used, too. An analysis of the national grade level equivalency (NGE) was
chosen for both ITBS/ITED and Logramos as it is correlated with NPR which is the
indicator of proficiency for NCLB. Finally, a matched pairs comparison was included as
an additional way to look at student data even though NCLB requires aggregate student
data as the basis for SINA and DINA decisions.
Before the actual analysis could occur, student data were obtained with IRB
approval in the form of a CD of Excel spreadsheets with individual level student data.
These data included English and Spanish test results for Reading and Math, including raw
number correct, student gender, student special education status, and free/reduced lunch
status. A blank cell indicated that the student did not take that reading and/or math test
that school year. The data were filtered to include these columns:

Student identification number

Student graduation school year

ITBS Reading NPR, NSS and NGE

ITED Reading NPR, NSS and NGE

Logramos Reading NPR, NSS and NGE
89

ITBS Math NPR, NSS and NGE

ITED Math NPR, NSS and NGE

Logramos Math NPR, NSS and NGE
After these fields were narrowed for the students in the study, data were exported from
the Excel spreadsheet into SPSS. This allowed for manipulation of the data, which
created charts. The data then were analyzed in a four-step process.
The student data were first analyzed for reading. This included finding the total
number of students with a NGE at or above the expected NGE and finding the average
NGE for the “All” group as well as for each of the eight graduating cohorts. The reading
data were analyzed in SPSS by looking at how many of the students achieved an NSS
equivalent to a 41 NPR, which is the key threshold for proficiency for AYP in Iowa on
ITBS and/or ITED. Then the total number of students who were at or above the 41st
NPR was determined. This value became the percent proficient. This process of finding
the percent proficient using the NSS and NPR was completed for the group as a whole
and then again for each of the graduating cohorts. The data compiled from this SPSS
work were analyzed and used to answer the first research question for this study, which
was focused on reading achievement.
The second step was to analyze the student data for math. This included
determining the total number of students with a NGE at or above the expected NGE and
finding the average NGE for the “All” group as well as for each of the eight graduating
cohorts. The math data were analyzed in SPSS by looking at how many of the students
achieved a NSS equivalent to a 41 NPR which is the threshold for proficiency for AYP in
Iowa on ITBS and/or ITED. A count was completed of how many students were at or
above the 41st NPR, which became the percent proficient. This process of finding the
percent proficient using the NSS and NPR was completed for the group as a whole and
then again for each of the graduating cohorts. The data compiled from this SPSS work
90
were analyzed and used to answer the second research question for this study, which
focused on math achievement.
The third step in this quantitative study was to repeat the reading and math steps
described previously with the student data from Logramos. Student data collected with
IRB approval for these Hispanic dual language students had the same fields, which
allowed for comparisons of NPR, NSS, NGE, etc., within the Spanish test itself between
reading and math. It also allowed for comparisons from the English ITBS/ITED to the
Spanish Logramos. Average NGE was computed within cohorts and across grade levels.
Average percent proficient using the NPR and NSS data were computed within cohorts
and across grade levels.
The final step in the methodology for this quantitative study was to go back to the
master set of student data and filter students to obtain data from a matched pairs test
within SPSS. This included using Excel to filter the spreadsheet for any students within
the graduating class cohorts that did not have a reading and math score in both English
and Spanish for all of the years in their cohort’s window. Of the eight graduating
cohorts, some had three years of consecutive data, some had four years, and some had
five years. This decreased the sample size of students, but allowed for a matched pairs ttest within each cohort by each language for both reading and math. This matched pairs
t-test gave additional statistical information including not just the mean and standard
deviation within each set of data, but also the standard error of the mean, the difference of
the standard errors of the mean, and the significance. This process was repeated for all
eight cohorts and within each of the cohorts a matched pairs test was done for
ITBS/ITED Reading vs. Logramos Reading and then again for ITBS/ITED Math vs.
Logramos Math. Final scores were calculated by completing the matched pairs test for
ITBS/ITED Reading vs. Logramos Reading, then for ITBS/ITED Math and Logramos
Math, for all students by grade level which included all students with both an English and
a Spanish score at that particular grade level.
91
Research Questions
Student scores from ITBS, ITED, and Logramos data that were obtained through
the IRB approval from the Regal CSD serve as the research data. The majority of
programs that are TWI use Spanish along with English as noted previously. This data is
relevant because this study is focused on how testing with Spanish language versions of
reading and math assessments for Hispanic students may or may not produce more
accurate achievement results.
For Question One (Is there a statistical difference in reading achievement for
Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language program students when testing data is
disaggregated linguistically?), data behind achievement results has been broken down by
grade level with all of the cohorts combined as one cohort for the reading test from
Logramos and another for the reading test from ITBS/ITED. This data is compared by
NGE results and the percentage of student proficiency in reading for each test.
Charts are used to show the number of subjects in each group, the mean NGE,
standard deviation (SD), and proficiency percentage for math achievement for Question
Two (Is there a statistical difference in math achievement for Hispanic 50/50 English and
Spanish dual language program students when testing data is disaggregated
linguistically?). Some of the charts look at grade levels as a whole while others look at
grade levels for specific graduating class cohorts. The data source is shown for each
research question in Table 10.
Summary
It is expected that Hispanics in the dual language program will achieve greater
percentages of proficiency and higher average NGE on the Spanish math and reading
assessments first as that is the students’ native and dominant language. Prior research in
the bilingual education field, as well as Spanish language testing results, have indicated
that students generally achieve proficiency or are able to function at higher levels on
assessments that are presented in the students’ native or dominant language. For students
92
Table 10.
Data Sources by Research Question
Research Question
Data Source
Is there a statistical difference in reading
achievement for Hispanic 50/50 English
and Spanish dual language program
students when testing data is disaggregated
linguistically?
Table 6: Reading NGE ITBS/ITED and
Logramos by grade level
Is there a statistical difference in math
achievement for Hispanic 50/50 English
and Spanish dual language program
students when testing data is disaggregated
linguistically?
Table 15: Math NGE ITBS/ITED and
Logramos by grade level
Tables 7-14: Reading NPR percent
proficient ITBS/ITED and Logramos by
graduating cohort
Tables 16-23: Math NPR percent proficient
ITBS/ITED and Logramos by graduating
cohort
who are familiar with the content terminology in the native or dominant language and/or
have been educated in the native or dominant language, and then assessments using
languages other than English would be appropriate (Abedi, Hofstetter, & Lord, 2007). In
addition, it is expected that students’ growth as measured by their standard scores in math
and reading will continue to grow over the years as they are instructed in Spanish in both
of the content areas of literacy and math. Further, it is expected, based on the findings in
the literature review in this study, that Hispanic students in the dual language program
will achieve proficiency on the English math and reading tests, but that they will achieve
proficiency on English math before English reading due to the linguistic demands of the
reading assessment in English.
Chapter IV details the findings of the analyses of the reading and math student
achievement scores from the ITBS, ITED, and Logramos for the students included in this
study and includes analyses by percentage proficient and national grade level equivalency
(NGE) of each graduating class cohort over multiple years of testing in both reading and
93
math and is disaggregated by language of the testing instrument. The data from each of
the research questions will be presented in Chapter IV in narrative and table formats.
94
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This quantitative study examined the results on the reading and math achievement
on standardized English and Spanish assessments of Hispanic students who were enrolled
in a 50/50 English and Spanish dual language program. The design of this study featured
assessment of Hispanic dual language students’ reading and math skills in both English
and Spanish, which provided the researcher the opportunity to examine the development
and interrelationships among skills in the two languages. The results of the research
questions guiding this study are organized as follows:
Research Question One: Is there a statistical difference in reading achievement for
Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language program students when testing
data is disaggregated linguistically?
National Grade Level Equivalency (NGE) results in Reading on Logramos by
grade level were collected to determine whether there is a statistical difference in reading
achievement when testing in Spanish as compared to the National Grade Level
Equivalency (NGE) results in Reading on ITBS/ITED by grade level. Trend patterns in
the data, not inferential statistics, were analyzed to answer the first research question.
NGE Reading results from Logramos and ITBS/ITED were compared by grade
level to measure the percentage of proficient students (41st National Percentile Rank)
(NPR) in Reading on Logramos by each of the eight graduating cohort’s data (Class of
2018, 2017, 2016, etc.) as compared to the percentage of proficient students (41st NPR)
in Reading on ITBS/ITED by each of the eight graduating cohort’s data (Class of 2018,
2017, 2016, etc.). Finally, there was a percentage proficient comparison from Logramos
and ITBS/ITED Reading by graduating cohort data.
NGE is a number like 3.4 or 8.2 which reflects the grade level and then the
month. This NGE is determined after taking the raw score for the number correct which
is then converted to a national percentile rank (NPR) from 1-99. The NPR is used to
95
along with the standard deviation to determine an NGE between K.1 (kindergarten first
month) to 13+ (equivalent to past twelfth grade in the eighth month). The rationale for
using NGEs, too, is that this is a measurement that educational leaders and teachers are
familiar with in reviewing student and grade level achievement results.
Research Question Two: Is there a statistical difference in math achievement for
Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language program students when testing
data is disaggregated linguistically?
National Grade Level Equivalency (NGE) results in Math on Logramos by grade
level were collected to determine whether there is a statistical difference in math
achievement when testing in Spanish as compared to the National Grade Level
Equivalency (NGE) results in Math on ITBS/ITED by grade level.
NGE Math results from Logramos and ITBS/ITED were compared by grade level
to measure the percentage of proficient students (41st National Percentile Rank) (NPR) in
Math on Logramos by each of the eight graduating cohort’s data (Class of 2018, 2017,
2016, etc.) as compared to the percentage of proficient students (41st NPR) in Math on
ITBS/ITED by each of the eight graduating cohort’s data (Class of 2018, 2017, 2016,
etc.). Finally, there was a percentage proficient comparison from Logramos and
ITBS/ITED Math by graduating cohort data. Some tables look at grade levels as a whole
while others look at grade levels for specific graduating class cohorts. Trend patterns in
the data, not inferential statistics, were analyzed to answer the second research question.
In summary, the entire study looks at reading NGE and NPR results, math NGE
and NPR results, and a matched pairs comparison. Inferential statistics were used in the
matched pairs comparison section.
Results for Research Question One
National Grade Level Equivalency Reading Comparisons
Table 11 shows achievement results by grade level with all cohorts combined as
one cohort on the reading test from Logramos and on the reading test from ITBS/ITED.
96
Table 11.
Comparisons on Reading National Grade Level Equivalency (NGE) Between Logramos
and ITBS/ITED for the Combined 2011-2018 Cohorts
Test
Variable
Logramos
n
Logramos
NGE
Mean*
Logramos
Standard
Deviation
(SD)
ITBS/ITED
N
ITBS/ITED ITBS/ITED
NGE
Standard
Mean*
Deviation
(SD)
Grade 2
47
4.16
2.40
49
2.71
1.00
Grade 3
63
5.08
2.30
65
3.14
0.93
Grade 4
85
6.52
2.49
83
4.20
1.67
Grade 5
110
8.51
3.11
109
5.31
1.82
Grade 6
90
8.62
2.70
97
5.72
2.27
Grade 7
78
9.78
2.78
84
7.50
2.92
Grade 8
78
10.35
2.57
87
7.89
2.92
Grade 9
50
11.33
2.19
66
9.15
3.15
Grade 10
27
11.74
1.80
40
10.21
2.59
Grade 11
20
11.17
2.38
26
11.74
2.19
Grade 12
11
12.0
2.19
n/a
n/a
n/a
*The expected NGE mean for grade 2 is 2.3, for grade 3 is 3.3, for grade 4 is 4.3, etc.
through grade 12 for ITBS/ITED and Logramos.
It includes the total number of students who took the test according to their grade levels
for each of the two assessments. It also gives the grade level mean for the national grade
level equivalency (NGE) for each of the two reading tests. NGE is reported as the grade
level and month. For example, in fourth grade, the mean of 4.2 on ITBS indicates that
the average result or NGE for any fourth grader that took the reading test in English was
equivalent to a fourth grader in his or her second month of the school year. This is
important to note as it indicates that, on average, the grade 4 students have an average
mean NGE that meets the grade level expectations. The reading tests are taken in this
school district in the fourth month (or November) of each school year. The standard
deviation column shows the standard deviation for each grade levels for both tests.
97
Logramos NGE Reading Results-All Students by Grade Level
The students’ reading results by grade level indicate that on the Spanish reading
test, or Logramos, students’ average mean for NGE was at or above the expected NGE
for grades 2 through 10. The students’ average NGE mean for grades 11 and 12 was
below the expected NGE by less than two months. The NGE average mean was the
highest above the expected NGE at grade 5 or after five or six years in the dual language
program for the Hispanic students.
As the students progressed past grade 8 and continued to take the Logramos in
high school, the NGE mean for the groups leveled off at grade 10; then decreased slightly
in grade 11, but increased slightly in grade 12. The results for grades 9 through 12 are
less reliable as the number of students tested drops dramatically from 110 in grade 6 to 20
in grade 11.
A limitation of the data is the reliability is affected by the decrease in the number
of students at the high school level taking the tests in Spanish. This decline in students is
due to the fact that many Hispanic students choose not to continue in the dual language
program at the high school level depending on post-secondary plans and the required
courses that must be taken.
ITBS/ITED NGE Reading Results- All Students by Grade Level
The results in Table 11 indicate that on the English reading test, either ITBS
(grades 2 through 8) or ITED (grades 9 through 11), students’ average NGE mean was
not at the expected NGE for grades 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, or 10. However, the students’ average
NGE mean was at the expected NGE for grades 2, 5, 7, and 11. The students’ average
NGE mean for grades 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 were below the expected NGE by one to five
months depending on grade level. Table 11 shows that the NGE average mean was the
highest above expected NGEs at grades 2 and 11 at four or five months above the
expected NGE.
98
As the students progressed from grade 7 to grade 8, the NGE mean showed the
smallest increase. In grade 7, however, it increased almost two grade levels. That same
pattern showed again as the NGE stayed relatively the same from grade 7 to grade 8, but
increased almost two grade levels in grade 9. The number of students tested in grades 9
through 11 also drops quite dramatically compared to the elementary grade totals due to
the number of Hispanic students who opted out of the dual language program in high
school.
ITBS/ITED Reading and Logramos NGE Reading Comparison of Each Cohort
In comparison, the students’ performance in reading in Spanish on Logramos was
higher at every grade level from grades 2 through grade 10, with the exception of grade
11 where students scored five months lower on the average NGE in Spanish. Overall, the
difference was at least one year and nine months up to three years and two months higher
in Spanish than in English. The range of the standard deviation on the Spanish test
Logramos was 1.87 to 3.13 months and the standard deviation on the English test
ITBS/ITED was 0.93 to 3.15 months.
The standard deviation in English was almost three times as large at some levels
when compared to the Spanish standard deviation range. The Logramos scores started
off higher than ITBS/ITED scores and stayed higher year after year. One interpretation
of these results is that student reading scores on ITBS/ITED are not an accurate
representation of a student’s reading abilities, but rather represent a combination of the
students’ reading abilities and level of English proficiency. The gap between the average
English NGE and Spanish NGE results remained at approximately a two to three years
difference in NGE.
Percentage Proficient Reading Comparisons
Table E1 through Table E8, presented in Appendix E, show achievement results
for the reading test from Logramos and for the reading tests from ITBS/ITED according
99
to each of the eight unique cohorts by class year. The data also provide the percentage of
students who were considered proficient for each of the two reading tests.
Proficiency is reported using the raw number of students who took the test,
divided by the raw number of students who achieved at the 41st national percentile or
higher. For example, in grade 2 the same group of students (Class of 2018) had a
proficiency percentage of 81% in reading on the Spanish Logramos compared to a
proficiency percentage of 54% in reading on the English ITBS.
ITBS/ITED Reading and Logramos Percentage Proficiency
Comparison by Graduating Cohorts
In comparison, the students’ proficiency percentages in reading in Spanish on
Logramos were higher at 34 of the 38 grade-level comparisons across the eight cohorts.
Of the four instances when a cohort had a higher percentage proficiency in English over
Spanish, it occurred in grade 7 once, grade 8 once, and in grade 11 twice. In two
instances, the number of students taking the two tests was quite different and the
percentage proficient in English was 23% to 25% different. In the other two instances,
the English percentage proficient was only 1% to 6% higher.
Another result of the data sets is that the median percent proficient across all
grade levels for all eight cohorts over the five-year window is 77.87% on the Spanish
reading Logramos. The median percent proficient across all grades for all eight cohorts
over the five-year window was 55.92% on the English Reading ITBS or ITED. This is a
considerable difference when comparing percentages linguistically.
The percent proficient needed for making Adequate Yearly Progress Plan (AYP)
on ITBS or ITED in grades 4, 8, or 11 ranged from 66% to 79.3% proficiency from 2005
to 2010 when this testing took place (Iowa Department of Education, 2004). Using the
percentage proficient on ITBS or ITED for these cohorts would not have resulted in these
schools and this district being considered to have made AYP.
100
Results for Reading
The reading achievement for Hispanic dual language program students is different
when disaggregated linguistically. This research question looked at the results on the
ITBS/ITED which is given in English and the Logramos which is given in Spanish. The
data were disaggregated linguistically using both the NGE and the percent proficient
comparison.
The results indicate that on the English reading test that the students’ NGE mean
was not at the expected NGE for grades 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, or 10. The students’ NGE mean was
at the expected NGE for grades 2, 5, 7, and 11. The students’ NGE mean for grades 3, 4,
6, 8, 9, and 10 was below the expected NGE by one to five months depending on the
grade level. The results indicate that on the Spanish reading test, or Logramos, that the
students’ NGE mean was at or above the expected NGE for grades 2 through 10. The
students’ NGE mean for grade 11 and grade 12 was below the expected NGE by less than
two months.
The results indicate that in comparison by percentage proficient, the students’
proficiency percentages in reading in Spanish on Logramos were higher at 34 of the 38
grade level comparisons across the eight cohorts. Of the four instances when a cohort
had a higher percentage proficiency in English reading over Spanish reading there were
large differences in the total number of students. Also, the median percent proficient
across all grade levels for all eight cohorts over the five-year window is 77.87% on the
Spanish reading Logramos.
The median percent proficient across all grades for all eight cohorts over the fiveyear window was 55.92% on the English reading ITBS or ITED. Whether comparing
reading results by NGE or percent proficient, there is a significant advantage for the
Hispanic dual language students to demonstrate reading skills on Spanish versions of the
reading assessment instead of the English version which is the students’ second language
that the students are working to develop.
101
Results for Research Question Two
National Grade Level Equivalency Math Comparisons
Table 12 shows achievement results by grade level with all of the cohorts
combined as one cohort by grade level on the math test from Logramos and on the math
test from ITBS/ITED. It includes the total number of students who took the test
according to their grade levels for each of the two assessments. It also gives the grade
level mean for the national grade level equivalency (NGE) for each of the two math tests.
NGE is reported as the grade level and month. For example, in 4th grade the ITBS math
mean was 4.29, so the average result or NGE for any 4th grader who took the math test in
English was equivalent to a 4th grader in his or her second month of the school year. If
Table 12.
Comparisons on Math National Grade Level Equivalency (NGE) Between Logramos and
ITBS/ITED for the Combined 2011-2018 Cohorts
Test
Variable
Logramos Logramos
n
Mean
Logramos
Standard
Deviation
(SD)
ITBS/
ITED
N
ITBS/
ITED
Mean
ITBS/
ITED
Standard
Deviation
(SD)
Grade 2
48
3.77
1.63
49
3.33
0.86
Grade 3
65
5.16
2.54
66
3.14
0.94
Grade 4
80
6.20
2.86
84
4.29
1.45
Grade 5
83
8.66
3.14
109
5.34
1.74
Grade 6
78
9.47
2.96
98
6.33
2.20
Grade 7
63
11.02
2.32
84
8.08
2.68
Grade 8
62
11.83
2.00
87
9.41
2.57
Grade 9
44
11.73
1.91
66
9.62
3.05
Grade 10
27
4.86
3.82
40
10.43
2.68
Grade 11
20
6.28
4.93
26
11.52
2.32
Grade 12
11
12.91
0.30
n/a
n/a
n/a
102
the students receive an average NGE of 4.29 and are in 4th grade that means that on
average the students as a group are on target. There are students who fall below the
average and are not on target, too. The math tests are taken in this school district in the
third month or November of each school year. The standard deviation column shows the
NGE standard deviation for each of the grade levels for both of the tests.
Logramos Math Results - All Students by Grade Level
The results indicate that on the Spanish math test, or Logramos, that the students’
average mean for NGE was above the expected NGE for grades 2 through 9 and grade
12. The students’ mean for NGE for grades 10 and 11 was below the expected NGE by
about five years. The number of students in grades 10 and 11 who took the math test in
Spanish was the same as the number who took it in reading in Spanish, but the scores
were drastically different. The NGE average mean was the highest at four and a half
years above the expected NGE at grade 7 and 8 or after seven to eight years in the dual
language program for the Hispanic students.
As the students progressed past grade 8 and began to take the Logramos in high
school, the NGE mean for the groups dropped dramatically to 4.85 at grade 10 and then
decreased slightly in grade 11 to 6.28, but increased significantly in 12th grade to 12.91.
The results for grades 9 through 12 are less reliable as the number of students tested
drops dramatically from 83 in grade 5 to 20 in grade 11. This decline in students is
because many Hispanic students choose not to continue in the dual language high school
program depending on post-secondary plans and required high school courses.
ITBS/ITED Math Results - All Students by Grade Level
The results indicate that on the English math test, or ITBS grades 2 through 8 and
ITED grades 9 through 11, that the students’ NGE mean was not at the expected NGE for
grades 3, but it was only below the expected NGE by less than two months in grade 3.
The students’ NGE mean was at the expected NGE for grades 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and
11. The NGE mean was the highest above the expected NGE at grade 8 at one year and
103
one month above the expected NGE. As the students progressed from grade 8 to grade 9,
the NGE mean showed the smallest increase, but increased almost two grade levels from
grade 6 to grade 7. The number of students tested in grades 9 to 11 also drops compared
to the totals in the elementary grades due to the number of Hispanic students who opted
out of the dual language program in high school.
ITBS/ITED Math and Logramos Math Comparison
In comparison, the students’ performance in math in Spanish on Logramos was
higher at every grade level from grades 2 through grade 9. It was five to six years lower
at grades 10 and 11. Overall, the difference between the Spanish and the English results
was four months at the lowest difference and a difference of four years higher in Spanish
than in English. The range of the standard deviation on the Spanish test Logramos was
0.3 to 4.93 years, but the standard deviation on the English test ITBS/ITED was 0.86 to
3.85 years. The standard deviation for Spanish was very large. This data set had many
outlier results within the group of students tested which led to such a large range within
the standard deviation results.
Percentage Proficient Math Comparisons
Table F1 through Table F8, presented in Appendix F, show achievement results
by each of the eight unique cohorts on the math test from Logramos and on the math test
from ITBS/ITED. Results include the total number of students who took the test
according to their grade levels for each of the two assessments and give the percentage of
students who were considered proficient for each of the two math tests.
Proficiency is reported using the raw number of students who took the test
divided by the raw number of students who achieved at the 41st national percentile or
higher. For example, it shows that in 2nd grade the same group of students (Class of
2018) had a proficiency percentage of 81% in math on the Spanish Logramos compared
to a proficiency percentage of 46% in math on the English ITBS. Results will be given
104
by each of the graduating cohorts and then a final analysis will be given by language of
the test for all eight groups combined.
ITBS/ITED Math and Logramos Math Percentage
Proficiency Comparison by Graduating Cohorts
In comparison, students’ proficiency percentages in math in Spanish on Logramos
were higher at 34 of the 35 grade level comparisons across the eight cohorts. Of the one
instance when a cohort had a higher or equal percentage proficiency in English math over
Spanish math, it occurred in grade 8 and results were both 75% proficient.
Another result of the data sets is that the median percent proficient across all
grade levels for all eight cohorts over the five-year window is 72% proficient on the
Spanish math Logramos. The median percent proficient across all grades for all eight
cohorts over the five-year window was 50% on the English math ITBS or ITED. This is
a considerable difference when comparing percentages linguistically. The percent
proficient for making AYP on ITBS or ITED in grades 4, 8, or 11 ranged from 65% to
79.3% proficiency from 2005 to 2010 when this testing took place (Iowa Department of
Education, 2005). Using the percentage proficient on ITBS or ITED for these cohorts
would not have resulted in these schools and this district being considered to have made
AYP.
Study Results
The math achievement for Hispanic dual language program students is different
when disaggregated linguistically. This research question looked at the results on the
math ITBS/ITED which is given in English and the math Logramos which is given in
Spanish. The data were disaggregated linguistically using both the NGE and the percent
proficient comparison.
The results indicate that on the English math test, or ITBS grade 2 through grade
8 and ITED grade 9 through grade 11, that the students’ NGE mean was not at the
expected NGE for grade 3, but it was only below the expected NGE by less than two
105
months in grade 4. The students’ NGE mean was at the expected NGE for grades 2, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
The results indicate that on the Spanish math test Logramos that the students’
NGE mean was at or above the expected NGE for grades 2 through grade 10. The
students’ NGE mean for grade 11 and grade 12 was below the expected NGE by less than
two months.
In comparison, the students’ proficiency percentages in math in Spanish on
Logramos were higher at 34 of the 35 grade level comparisons across the eight cohorts.
Of the one instance when a cohort had a higher or equal percentage proficiency in
English math over Spanish math, it occurred in grade 8 and the results were both 75%
proficient. Another result of the data sets is that the average percent proficient across all
grade levels for all eight cohorts over the five-year window is 72% proficient on the
Spanish math Logramos. The average percent proficient across all grades for all eight
cohorts over the five-year window was 50% on the English math ITBS or ITED.
Regardless of whether math results are compared by NGE or percent proficient,
there is an advantage for the Hispanic dual language students to demonstrate math skills
on Spanish versions of the math assessment instead of the English version which is the
students’ second language that they are working to develop. The advantage is present in
NGE comparisons and percent proficient comparisons linguistically, but the advantage is
to a lesser extent in math than in reading.
Matched Pairs Comparison
Appendix G contains Table G1 through Table G16, which provide comparisons of
matched pairs results. The data from the eight cohorts that was analyzed earlier in this
chapter was further analyzed to eliminate student data that did not have both an English
ITBS/ITED and Spanish Logramos scores for each year studied. By looking at a
comparison of matched pairs, a smaller n was considered, but it allowed for interpretation
106
within each cohort. Inferential statistical analysis was used for interpretation with the
matched pairs comparison results.
For the Reading matched pairs comparison by grade level found in Table 13, the
data shows that the average NGE mean for Logramos beginning in grade 2 is 4.16 and
increases every year through grade 11. The standard deviation ranged from 1.87 to 3.14
for grades two through eleven. For the Reading matched pairs comparison by grade level
for ITBS, the average NGE mean also increases gradually every year from grade 2 to
grade 11. The standard deviation ranged from 0.9-3.07. In the matched pairs Reading
comparison, the Hispanic students had an average NGE mean almost two to three years
greater at every grade level comparison from grade two to grade nine, but then in grades
ten and eleven the difference in average NGE mean narrowed to one year or less.
All Cohorts
Table 13.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (All Cohorts by
Grade)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
2
47
4.16
2.4
2.82
0.9
1.34
0.3
4.40
.000
3
62
5.12
2.3
3.19
0.9
1.94
.24
8.14
.000
4
82
6.55
2.55
4.21
1.6
2.35
.23
10.01
.000
5
109
8.54
3.14
5.29
1.8
3.25
.23
14.34
.000
6
90
8.6
2.7
5.81
2.3
2.8
.21
13.4
.000
7
78
9.81
2.76
7.66
2.9
2.14
.26
8.2
.000
8
78
10.3
2.56
7.9
3.04
2.39
.29
8.3
.000
9
50
11.31
2.21
7.63
3.07
3.68
.37
9.98
.000
10
27
11.7
1.87
10.19
2.65
1.52
.54
2.82
.009
11
20
11.2
2.35
11.8
2.19
-0.57
.57
-.993
.333
107
For the Math matched pairs comparison by grade level found in Table 14, the data
shows that the average NGE mean for Logramos beginning in grade 2 is 3.86 (lower than
Logramos Reading) and increases every year through grade 8. The standard deviation
ranged from 0.81 to 4.93 for grades two through eleven. For the Math matched pairs
comparison by grade level for ITBS, the average NGE mean also increases dramatically
from grade 2 to grade 3 then decreases before again gradually rising from grade 4 to
grade 11. The standard deviation ranged from 0.87-3.11. In the matched pairs Math
comparison, the Hispanic students had an average NGE mean almost one and a half to
three years greater at every grade level comparison from grade two to grade nine, but
then in grades ten and eleven the difference in average NGE mean was actually five years
higher in English on ITBS/ITED than on Logramos.
Table 14.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (All Cohorts by Grade)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
2
48
3.86
1.63
2.54
0.87
1.32
0.17
7.9
0.0
3
58
3.12
0.81
6.02
2.74
2.90
0.30
-9.7
0.0
4
78
6.19
2.84
4.23
1.36
1.96
0.22
8.7
0.0
5
83
8.68
3.12
5.48
1.79
3.20
0.22
14.3
0.0
6
78
9.46
2.93
6.48
2.17
3.01
0.21
14.1
0.0
7
63
10.99
2.36
8.10
2.55
2.89
0.23
12.7
0.0
8
62
11.84
1.99
9.50
2.68
2.33
0.27
8.7
0.0
9
44
11.71
1.90
9.84
3.11
1.88
0.32
5.9
0.0
10
27
4.84
3.86
10.54
2.60
-5.69
0.98
-5.8
0.0
11
20
6.28
4.93
11.61
2.23
-5.33
1.34
-4.0
0.001
108
This anomaly in math in grades ten and eleven can be attributed to a much smaller
n of 20 students compared to 83, for example, in grade five. Additionally, the mean
standard error was negative and the t value was -5.8 and -4.0 respectively in grades ten
and eleven. At these grade levels students do not take math courses in Spanish, but
instead take math courses in English only beginning in grade seven.
In both sets of statistical results, the Hispanic dual language students performed
better in Spanish in reading than in reading in English and also performed better in
Spanish in math than in math in English with the small exception of grade ten and grade
eleven where English math had a higher average NGE mean than Spanish math. Overall,
the students performed at higher levels within the Logramos test in math than in reading
from grade six to grade nine, but at higher levels within the Logramos test in reading in
grade two to grade four. The average NGE mean in grade five was basically the same
(8.68 Math vs. 8.54 Reading) on the Logramos. All of the cohorts showed a gradual
increase in the mean NGE over time in both reading and math on both the English and
Spanish tests, but the two tests never “evened” out as predicted by second language and
bilingual research except at grade ten and eleven on the Reading test.
Summary
This chapter of results highlighted the quantitative results for the eight cohorts of
students in math and reading on the ITBS/ITED and Logramos standardized achievement
assessments. The results were disaggregated linguistically into Spanish and English
reading and math results. The results were then reviewed through two analytic processes
including the use of NGE and then the use of percent proficiency. These processes were
chosen as there were already normed data for both ITBS/ITED and Logramos to use for
trend comparisons. All of the assessments were administered over a five-year window
and all of the students were Hispanic students enrolled in the 50/50 English/Spanish dual
language program.
109
Each table summarizes comparisons in ITBS/ITED and Logramos. First, the
results by testing language for reading were analyzed. These results showed that when
looking at NGE and when looking at percent proficiency, that the students performed at
higher levels with greater frequency on Logramos than on ITBS/ITED. The ITBS/ITED
results improved over time, but the gap persisted between the assessments. The results
for the Logramos were at higher levels than the ITBS/ITED, but they did show some
increases and decreases as the students transitioned from elementary to middle to high
school. It is important to note that there are anomalous findings at the high school level.
These results may be due to a number of factors including: dual language program
offerings, transiency and mobility, and visionary leadership.
In terms of the changes in offerings within the dual language program in middle
school and high school in Regal CSD, it should be noted that throughout kindergarten
through grade five, all dual language students are in a 50/50 split of instructional time for
literacy, math, science, and social studies. All specials (music, art, physical education,
guidance counseling, and library) are taught in English. Then when students move to
middle school, they are offered social studies in Spanish and one of their two literacy or
reading class periods in Spanish. This results in roughly 30% Spanish/70% English
instruction for the dual language students. When the dual language students transition to
high school, they are on a four block (90 minutes each) schedule and one of their four
courses is offered in Spanish each semester. These courses typically are foreign language
(Spanish IV, Advanced Placement Spanish) and social studies which results in a 25%
Spanish/75% English instructional time split.
The gradual decline in time or minutes of instruction in Spanish is due to a
combination of factors. One factor is the ability to find quality, licensed teachers at the
6th-12th grade level who hold appropriate content certification in addition to advanced
levels of proficiency in both Spanish and English. Another challenge is that newcomers
or ELs who have recently migrated to the area who had been educated in a Spanish
110
speaking school are placed in the dual language classes in middle school and high school
as part of their ESL programming. This has resulted in a wide range of abilities and
educational levels within the Spanish speakers as well as the native English speakers.
Additionally, a challenge exists to maintain the vision for full implementation of a 50/50
dual language program from kindergarten to grade twelve which was not equally shared
by all of the building principals and/or school leaders involved with the program.
Second, the results were analyzed to answer the question regarding math
performance by language. The results showed that when looking at NGE and percent
proficient that the students performed at much higher levels overall on Logramos than on
ITBS/ITED. The NGE and percent proficient was higher overall than on reading for
Logramos and the students did make significant improvements in math on ITBS/ITED.
The gap between the two math assessments was large, but this also showed that the math
scores were a relative strength compared to the reading scores.
Overall, there were many tables for reading and math for each of the eight cohorts
presented in this chapter. There was a pattern that repeated itself across all eight cohorts.
The pattern for Spanish reading and math was a gradual increase in the NGE mean by
grade level with a leveling off or even decline in grades ten and eleven. Another pattern
was that the students scored higher in reading than math on the grades two through five
Spanish tests which may be due to the increased focus on learning to read in the
elementary grades and interventions available in English, but not Spanish for these dual
language students. Another evident pattern was a leveling off or limited growth in
reading from grade five to grade six in both English and Spanish. This same trend in
grade six is evident in other school districts in the ITBS, too. Implications from these
findings and trends will be discussed in detail in Chapter V. The next chapter discusses
the findings and suggests implications for the field.
111
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary of the Study
This quantitative study examined and compared reading and math achievement
levels on ITBS/ITED and Logramos of Hispanic students enrolled in a 50/50 English and
Spanish dual language program in grades 2 through 12 over a period of five school years.
The initial chapter focused on the history of educational policies and introduced the
current and anticipated effects of educational testing practices related to No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) especially in regard to the subgroups of Hispanic students and ELs.
Chapter V interprets the findings of this study and gives analyses of the results
and how they help to answer the two research questions. It is organized in this manner:
summary of the findings and implications by both research questions, limitations,
recommendations for further research, and the conclusion. Results were analyzed and
evaluated in consideration of the literature review especially the areas of second language
acquisition, standardized testing, bilingualism, and NCLB. Implications for practitioners,
as introduced in the literature review, for language acquisition programming especially
dual language programs and secondary level implications, public education’s support of
programs to maintain and develop bilinguals and promote bilingualism, school leaders’
decisions and how they address barriers and challenges with ELs, and high stakes testing
as it relates to NCLB and native language testing will be considered. Ideas for further
research will be discussed in the conclusion.
Summary of the Findings and Implications
The findings and their resultant implications were based on two research
questions:
112
Research Question One
Research Question One: Is there a statistical difference in reading achievement for
Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language program students when testing
data is disaggregated linguistically?
The first question focused on reading achievement levels. Reading achievement
for the purposes of this study was defined as the student’s level of achievement on the
Reading Comprehension section of the ITBS/ITED and the Logramos. Each student
received an individual score, but data were also analyzed by grade levels like 2nd grade,
4th grade, etc. and then by graduating cohorts of students. The level of reading
achievement on the standardized assessments is crucial to the local school district as this
combined data is what the state department of education measures to determine if the
school and also the district have made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The AYP
measurement is shared publicly and ensures that the State of Iowa is following the state
accountability workbook for NCLB for the federal government’s purposes.
The results for the first research question based on data from this study indicate
that when the students are allowed to take the Reading test in Spanish (Logramos) they
score at the desired NGE or higher at every grade level from grade 2 to grade 12. The
students actually score about two years above grade level when taking the Reading tests
in Spanish. This indicates that when the language of testing variable is teased out of the
situation that the Hispanic dual language program students demonstrate that they have at
grade level or above grade level reading skills in the area of Reading as measured by
standardized achievement tests.
The same students also took the Reading test in English (ITBS or ITED) as
required for AYP for NCLB for the school district and state department of education.
When data from this annual test were analyzed for these same Hispanic dual language
students, the students were not at the expected average NGE at the majority of grade
levels from grade 2 to grade 12. The students were at the expected level for NGE in
113
grades 2, 7, and 11, but for all of the other grade levels they were not. The students’
scores were close to the expected NGE, but still did not make it.
In summary, there was, on average, a two-year gap in performance by these
Hispanic students when testing in English compared to testing in Spanish. The students
performed about two years above grade level in Spanish, but rarely performed even at
grade level in English. The performance gap between English and Spanish was about
two years difference. Nationally, as well as in Iowa, students and their schools are
measured on the performance on the English ITBS/ITED. Therefore, based on the results
in this study, it appears that the majority of Hispanic students in grades 2 through grade
12 in this school district cannot read at grade level based on the average NGE by grade
level on ITBS/ITED Reading Comprehension.
The same Reading data for the Hispanic dual language students were
disaggregated for ITBS/ITED and Logramos by looking at the percentage of students that
scored proficient (41st National Percentile Rank (NPR)) in addition to looking at average
National Grade level Equivalency (NGE) as stated above. The results indicate that on
average 62% to 89% of the students achieve at the 41st NPR or above and are considered
proficient on the Logramos Reading Comprehension test. For the Class of 2018, for
example, there is data for grades 2, 3, 4, and 5. This data show that on average 89% of
the students met the proficiency level for NPR when taking the Reading test in Spanish.
Another one of the eight cohorts, the Class of 2013, had the least successful performance
of the eight cohorts, but still averaged 62% proficiency over the five years from grades 6,
7, 8, 9, and 10.
In conclusion, when comparing English and Spanish results for the same student
for the same testing grade level in reading, the students scored at higher levels in Spanish
over 89% of the time compared to the English reading results. Whether disaggregating
the reading data by NGE or NPR, there is a significant advantage for the Hispanic dual
language students to take the standardized achievement test in Spanish (Logramos) as
114
they scored at higher levels and given that Spanish is the native language for these dual
language students, they are allowed to demonstrate their reading skills and not have to
navigate English language acquisition concerns at the same time.
Research Question Two
Research Question Two: Is there a statistical difference in math achievement for
Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language program students when testing
data is disaggregated linguistically?
The second research question focuses on math achievement levels. Math
achievement for purposes of this study was defined by the student’s level of achievement
on the Mathematics section of the ITBS/ITED and the Logramos. Each student received
an individual score, but data were also analyzed by grade level and then by graduating
cohorts of students. The level of math achievement on the standardized assessments is
crucial to the local school district as this combined data is what the state department of
education measures to determine if the school and also the district have made AYP. The
AYP measurement is shared publicly and ensures that the state of Iowa is following the
state accountability workbook for NCLB for the federal government’s purposes for
mathematics.
The results for the second research question based on data from this study indicate
that when the students are allowed to take the Math test in Spanish (Logramos), they
score at the desired NGE or higher at every grade level from grade 2 to grade 9 and grade
12. The students did not score at the expected NGE at grades 10 and 11, but the data
show that the total number of students tested dropped significantly during those two years
as the students began high school. The students actually score about four years above
grade level when taking the math tests in Spanish in grade seven. This indicates that
when the language of testing variable is teased out of the situation that the Hispanic dual
language program students demonstrate that they have at grade level or above grade level
reading skills in the area of Math as measured by standardized achievement tests.
115
The same students also took the Math test in English (ITBS or ITED) as required
for AYP for NCLB for the school district and state department of education. When data
from this annual test were analyzed for these same Hispanic dual language students, the
students were at the expected average NGE at the majority of grade levels (seven of the
ten) from grade 2 to grade 12. The students were not at the expected level for NGE in
grades 3, 4, and 6, but for all of the other grade levels they were. The students’ scores
were close to the expected NGE, but were a few months below NGE.
In summary, there was, on average, a two- to three-year gap in performance by
these Hispanic students when testing in English compared to testing in Spanish. The
students performed about two to three years above grade level in Spanish. Over time the
gap stayed constant at about two years, but the grade 10 and grade 11 data actually
showed that the students performed better in terms of NGE in English than Spanish. The
students and their schools are measured on the performance on the English ITBS/ITED
so based on the results in this study, it appears that the majority of Hispanic students in
this school district cannot do math at grade level in grades 2 through grade 12 based on
the average NGE by grade level on ITBS/ITED Mathematics test.
The same math data for the Hispanic dual language students were disaggregated
for ITBS/ITED and Logramos by looking at the percentage of students that scored
proficient (41st NPR) in addition to looking at average NGE as stated previously. The
results indicate that on average 67% to 89% of the students achieve at the 41st NPR or
above and are considered proficient on the Logramos Math test. For the Class of 2015,
for example, there are data for grades 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. On average 91% of the students
met the proficiency level for NPR when taking the math test in Spanish. Another one of
the eight cohorts, the Class of 2017, had the least successful math performance results of
the eight cohorts, but still averaged 75% proficiency over the five years from grades 2, 3,
4, 5, and 6.
116
In conclusion, when comparing English and Spanish results for the same student
for the same testing grade level in math, the students scored at higher levels in Spanish
over 97% of the time compared to the English math results. The results also show that
for the eight graduating cohorts, the average percent proficient is 72% overall when
taking the math test in Spanish, but the average percent proficient is only 50.2%
proficient when taking the Math test in English. This indicates a much higher
performance level when the students are allowed to test in Spanish in math.
Whether disaggregating the math data by NGE or NPR, there is a significant
statistical advantage for the Hispanic dual language students to take the standardized
achievement math test in Spanish (Logramos) as they scored at higher levels and given
that Spanish is the native language for these dual language students, they are allowed to
demonstrate their math skills and not have to navigate English language acquisition
concerns at the same time.
Comparison of Research Question Results
The first research question focused on reading and how reading achievement
differed for Hispanic dual language students based on the language of the assessment.
The data from this study, shown in Table 15, indicate a benefit for Hispanic dual
language students to take advantage of their bilingualism and be measured in their
dominant language of Spanish. The advantage as measured by average NGE and percent
proficient leads to three conclusions.
The first conclusion that can be drawn based on this research study’s data is that
students perform at higher levels when testing in Spanish as compared with testing in
English. This advantage holds true whether it is math or reading. The students’ average
NGE and the cohorts’ percentage proficient data is higher in Spanish compared to
English the vast majority of the time. There were a few grade levels for three of cohorts
where this did not hold true, but these results in these cases equaled the English results or
the English results held only a small advantage.
117
Table 15.
Reading and Math Test Results Comparisons
Results


ITBS/ITED
Reading
Logramos
Reading
Lowest

average NGE
and NPR of all
four tests
(Reading and
Math

ITBS/ITED &
Logramos)
Higher
average NGE
and NPR than
ITBS/ITED
Reading
62-89% of
students met
proficiency
ITBS/ITED Math

Performed at
grade level as
measured by
average NGE

50% of students
met proficiency
Logramos Math

Highest
average NGE
and NPR at 1.0
NGE higher
than Spanish
Logramos
Reading

72% proficient
Consistent two
year gap in
average NGE
compared to
Logramos
Reading
The second conclusion is that Hispanic dual language students perform at higher
levels as measured by NGE and NPR on math than on reading when comparing Spanish
reading Logramos to Spanish math Logramos. On average, the students showed about a
year’s higher NGE on the Spanish math than they did on the Spanish reading. Spanish
math may have showed higher results as the math test requires less reading ability than
the actual reading test. Interestingly, the results remained higher throughout middle and
high school even though the students were no longer receiving instruction in Spanish in
the content area of math after elementary school.
The third conclusion is that the English reading test (ITBS/ITED) is challenging
for the Hispanic dual language students. These students, regardless of which of the eight
cohorts they belonged to or what grade levels they were in during the five-year research
study, performed at their lowest levels on the English reading test as measured by
average NGE and percent proficient comparisons. The data show that these groups of
118
students performed at grade level or above in Spanish reading, at grade level in English
math, and at or far above grade level in Spanish math in the majority of the cohorts.
Then these same Hispanic dual language students took the English reading test and
maybe, but not always, score at the minimum grade level which did not align with their
level of achievement in Spanish reading and/or English math. This affirms the
information from the literature review that learning a second language is an advantage,
but that it takes many years and even then students still show a dominant language.
Limitations of the Study
Though the study verifies the hypotheses, there were limitations. One of the
limitations of this study is that it did not address how the subgroup variables affect the
reading and math results. Much research has been done over the past five decades to
validate the importance of maintenance dual language programs for Hispanic students
and this study researched and validated prior research in this area. For example, Collier
and Thomas (2004) concluded that:
“Both one-way and two-way bilingual programs lead to grade-level and abovegrade-level achievement in second language, the only programs that fully close
the gap.” (p.11)
Also, Lindholm-Leary (2005) summarized the success of bilingually-educated ELs as
compared to English-only ELs:
“For example, in a review of the peer-reviewed empirical research on effective
programs for EL students by Lindholm-Leary and Borsato (2003), the studies
converged on the conclusion that educational success is positively influenced
through sustained instruction through the ELL student's primary language. In both
the descriptive and comparative program evaluation studies, almost all results
showed that by the end of elementary school and into middle and high school, the
educational outcomes of bilingually-educated students (in late exit programs, dual
language programs) were at least comparable to, and usually higher than, their
comparison peers who did not participate in bilingual education.” (p.33)
This research study, though, did not delve into how other variables play into
individual student achievement results and how these results may also be seen across
grade levels, subgroups of students, etc. Looking into the specific students within the
119
data that are non-proficient in reading and math in both tests might allow for future
research on how one’s gender or socioeconomic status affects or possibly does not affect
achievement within a dual language program.
Another limitation of this research is that it did not filter out students who left the
school district’s dual language program and then re-entered, nor did it exclude students
who were new to the dual language program in older grades and did not start the program
in pre-kindergarten or kindergarten, like the majority of students do. By filtering out
these students, it would leave data that would be very useful to the school district as it
would show how Hispanic students in the dual language program from prekindergarten or
kindergarten on with no interruptions benefited from the curriculum, instruction, and
assessments. Those students with no mobility issues would reflect the efficacy of the
current design of the dual language program in reading and math.
Another limitation of this research study is that reading and math achievement are
only measured on paper and pencil tests for the Hispanic dual language students. The
Hispanic dual language students are enrolled in the program and are learning in two
languages in order to acquire English in the most effective method, but also to maintain
their heritage language of Spanish. Being bilingual and biliterate in both Spanish and
English has to include assessment of writing, listening and speaking skills to balance the
reading skills being assessed on ITBS/ITED and Logramos. This study does not include
analysis of measures of writing, listening, and speaking in either English or Spanish, but
might be an area for further research to triangulate the present reading/math data with
other local assessments and performance indicators.
Generally, this study may not produce the same achievement results if certain
variables are modified. For example, if the 50/50 model was changed to a 90/10 model,
that might affect reading and math achievement levels in both English and Spanish. The
results do not show how Hispanics in dual language programs scored compared to
Hispanics in the same school district who are not in dual language, but that might be an
120
area for further studies by others. Also, if more subgroup data was analyzed like gender,
special education status, and free/reduced lunch, the results may not replicate the
Hispanic subgroup’s reading and math achievement results.
Implications for Education
The implications of this research inform and further enrich the topics already
presented in the literature review. These topics include: school leadership influences on
ELs and Hispanic students’ development, language acquisition programming including
dual language programs, public policies and support of bilingualism, and high stakes and
native language testing driven by NCLB.
As noted in the next two sections, the results from this study encourage schools,
school administrators, and local school districts to reflect and consider changing the
instructional programs and assessment policies as they related to the education of ELs.
Currently, the majority of public school districts in Iowa continue to only offer ESL
pullout programming as a program model as well as offering assessments in English only.
As the literature review highlighted, ESL pullout programming is not the most effective
model for English language acquisition nor for overall student academic achievement, but
instead an additive model of language acquisition like dual language programming
should be considered.
In regard to assessment, the literature review included empirical research that
demonstrated that ELs who have been educated in their native language perform at much
higher levels when assessed with assessments written in their native language. The
implication from the native language assessment research along with the results from this
particular research study should encourage local schools, school districts, and state
departments of education to consider the creation and/or use of native language oral
and/or written assessments for those ELs who have been educated in their own native
language.
121
School Leadership Influence on ELs’ and Hispanics’
Development
This study measuring academic achievement does not specifically correlate
student achievement data with reports of quality administrators or principals, but that
might be an area for further development in studies comparing multiple TWI schools.
Villarreal (1999) noted the importance of effective building leadership when evaluating
the effectiveness of an EL or dual language program. Effective leadership sets the vision
for the school and special student populations such as ELs and dual language program
students. School leaders develop relationships among the EL and non-EL programs and
value the contributions of all. A visionary leader at a school with EL programs and dual
language programs knows how to leverage existing community resources to increase
program effectiveness. Lindholm-Leary (2005) summarized the wide range of skills and
duties:
“It is important that this individual or group has extensive knowledge of the
language education model being implemented at the site, second language
development, bilingual and immersion education theory and research,
instructional methodologies, effective classroom practices, and the belief that the
selected language education model can work.” (p.30)
EL program outcomes are critical to the long-term success of EL and dual
language programming. Finding qualified and passionate teachers and supporting them
in the classroom are key steps to running an effective program (Villarreal, 1999). It is
essential to recruit the best candidates and then identify the strengths they bring to the
school. It is the job of the school leader to recruit and retain teachers. Offering
professional development with a laser-like focus that is aligned to the EL program goals
and outcomes ensures staff that they will be given the resources and training they need to
be effective. The professional development should be aligned to language acquisition
strategies that promote the range of skills including listening, speaking, reading, and
writing for ELs. CALLA, an instructional model that focuses academic achievement of
ELs learning through a second language, helps ELs by providing them with opportunities
122
to learn grade-appropriate content; develops the speaking, listening, reading, and writing
proficiencies needed for grade-level classrooms; and focuses on direct instruction in
learning strategies (Chamot, 1995). Another possible professional development
opportunity would be to train teachers in the use of the Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol (SIOP), which is a model for lesson planning and implementation of high
quality sheltered instruction (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006).
The use of SIOP would help teachers who work with bilingual students as the
model relates to planning, instruction, modifications, and assessments. The model covers
many aspects of teaching ELs, but the areas of planning, instruction, modifications, and
assessments have the potential to make a large impact on the accessibility of the lesson or
content for ELs. In terms of planning, teachers are asked to create content and language
objectives for each particular lesson. A content objective is familiar to teachers of both
ELs and non-ELs, but a language objective is not. A language objective encourages the
teacher to consider what level of English proficiency the ELs in the class are functioning
at and how the lesson might teach language skills like listening, speaking, reading, and
writing as well as content.
In regard to instruction, the SIOP model shows teachers of ELs and bilingual
students how to choose instructional strategies that will promote the use of language
throughout the lesson. The individual, partner, and group activities that SIOP encourages
focus on best practices to scaffold learning English for ELs while simultaneously learning
content like math, reading, and science. The instructional strategies that are most
appropriate for beginning ELs are also compared to the most appropriate strategies during
instruction for advanced ELs. This spectrum allows the teacher to recognize the need to
challenge all ELs which also benefits the non-ELs, too.
Modifications and assessments are key components of SIOP and local
administrators and teachers observe that ELs progress through the content and language
objectives when appropriate modifications are designed and included. For example, a
123
lesson modification in a SIOP designed plan might modify a common project like a fiveparagraph essay into a timeline with events listed in simple sentences for an EL. The EL
can still show mastery of the social studies or reading content, but the presentation of the
knowledge might be slightly different than the non-EL student.
Also, assessments are a large part of the educational system for both
administrators and teachers alike. For bilingual students, ELs, and those with dual
language programs, assessment decisions must be made very carefully. Not all students
are proficient either or orally or in writing in the native language. Additionally, there
must be a balance for ELs with assessments that are written and those that require
listening and speaking. Throughout the school year and within any specific unit or
chapter, ELs must have opportunities to provide formative assessment information to the
teachers and administrators. Given the complexities of gaining accurate, meaningful
academic information from summative assessments that are given to ELs, it is imperative
that local school administrators and teachers remember to use formative assessment tools
to ensure that all ELs are progressing through the curriculum in one or more languages
depending on the instructional program.
This study is significant to educational professionals and language acquisition
researchers because it will add to the body of knowledge regarding effective models of
language acquisition and effective means for assessing student achievement in reading
and math. Researchers have argued that Hispanic students’ progress in attaining
proficiency on standardized reading and math assessments is possible after five to seven
years of learning English while enrolled in TWI programming (Thomas & Collier, 2002).
This study demonstrates that not all Hispanic students’ progress to the level of
proficiency in five to seven years and, in fact, further programming options or
interventions might be needed within the TWI program model. Additionally, this study
shows that growth toward proficiency in reading and math on the English and Spanish
124
versions differs over time and that students generally attain proficiency in math prior to
reading on both the English and Spanish assessments.
Language Acquisition and Dual Language Future Programs
School districts and organizations can utilize the results of this study as the
foundation for future pilot programs that focus on closing the achievement gap for all
Hispanic students, not just those who are enrolled in 50/50 English-Spanish dual
language programs. For example, it may lead to future cross-sectional research in the
area of college attainment for Hispanic students who were educated in K-12 dual
language programs who then moved on as first generation college students to measure
school effects. This study will also contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the
challenges of gathering student achievement data in reading and math only from English
assessments.
Public Policies and Support of Bilingualism
This study has implications for future public policies that support bilingualism in
the public education system in the United States. As stated in the policy history in the
introduction, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, the number of Americans who spoke a
language other than English increased by 47% between the years 1990 and 2000.
School-aged children representing heritage (language spoken in the home) languages
other than English and who spoke the English language with difficulty increased 114%
between 1979 and 2004 (Planty et al., 2009). The growing EL population presents large
challenges for public education to meet the federal requirements of NCLB for providing
bilingual solutions in schools.
The ITBS/ITED and Logramos reading and math results from this study indicate
that Hispanic students are more likely to show proficiency when testing in their native
language of Spanish across most grade levels. These results are important, as they can
serve to inform future public policies that will encourage or discourage the introduction
and/or continuation of additive bilingual programs. These programs must be supported
125
by public policies that provide funding, oversight, and pathways to achieve both the
desired goals of bilingualism and English proficiency levels as mandated in Title III and
NCLB. Bilingualism must be part of the outcome of the public policy as supported by
the evidence in the literature review which noted that studies have examined long-term,
academic data of language-minority students (Collier, 1992; Lindholm-Leary, 2001;
Thomas & Collier, 2002) have supported the theoretical constructs of how ELs learned
best when their native language was valued and taught in academic settings along with
the learning of cognitive tasks in English.
NCLB and Native Language Testing
The Iowa Department of Education should pilot the Logramos reading
comprehension test with districts that are currently offering dual language programs as a
way to gather some initial native language testing data in addition to mandatory
participation in the ITBS and ITED. It should be noted, though, that it is not financially
feasible to offer standardized assessments in the L1 of all ELs, nor is it appropriate to
give a Spanish standardized achievement test like Logramos to Hispanic students who
have never been educated in Spanish through a model like dual language. The
motivation for the Iowa Department of Education to use this test would be the possibility
of having fewer schools and school districts identified on the SINA and DINA lists.
These districts would likely be eager to participate in such an assessment if there was a
possibility that they would be able to use this assessment for reporting the AYP of their
Spanish-speaking students in the future. Research by Shohamy (2011) concluded that
future tests of academic knowledge for bilingual or multilingual students should
incorporate the competencies and advantages that bilinguals and multilinguals present
rather than the deficit view of the lack of proficiency in the dominant language.
Conclusion
Currently, under NCLB, ELs in Iowa must be tested annually in reading and math
like their non-EL peers. This NCLB requirement and the resulting consequences for
126
school districts based on EL or other subgroup’s performance coupled with the
opportunity to utilize dual language programming and native language assessments were
the impetus for this research study. The first goal of this study was to highlight the
current practices related to standardized assessment and NCLB in Iowa and how it affects
ELs, Hispanics, and the school districts that serve those populations. A second goal was
to study whether a district that utilizes a 50/50 English and Spanish dual language
program to serve its Hispanic students would benefit from deeper analysis of current
reading and math data from both ITBS/ITED and Logramos. This deeper analysis might
lead to further research not only into how to improve the current dual language program
to both achieve higher results in Spanish for all students enrolled, but also to find ways to
intervene for Hispanic students in the dual language program who are still not
demonstrating proficiency in reading and/or math in English and/or Spanish.
In Iowa, the NCLB reported assessments that are currently used by local school
districts are written in English. This research study looked at how particular graduating
class cohorts of students progressed toward the goal of math and reading proficiency in
Spanish and in English over the five-year window of testing data that had been collected.
The ability of Hispanic students to attain the state-determined level of proficiency in
English reading and English math has an impact on this school district and many other
school districts’ status in reference to NCLB. This research study showed that Hispanic
students in a dual language program in an Iowa school district reach higher levels of
proficiency and in fewer years when assessed in the Spanish language version of the
reading and math assessments.
The Hispanic student subgroup is growing rapidly in Iowa and across the nation.
The Hispanic subgroup is required to attain grade level proficiency in math and reading
after one school year on standardized assessments even though the students might not yet
have reached proficiency in the English language. When the Hispanic subgroup fails to
achieve a high enough level of proficiency in reading and math on state standardized
127
assessments, local schools are publicly labeled as SINAs and local school districts are
labeled as DINAs by the state department of education. As a result of these public labels,
educational programming options for Hispanic students who are learning English come
under scrutiny by the public. Hispanic students can demonstrate their academic
achievement more accurately when they are tested on an assessment that measures
reading and math content knowledge and not English language acquisition.
The ability to assess Hispanic student achievement with Spanish language
versions of reading and math standardized achievement tests could allow local school
districts more flexibility in addressing the demands for accountability from the NCLB
Act. The federal Department of Education does permit testing in a home language, but
each state Department of Education determines whether to proceed with English-only
assessments for AYP. Additionally, local school districts could review current language
acquisition programs (including bilingual education program models) being offered as
well as those available to second language learners to best gauge which program model
best meets the needs of Hispanic students in their individual district. Positive student
reading and math achievement results for Hispanic students could spur collaboration
among school districts with Hispanic subgroup populations.
Specifically, schools and school districts should have conversations with families
to determine what prior schooling the child has had and the language of instruction. If
possible, schools and school districts should administer oral and written assessments to
these Hispanic students upon enrollment to try to determine relative strengths and
weaknesses in content areas like reading, math, and writing in the native language of
Spanish as well as in English. This assessment information can inform decisions about
the level of support that will be needed in English, course selections at the secondary
school level, and the appropriateness of native language Spanish resources like textbooks,
dictionaries, or online reference materials.
128
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that every EL that enters the local schools or school
districts will be able to receive a native language assessment that represents his or her
current skills. The availability of native language assessments and curricular materials
for languages other than Spanish is limited. Also, it is difficult to find administrators,
teachers, or paraeducators who are proficient in languages other than English and Spanish
to interpret the oral and written results at the local level. It might be possible in the future
to extrapolate this type of placement information via a technological tool for an
individual student, but at this time there is not a tool that can assist schools in the wide
variety of languages that ELs present with upon enrollment in the public school districts.
At this time, it is not feasible or practical to translate all assessments into every native
language that children might speak, but local school districts and state education agencies
must closely monitor demographic data to determine if there are certain trends within
ELs that would warrant the consideration of exploring the development of native
language assessments for students in addition to native Spanish speakers.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research needs to address ways local school districts with Hispanic student
subgroups can collaborate to study which language acquisition programs or models
offered in Iowa best meet the needs of Hispanic students in each individual school
district.
Ideally, NCLB will be amended to allow for more accommodations for Hispanic
students in the area of standardized achievement tests of reading and math. These
accommodations could include native language testing options, modified language testing
options, or longer time to be exempt from local school districts’ AYP reporting for
reading and math for Hispanic students who are ELs. Until NCLB is amended, local
school districts like Regalville will be faced with the challenge of how to best address
Hispanic students’ reading and math needs while being held accountable to the public for
AYP as determined by NCLB. This research study and other ongoing research must
129
continue to examine the complexity of maintain rigorous, grade level expectations in
content areas for Hispanic and/or EL students while being cognizant of the language
acquisition process.
Balancing the language acquisition process through models like dual language is
supported in research over the past five decades, but implementing a program model like
dual language and utilizing native language assessments like Logramos must be carefully
studied, monitored, and enacted with community support and ongoing professional
development for all involved. It can be tempting to jump to conclusions regarding how
effective or ineffective local school districts’ ESL programming is. With careful
consideration of the students’ needs, balanced with knowledge of language acquisition
and standardized assessment research, progress can be made in raising the reading and
math achievement levels of Hispanic and EL students in Iowa and across the nation.
130
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY of TERMS
The following acronyms and terms, used in this study, are defined for clarity as
they relate to this study.
List of Acronyms
Acronym
Term
AMO
Annual Measurable Objective
AYP
Adequate Yearly Progress
DINA
District in Need of Assistance
EL
English Language Learner
ESL
English as a Second Language
IRB
Institutional Review Board
ITBS
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills
ITED
Iowa Tests of Educational Development
LEP
Limited English Proficiency
NCLB
No Child Left Behind
NGE
National Grade Level Equivalency
NPR
National Percentile Rank
SINA
School in Need of Assistance
Spanish L1
Spanish as Language 1
TWI
Two-Way Immersion
131
List of Terms
Term
Additive bilingualism
Definition
Baker (1998) defines additive bilingualism as when a
“second language is learnt by an individual or a group
without detracting from the maintenance and development of
the first language….the opposite of subtractive
bilingualism”. Students are provided the opportunity to
acquire a second language at no cost to their home language
(Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000).
Back translation
Back translation is when one or more bilinguals translates
the original assessment to the target language and then
another bilingual translates it back to the original language
(English in this case). (Stansfield, 2003)
Bilingual education
Bilingual education is a system of instructional delivery in
which a majority language (e.g., English) is used in
conjunction with a minority language. Students benefit from
acquiring fluency and literacy in two languages while using
native languages of English language learners for instruction
(NABE, 2009).
Dual Language
Dual Language Program is a method of bilingual education
Program
in which a minority language is used for at least 50% of the
instructional day. Language minority and language majority
students are integrated in the classroom while receiving
language and content instruction in two languages (Whiting
& Feinauer, 2011). These students learn under the
responsibility of a certified bilingual teacher. Dual language
132
may refer to the 90:10 model, which indicates that
instruction in kindergarten and first grade is provided
through the minority language (i.e., Spanish) 90% of the
instructional day for all children. The curriculum increases
the amount of instruction through the English language
incrementally. The ratio balances as the students advance in
grade; that is, second grade slides to 80:20, and third grade to
70:30. Some programs use a 50/50 model for grades K
through 5 or K through 8. (CAL, 2011)
English Language
Baker (1998) notes that English Language Learner (EL) is a
Learner
term used in the United States that includes students who are
learning English and who speak another language as their
native language; EL focuses on “development rather than
deficit”. Within this document, EL refers to those students
who speak Spanish as their L1 and are in the process of
acquiring English as their L2.
Executive control
Executive control functioning includes high-level abilities
functioning
that influence more basic abilities like attention, memory and
motor skills.
Iowa Tests of Basic
The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) assesses student skills
Skills
in academic areas (Iowa Test of Basic Skills, 1996). The
ITBS is an “educational achievement instrument developed
by the faculty and professional staff at Iowa Testing
Programs at The University of Iowa which measures
educational achievement in 15 subject areas for Kindergarten
through grade 8” (Hoover et al., 2003).
Iowa Tests of
The Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) is a
133
Educational
“norm-referenced achievement battery comprised of tests in
Development
several subject areas administered under uniform conditions
at grade level to a representative sample of students from the
nation’s public and private schools” (Forsyth et al., 2003).
ITED is a high school achievement test assessing academic
skills that represent the long-term goals of secondary
education, particularly the critical thinking skills of analysis
and evaluation (Iowa Tests of Educational Development,
2010).
Limited English
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is a former designation
Proficiency
for English Language Learners created by the Federal
government. Baker (1998) refers to LEP as a term used to
refer to “students who are not native speakers of English and
who have yet to reach ‘desired’ levels of competence in
understanding, speaking, reading, or writing English”
(p.703).
Logramos
The Logramos is the Spanish version of the Iowa Test of
Basic Skills (Riverside Publishing Company, 2003).
Native Language
Coltrane, an authoritative figure in second language research,
defines native language as the language that the student
primarily uses for communication with family, friends, and
community, or the primary mode of communication with
parents, extended family, and community members
(Coltrane, 2003). Another bilingual researcher Baker (1998)
defines native language as the language “which a person
acquires first in life, or identifies with as a member of an
ethnic group.”
134
Proficiency
Proficiency is a set of skills or abilities, (i.e., listening,
reading, speaking, writing) that are developed in order to
communicate with others in society. These skills and
abilities can fall under either language proficiency (when the
student has acquired the reading, writing, speaking, and
listening skills needed to participate in grade level
instruction with native speakers) or academic proficiency
(when a student has acquired the knowledge, strategies, and
skills in a particular content area to achieve at a level of
proficient as defined by the particular testing instrument
(Genesee, 2004). Those exhibiting proficiency use English to
ask questions, understand teachers and reading materials, test
ideas, and challenge what is being asked in the classroom.
The four language skills contributing to proficiency include
reading, listening, writing, and speaking (Iowa
Administrative Code, 2009).
135
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE TEST ITEMS
A fundamental element of this study included the test items for ITBD, ITED, and
Logramos. This appendix contains sample test items for the tests administered.
For all of the sample test items, an asterisk (*) indicates the correct response.
Sample Test Items for ITBS Reading Comprehension
Level 10 and Level 14 Form A (p. 7)
Dinner was on the table. Where was Julie? She was not in her room. Dad went outside.
Julie and her dog Sparky were playing in the yard.
S: Why did Dad go outside?
A
B
*C
D
To take a walk
To get the mail
To look for Julie
To let Sparky out
Sample Test Items for ITBS Mathematics
Level 10 and Level 14 Form A (p.47)
The closest estimate of 13 + 49 is _______.
A
*B
C
D
50
60
70
80
Sample Test Items for ITED Reading Comprehension
Level 17/18 Form A (p. 7)
Many trees contain a record of their past.
Each year, trees add a layer of wood just under the bark. These layers can form rings that
are visible as circular bands on a cross section of the trunk. Tree rings can reveal a
136
tree’s age as well as provide clues to climatic conditions over time. A narrow ring
indicates a year with poor conditions
S1: Which rings represent a tree’s most recent years’ growth?
A
B
*C
D
The widest rings
The narrowest rings
The outermost rings
The innermost rings
Sample Test Items for ITED Mathematics: Concepts
and Problem Solving
Level 17/18 Form A (p. 39)
S1: A softball team won 16 of its first 28 games. Which of the following represents the
number of games it lost?
A
*B
C
D
E
28 + 16
28 - 16
28 x 16
28 / 16
16/28
Sample Test Items for Logramos Reading
Comprehension
Level 10 and Level 14/15 Form A (p. 7)
Iba muy callada, escuchando las gotitas que caían sobre mi paraguas. La calle se veía
brillosa y la gente caminaba de prisa. “Seguro mamá estará tras la ventana esperando
verme llegar”, pensé y apuré el paso.
E: ¿Qué estaba haciendo la niña?
*A
B
C
D
Caminando a su casa
Limpiando la ventana
Platicando con la gente
Esperando a su mamá
137
Level 16-18 Form A (p. 9)
En este pasaje el autor recuerda su juventud.
Cuando éramos jóvenes, mis amigos y yo pasábamos días enteros en el monte y
buscábamos siempre el camino más largo, el cual recorríamos con el placer de los
chicos que viven en la cuidad. Nos dedicábamos a la cacería fotográfica y
perseguíamos cada ser vivo, con el objetivo de convertirlo en una imagen inmóvil
para nuestro álbum de aventuras.
E: ¿A qué se dedicaban los chicos en sus expediciones al monte?
A
B
C
*D
A jugar con los animales
A recordar la cuidad
A buscar caminos
A tomar fotos
Sample Test Items for Logramos Mathematics
Level 10 (p. 59) and Level 14/15 Form A (p. 63)
¿Qué número se aproxima más a dieciocho más once?
18 + 11 =
J
*K
L
M
20
30
40
50
Level 16-18 Form A (p. 41)
¿Si David lava un automóvil en 30 minutos, cuantos automóviles podrá lavar en 8 horas?
A
*B
C
D
E
12
16
20
24
32
138
APPENDIX C
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD APPROVAL
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
APPENDIX D
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA INSTITUTIONAL
REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
147
148
APPENDIX E
PERCENTAGE PROFICIENT READING
COMPARISONS
Class of 2018 in Reading
Table E1 shows the results for the Class of 2018. The percentage of students in
the Class of 2018 who were proficient on the Spanish version of the reading test ranged
from 81% to 92% from grade 2 to grade 5 with a gradual increase from grade to grade
with a slight decrease in grade 5.
For the Class of 2018, the percentage of 26 proficient students on the English
version of the reading test ranged from 54% to 73% with generally a gradual increase
from grade to grade with a decrease from grade 3 to grade 4. The difference in
performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to English results ranged on the
low end at 19% difference in proficiency in grade 5 (92% - 73% = 19%) to 46%
difference in proficiency in grade 4 (96% - 50% = 46% ).
Table E1.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher)
at Each Grade Level by Class of 2018 (3-6 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Reading n
proficient
Logramos
Reading
percentage
proficient
ITBS
Reading n
Proficient
ITBS Reading
percentage proficient
Grade 2
21
81%
14
54%
Grade 3
21
88%
17
68%
Grade 4
25
96%
13
50%
Grade 5
24
92%
19
73%
Note: *The n count in Column 1 and Column 3 refers to the number of proficient
students.
149
Overall, the students had much higher levels of proficiency in Spanish reading
than on English reading, whereas the latter (ITBS) did not show growth every year. This
result is important as it indicates that the students are growing, on average, in their
reading skills when measured in Spanish, but shows a decline from grade 3 to grade 4 in
reading skills when measured in English. This decline affects the Hispanic subgroup as
well as other subgroups, possibly, in determining SINA as it indicates that the students
are not maintaining a positive trend in growth at that point.
Class of 2017 in Reading
For the Class of 2017, the percentage of proficient students on the Spanish version
of the reading test ranged from 57% to 91% from grade 2 to grade 6 with an increase
from grade to grade, as shown in Table E2. For the Class of 2017, the percentage of
proficient students on the English version of the reading test ranged from 39% to 52%
with a 13% increase from grade 2 to grade 3, but then a decrease in grade 4. This
decrease may be due to the change in the total number of students in that grade level for
the Class of 2017.
Table E2.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher)
at Each Grade Level by Class of 2017 (3-7 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Reading n
proficient
Logramos
Reading
percentage
proficient
ITBS
Reading n
Proficient
ITBS Reading
percentage
proficient
Grade 2
12
57%
9
39%
Grade 3
13
59%
12
52%
Grade 4
18
82%
10
46%
Grade 5
19
86%
10
46%
Grade 6
20
95%
10
44%
150
From grade 4 to grade 6, the English proficiency percentages stayed about the
same from 44% to 46%. The difference in performance by grade level comparing
Spanish results to English results ranged on the low end at 7% difference in proficiency
(59% - 52% = 7%) in grade 3 to 47% difference in proficiency (91% - 44% = 47%) in
grade 6. Overall, the students had much higher levels of proficiency in Spanish reading
than on English reading, whereas the latter (ITBS) did not show growth every year.
Class of 2016 in Reading
For the Class of 2016, Table E3 shows that the percentage of proficient students
on the Spanish version of the reading test ranged from 71% to 88% from grade 3 to grade
7 with slight decreases and increases from grade to grade. For the Class of 2016, the
percentage of proficient students on the English version of the reading test, ranged from
53% to 100% with a 47% increase from grade 6 to grade 7, but this cohort did a gradual
decrease each grade from grade 3 to grade 4 to grade 5.
Table E3.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher)
at Each Grade Level by Class of 2016 (4-8 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Reading n
proficient
Logramos
Reading
percentage
proficient
ITBS
Reading n
Proficient
ITBS Reading
percentage proficient
Grade 3
13
76%
11
65%
Grade 4
14
88%
9
56%
Grade 5
13
87%
8
53%
Grade 6
10
71%
8
53%
Grade 7
12
86%
14
100%
151
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish to English
results ranged on the low end at 11% difference in proficiency in grade 3 (76%65%=11%) to 34% difference in proficiency in grade 5 (87%-53%=34%). Overall,
students had much higher levels of proficiency in Spanish reading than on English
reading every year except grade 7.
Class of 2015 in Reading
For the Class of 2015, the percentage of proficient students on the Spanish version
of the reading test ranged from 71% to 91% from grade 4 to grade 8 with slight decreases
and increases from grade to grade, as shown in Table E4.
For the Class of 2015, the percentage of proficient students on the English version
of the reading test, ranged from 38% to 76% with a 29% increase from grade 6 to grade
7, but this cohort did have a gradual decrease from grade 5 to grade 6.
Table E4.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher)
at Each Grade Level by Class of 2015 (5-8 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Reading n
proficient
Logramos
Reading
percentage
proficient
ITBS
Reading n
Proficient
ITBS Reading
percentage
proficient
Grade 4
15
75%
10
53%
Grade 5
20
95%
14
64%
Grade 6
16
80%
8
38%
Grade 7
17
89%
14
67%
Grade 8
16
84%
16
76%
152
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 8% difference (84%-76% = 8%) in proficiency
in grade 8 to 42% difference (80%-38% = 42%) in proficiency in grade 6. Overall, the
students had much higher levels of proficiency in Spanish reading than on English
reading every year.
Class of 2014 in Reading
For the Class of 2014, Table E5 shows that the percentage of proficient students
on the Spanish version of the reading test ranged from 53% to 95% from grade 5 to grade
9 with slight decreases and increases from grade to grade until an increase in grade 9.
The percentage of proficient students on the English version of the reading test for
the Class of 2014 ranged from 42% to 54% with slight increases and decreases over the
five-year window ranging from two to twelve percentage points higher or lower.
Table E5.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher)
at Each Grade Level by Class of 2014 (6-10 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Reading n
proficient
Logramos
Reading
percentage
proficient
ITBS
Reading n
Proficient
ITBS Reading
percentage
proficient
Grade 5
21
95%
13
54%
Grade 6
19
86%
10
42%
Grade 7
15
75%
10
44%
Grade 8
10
53%
13
54%
Grade 9
18
95%
12
50%
153
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 1% difference (53% - 54% =-1%) in proficiency
in grade 8 to 45% difference (95% - 50% = 45%) in proficiency in grade 9. Overall, the
students had much higher levels of proficiency in Spanish reading than on English
reading every year except grade 8 when both were very low.
Class of 2013 in Reading
For the Class of 2013, Table E6 shows that the percentage of students scoring at
the proficient level on the Spanish version of the reading test ranged from 42% to 75%
from grade 6 to grade 10 with a significant decrease from grade 6 to grade 7 and
increases from grade to grade after that decrease.
For the Class of 2013, the percentage of proficient students on the English version
of the reading test, ranged from 36% to 69% with a significant increases and decreases
ranging up to 33% difference from one year to the next.
Table E6.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher)
at Each Grade Level by Class of 2013 (7-11 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Reading n
Logramos
Reading
Percentage
ITBS/ITED
Reading n
ITBS/ITED
Reading
Percentage
Grade 6
8
73%
5
36%
Grade 7
5
45%
9
69%
Grade 8
7
64%
6
46%
Grade 9
4
67%
8
62%
Grade 10
3
75%
8
62%
154
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 5% difference (67% - 62% = 5%) in proficiency
in grade 9 to 31% difference (73% - 36% = 37%) in proficiency in grade 6. Overall, the
students had higher levels of proficiency in Spanish reading than on English reading
every year except grade 7. The total number of students in the Class of 2013 was very
low compared to the other graduating class cohorts.
Class of 2012 in Reading
For the Class of 2012, Table E7 shows that the percentage of proficient students
on the Spanish version of the reading test ranged from 67% to 90% from grade 7 to grade
11 with a significant decrease from grade 10 to grade 11, but increases from grade to
grade prior to grade 10.
For the Class of 2012, the percentage of students considered proficient on the
English version of the reading test ranged from 46% to 75% with a slight decrease from
grade 7 to grade 8 and then increases the next two years.
Table E7.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher)
at Each Grade Level by Class of 2012 (8-12 Years in Dual Language Program)
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Logramos
Reading n
proficient
Logramos
Reading
percentage
proficient
ITBS
Reading n
Proficient
ITBS Reading
percentage proficient
9
9
10
9
6
69%
75%
83%
90%
67%
7
6
7
9
8
54%
46%
54%
75%
73%
155
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 7% difference (67% - 73% = -6%) in proficiency
in grade 11 to 29% difference (83% - 54% = 29%) in proficiency in grade 9. Overall, the
students had higher levels of proficiency in Spanish reading than on English reading
every year except grade 11. The total number of students in the Class of 2012 was very
low compared to the other graduating class cohorts.
Class of 2011 in Reading
For the Class of 2011, Table E8 shows that the percentage of proficient students
on the Spanish version of the reading test ranged from 64% to 92% from grade 8 to grade
12 with a significant decrease from grade 10 to grade 11, but a steady increase from
grade 9 to grade 10.
For the Class of 2011, the percentage of students considered proficient on the
English version of the reading test ranged from 44% to 87% with a slight decrease from
grade 9 to grade 10 and increases in the year after.
Table E8.
Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher)
at Each Grade Level by Class of 2011 (9-12 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Reading n
proficient
Logramos
Reading
percentage
proficient
ITBS
Reading n
Proficient
ITBS Reading
percentage proficient
Grade 8
13
81%
7
44%
Grade 9
10
77%
11
69%
Grade 10
12
92%
8
50%
Grade 11
7
64%
13
87%
Grade 12
9
82%
n/a
n/a
156
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 8% difference (77% - 69% = 8%) in proficiency
in grade 9 to 42% difference (92% - 50% = 42%) in proficiency in grade 10. Overall, the
students had higher levels of proficiency in Spanish reading than on English reading
every year except grade 11. The total number of students in the Class of 2011 was very
low compared to the other graduating class cohorts.
157
APPENDIX F
PERCENTAGE PROFICIENT MATH COMPARISONS
Class of 2018 in Math
For the Class of 2018, the percentage of proficient students on the Spanish version
of the math test, ranged from 76% to 92% from grade 2 to grade 5 with a slight decrease
from grade 2 to grade 3 and then increases from then until grade 5, as shown in Table F1.
For the Class of 2018, the percentage of proficient students on the English version of the
math test, ranged from 46% to 73% with a gradual increase from grade to grade with a
slight dip from grade 4 to grade 5.
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 8% difference (81% - 73% = 8%) in proficiency
in grade four to 37% difference (92% - 65% = 37%) in proficiency in grade 5. Overall,
the students had much higher levels of proficiency in Spanish math than on English math,
but the English math ITBS did show growth.
Table F1.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at
Each Grade Level by Class of 2018 (3-6 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Math n
proficient
Logramos
Math percentage
proficient
ITBS
Math n
Proficient
ITBS Math
percentage
proficient
Grade 2
21
81%
12
46%
Grade 3
19
76%
17
65%
Grade 4
21
81%
19
73%
Grade 5
24
92%
17
65%
158
Class of 2017 in Math
For the Class of 2017, Table F2 shows that the percentage of proficient students
on the Spanish version of the math test ranged from 61% to 95% from grade 2 to grade 6
with a decrease from grade 2 to grade 3 and then an increase by grade after grade 3. For
the Class of 2017, the percentage of proficient students on the English version of the
math test, ranged from 44% to 51% with a 2% to 6% increase each year.
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 13% difference (61% - 48% = 13%) in
proficiency in grade 3 to 35% difference (85% - 50% = 35%) in proficiency in grade 5.
Overall, students had much higher levels of proficiency in Spanish math than on English
math every year, but the English math ITBS did show slow, steady growth every year.
Table F2.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at
Each Grade Level by Class of 2017 (3-7 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Math n
proficient
Logramos
Math percentage
proficient
ITBS
Math n
Proficient
ITBS Math
percentage
proficient
Grade 2
16
73%
10
44%
Grade 3
14
61%
11
48%
Grade 4
15
68%
11
50%
Grade 5
17
85%
11
50%
Grade 6
20
95%
13
51%
159
Class of 2016 in Math
For the Class of 2016, Table F3 shows that the percentage of proficient students
on the Spanish version of the math test ranged from 80% to 100% from grade 3 to grade
7 with little or no change from grade 3 to grade 4 to grade 5, but then large increases
from grade5 to grade 6 to grade 7. For the Class of 2016, the percentage of proficient
students on the English version of the math test, ranged from 33% to 94% with a 60%
increase from grade 5 to grade 6.
Table F3.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at
Each Grade Level by Class of 2016 (4-8 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Math n
proficient
Logramos
Math percentage
proficient
ITBS
Math n
Proficient
ITBS Math
percentage
proficient
Grade 3
14
82%
9
53%
Grade 4
13
81%
7
44%
Grade 5
12
80%
5
33%
Grade 6
13
87%
14
93%
Grade 7
14
100%
16
94%
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 6% difference (100% - 94% = 6%) in
proficiency in grade 7 to 47% difference (80% - 33% = 47%) in proficiency in grade 5.
Overall, the students had much higher levels of proficiency in Spanish math than on
English math every year even reaching 100% proficiency in Spanish in grade 7.
160
Class of 2015 in Math
For the Class of 2015, Table F4 shows that the percentage of proficient students
on the Spanish version of the math test ranged from 71% to 100% from grade 4 to grade
8 with annual slight increases from grade to grade. For the Class of 2015, the percentage
of students considered proficient on the English version of the math test, ranged from
55% to 76% proficient with steady increases, but this cohort did have a plateau at 76%
from grade 7 to grade 8.
Table F4.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at
Each Grade Level by Class of 2015 (5-8 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Math n
proficient
Logramos
Math percentage
proficient
ITBS
Math n
Proficient
ITBS Math
percentage
proficient
Grade 4
15
71%
11
55%
Grade 5
20
95%
14
64%
Grade 6
19
95%
14
67%
Grade 7
18
100%
16
76%
Grade 8
19
100%
16
76%
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 13% difference (71% - 55%=16%) in
proficiency in grade 4 to 28% difference (95% - 64%= 31%) in proficiency in grade 5.
Overall, the students had much higher levels of proficiency in Spanish math than on
English math every year.
161
Class of 2014 in Math
For the Class of 2014, Table F5 shows that the percentage of proficient students
on the Spanish version of the math test ranged from 68% to 89% from grade 6 to grade 9
with slight increases from grade to grade. For the Class of 2014, the percentage of
proficient students on the English version of the math test, ranged from 46% to 75% with
significant increases from grade 6 to grade 7 to grade 8 and then a significant decrease
from grade 8 to grade 9.
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 14% difference (89% - 75% = 14%) in
proficiency in grade 8 to 35% difference (89% - 54% = 35%) in proficiency in grade 9.
Overall, the students had much higher levels of proficiency in Spanish math than in
English math.
Table F5.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at
Each Grade Level by Class of 2014 (6-10 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Math n
proficient
Logramos
Math percentage
proficient
ITBS
Math n
Proficient
ITBS Math
percentage
proficient
Grade 5
n/a
n/a
11
46%
Grade 6
15
68%
12
48%
Grade 7
17
85%
14
61%
Grade 8
17
89%
18
75%
Grade 9
17
89%
13
54%
Note: n/a indicates that no students took the grade 5 Logramos math test from the Class
of 2014.
162
Class of 2013 in Math
For the Class of 2013, Table F6 shows the percentage of proficient students on the
Spanish version of the math test ranged from 75% to 100% from grade 7 to grade 10 with
a significant decrease from grade 8 to grade 10. There was no reported testing for this
cohort in grade 6 and grade 9 on Spanish Logramos math.
For the Class of 2013, the percentage of proficient students on the English version
of the math test, ranged from 46% to 85% with a significant increases and decreases
ranging up to a 39% decrease from grade 8 to grade 9.
Table F6.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at
Each Grade Level by Class of 2013 (7-11 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Math n
proficient
Logramos
Math percentage
proficient
ITBS
Math n
Proficient
ITBS Math
percentage
proficient
Grade 6
n/a
n/a
9
64%
Grade 7
9
82%
8
62%
Grade 8
11
92%
11
85%
Grade 9
n/a
n/a
6
46%
Grade 10
3
75%
7
58%
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 15% difference (100% - 85%= 15%) in
proficiency in grade eight to 28% difference (90% - 62%= 28%) in proficiency in grade
7. Overall, the students had higher levels of proficiency in Spanish math than on English
163
math every year. The total number of students in the Class of 2013 was very low
compared to the other graduating class cohorts.
Class of 2012 in Math
For the Class of 2012, Table F7 shows the percentage of proficient students on the
Spanish version of the math test ranged from 67% to 100% from grade 7 to grade 11 with
a significant decrease from grade 10 to grade 11, but increases from grade to grade prior
to grade 10. For the Class of 2012, the percentage of students considered proficient on
the English version of the math test, ranged from 58% to 69% with slight decreases and
increases every year.
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 3% difference (67% - 64% = 3%) in proficiency
in grade eleven to 42% difference (100% - 58% = 42%) in proficiency in grade 10.
Table F7.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at
Each Grade Level by Class of 2012 (8-12 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Math n
proficient
Logramos
Math percentage
proficient
ITBS
Math n
Proficient
ITBS Math
percentage
proficient
Grade 7
n/a
n/a
8
62%
Grade 8
9
75%
9
69%
Grade 9
12
100%
8
62%
Grade 10
1
100%
7
58%
Grade 11
6
67%
7
64%
164
Overall, the students had higher levels of proficiency in Spanish math than on
English math every year. The total number of students in the Class of 2012 was very low
compared to the other graduating class cohorts.
Class of 2011 in Math
For the Class of 2011, Table F8 shows the percentage of proficient students on the
Spanish version of the math test ranged from 69% to 100% from grade 8 to grade 12 with
steady increases from grade to grade. For the Class of 2011, the percentage of students
considered proficient on the English version of the math test, ranged from 69% to 87%
with a slight decrease from grade 8 to grade 9 and increases in the other years.
The difference in performance by grade level comparing Spanish results to
English results ranged on the low end at 0% difference (69% - 75% = -6%) in proficiency
in grade eight to 23% difference (92% - 69% = 23%) in proficiency in grade 9. Overall,
the students had higher levels of proficiency in Spanish reading than on English math
every year except in grade 8. The total number of students in the Class of 2011 was very
low compared to the other graduating class cohorts.
Table F8.
Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at
Each Grade Level by Class of 2011 (9-12 Years in Dual Language Program)
Logramos
Math n
proficient
Logramos
Math percentage
proficient
ITBS
Math n
Proficient
ITBS Math
percentage
proficient
Grade 8
9
75%
12
75%
Grade 9
12
92%
11
69%
Grade 10
n/a
n/a
12
75%
Grade 11
n/a
n/a
13
87%
Grade 12
11
100%
n/a
n/a
165
APPENDIX G
COMPARISONS OF MATCHED PAIRS RESULTS
Appendix G contains Table G1 through Table G16, which provide comparisons of
matched pairs results. The data from the eight cohorts that was analyzed in Chapter V is
further analyzed to eliminate student data that did not have both an English ITBS/ITED
and Spanish Logramos scores for each year studied.
Class of 2018
Table G1.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2018)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
2
26
4.76
2.26
2.87
1.01
1.87
0.38
4.96
.00
3
23
5.45
2.12
3.19
0.94
2.26
0.38
5.88
.00
4
26
7.37
2.77
4.3
1.9
3.08
0.47
6.54
.00
5
26
8.92
3.21
5.79
1.67
3.13
0.44
7.07
.00
Table G2.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2018)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
2
26
4.20
1.6
2.62
0.86
1.58
0.2
7.89
.000
3
25
3.20
0.85
6.29
2.48
-3.09
0.39
-7.91
.000
4
25
6.29
2.48
4.75
1.47
1.54
0.31
5.05
.000
5
26
7.89
2.77
5.80
2.08
2.08
0.3
6.87
.000
166
Class of 2017
Table G3.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2017)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
2
21
3.41
2.40
2.76
0.89
0.65
0.46
1.43
0.170
3
22
4.82
2.77
3.2
0.99
1.62
0.46
2.58
0.002
4
22
6.45
2.69
4.13
1.6
2.31
0.48
3.31
0.000
5
22
8.83
3.72
5.46
2.23
3.37
0.59
4.61
0.000
6
22
8.76
2.81
6.13
2.72
2.63
0.43
3.53
0.000
Table G4.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2017)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
2
22
3.46
1.61
2.45
0.88
1.01
0.27
3.79
0.001
3
19
3.06
0.88
5.78
3.18
-2.72
0.62
-4.35
0.000
4
19
5.78
3.18
4.03
1.38
1.75
0.53
3.3
0.004
5
20
9.4
3.47
5.7
1.94
3.7
0.46
8.01
0.000
6
22
9.07
3.06
6.69
2.58
2.38
0.31
7.58
0.000
167
Class of 2016
Table G5.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2016)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
3
17
5.06
1.7
3.16
0.89
1.91
0.37
5.22
0.000
4
16
6.44
2.47
4.11
1.13
2.33
0.46
5.03
0.000
5
15
8.04
2.67
4.79
1.29
3.25
0.45
7.14
0.000
6
14
8.67
2.84
6.1
1.67
2.57
0.58
4.43
0.001
7
14
10.42
2.76
8.15
2.41
2.27
0.47
4.82
0.000
Table G6.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2016)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
3
14
3.06
0.69
5.87
2.70
-2.81
0.62
-4.53
0.001
4
14
5.87
2.70
3.68
0.72
2.19
0.58
3.8
0.002
5
15
8.33
3.25
4.74
1.40
3.59
0.57
6.27
0.000
6
14
10.01
2.83
6.93
1.95
3.08
0.45
6.81
0.000
7
14
11.96
1.41
9.12
2.66
2.84
0.44
6.45
0.000
168
Class of 2015
Table G7.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2015)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
4
18
5.61
1.84
4.27
1.76
1.34
0.28
4.75
0.000
5
22
8.83
2.85
5.33
1.61
3.5
0.51
6.84
0.000
6
20
9.12
2.73
5.75
2.19
3.37
0.41
8.14
0.000
7
19
10.8
2.51
8.33
2.86
2.47
0.48
5.21
0.000
8
19
10.36
2.30
8.94
2.60
1.43
0.49
2.93
0.009
Table G8.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2015)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
4
20
6.68
3.13
4.17
1.42
2.51
0.45
5.52
0.000
5
22
9.22
3.05
5.4
1.43
3.82
0.42
9.01
0.000
6
20
10.53
2.44
6.56
2.46
3.98
0.45
8.78
0.000
7
18
12.18
1.67
8.56
2.54
3.62
0.43
8.52
0.000
8
19
12.62
1.09
10.05
2.91
2.57
0.58
4.41
0.000
169
Class of 2014
Table G9.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2014)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
5
24
7.9
6
22
7
t
Significance
3.15
4.85
1.77
3.05
0.52
5.88
0.000
8.81
2.51
5.58
2.10
3.23
0.35
9.19
0.000
20
9.74
2.82
6.67
2.96
3.07
0.62
4.95
0.000
8
19
10.07
2.94
7.86
3.14
2.21
0.55
3.99
0.001
9
19
11.44
1.82
7.86
3.14
3.58
0.68
5.26
0.000
Table G10.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2014)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
6
22
8.54
3.07
5.84
1.48
2.70
0.42
6.37
0.000
7
20
10.24
2.55
7.46
2.11
2.79
0.35
7.97
0.000
8
19
11.69
1.93
9.15
2.61
2.52
0.44
5.66
0.000
9
19
11.43
2.17
9.59
3.38
1.84
0.52
3.54
0.002
170
Class of 2013
Table G11.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2013)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
6
12
6.98
2.42
5.39
2.67
1.58
0.60
2.63
0.024
7
12
8.2
2.19
7.08
2.44
1.13
0.46
2.43
0.034
8
12
9.64
3.14
7.01
3.16
2.63
0.92
2.86
0.016
9
6
10.07
2.44
6.72
2.44
3.35
0.73
4.57
0.006
10
4
10.58
2.85
10.75
2.83
-0.18
1.36
-0.13
0.906
Table G12.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2013)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
6
11
9.16
2.48
7.22
2.84
1.94
0.64
3.02
0.013
7
12
11.76
2.05
9.07
2.35
2.69
0.61
4.4
0.001
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
4
10.35
4.19
9.28
2.81
1.08
2.14
0.5
0.65
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
171
Class of 2012
Table G13.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2012)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
7
13
9.27
3.06
8.22
3.74
1.05
0.65
1.6
0.136
8
12
10.93
2.26
8.39
3.82
2.54
0.76
3.34
0.007
9
12
11.75
2.28
8.39
3.82
3.36
0.98
3.44
0.006
10
10
11.75
1.89
10.43
2.9
1.32
1.19
1.11
0.296
11
9
10.94
2.51
10.92
2.39
0.02
0.81
0.03
0.979
Table G14.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2012)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
8
12
10.93
2.78
9.63
2.90
1.31
0.44
2.97
0.013
9
12
11.9
1.58
9.84
3.3
2.06
0.69
3.0
0.012
10
10
6.6
2.33
10.51
3.08
-3.91
1.38
-2.82
0.020
11
9
11.11
2.32
10.34
2.79
0.77
0.43
1.80
0.109
172
Class of 2011
Table G15.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2011)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
8
16
10.56
2.24
7.11
2.54
3.46
0.61
5.69
0.000
9
13
11.3
2.49
7.02
2.53
4.28
0.41
10.37
0.000
10
13
12.03
1.53
9.83
2.57
2.2
0.49
4.5
0.001
11
11
11.39
2.31
12.45
1.84
-1.05
0.82
-1.3
0.223
Table G16.
Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2011)
Grade
N
Logramos
Mean
SD
ITBS/ITED
Mean
SD
Difference SE
Mean
Diff.
t
Significance
9
13
11.96
1.82
10.2
2.69
1.76
0.46
3.83
0.002
10
13
1.8
1.01
10.95
2.19
-9.15
0.7
-13.05
0.000
11
11
2.32
1.94
12.65
0.8
-10.32
0.75
-13.67
0.000
173
REFERENCES
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English Language Learners:
Assessment and Accountability Issues. Educational Researcher; 33(1); 4-14.
Abedi, J., & Dietel, R. (2004). Challenges in the No Child Left behind Act for EnglishLanguage Learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 782.
Abedi, J., & Gándara, P. (2006). Performance of English Language Learners as a
Subgroup in Large‐Scale Assessment: Interaction of Research and Policy.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 36-46.
Abedi, J., Courtney, M., Mirocha, J., Leon, S., Goldberg, J. University of California, L.
(2005). Language Accommodations for English Language Learners in LargeScale Assessments: Bilingual Dictionaries and Linguistic Modification. CSE
Report 666. National Center For Research On Evaluation, Standards, And
Student Testing (CRESST).
Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment Accommodations for English
Language Learners: Implications for Policy-Based Empirical Research. Review of
Educational Research, 74(1), 1-28.
Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis of the Cognitive Correlates of Bilingualism. Review of
Educational Research, 80(2), 207-245.
Alanis, I. (2000). A Texas Two-Way Bilingual Program: Its Effects on Linguistic and
Academic Achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(3), 225-48.
American Educational Research Association, W. C., American Psychological
Association, W. C., & National Council on Measurement in Education, W. C.
(1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.
American Educational Research Association. (2000). AERA position statement on highstakes testing in pre-K–12 education. Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Arizona State Legislature. (2000). Ballot Proposition 203: English language education
for children in public schools. Retrieved from
http://www.azsos.gov/election/2000/info/pubpamphlet/english/prop203.htm
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (eds.) (2006). Developing literacy in second language
learners: National literacy panel on language-minority children and youth.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, and Center for Applied Linguistics.
Badgett, B., Buckendahl, C., & Rodeck, E., (2006). Evaluating the alignment of the ITBS
and ITED with Iowa’s academic content standards in reading and mathematics at
Grades 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10. Lincoln, NE: BUROS Center for Testing.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.)
Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
174
Baker, C., & Jones, S. P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education.
Clevedon; Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Bialystok, E. & Craik, F. (2010). Cognitive and Linguistic Processing in the Bilingual
Mind. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 19-23.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, Aging, and
Cognitive Control: Evidence from the Simon Task. Psychology and Aging, 19(2),
290–303.
Bilingual Education Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-247, (1968).
Bilingual Education Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-380, 88 Stat. (1974).
Bilingual Education Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-561, 92 Stat. (1978).
Bilingual Education Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-511, 98 Stat. (1984).
Bilingual Education Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-297, 102 Stat. (1988).
Bilingual Education Act of 1994, Pub L. No. 103-382, (1994).
Bowles, M, & Stansfield, C. (2008). A Practical Guide to Standards-Based Assessment in
the Native Language. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/mazguide%20to%20native%20language%20assessment%20v15-blog.pdf
Center for Applied Linguistics. (1998). Two-Way Immersion Education. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/ToolsforSchools/2way.html
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2011). Glossary of terms related to dual language/TWI
in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi/glossary.htm
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2012a). Directory of two-way bilingual immersion
programs in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi/directory
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2012b). Growth of TWI Programs, 1962-Present.
Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/twigrow.htm
Chamot, A. U. (1995). Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning
Approach: CALLA in Arlington, Virginia. Bilingual Research Journal, 19(3-4),
379-394.
Cheung, A. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective Reading Programs for SpanishDominant English Language Learners (ELLs) in the Elementary Grades: A
Synthesis of Research. Review Of Educational Research, 82(4), 351-395.
Christian, D. (1998). Policy and planning issues in immersion education. In C. A. Klee,
A. Lynch, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Research and practice in immersion education:
Looking back and looking ahead: Selected Conference Proceedings of the Center
for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (pp. 1-14). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook
for enriched education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
175
Collier, V. & Thomas, W. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language
education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1-17.
Collier, V. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student
data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1&2), 187-212.
Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. Directions in Language and
Education, 1(4). Washington, DC: The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.
Coltrane, B., & Center for Applied Linguistics. (2002). English Language Learners and
High Stakes Tests: An Overview of the Issues. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Coltrane, B., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, W. C. (2003).
Working with Young English Language Learners: Some Considerations. ERIC
Digest.
Combs, M. C. (1989). English Plus: Responding to English Only. In Crawford, J. (Ed.).
(1992). Language loyalties: a source book on the official English controversy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Combs, M., Evans, C., Fletcher, T., Parra, E., & Jimenez, A. (2005). Bilingualism for the
Children: Implementing a Dual-Language Program in an English-Only State.
Educational Policy, 19(5), 701-728.
Cornell, C. (1995). Reducing Failure of LEP Students in the Mainstream Classroom and
Why it is Important. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority
Students, 15, 123–145.
Cosentino de Cohen, C., Deterding, N., Clewell, B., & Urban Inst., W. C. (2005). Who's
Left Behind? Immigrant Children in High and Low LEP Schools. Urban Institute.
Crawford, J. (2002, Summer). OBITUARY: The Bilingual Ed Act, 1968 – 2002.
Rethinking Schools. on-line, 16:4.
Crawford, J. (2004, September). No Child Left Behind: Misguided Approach to School
Accountability for English Language Learners. In Center on Educational Policy’s
Forum on Ideas to Improve the NCLB Accountability Provisions for Students with
Disabilities and English Language Learners, 8, 2005.
Crawford, J. (2012, February). Language Legislation in the U.S.A. Retrieved from
http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/langleg.htm
Cummins, J. (1980). The Entry and Exit Fallacy in Bilingual Education. NABE: The
Journal For The National Association For Bilingual Education, 4(3), 25-59.
Cummins, J. (1992). Bilingual education and English immersion: The Ramírez report in
theoretical perspective. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1&2), 91-104.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire
(pp. 31-53). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
176
De Jesús, S. C. (2008). An astounding treasure: Dual language education in a public
school setting. Centro Journal, 20(2), 193-217.
Department of Education Organization Act, Pub. L. No. 96-88, (1979).
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School Reform and Standards-Based
Education: A Model for English-Language Learners. Journal of Educational
Research, 99(4), 195-210.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-230,
(1969).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-10, (1965).
Executive Office of the President, W. C. (2000). Brief on Educational Progress, 19922000.
Forsyth, R. A., Ansley, T. N., Feldt, L. S. & Alnot, S. D. (2003a). Iowa Tests of
Educational Development Complete/Core Battery: norms and score
conversions/student norms & school average norms. Rolling Meadows, IL:
Riverside Publishing.
Forsyth, R.A., Ansley, T.N., Feldt, L.S., & Alnot, S.D. (2003b). The Iowa tests guide to
research and development. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Freeman, Y. S., Freeman, D. E., & Mercuri, S. (2005). Dual language essentials for
teachers and administrators. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fry, R., & Pew Hispanic Center. (2009, March). The rapid growth and changing
complexion of suburban public schools. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Garcia, E. E., & Curry-Rodriguez, J. E. (2000). The Education of Limited English
Proficient Students in California Schools: An Assessment of the Influence of
Proposition 227 in Selected Districts and Schools. Bilingual Research Journal,
24(1-2), 15-35.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English
Language Learners in U.S. Schools: An Overview of Research Findings. Journal
Of Education For Students Placed At Risk, 10(4), 363-385.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227, (1994).
Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., & Frisbie, D. A. (1996). Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Itasca,
IL: Riverside Publishing.
Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., & Frisbie, D. A. (2003a). The Iowa Tests Guide to
Research and Development. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., Frisbie, D. A., Oberley, K. R., Bray, G. B., Naylor, R. J.,
Qualls, A. L. (2001). The Iowa tests interpretive guide for teachers and
counselors. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
177
Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., Frisbie, D. A., Oberley, K. R., Bray, G. B., Naylor, R. J.,
…Qualls, A. L. (2003b). The Iowa tests interpretive guide for school
administrators. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Howard, E. R., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Center for Applied Linguistics. (2007). Guiding
principles for dual language education (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Center for Applied Linguistics. (2003).
Trends in Two-Way Immersion Education: A Review of the Research. (Report 63).
Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Hursh, D. (2005). The Growth of High-Stakes Testing in the USA: Accountability,
Markets and the Decline in Educational Equality. British Educational Research
Journal, 31(5), 605-622.
Iowa Administrative Code. (2009). Chapter 60: Programs for students of limited English
proficiency. Retrieved from
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/ACO/IAC/LINC/Chapter.281.60.pdf
Iowa Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind (P.L. 107 - 334)
Consolidated Application.
Iowa Department of Education. (2009a). 2009-10 Iowa DINA list. Retrieved from
http://educateiowa.gov/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gi
d=8171&Itemid=4303
Iowa Department of Education. (2009b). The annual condition of education report.
Retrieved from
http://www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&g
id=646&Itemid=1563
Iowa Department of Education. (2010). 2010-2011 Schools and districts in need of
assistance. Retrieved from
http://www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
1923&Itemid=2617
Iowa Department of Education. (2011a). English language learners. Retrieved from
http://educateiowa.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=683&Ite
mid=1391
Iowa Department of Education. (2011b). Iowa accountability workbook. Retrieved from
http://www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65
5&Itemid=1308
Iowa Department of Education. (2011). Iowa support system for schools and districts in
need of assistance (SINA/DINA). Retrieved from
http://educateiowa.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1924&
catid=497
Iowa Department of Education. (2013). The 2012 annual condition of education report.
Retrieved from
https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/The%20Annual%20Condit
ion%20of%20Education%20Report%20%282012%29.pdf
178
Jimerson, S., Hong, S., Stage, S., & Gerber, M. (2013). Examining Oral Reading Fluency
Trajectories Among English Language Learners and English Speaking Students.
New Approaches in Educational Research, 2(1), 3-11.
Jimerson, S. R. (2000). ORAL-J: The administration and technical manual. Available
from S. R. Jimerson, University of California, Santa Barbara, California.
Kane, M. T. (2013). Validation as a Pragmatic, Scientific Activity. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 50(1), 115–122.
Kim, J. S. & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring Academic Proficiency Under the No
Child Left Behind Act: Implications for Educational Equity. Educational
Researcher, 34(8), 3-13.
Kindler, A. L., & Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and
Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students. (2002). Survey
of the States' Limited English Proficient Students and Available Educational
Programs and Services 2000-2001 Summary Report. Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction
Educational Programs.
Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (2000). The Helping Behaviors of Fifth Graders While Using
Collaborative Strategic Reading during ESL Content Classes. TESOL Quarterly,
34(1), 69-98.
Kopriva, R., & Council of Chief State School Officers, W. C. (2000). Ensuring Accuracy
in Testing for English Language Learners.
Krashen, S., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, C. V. (1997).
Why Bilingual Education? ERIC Digest.
Lambert, W.E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In
Wolfgang, A. (Ed.), (1975). Education of immigrant students. Toronto: Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
Lau et al. v. Nichols et al. 414 U.S. 563. (1974). Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5046768322576386473&hl=en&as
_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Levin, T., & Shohamy, E. (2008). Achievement of Immigrant Students in Mathematics
and Academic Hebrew in Israeli School: A Large-Scale Evaluation Study.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34(1), 1-14.
Levin, T., Shohamy, E. & Spolsky, B. (2003). Academic achievements of immigrants in
schools. Report submitted to the Ministry of Education. Tel Aviv University [in
Hebrew].
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, England; Buffalo
N.Y.: Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Center for Applied Linguistics. (2005). Review of Research
and Best Practices on Effective Features of Dual Language Education Programs.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
179
Matas, A. K. (2012). Analyzing best practices in the schooling of secondary-level Latino
newcomer immigrant youth: A comparison study of two yearlong specialized
programs. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from CGU Theses & Dissertations
Database. (Paper 68).
Menken, K. (2009, March). No Child Left Behind and Its Effects on Language Policy.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 29, 103-117.
Mora, J. (2009). From the ballot box to the classroom. Educational Leadership, 66(7),
14-19.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The Nation's Report Card Reading 2009
State Snapshot Report. Iowa. Grade 12, Public Schools. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110. (2001).
Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic
Achievement for Limited English-Proficient Students. (2013). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html.
Phillips, S. E. (2011). Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students. New
York, NY: Springer.
Plake, B.S. (2009). Review of Test Standards Revisions [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved
from http://www.teststandards.org/resources.htm
Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., KewalRamani, A., Kemp, J., Bianco, K.,
Dinkes, R., National Center for Education Statistics, & Institute of Education
Sciences (2009). The Condition of Education 2009 (NCES 2009-081),
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Popham, W. (2008). A misunderstood grail. Educational Leadership, 66, 82-83.
Ragan, A., & Lesaux, N. (2006). Federal, State, and District Level English Language
Learner Program Entry and Exit Requirements: Effects on the Education of
Language Minority Learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(20), 1-32.
Rennie, J. (1993). Program models for teaching English language learners. Retrieved
from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/244.
Riley, R. W., & Department of Education, W. C. (2000). The Growing Importance of
International Education. Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by U.S. Secretary of
Education Richard W. Riley (La Maison Française, Washington, DC, April 19,
2000).
Riverside Publishing Company, (2003a). Logramos: Spring norms and score conversions
with technical information. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing
Riverside Publishing Company. (2003b). Logramos Interpretive Guide. Itasca, IL:
Riverside Publishing.
180
Riverside Publishing Company. (2012). 2012 Logramos®, Second Edition Order Form.
Retrieved from http://www.Riverside
publishing.com/products/orderform/Logramos2ndedition.pdf.
Shohamy, E. (2011). Assessing Multilingual Competencies: Adopting Construct Valid
Assessment Policies. Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 418-429.
Short, D., Boyson, B., & Center for Applied Linguistics. (2003). Secondary school
newcomer programs in the United States. (Report No. 12). Santa Cruz, CA and
Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Solorzano, R. W. (2008). High Stakes Testing: Issues, Implications, and Remedies for
English Language Learners. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 260-329.
Stansfield, C. W. (2003). Test Translation and Adaptation in Public Education in the
USA. Language Testing, 20(2), 189-207.
Sotelo-Dynega, M., Ortiz, S. O., Flanagan, D. P. and Chaplin, W. F. (2013), English
Language Proficiency and Test Performance: An Evaluation of Bilingual Students
with the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Psychology in the
Schools, 50(8), 781–797. doi: 10.1002/pits.21706.
Stevens, R. A., Butler, F. A., Castellon-Wellington, M., & Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (2000). Academic language and
content assessment: Measuring the progress of English language learners (ELLs)
(CSE Tech. Rep. No. 552). Los Angeles: University of California.
Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based Instruction: Perspectives on Curriculum Planning.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261-283.
Tarone, E., & Swain, M. (1995). A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Second Language Use
in Immersion Classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 166-178.
Thomas, W. P., Collier, V. P., & Center for Research on Education, D. A. (2002). A
National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students' LongTerm Academic Achievement. Washington, DC: Center for Research on
Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Torres-Guzmán, M. (2007). Dual language programs: Key features and results. In García,
O., & Baker, C. (Eds.) (2007). Bilingual education: an introductory reader. (5062). Clevedon; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
U. S. Census. (2010). 2010 Census Interactive Population Search. Retrieved from
http://censtats.census.gov/
Villarreal, A. (1999). Rethinking the Education of English Language Learners:
Transitional Bilingual Education Programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 23(1),
11-45.
Weisbrod, Burton, (Ed.) (1965) The Economics of Poverty: An American Paradox, New
York, NY: Prentice-Hall.
Whiting, E. F., & Feinauer, E. (2011). Reasons for Enrollment at a Spanish-English TwoWay Immersion Charter School among Highly Motivated Parents from a Diverse
181
Community. International Journal Of Bilingual Education And Bilingualism,
14(6), 631-651.
Wilson, D. (2011, March/April). Dual Language Programs on the Rise. Harvard
Education Letter, 27(2).
Zehr, M. A. (2008, May 30). NAEP Scores in States that Cut Bilingual Education Fuel
Concern on English Language Learners. Education Week, 27(37), 10.