Small school reform is an increasingly popular reform in urban comprehensive high schools. Efforts to divide large high schools into small school groups have been funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well as by the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES). The Coalition of Essential Schools is a network of small schools that adhere to similar educational ideologies such as the desirability to provide inclusive educational environments. CES promotes inclusion as a means to equitable and democratic education. This study explains the tensions the philosophy and practice of inclusion has produced concerning English language learner (ELL) programs in conversion small schools. This study investigates (a) the ways in which ELL programs in conversion small schools have supported inclusive education, (b) the ways small school inclusion has affected ELL programs, and (c) the impact inclusion philosophy in conversion small schools on inclusive and equitable instruction for ELL students. Through a multi-case qualitative study including interviews and observations, the contexts for the ELL programs in three different conversion schools are investigated and described. The data shows that none of the ELL programs investigated have been able to fully support instructional inclusion either due to a lack of belief in the efficacy of inclusion or a lack of resources. Small school inclusion has affected ELL programs differently in each school. At one school, the ELL program felt almost no effects of the conversion. At another, the program is radically different than previous to the conversion. Third, inclusive and equitable instruction for ELL students in conversion small schools, even in the best case, is happening only in some classes. Due to a lack of resources, no ELL program has been able to implement inclusion as a programmatic reform. Finally, the impetus to involve ELL students in inclusion programs is highly influenced by special education policies rather than by legislation overseeing ELLs. The study concludes that inclusion is understood and practiced differently at each site. At the sites where any type of inclusion was practiced, teachers reported that inclusion provided ELL students with more social than academic benefits.

The purpose of this study was to record and analyze experiences of teachers implementing a sheltered collaborative teaching model for second language learners. This study also analyzed the effect of this model on the on-time graduation rate of limited English proficient students. Discussing the experiences of teachers involved in this model provided valuable information that can be used to refine instruction and improve ELLs cultural assimilation, self-motivation, and involvement in co-curricular activities. The mixed methods design study taking both a phenomenological and quasi-experimental case study approach focused on collecting experiences from teachers and graduation data to determine the outcomes of the collaborative instructional model. The context of this study was two high schools in a suburban school district in central Virginia. The participants were seven teachers who have implemented the collaborative model within the last two years. Triangulation of the data sources included interviews with the participants, field notes, and archival data. Both NVivo and Statistical Package for Social Sciences were used in coding and describing the data. Results of this study are presented in narrative descriptions of the experiences of the participants and a descriptive report of the graduation data. Themes resulting from the analysis across all the narratives are discussed within the framework of ELL academic success. Both graduation data and teacher reports are discussed to determine the effect of this instructional model on the on-time graduation rate. / Ed. D.

No description available.

The passage of Proposition 203 in Arizona in November 2000, virtually replaced bilingual education with a default program for English Language Learners--Structured English Immersion (SEI). The requirement is for nearly all instruction to be in English, with a minimal amount of the native language allowed. This mixed-method study chronicles the implementation of Proposition 203 in a local school district and examines its effects on instructional practices, student achievement, as well as on school climate and culture. Also described are the mitigating requirements of NCLB and Arizona Learns and their effect on instruction for ELL students.Eight teachers in grades K-3 in both SEI and bilingual education programs, and two elementary bilingual special education teachers participated in the study. Six of the ten total participants hold an endorsement in bilingual education. Student achievement data included an analysis of AIMS scores in reading, writing, and math for 2005 and 2006. Qualitative research methodologies were used to obtain classroom observation data. Teacher interviews consisted of open-ended questions related to teachers' understanding about Proposition 203 and its effects on their instruction and school climate.This study suggests that SEI has not been successful in raising student achievement and English proficiency to the levels its proponents had promised. High-stakes testing and other requirements of NCLB and Arizona Learns have exacerbated district attempts to expand bilingual education programs. The study concludes with a summary of continued challenges regarding effective ELL instruction and recommendations and proposed solutions from the literature and the field.

In order to evaluate the appropriateness of a standardized vocabulary measure for linguistically diverse kindergarten children this study examined response patterns of young Canadian children using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test –Third Edition (PPVT-III, Dunn & Dunn, 1997). Questions have been asked about whether the PPVT-III is an appropriate measure to use with young English Language Learners (ELL) because items may be culturally or linguistically biased. Further, it is of both psychometric and educational relevance to understand measurement of English vocabulary acquisition among young English First Language (EL1) and English Language Learner (ELL) children. PPVT-III scores were compared in two language groups – 52 EL1 and 73 ELL 4- and 5-year-old children. There were significant differences between the two groups in overall standard scores, with EL1 students performing significantly better than ELL students. In contrast, demographic factors of grade, gender and maternal education were not related to PPVT-III standard scores. A Mantel-Haenszel Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis provided a detailed picture of how individual test items functioned psychometrically in the two language groups. This analysis showed limited indications of DIF in the first 168 items of the PPVT-III, suggesting minimal test bias on the PPVT-III. Further analyses examined teachability of items, that is, how easily words can be taught, and the semantic categories of items, that is, parts of speech such as verbs, nouns and adjectives. These further analyses showed that the mean proportion of correct scores for all types of words was significantly different for EL1 and ELL children. Based on these detailed analyses it was concluded that differences in PPVT-III standard scores for EL1 and ELL 4- and 5-year-old children were not due to test bias, nor were they due to specific item properties. The mean differences observed between EL1 and ELL children were thus taken to reflect item impact, a difference in overall receptive vocabulary. In addition to establishing the utility of the PPVT-III for linguistically diverse kindergarten children this study also provides a descriptive picture of how EL1 and ELL children show variation across different types of word learning.

In order to evaluate the appropriateness of a standardized vocabulary measure for linguistically diverse kindergarten children this study examined response patterns of young Canadian children using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test –Third Edition (PPVT-III, Dunn & Dunn, 1997). Questions have been asked about whether the PPVT-III is an appropriate measure to use with young English Language Learners (ELL) because items may be culturally or linguistically biased. Further, it is of both psychometric and educational relevance to understand measurement of English vocabulary acquisition among young English First Language (EL1) and English Language Learner (ELL) children. PPVT-III scores were compared in two language groups – 52 EL1 and 73 ELL 4- and 5-year-old children. There were significant differences between the two groups in overall standard scores, with EL1 students performing significantly better than ELL students. In contrast, demographic factors of grade, gender and maternal education were not related to PPVT-III standard scores. A Mantel-Haenszel Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis provided a detailed picture of how individual test items functioned psychometrically in the two language groups. This analysis showed limited indications of DIF in the first 168 items of the PPVT-III, suggesting minimal test bias on the PPVT-III. Further analyses examined teachability of items, that is, how easily words can be taught, and the semantic categories of items, that is, parts of speech such as verbs, nouns and adjectives. These further analyses showed that the mean proportion of correct scores for all types of words was significantly different for EL1 and ELL children. Based on these detailed analyses it was concluded that differences in PPVT-III standard scores for EL1 and ELL 4- and 5-year-old children were not due to test bias, nor were they due to specific item properties. The mean differences observed between EL1 and ELL children were thus taken to reflect item impact, a difference in overall receptive vocabulary. In addition to establishing the utility of the PPVT-III for linguistically diverse kindergarten children this study also provides a descriptive picture of how EL1 and ELL children show variation across different types of word learning.

Clinical assessment of children who are English language learners (ELL) is often a difficult and time-consuming task for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) due to the complex nature of second-language acquisition and current methods of formal language assessment. Using an invented rule procedure has emerged in the literature as a screening tool to help determine whether flaws in language use and production are a consequence of language difference or language disorder. The current study utilized invented rule learning with a modeling protocol to compare performance on the invented rule task between children who are ELL to children who are monolingual. The study also compared task performance between age groups and compared individual participant's task scores to scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - III (PPVT-III). The results indicated no significant difference between ELL and monolingual raw scores on the task. A significant difference was present between the youngest age group and the older two age groups. There was a weak positive correlation between the invented rule task and the PPVT-III, which could indicate that the two tests are assessing two different areas of language. The invented rule could play a role in language assessment, however more research is necessary to determine under what circumstances its use is appropriate.

This researcher investigated the effects of repeated reading, performance feedback, and systematic error correction on the reading fluency of three secondary English language learners (ELLs) with a specific learning disability (SLD) in reading. A multiple baseline reversal design across subjects was used to explore the effects of repeated reading on two dependent variables: reading fluency (words read correctly per minute; wpm) and number of errors per minute (epm). Data were collected and analyzed during baseline, intervention, and maintenance probes.Throughout the baseline phase participants read a passage aloud and during intervention phases, participants read a passage aloud and received error correction feedback. During baseline, reading was followed by fluency assessments. During intervention, reading was followed by three oral repeated readings of the passage. Maintenance sessions occurred 1, 2, and 3 weeks after the intervention ended.The researcher of this study concluded that repeated reading had a positive effect on the reading abilities of ELLs with a SLD in reading. Participants read more wpm and made fewer epm. Additionally, maintenance scores were slightly varied when compared to the last day of intervention; however, maintenance scores were higher than baseline means.The researcher of this study demonstrated that repeated reading improved the reading abilities of ELLs with a SLD in reading. On maintenance probes 1, 2, and 3 weeks following intervention mean reading fluency and errors per minute remained above baseline levels. Future researchers should investigate the use of repeated reading in ELLs with a SLD in reading at various stages of reading acquisition. Further, future researchers may examine how repeated reading can be integrated into classroom instruction and assessments.

How well students perform on standardized tests can affect their educational paths and the rest of their lives. In addition, students' performances on state assessments will affect their schools due to the No Child Left Behind Act. For English language learners (ELLs), the success on tests may be diminished due to their inability to completely understand what they are reading on a test. Because ELLs are a growing proportion of the population and have greater risk of not performing well in school, dropping out, and not moving on to have a job, it is very important to address their educational performance. To alleviate the difficulty of not being able to understand English competently, various testing accommodations can be given. The purpose of this study was to describe how different types of accommodations are being distributed, particularly among ELL students, on an achievement test battery. Several variables were examined to assess whether they related to which accommodation would be assigned to an individual student. This study used data from a recent 2010 national standardization of an achievement test battery, which sampled 33,226 students from grades 3-8 across the U. S. In addition to the tests, students completed a survey which asked for such information as gender, home language, and ethnicity, and test administrators reported on that same survey which testing accommodations students were given, whether students were migrants, whether students participated in a free or reduced-price lunch program, and whether students were ELL students. These variables, along with students' Reading, Math, and Science scores were used to describe the groups of students given each accommodation. Five testing accommodations were reported by the students - giving students extended time to take the test, allowing students to use a word-to-word dictionary, reading parts of the test aloud to the students, repeating instructions, and having the test administered by an ELL teacher. Of all these, the group that was most similar to the entire sample on the test results for the Reading, Math, and Science was the group given dictionaries, a group predominantly comprised of Asian students. The other testing accommodation groups had much lower percentile ranks on average. ELL students were largely Hispanic, spoke Spanish at home, and had lower percentile ranks on the Reading, Math, and Science tests than non-ELL students. Although the majority of ELL students in this sample was not free or reduced-price lunch eligible, there was a higher percentage than was found in the sample as a whole. It was found that several variables were potentially important in how testing accommodations were distributed among students, including grade level, ethnicity, home language, and socioeconomic status (SES). Variables which did not seem important were gender and school. Home language and SES were also important in testing performance, with low SES students performing much worse on average than the sample as a whole. Students who had Spanish as their home language did not perform as well on the tests as students whose home language was English or another language. Lastly, a gap analysis using effect sizes showed some evidence for the gap between ELL and non-ELL students being larger in higher grade levels.

The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of rhetorical reading interventions on ELL and dominant English speaking college students' perceptions of reading-writing connections, reading performances as measured by the Accuplacer Reading Test, and writing performances as measured by a holistic rubric. ELL, as defined here, refers to a student who is in the process of acquiring English and has knowledge of a first language other than English. The researcher applied a quasi-experimental comparison and treatment group post test design that included four composition classes. The independent variable was the rhetorical reading intervention. The dependent variables included: student reading- writing connection surveys, the Accuplacer Reading Test, and student generated essays. The rhetorical reading intervention applied focused on constructing awareness of an author?s purpose, context, and effect on audience (reader. Reading performance scores for the comparison group indicated an observed change in the mean score from pre-test to post-test of 0 .17. The observed change in the mean score from pre to post test performance for treatment group participants was 9.16. Repeated measures ANOVA test yielded a main effect for pre-post reading performance scores across groups, F (1,70)=16.153, p<.05. Results indicated that comparison group participants displayed minimal change between the pre and post Accuplacer Reading scores; while, treatment group participants reading scores increased significantly. Writing performance scores for the comparison group indicated an observed change from pre-post scores of .74. An observed change was indicated from pre-post scores of 1.02 for treatment group subjects. A repeated measures (ANOVA) test within groups yielded a main effect for pre-post writing performance scores across all groups, F(1,70)= 60.327, p<.05. The greater increase for the treatment group suggests that rhetorical reading interventions had an enhanced positive influence on writing performance scores. The analyses reported suggest varying degrees of the effects, on both reading and writing, the integration of reading with specific rhetorical guidelines appeared to maximize not only the connections between reading and writing, but also provide students opportunities to apply critical thinking skills when reading like a writer. The study provides noteworthy insights for educators in the areas of ELL instruction at the college level and provides information that facilitates bridging the achievement gap between dominant English speakers and ELL students.