Electronic resource: LPRU/ESPL Policy Brief RE: AZ Proposition 203

Mon Sep 19 19:44:32 UTC 2005

LPRU | Language Policy Research Unit (www.language-
policy.org)
EPSL | Education Policy Studies Laboratory
Arizona State University 

*** NEW POLICY BRIEF***

LPRU and EPSL have just released the following Policy Brief:

Academic Achievement of English Language Learners in Post 
Proposition 203 Arizona
Wayne E. Wright & Chang Pu, University of Texas, San Antonio

Links to the Executive Summary and Full Report appear below. 
A News Release describing the study also appears below.

Executive Summary:
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0509-103-
LPRU-exec.pdf

Full Report:
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0509-103-
LPRU.pdf 

****NEWS RELEASE**** 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Improvements in School Labels Fail to Convey English 
Language Learner Test Score Decline, Study Says 

CONTACT: Wayne E. Wright (210) 458-5963 (email) 
Wayne.Wright at UTSA.edu or 

Alex Molnar (480) 965-1886 (email) epsl at asu.edu 

TEMPE, Ariz. (Thursday, September 15, 2005) —Fewer public 
elementary schools received an Arizona LEARNS accountability 
label of "Underperforming" in 2004 than in 2002, but test 
data reveal English Language Learner (ELL) scores declined 
during that time and that serious achievement gaps between 
ELLs and their counterparts still exist, according 
to "Academic Achievement of English Language Learners in 
Post Proposition 203 Arizona," a policy brief released by 
the Language Policy Research Unit at Arizona State 
University. 

This brief, authored by Wayne E. Wright and Chang Pu of the 
University of Texas, San Antonio, explores the impact of 
Structured English Immersion (SEI)—the state’s mandated 
method for teaching ELLs after the passage of Proposition 
203—on elementary ELL standardized test performance. Using 
the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) and 
Stanford 9 test data from 2002 through 2004, Wright and Pu 
found (1) the overwhelming majority of third grade ELLs 
failed the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) 
test and ELLs scored well below the 50th percentile on the 
Stanford 9, and (2) the few instances of narrowing 
achievement gaps between ELLs and their counterparts were a 
function of test scores from Category 1 students—all 
students minus ELLs that have been enrolled in public 
education system for less than four years—declining at a 
faster rate than ELL scores. 

"There is no evidence that ELL students are experiencing 
greater academic success," Wright and Pu said in the 
brief. "Positive-looking improvements in school 
accountability labels mask test-score decline in a large 
number of elementary schools, particularly those with the 
greatest number of ELL students" 

The brief says state education officials base the claim that 
English Language Learners are achieving academically on the 
increase of schools labeled "Performing" or better under the 
state’s accountability system (Arizona LEARNS). Wright and 
Pu point out that the 

accountability labels were changed in 2003, and that the 
state allowed schools and districts to exclude the test 
scores of ELLs who had not been enrolled in the public 
education system for four years from Category 1. Only 
Category 1 scores are used for determining accountability 
labels. 

The brief’s key findings are: 

• There is a general pattern of higher test scores on AIMS 
in 2003, followed by decline in 2004 for both Category 1 and 
ELL students on the Reading and Math subtests. 
• ELL student percentile rankings on the Stanford 9 rose 
slightly in 2003 followed by a decline in 2004 while 
Category 1 student rankings remained relatively stable. 
• Improvement in test scores in 2003 corresponds with a 
period of greater flexibility for schools in offering ESL 
and bilingual education, while the decline of scores in 2004 
corresponds to a period of strict enforcement of Proposition 
203 and mandates for English-only instruction. 
• The sudden increase in 2004 of ELLs passing the AIMS 
Writing subtest is questionable, as there was decline or no 
significant growth on all other subtests for both the AIMS 
and Stanford 9, and as similar gains were not evident for 
Category 1 students. 
• In terms of the percent passing the AIMS test, ELL 
students trailed behind Category 1 students by an average of 
33 percentage points in Math, 40 points in Reading, and 30 
points in Writing. 
• On the Stanford 9, ELL students trailed behind Category 1 
students by an average of 28 percentile points in Language, 
26 points in Math, and 33 points in Reading. The gap 
increased for all Stanford 9 subtests between 2003 and 2004. 
• Category 1 students score lower on the AIMS and Stanford 9 
in ELL-Impacted elementary schools (schools that test 30 or 
more ELL students in third grade) than they do in other 
elementary schools. 
• Due to the lack of reliable data, there are discrepancies 
in the number of Category 1 and ELL students tested on the 
AIMS and Stanford 9 within each year and across the three 
years that are inconsistent with the rapidly growing student 
population of Arizona. This raises questions on whether some 
student scores are missing from the data reported to the 
public, or if students were systematically excluded from 
taking specific tests. 
• There were increases in the number of "Performing" 
and "Excelling" schools in 2004 despite the general trend of 
flat or declining AIMS and Stanford 9 scores. 
"We encourage state policy makers to reconsider the narrow 
requirements and current enforcement rules of Proposition 
203," Wright and Pu conclude. "In addition, rather than 
forcing ELLs to take high-stakes English-only tests only to 
exclude many of their scores from state and federal 
accountability formulas, we encourage state policy makers to 
advocate for changes in the requirements of NCLB, or at the 
very least, heed NCLB’s requirement to test ELLs in the 
language and form most likely to yield valid and reliable 
information about what students know and can do." 

Find this document on the web at: 

http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0509-103-
LPRU.pdf 

CONTACT: 

Wayne E. Wright, Assistant Professor 
University of Texas at San Antonio 
(210) 458-5963 
Wayne.Wright at UTSA.edu 

Alex Molnar, Professor and Director 
Education Policy Studies Laboratory 
(480) 965-1886 
epsl at asu.edu 
http://edpolicylab.org 

The Language Policy Research Unit (LPRU), co-directed by Dr. 
Terrence G. Wiley and Dr. Wayne E. Wright, promotes research 
and policy analysis on the challenges and opportunities 
posed by global multiculturalism. LPRU activities are 
intended to inform public discussion and policymaking in 
state, national, and international contexts. 

Visit the LPRU website at http://language-policy.org/ 

The Education Policy Studies Laboratory (EPSL) at Arizona 
State University offers high quality analyses of national 
education policy issues and provides an analytical resource 
for educators, journalists, and citizens. It includes the 
Arizona Education Policy Initiative (AEPI), the 
Commercialism in Education Research Unit (CERU), the 
Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA), the Education 
Policy Research Unit (EPRU), and the Language Policy 
Research Unit (LPRU). The EPSL is directed by Professor Alex 
Molnar. 

Visit the EPSL website at http://edpolicylab.org/ 