CCSD‐UNLV Research Consortium on ELL:
Demographics, Principal Perspectives, and
Student Performance Data
Professor Sylvia Lazos
Professor LeAnn G Putney
Professor Ralph E. Reynolds
Demographic Data
States with Largest Hispanic Share of
Total Population, 2010
STATE
HISPANIC SHARE
New Mexico
46.3%
Texas
37.6
California
37.6
Arizona
29.6
Nevada
26.5
Florida
22.5
Colorado
20.7
New Jersey
17.7
New York
17.6
Illinois
15.8
Connecticut
13.4
Utah
13.0
Source: Pew Hispanic
Center, Tabulations of
U.S. Census Bureau
Redistricting_FilesPL_94-171 for states
Close to one in two Nevadans is from a
minority racial/ethnic group
Source: Census Scope-2010 Census
Three in five children in Nevada are from a
minority racial/ethnic group
60%
Source: Census Scope-2010 Census
In Las Vegas two in three children are from a
minority racial/ethnic group
Percent school age population (under
18)
14%
33%
Whites (NH)
African
Americans
Latina/os
42%
11%
Asian Pac &
other
Source: William Frey, America's Diverse Future, App. B
Nevada is #3 in experiencing greatest “Racial Generation Gap,” 2010
#3
States
% White
Child
Population
% White
Adult Pop
Generation
Difference
Arizona
41.6
63.4
-21.8
District of
Columbia
17.4
38.3
-20.9
Nevada
39.5
58.9
-19.4
New Mexico
26.2
45.3
-19.1
California
27.4
44.4
Oklahoma
55.9
72.8
-17.0
Delaware
53.0
69.0
-16.9
Rhode Island
63.8
79.8
-16.0
Colorado
58.0
73.9
-16.0
66.1
82.1
-15.9
Oregon
Source: William Frey, America's Diverse Future, T. 2
Las Vegas experienced the second greatest
demographic “pivot” in racial composition of its child
population, 2000-2010
#2
#
@
Metropolitan area
% child population that is Difference
White, 2010
from 2000
Cape Coral-Ft. Myers,
FL
51%
-17%
Las Vegas, NV
33%
-14%
Lakeland, FL
49%
-14%
Orlando, FL
42%
-14%
Allentown, PA
60%
-14%
Stockton, CA
23%
-13%
Source: Frey, America's Diverse Future, App. B
CCSD English Language Learners (ELL)

Recent enrollment data, show that Latinos make up 43% of CCD
students. In 2009-2010, 50% of 3rd graders were Latino students.

In 2009-2010, 51% of Latino students in 3rd grade were identified as
ELL students.

ELL students perform less well than their non-ELL peers in 3rd grade
standardized tests –
15% lower in READING
 9 % lower in MATH

Qualitative Results
Instructional Leadership – Teachers and
Principals

Mindset – Meeting the needs of all kids,
individually, and regardless of ELL status

Goals – Using best instructional practice

Instructional practice – Additional adult
interactions with kids (tutoring) for optimal
language use/
“…children will be successful if they stay with us.”
Professional Development

TESL Endorsement

HQSI

ELL Specialists
“So you can call it high quality, but basically its just
good teaching strategies and instruction that we
need to be developing and using in all of our
programs.”
Curriculum & Teaching Strategies
Standard CCSD
Programs


Trophies –
 Basal reader
Voyager –
 Reading Intervention
Program
Supplemental
Programs






Rosetta Stone– ELL
oriented
Imagine Learning– ELL
oriented
Lexia
Reading A TO Z
Walk To Read
Leap Frog
We don’t need any more programs.
We need expert educators to spend time with kids.
Parental Involvement

Parent Center

Parent Workshops

Event Nights

Family Leadership Institute
“Again, it’s tougher for our parents. We are not the kind
of school where you have a ton of parent volunteers.
Because if I’m not confident in my English skills and I
know I’m going to be asked to help kids, I’m less apt to
come into the school.”
Policy

Budget Cuts - Issues
 Loss of ELL Facilitator/specialists
 Loss of teachers resulting in Higher Teacher/Student ratio
 Lack of funding for additional resources/programs
“Because, for the most part, teachers want to help out. They
want to do everything they can. But it is frustrating…when
you want…something but we don’t have the money for that
because we had to pay for other things. That makes it
challenging.”
Policy

Testing and NCLB
 Amount of testing
 Testing in English when it takes years to become
English proficient
 Having to work more toward test taking to break even
on test scores.
“One of the challenges is that we know it takes years to
become proficient in a language. Unfortunately, the way
the laws are written now, its just really difficult because
they don’t have a full year, just the academic year.”
Cross Case Analysis
School
A
School
B
School
C
School
D
School
E
School
F
School
G
TESL
60%
50%
40%
30%
30%
Not
many
3 onsite
HQSI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ELL
SPECIALIST
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Summary

The Principals make several great points that not coincidentally
reflect some of the main goals of the instruction and instructional
intervention approaches supported by research data and that form the
core of the reforms that we will advocate in our project.

Mindset – Meeting the needs of all kids, individually, and regardless
of ELL status;
 We would rephrase in terms of our project: It is essential to meet
the needs of all vulnerable children, if we are to increase school
success for Nevada children. We define vulnerable children to
mean:

linguistically different (ELL) students,

culturally different students, and
low SES students

Summary

Goals – Using best instructional approaches.


We would note that the research literature suggests that
all vulnerable students can benefit from research-verified
approaches to instruction, tutoring, and instructional
interventions.
Instructional practice –. Additional adult
interactions with kids (tutoring) for optimal language
use.

We would be a bit more specific about what appropriate
instructional practice would include:
Summary
 Language
enrichment to provide appropriate
cultural context for reading comprehension,
 Instruction in reading comprehension
strategies,
 Increased instruction to help vulnerable
students enlarge their spoken vocabularies to
the level of middle class, dominant culture
kids,
 Research-verified word identification
instruction so that vulnerable students become
well versed in the orthographic and phonetic
structure of the English language.
Quantitative Data
CCSD Data – 10 High-Density ELL,
Minority, and FRL Elementary Schools
School
Culturally Different
Linguistically Different
Low SES
1. Herron
98.4%
89.2%
100%
2. Cahlan
97.1%
76.9%
74.5%
3. Jeffers
96.7%
70.8%
84.4%
4. Lincoln
95.5%
68.2%
83.2%
5. Cambeiro
96.6%
67.5%
89.9%
6. Sunrise Acres
97.3%
66.0%
83.8%
7. Lunt
95.4%
65.5%
83.7%
8. Squires
95.2%
65.3%
83.9%
9. Wynn
92.1%
65.2%
76.4%
10. Ronnow
93.0%
65.0%
78.3%
Ethnicity by ELL and FRL – Grade 4
ELL/FRL Use
Ethnicity
Frequency
Percent
Neither ELL/FRL
White
5936
55.1%
African American
1154
10.7%
Asian/Pacific Islander
1350
12.5%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
94
0.9%
Hispanic
2247
20.8%
Total
10781
100%
White
2059
15.6%
African American
2206
16.7%
Asian/Pacific Islander
945
7.2%
American Indian/Alaskan Native
90
0.7%
Hispanic
7891
59.8%
Total
13191
100%
ELL and/or FRL
Reading Proficiency Level Based on CRT
Data – Grade 4
ELL/FRL Use
Proficiency Level
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Neither ELL/FRL
Emergent
343
3.2%
3.2%
Approaches
1842
17.1%
20.3%
Meets
4837
44.9%
65.2%
Exceeds
3755
34.8%
100%
Total
10777
100%
Emergent
1561
11.9%
11.9%
Approaches
4857
36.9%
48.7%
Meets
4979
37.8%
86.5%
Exceeds
1775
13.5%
100%
Total
13172
100%
ELL and/or FRL
The Reading Performance of Nevada Children
Based on the NAEP Test – Grade 4
State
Below
Basic
Basic
Proficient Advanced
Massachusetts
20%
33%
34%
13%
Colorado
28%
32%
30%
11%
Idaho
31%
36%
26%
6%
Utah
33%
36%
25%
6%
Nevada
43%
33%
20%
4%
Relative Reading Performance Rank of Nevada Students
Compared to Other States Based on the NAEP Test –
Grade 4
State
Average 4th Grade
NAEP Score
National Rank
Massachusetts
234
First
Colorado
226
Twelfth
Idaho
221
Twenty Eighth
Utah
219
Thirty Third
Nevada
211
Forty Sixth
Data Summary

NAEP data show that 76% Nevada children do
not read well enough to do “C” level classroom
work.

Extrapolating from the State CRT data, we can
estimate that roughly 61% of those NAEP
identified low performing 4th graders fall into the
category that we have identified as vulnerable
children.
Why do Vulnerable Children tend to Read
Poorly?

They frequently speak a language other that English in
their homes, which limits English language exposure.

They tend to come from homes in which academic
English is never spoken, which limits their exposure to
school words.

They tend to come from poor (low SES) families, which
limits they amount of verbal interaction they hear (see
next table).

They do not always get reading instruction appropriate
for their language backgrounds.
Why do Vulnerable Children tend to Read
Poorly?
Take Home Points
Important Take Home Point # 1
The poor CCSD student reading performance revealed by
both the CRT and NAEP was not simply/individually:
•
an ELL issue
•
nor was it simply a cultural issue
•
nor was it a simply a poverty issue.
Instead, the poor performance was primarily the
result of delayed attainment of adequate reading
skills by vulnerable students. (Wong-Fillmore, 2000;
Walqui, 1996)
Take Home Points
Important Take Home Point # 2
Research has verified that school Principals can
have a significant effect on student learning (Hall,
2006).


Hence, we must ensure that all CCSD Principals create
a school culture that supports vulnerable students,
engaging the parents of these students.
One aspect of creating this culture must be
recommending to their teachers the best researchverified instructional practices and curricular
materials.
Take Home Points
Important Take Home Point # 3
Research has verified that the greatest change agent
in any school child’s life is a knowledgeable,
responsive teacher.


Hence, the focus of future efforts must center on
research-validated preparation and professional
development for teachers of highly vulnerable students
We must ensure that all CCSD teachers are using the
best research-verified instructional practices and the
best research-verified curricular materials.
Current Progress and Future Steps

We are working on three projects that go beyond the
Lincy Fellowship:

The CCSD/UNLV Reading Skills Development Center
to assist young vulnerable children in acquiring adequate
reading Skills before the end of the third grade.
o Grand Opening = December 9, 2012.
o We will conduct pilot studies in two CCSD elementary
in spring, 2012.
o We will scale up the project in fall 2012.
Current Progress and Future Steps
 We
are continuing to collaborate in the
CCSD/UNLV ELL Partnership.
o We have one project in which we are testing
ELL learning software for efficiency and
effectiveness.
o A second project has been designed to
understand and document why some schools’
ELL students read so much better than those
from other schools.
Current Progress and Future Steps

We have initiated a project to help vulnerable children
enroll and succeed in college.
o Teaching classes to high school seniors that focus on
the skills they will need to succeed in college.
 Financial literacy
 Study skills
 Motivation
 Time management
 Comprehension and writing skills.
Current Progress and Future Steps
o
o
A continuation of the project will intervene
with younger students to help them understand
that going to college is a future possibility for
them -- eighth graders and 5th graders.
Finally, in order to accomplish any of our
goals, we must being to involve parents and
communities in all of our future work.