Researchers are concerned that English language learners (ELL) may remain classified too long and, therefore, may not receive appropriate mainstream educational services. In this study, we investigate the effects of language classification on student outcomes in one California school district. Our ordinary least squares regression estimates demonstrate that students who become reclassified fluent English proficient (RFEP) in middle school have higher achievement scores and better behavioral outcomes. However, regression discontinuity models show that reclassification has no effects on students’ outcomes. The findings of this study suggest that selection bias accounts for the positive associations between RFEP and desirable student outcomes. ELL and RFEP students have unmeasured characteristics that highly correlate with their language classification, therefore, their educational outcomes differ.
CallahanR. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 305-328.
2.
CallahanR.WilkinsonL.MullerC. (2010). Academic achievement and course taking among language minority youth in US schools: Effects of ESL placement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 84-117.
3.
CallahanR.WilkinsonL.MullerC.FriscoM. (2009). ESL placement and schools effects on immigrant achievement. Educational Policy, 23(2), 355-384.
4.
CappsR.FixM.MurrayJ.OstJ.PasselJ. S.HerwantoroS. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
5.
CarlsonD.KnowlesJ. E. (2016). The effect of English language learner reclassification on student ACT scores, high school graduation, and postsecondary enrollment: Regression discontinuity evidence from Wisconsin. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35, 559-586.
6.
CimpianJ. R.ThompsonK. D.MakowskiM. B. (2017). Evaluating English learner reclassification policy effects across districts. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 255S-278S.
7.
DabachD. B. (2014). “I am not a shelter!”: Stigma and social boundaries in teachers’ accounts of students’ experience in separate “sheltered” English learner classrooms. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19(2), 98-124.
8.
DominaT.McEachinA.PennerA.PennerE. (2015). Aiming high and falling short California’s eighth-grade algebra-for-all effort. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 275-295.
9.
DomingueB.BriggsD. C. (2009). Using linear regression and propensity score matching to estimate the effect of coaching on the SAT. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 35(1), 12-29.
GandaraP.RumbergerR. W. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does language policy structure opportunity. Teachers College Record, 111, 750-782.
GrissomJ. B. (2004). Reclassification of English learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(36), 1-38.
14.
HahnelC.WolfL.BanksA.LaForsJ. (2014). The language of reform: English learners in California’s shifting education landscape. The Education Trust-West.
15.
HalleT.HairE.WandnerL.McNamaraM.ChienN. (2012). Predictors and outcomes of early versus later English language proficiency among English language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 1-20.
16.
Hampden-ThompsonG.MulliganG.KinukawaA.HalleT. (2008). Mathematics achievement of language-minority students during the elementary years. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
17.
HillL. E.BettsJ. R.ChavezB.ZauA. C.BachoferK. V. (2014). Pathways to fluency: Examining the link between language reclassication policies and student success. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
ImbensG. W.LemieuxT. (2008). Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 615-635.
20.
KohlerA. D.LazarínM. (2007). Hispanic education in the United States (Statistical Brief, 8). Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza.
21.
LaguoffR.SpycherP.LinquantiR.CarrollC.DiRannaK. (2015). Integrating the CA ELD standards into K-12 mathematics and science teaching and learning. Available from www.cde.ca.gov
22.
LeeD. S.LemieuxT. (2010). Regression discontinuity designs in economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 48, 281-355. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20778728
23.
LongM. C.IatarolaP.CongerD. (2007). Explaining gaps in readiness for college-level math: The role of high school courses. Education Finance and Policy, 4(1), 1-33.
24.
LosenD. J.MartinezT. E. (2013). Out of school and off track: The overuse of suspensions in American middle and high schools (K-12 racial disparities in school discipline). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles.
25.
MavrogordatoM.WhiteR. S. (2017). Reclassification variation: How policy implementation guides the process of exiting students from English learner status. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39, 281-310.
McCraryJ. (2008). Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 698-714.
28.
MosquedaE.MaldonadoS. I. (2013). The effects of English language proficiency and curricular pathways: Latina/os’ mathematics achievement in secondary schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46, 202-219.
29.
NicholsA. (2007). Causal inference with observational data. Stata Journal, 7, 507-541.
ReardonS. F.RobinsonJ. P. (2012). Regression discontinuity designs with multiple rating-score variables. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5, 83-104.
33.
RobinsonJ. P. (2011). Evaluating criteria for English learner reclassification: A causal-effects approach using a binding-score regression discontinuity design with instrumental variables. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 267-292.
34.
Robinson-CimpianJ. P.ThompsonK. D. (2015). The effects of changing test-based policies for reclassifying English learners. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35, 279-305.
35.
SaundersW. M.MarcellettiD. J. (2013). The gap that can’t go away the catch-22 of reclassification in monitoring the progress of English learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 139-156.
36.
ShahB. R.LaupacisA.HuxJ. E.AustinP. C. (2005). Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 550-559.
37.
SlamaR. B. (2014). Investigating whether and when English learners are reclassified into mainstream classrooms in the United States a discrete-time survival analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 220-252.
38.
StataCorp. (2011). Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: Author.
39.
UmanskyI. M. (2016). Leveled and exclusionary tracking: English learners’ access to academic content in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1792-1833.
40.
UmanskyI. M.ReardonS. F.HakutaK.ThompsonK. D.EstradaP.HayesK.. . . GoldenbergC. (2015). Improving the opportunities and outcomes of California’s students learning English: Findings from school district-university collaborative partnerships (Policy Brief 15-1). Standford, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
41.
UriarteM.LavanN.AgustiN.KarpF. (2009). English learners in Boston public schools: Enrollment and educational outcomes of native Spanish speakers. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston.
42.
WalquiA.KoelschN.HamburgerL.GaarderD.InsaurraldeA.SchmidaM.WeissS. (2010). What are we doing to middle school English learners findings and recommendations for change from a study of California EL programs (Research report). San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
43.
WongV. C.SteinerP. M.CookT. D. (2013). Analyzing regression-discontinuity designs with multiple assignment variables a comparative study of four estimation methods. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38, 107-141.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
