In this study, we employed a discrete-time survival analysis model to examine Indiana emergent bilingual time to reclassification as fluent English proficient. The data consisted of five years of statewide English language proficiency scores. Indiana has a large and rapidly growing Spanish-speaking emergent bilingual population, and these students are prevalent in the low socioeconomic status group. Our findings suggest that Spanish home language status, low socioeconomic status, and special education status are negatively associated with the odds to reclassification. Based on our findings, we recommend a careful investigation to inform best practices that will meet the needs of Spanish-speaking emergent bilinguals and reduce inequities in education.
AbediJ. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X033001004
2.
AbediJ. (Ed.). (2007). English language proficiency assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice. Davis, CA: The Regents of the University of California.
3.
AbediJ. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17–31. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2008.00125.x
4.
AriasM. B.FaltisC. (2012). Implementing educational language policy in Arizona legal, historical and current practices in SEI Bilingual education and bilingualism. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
5.
AugustD.HakutaK. (Eds.). (1998). Educating language-minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
BoalsT. J.KenyonD. M.BlairA.CranleyM. E.WilmesC.WrightL. (2015). Transformation in K–12 English language proficiency assessment: Changing contexts, changing constructs. Review of Research in Education, 39, 122–164. doi:10.3102/0091732X14556072
8.
BowlesS.GintisH.GrovesM. O. (Eds.). (2005). Unequal chances: Family background and economic success. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
BurkeA. M. (2014). Making the cut: Indiana school accountability and English learner test performance (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order No. 3635802).
BurkeA. M.DePalmaG.GintherA.Morita-MullaneyT.YoungJ. W. (2014). Accountability lessons for Indiana schools serving English learners. Indiana Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (INTESOL) Journal, 11(1), 10–24. Retrieved from https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/intesol/issue/view/838
CappsR.FixM.OstJ.Reardon-AndersonJ.PasselJ. S. (2004). The health and well-being of young children of immigrants. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
14.
CollierV. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 617–641. doi:10.2307/3586986
15.
CollierV. P. (1988). The effect of age on acquisition of a second language for school. New Focus, 2, 1–7.
16.
CollierV. P.ThomasW. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English?The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5, 26–38.
17.
Colorado Department of Education. (2014). 2013–2014 Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) manual. Denver, CO: Office of Federal Program Administration.
18.
CongerD. (2009). Testing, time limits, and English learners: Does age of school entry affect how quickly students can learn English?Social Science Research, 38(2), 383–396. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.08.002
19.
CongerD.HatchM.McKinneyJ.AtwellM. S.LambA. (2012). Time to English proficiency for English language learners in New York City and Miami-Dade County (Policy brief). New York, NY: New York University, Institute for Education and Social Policy. Retrieved from http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/spa2/Policy_Brief_01_12.pdf
20.
CookH. G. (2010). An analysis of yearly weighted and unweighted AMAO 2 modes in two WIDA states. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
21.
CookH. G.BoalsT.WilmesC.SantosM. (2008). Issues in the development of annual measurable achievement objectives for WIDA consortium states. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
22.
CookH. G.ZhaoY. (2011, April). How English language proficiency assessments manifest growth: An examination of language proficiency growth in a WIDA state. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
23.
CrawfordJ. (2008). Advocating for English Learners: Selected essays. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
24.
CTB McGraw-Hill. (2007). LAS Links: Connecting assessment, language, and learning (Brochure). Monterey, CA: Author.
25.
CumminsJ. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 132–149. doi:10.1093/applin/2.2.132
26.
CumminsJ. (1989). Language and literacy acquisition in bilingual contexts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 10(1), 17–31. doi:10.1080/01434632.1989.9994360
27.
D’AngiulliA.SiegelL. S.MaggiS. (2004). Literacy instruction, SES, and word-reading achievement in English-language learners and children with English as a first language: A longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(4), 202–213. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00106.x
28.
Diaz-SotoL. (1988). The home environment of higher and lower achieving Puerto Rican children. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 10(2), 161–168. doi:10.1177/07399863880102006
29.
DornbuschS. M.RitterP. L. (1988). Parents of high school students: A neglected resource. Educational Horizons, 66, 75–77.
GarcíaO. (2009). Emergent bilingulas and TESOL: What’s in a name?TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 322–326. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00172.x
38.
GarcíaO.KleifgenJ. A. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
39.
GarcíaO.KleifgenJ. A.FalchiL. (2008). From English Language learners to emergent bilinguals. Equity Matters, 1, 1–61.
40.
GeneseeF.RichesC. (2006). Literacy: Instructional issues. In GeneseeF.Lindholm-LearyK.SaundersW. M.ChristianD. (Eds.), Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 109–175). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Greenberg MotamediJ. (2015). Time to reclassification: How long does it take English learner students in Washington Road Map districts to develop English proficiency? (REL 2015-092). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest.
42.
Greenberg MotamediJ.SinghM.ThompsonK. D. (2016). English learner student characteristics and time to reclassification: An example from Washington state (REL 2016–128). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest.
43.
HaasE.TranL.HuangM.YuA. (2015). The achievement progress of English learner students in Arizona (REL 2015-098). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West.
44.
HakutaK.ButlerY. G.WittD. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency?Stanford, CA: The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
45.
HendersonA. (1987). The evidence continues to grow: Parental involvement improves student achievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
46.
HidalgoN. M.BrightJ.SuiS. F.SwapS.EpsteinJ. (1995). Research on families, schools, and communities: A multiculutral perspective. In BanksJ. A.BanksC. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on muliticultural education (pp. 631–655). New York, NY: Macmillan.
47.
HopkinsM.ThompsonK. D.LinquantiR.HakutaK.AugustD. (2013). Fully accounting for English learner performance: A key issue in ESEA reauthorization. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 101–108. doi:10.3102/0013189x12471426
48.
Indiana Commission on Hispanic/Latino Affairs. (2005). Hispanic/Latino affairs report brief: Findings and recommendations 2004–2005. Indianapolis, IN: Author.
49.
Indiana Department of Education. (2011). 2010-2011 ISTEP+ program manual: Policies and procedures for Indiana’s assessment system. Indianapolis, IN: Author.
50.
Indiana Department of Education. (2012). ESEA request (Submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, OMB No. 1810-0708). Indianapolis, IN: Author.
KennedyE.ParkH. S. (1994). Home language as a predictor of academic achievement: A comparative study of Mexican- and Asian-American youth. The Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(3), 188–194.
56.
KrashenS. D.TerrellT. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
57.
LeventhalT.Brooks-CounnJ. (2004). A randomized study of neighborhood effects on low-income children’s educational outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 40(4), 448–507. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.488
58.
LevinsonB. A. U.BucherK.HarveyL.MartínezR.PérezB.SkibaR.. . . ChungC.G. (2007). Latino language minority students in Indiana: Trends, conditions, and challenges. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
59.
LinquantiR.CookH. G. (2015). Re-examining reclassification: Insights from a National Working Session on Policies and Practices for Exiting Students from English Learner Status. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
60.
LinquantiR.CookH. G.BaileyA. L.MacDonaldR. (2016). Moving toward a more common definition of English learner: Collected guidance for states and multi-state assessment consortia. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
61.
MenkenK. (2006). Teaching to the test: How No Child Left Behind impacts language policy, curriculum and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 521–546. doi:10.1080/15235882.2006.10162888
62.
MenkenK. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
63.
MenkenK.SolorzaC. (2014a). No Child Left bilingual: Accountability and the elimination of bilingual education programs in New York city schools. Educational Policy, 28(1), 96–125. doi:10.1177/0895904812468228
64.
MenkenK.SolorzaC. (2014b). Principals as linchpins in bilingual education: The need for prepared school leaders. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(6), 1–22. doi:10.1177/0895904812468228
65.
Migrant Policy Institute. (2010). ELL information center: Fact sheet series (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Author.
66.
Morita-MullaneyT. (in press). Borrowing legitimacy as English Learner (EL) leaders: Indiana’s 14-year history with English language proficiency standards. Language Testing. doi:10.1177/0265532216653430
67.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (n.d.). Title III state profiles: Indiana. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/t3sis/indiana.php
68.
OakesJ. (1986). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
69.
OrfieldG. (2001). Schools more separate: Consequences of a decade of resegregation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project.
70.
OrfieldG.LeeC. (2006). Racial transformation and the changing nature of segregation. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
71.
PandyaJ. Z. (2011). Overtested: How high-stakes accountability fails English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
72.
Pew Hispanic Center’s American Community Survey. (2011). Demographic profile of Hispanics in Indiana 2011. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Hispanic Center.
PinkosM. (2007). Annual measurable achievement objective (AMAO) determinations. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
75.
ReeseL.GarnierH.GallimoreR.GoldenbergC. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of emergent Spanish literacy and middle-school English reading achievement of Spanish-speaking students. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 633–662. doi:10.3102/00028312037003633
76.
RicentoT.WrightW. (2008). Language policy and education in the United States. In HornbergerN. H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 285–300). New York, NY: Springer.
77.
Rios-AguilarC.González-CanchéM. S.SabetghadamS. (2012). Evaluating the impact of restrictive language policies: The Arizona 4-hour English language development block. Language Policy, 11, 47–80. doi:10.1007/s10993-011-9226-3
78.
RobertsG.MohammedS. S.VaughnS. (2010). Reading achievement across three language groups: Growth estimates for overall reading and reading subskills obtained with the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 668–686. doi:10.1037/a0018983
79.
RumbergerR.GándaraP. (2004). Seeking equity in the education of California’s English learners. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 2031–2055. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00426.x
80.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
81.
SinghM. (2013). A longitudinal study of a state-wide reading assessment: The importance of early achievement and socio-demographic factors. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(1), 4–18. doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.737572
82.
SinghM. (2015). Influence of socioeconomic disadvantages on mathematics achievement: A multilevel cohort analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(5), 347–357. doi:10.1080/00220671.2014.899956
83.
SlamaR. (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(2), 220–252. doi:10.3102/0002831214528277
StevensR. A.ButlerF. A.Castellon-WellingtonM. (2000). Academic language and content assessment: Measuring the progress of English language learners (ELLs) (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 552). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
86.
Suárez-OrozcoC.Suárez-OrozcoM. (1995). Transformations: Migration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
87.
TanenbaumC.BoyleA.SogaK.Le FlochK. C.GoldenL.PetrocciaM.. . . TaylorJ. (2012). National evaluation of Title III implementation: Report on state and local implementation. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
ThomasW. P.CollierV.P. (1997). Two languages are better than one. Educational Leadership, 55(4), 23–26.
90.
ThomasW. P.CollierV.P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
91.
ThompsonK. D. (2015). English learners’ time to reclassification: An analysis. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0895904815598394
92.
UmanskyI.ReardonS. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 879–912. doi:10.3102/0002831214545110
United States Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students. (2008). Notice of final interpretations of Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (Vol. 73 Fed. Reg. 61,828). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
95.
ValentinoR. A.ReardonS. F. (2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed to serve English learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 612–637. doi:10.3102/0162373715573310
96.
WileyT. (2007). Accessing language rights in education: A brief history of U.S. context. In GarciaO.BakerC. (Eds.), Bilingual education: An introductory reader (pp. 89–109). Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
