This study examines the characteristics and determinants of English learners’ (ELs’) access to academic content in middle school (Grades 6–8). Following 10 years of data from a large urban school district in California, I identify two predominant characteristics of EL access to content: leveled tracking in which ELs are overrepresented in lower level classes and underrepresented in upper level classes and exclusionary tracking in which ELs are excluded from core academic content area classes, particularly English language arts. Using regression analysis and two regression discontinuity designs, I find evidence that ELs’ access to content is limited by a constellation of factors, including prior academic achievement, institutional constraints, English proficiency level, and direct effects of EL classification. This study contributes to understanding of the experiences and opportunities of students learning English as well as theory regarding educational tracking.
AbediJ. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17–31.
2.
AbediJ.LordC. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219–234.
3.
Aguirre-MuñozZ.BoscardinC. K. (2008). Opportunity to learn and English learner achievement: Is increased content exposure beneficial?Journal of Latinos and Education, 7(3), 186–205.
4.
AlbaR.MasseyD.RumbautR. G. (1999). The immigration experience for families and children. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
5.
American Civil Liberties Union of California & Asian Pacific American Legal Center (2013). Opportunity lost: The widespread denial of services to California English learner students. Los Angeles, CA: ACLU.
6.
ArtilesA.RuedaR.SalazarJ. J.HigaredaI. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283–300.
7.
AttewellP.DominaT. (2008). Raising the bar: Curricular intensity and academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(1), 51–71.
8.
AugustD.GoldenbergC.RuedaR. (2010). Restrictive state language policies: Are they scientifically based? In GándaraP.HopkinsM. (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 139–158). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
9.
BialystokE.HakutaK. (1994). In other words: The science and psychology of second-language acquisition. New York, NY: Basic Books.
10.
BrooksM. D. (2015). “It’s like a script”: Long-term English learners’ experiences with and ideas about academic reading. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(4), 383.
11.
BrunaK. R.VannR.EscuderoM. P. (2007). What’s language got to do with it?: A case study of academic language instruction in a high school “English Learner Science” class. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 36–54.
12.
California Department of Education. (2006). English learners frequently asked questions. Sacramento, CA: State of California.
California Department of Education. (2015b). English language arts/English language development framework for California public schools. Sacramento, CA: State of California.
15.
CallahanR. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305–328.
16.
CallahanR.GándaraP. (Eds.). (2014). Bilingual advantage: Language, literacy, and the labor market. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
17.
CallahanR.ShifrerD. (2016). Equitable access for secondary English learner students course taking as evidence of EL program effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53, 463–496.
18.
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(1), 84–117.
19.
CallahanR.WilkinsonL.MullerC.FriscoM. (2009). ESL placement and schools: Effects on immigrant achievement. Educational Policy, 23(2), 355–384.
20.
CarlsonD.KnowlesJ. (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.
21.
Castañeda v. Pickard (United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1981).
22.
ChangM. J. (2000). The relationship of high school characteristics to the selection of undergraduate students for admission to the University of California-Berkeley. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 49–59.
23.
DabachD. (2009). Teachers as a context of reception for immigrant youth: Adaptations in “sheltered” and “mainstream” classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
24.
DabachD.CallahanR. (2011). Rights versus reality: The gap between civil rights and english learners’ high school educational opportunities. Teachers College Record16558, 113.
25.
DronkersJ.LevelsM. (2007). Do school segregation and school resources explain region-of-origin differences in the mathematics achievement of immigrant students?Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(5), 435–462.
26.
EcclesJ. S.LordS.MidgleyC. (1991). What are we doing to early adolescents? The impact of educational contexts on early adolescents. American Journal of Education, 99, 521–542.
27.
EngelM.ClaessensA.WattsT.FarkasG. (2016). Mathematics content coverage and student learning in kindergarten. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 293–300.
28.
EllenI. G.O’ReganK.SchwartzA. E.StiefelL.NealD.NechybaT. (2002). Immigrant children and New York City schools: Segregation and its consequences. In Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs (pp. 183–214). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
29.
EstradaP. (2014). English learner curricular streams in four middle schools: Triage in the trenches. The Urban Review, 46(5), 535.
30.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. Law No. 114-95 §1177 (2015).
31.
FarbmanD. (2015). Giving English language learners the time they need to succeed: Profiles of three expanded learning time schools. Boston, MA: National Center on Time and Learning.
32.
FrancisD.RiveraM.LesauxN.KiefferM.RiveraH. (2006). Research-based recommendations for serving adolescent newcomers. Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/lep-partnership/newcomers.pdf.
FryR. (2008). The role of schools in the English language learner achievement gap. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
35.
GamoranA. (2010). Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice. In The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 213–228). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
36.
GándaraP.ContrerasF. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
GándaraP.RumbergerR.Maxwell-JollyJ.CallahanR. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36), 1–54.
38.
GarcíaE. (1992). Teachers for Language Minority Students: Evaluating Professional Standards. Paper presented at the Focus on Evaluation and Measurement: Proceedings of the National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues, Washington DC.
39.
GaretM. S.DeLanyB. (1988). Students, courses, and stratification. Sociology of Education, 61, 61–77.
40.
GarrettR.HongG. (2015). Impacts of grouping and time on the math learning of language minority kindergartners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 222–224.
41.
GonzálezN.MollL. C.AmantiC. (2013). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
HarklauL. (1994). Tracking and linguistic minority students: Consequences of ability grouping for second language learners. Linguistics and Education, 6(3), 217–244.
43.
HarwellM.LeBeauB. (2010). Student eligibility for a free lunch as an SES measure in education research. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 120–131.
44.
HodaraM. (2015). The effects of English as a second language courses on language minority community college students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 243–270.
45.
HopkinsM.ThompsonK.LinquantiR.HakutaK.AugustD. (2013). Fully accounting for English learner performance a key issue in ESEA reauthorization. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 101–108.
46.
IatarolaP.CongerD.LongM. C. (2011). Determinants of high schools’ advanced course offerings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 340-359.
ImbensG.KalyanaramanK. (2012). Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression discontinuity estimator. The Review of Economic Studies, 79(3), 933–959.
49.
KannoY.KangasS. (2014). “I’m not going to be, like, for the AP”: English language learners’ limited access to advanced college-preparatory courses in high school. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 848–878.
50.
KaoG.TiendaM.LafieldB. S. (2005). Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. In The new immigration: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 331–343). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
51.
KatzS. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers, and the structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100(4), 809–840.
52.
KellyS. (2009). The Black-White gap in mathematics course taking. Sociology of Education, 82(1), 47-69.
53.
KettlerT.ShiuA.JohnsenS. K. (2006). AP as an Intervention for middle school Hispanic students. Gifted Child Today, 29(1), 39–46.
54.
KiefferM. J.LesauxN. K.RiveraM.FrancisD. J. (2009). Accommodations for English language learners taking large-scale assessments: A meta-analysis on effectiveness and validity. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1168–1201.
55.
KolkerC. (2011). The immigrant advantage: What we can learn from newcomers to America about health, happiness and hope. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
56.
KurlaenderM.ReardonS.JacksonJ. (2008). Middle school predictors of high school achievement in three California school districts. Santa Barbara, CA: California Dropout Research Project, University of California, Santa Barbara.
57.
Lau v. Nichols, United States Supreme Court (1974).
58.
LeeC. (2006). Denver public schools: Resegregation, Latino style. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Civil Rights Project.
59.
LeeJ.ZhouM. (2015). The Asian American achievement paradox. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
60.
LewJ. (2006). Burden of acting neither White nor Black: Asian American identities and achievement in urban schools. The Urban Review, 38(5), 335–352.
61.
LhamonC.GuptaV. (2015, January7). Dear colleague letter. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights.
62.
LillieK. E.MarkosA.AriasM. B.WileyT. G. (2012). Separate and not equal: The implementation of structured English immersion in Arizona's classrooms. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–33.
63.
LinquantiR. (2001). The redesignation dilemma: Challenges and choices in fostering meaningful accountability for English learners. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
64.
LongM. C.CongerD.IatarolaP. (2012). Effects of high school course-taking on secondary and postsecondary success. American Educational Research Journal, 49(2), 285–322.
65.
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2015). Placement, scheduling and staffing of English learners in middle school and high school 2015–16 (Memorandum). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
66.
MartinielloM. (2008). Language and the performance of English-language learners in math word problems. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 333–368.
67.
MonkD. H.HallerE. J. (1993). Predictors of high school academic course offerings: The role of school size. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 3–21.
68.
MoranR. F. (2005). Undone by law: The uncertain legacy of Lau v. Nichols. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 16.
69.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, §115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
70.
NomiT.RaudenbushS. W. (2016). Making a success of “algebra for all”: The impact of extended instructional time and classroom peer skill in Chicago. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(2), 431–451.
71.
NordC.RoeyS.PerkinsR.LyonsM.LemanskiN.BrownJ.SchuknechtJ. (2011). America’s high school graduates. Results of the 2009 NAEP high school transcript study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
72.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. Princeton,NJ: Yale University Press.
73.
OakesJ.LiptonM. (1992). Detracking schools: Early lessons from the field. The Phi Delta Kappan, 73(6), 448–454.
74.
OlsenL. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York, NY: The New Press.
75.
PageR. N. (1991). Lower-track classrooms: A curricular and cultural perspective. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
76.
ParkerC. E.LouieJ.O’DwyerL. (2009). New measures of English language proficiency and their relationship to performance on large-scale content assessments. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Deptartment of Education.
77.
PortesA.MacLeodD. (1996). Educational progress of children of immigrants: The roles of class, ethnicity, and school context. Sociology of Education, 69(4), 255–275.
78.
PortesA.RumbautR. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
79.
RaganA.LesauxN. (2006). Federal, state, and district level English language learner program entry and exit requirements: Effects on the education of language minority learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14, 20.
80.
RaudenbushS. W.RowanB.CheongY. F. (1993). Higher order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher, and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 523–553.
81.
ReardonS.RobinsonJ. (2010). Patterns and trends in racial/ethnic and socioeconomic academic achievement gaps. In LaddH. F.FiskeE. B. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 497–516). New York, NY: Routledge.
82.
ReardonS.YunJ.EitleT. (2000). The changing structure of school segregation: measurement and evidence of multiracial metropolitan-area school segregation, 1989–1995. Demography, 37, 351–364.
83.
Rios-AguilarC.CanchéM.SabetghadamS. (2012). Evaluating the impact of restrictive language policies: The Arizona 4-hour English language development block. Language Policy, 11(1), 47–80.
84.
Robinson-CimpianJ.ThompsonK. (2016). The effects of changing test-based policies for reclassifying English learners. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(2), 279–305.
85.
RuizR. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE: The Journal for the National Association for Bilingual Education, 8(2), 15–34.
86.
RumbergerR.GándaraP. (2004). Seeking equity in the education of California's English learners. The Teachers College Record, 106(10), 2032–2056.
87.
RumbergerR. W.LimS. A. (2008). Why students drop out of school: A review of 25 years of research (California Dropout Research Project Report 15). Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Santa Barbara.
88.
San Bernadino City Unified District. (2010). Master plan for English learners. San Bernadino, CA: Author.
89.
SaundersW.GoldenbergC.MarcellettiD. (2013). English language development: Guidelines for instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 13.
90.
SaundersW.MarcellettiD. (2012). 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(2), 139–156.
91.
ShifrerD.CallahanR. M.MullerC. (2013). Equity or marginalization? The high school course-taking of students labeled with a learning disability. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 656–682.
92.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
93.
SlavinR. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471–499.
94.
SmithJ. B. (1996). Does an extra year make any difference? The impact of early access to algebra on long-term gains in mathematics attainment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(2), 141–153.
95.
SolorzanoD. G.OrnelasA. (2004). A critical race analysis of Latina/o and African American advanced placement enrollment in public high schools. High School Journal, 87(3), 15–26.
96.
SpadeJ. Z.ColumbaL.VanfossenB. E. (1997). Tracking in mathematics and science: Courses and course-selection procedures. Sociology of Education, 70, 108–127.
97.
Stanton-SalazarR. D.DornbuschS. M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology of Education, 68(2), 116–135.
98.
Stanton-SalazarR. D.SpinaS. U. (2003). Informal mentors and role models in the lives of urban Mexican-origin adolescents. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 34(3), 231–254.
99.
Suárez-OrozcoC.Suárez-OrozcoM. M.TodorovaI. (2009). Learning a new land: Immigrant students in American society. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
100.
ThompsonK. D. (2015). Questioning the long-term English learner label: How classification and categorization can blind us to students’ abilities. Teachers College Record, 117.
101.
ThompsonK. D.UmanskyI.MartinezM.DíazG. (2016, March). Both over and under-identification: The mysterious case of english learner students with disabilities. Paper presented at the Oregon English Language Learner Alliance Conference, Eugene, OR.
102.
UmanskyI. (2016). To be or not to be EL: An examination of the impact of classifying students as English learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(4), 714–737.
103.
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.
ValdésG. (1998). The world outside and inside schools: Language and immigrant children. Educational Researcher, 27(6), 4–18.
106.
ValentinoR.ReardonS. (2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed to serve English language learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 612–637
107.
ValenzuelaA. (1999). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. SUNY Series, The Social Context of Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
108.
WalquiA.EstradaP.KoelschN.HamburgerL.GaarderD.InsurraldeA.. . . 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). Oakland, CA: WestEd.
109.
WalquiA.Van LierL. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A pedagogy of promise. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
110.
WangJ.GoldschmidtP. (1999). Opportunity to learn, language proficiency, and immigrant status effects on mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 93(2), 101–111.
111.
WangJ.GoldschmidtP. (2003). Importance of middle school mathematics on high school students’ mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 3–17.
112.
WileyT. G. (2009). The education of language minority immigrants in the United States. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
113.
WilliamsT.KirstM.HaertelE.RosinM.PerryM.WebmanB.WoodwardK. M. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle grades: Why some schools do better. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
114.
WinebrennerS. (2006). Effective teaching strategies for open enrollment honors and AP classes. Prufrock Journal, 17(3), 159–177.
115.
XiongY. S. (2010). State-mandated language classification: A study of Hmong American students’ access to college-preparatory curricula. AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice and Community, 8(1), 17–42.
116.
YoonB. (2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers’ roles and pedagogies on the positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 495–522.
117.
YonezawaS.WellsA. S.SernaI. (2002). Choosing tracks: “Freedom of choice” in detracking schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 37–67.
118.
ZunigaK.OlsonJ. K.WinterM. (2005). Science education for rural Latino/a students: Course placement and success in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 376–402.
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.
