Employing longitudinal, multisite comparative mixed-methods, we describe patterns of reclassifying and not reclassifying eligible English learner (EL) students to fluent English proficient, and we identify factors impeding and facilitating reclassification. Analyses of administrative data for 7 cohorts of students over 3 years in one district and 2 years in another revealed a considerable number of students meeting all criteria, and a nonoverlapping group meeting at least standardized-test criteria, were not reclassified, implicating this practice in the production of long-term EL status. However, the rate of not reclassifying was more than 2 to 5 times higher in one district than the other. Analyses of policy documents, reclassification decision forms, staff interviews, and surveys revealed that undergirding these differences were distinct reclassification policies and practices. We discuss policy, practice, and research implications, including issues of opportunity to learn, equity, and the need for a common definition of ELs involving a common set of specific criteria and standardized processes for reclassification statewide.
California State Auditor. (2005). School districts’ inconsistent identification and redesignation of English learners cause funding variances and make comparisons of outcomes difficult (Report 2007-406). Sacramento, CA: Author. Available at www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/sr2007/2004-120.pdf
CallahanR. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 305–328.
12.
CallahanR. M.ShifrerD. R. (2012). High school ESL placement: Practice, policy, and effects on achievement. In KannoY.HarklauH. (Eds.), Linguistic minority students go to college (pp. 19–37). New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
CarrollP. E.BaileyA. L. (2015). Do decision rules matter? A descriptive study of English language proficiency assessment classifications for English language learners and native English speakers in fifth grade. Language Testing, 33(1), 23–52.
14.
CimpianJ. R.ThompsonK. D.MakowskiM. B. (2017). Evaluating English learner reclassification policy effects across districts. American Education Research Journal, 54, 255S–278S. doi: 10.3102/0002831216635796. Available at http://aerj.aera.net
15.
CookG.LinquantiR.ChienM.JungH. (2012). National evaluation of Title III implementation supplemental report: Exploring approaches to setting English language proficiency performance criteria and monitoring English learner progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
16.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2016). Major provisions of Every Student Succeeds Act related to the education of English learners. Washington, DC: Author.
17.
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. doi:10.1080/10824669.2014.954044
18.
DabachD. B.CallahanR. M. (2011). Rights versus reality: The gap between civil rights and English learners’ high school educational opportunities. Teachers College Record, ID Number 16558.
19.
ED Data Express. (2011). Data about elementary and secondary schools in the U.S: Data element selection. Retrieved from http://eddataexpress.ed.gov
20.
EdSource. (2008). English learners in California. What the numbers say. Mountain View, CA: Author.
21.
EstradaP. (2014a). English learner Curricular Streams in four middle schools: Triage in the trenches. The Urban Review, 46, 535–573. doi: 10.1007/s11256-014-0276-7. Available at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11256-014-0276-7
22.
EstradaP. (2014b). English learner reclassification to fluent English proficient: Meeting criteria, roadblocks, opportunities, and consequences: Years 1 and 2 findings (Practitioner Research Brief 1. Project on Reclassifying and Not Reclassifying English Learners to Fluent English Proficient: Access and Achievement). Santa Cruz: University of California. Available at http://eric.ed.gov/?q=peggy+estrada&id=ED555260
23.
EstradaP.HayesK.MaldonadoH. (2016). High pay-off opportunities for reclassifying English learners: Partnering to make a difference. In DouglasK. (Chair), Collaboration to improve educational opportunities for English learners in the U.S. Structured poster session conducted at the centennial meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
24.
EstradaP.WangH. (2013). Reclassifying and not reclassifying English learners to fluent English proficient, year 1 findings: Factors impeding and facilitating reclassification and access to the core. In EstradaP. (Chair), Researchers and districts working together to improve achievement, opportunity, and economic life chances for English learners: Policy, practice, and research. Featured Presidential Session at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Available at http://eric.ed.gov/?q=estrada%2c+peggy&id=ED550098.
25.
EstradaP.WangH. (2015). Consequences for access to core content, the full curriculum, and higher-performing non-EL peers of continuing English learner status in secondary school. In UmanskyI. (Chair), English learner access to core content: Critically examining linguistic stratification in school. Symposium conducted the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
26.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 (2015).
27.
FloresE.PainterG.Harlow-NashZ.PachonH. (2009). Que pasa? Are English language learning students remaining in English learning classes too long? (policy brief). Los Angeles, CA: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California.
28.
FloresS. M.BatalovaJ.FixM. (2012). The educational trajectories of English learners in Texas. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
29.
FuhrmanS. H.ElmoreR. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 82–96.
30.
GoldenbergC.GallimoreR.ReeseL. (2005). Using mixed methods to explore Latino children’s literacy development. In WeisnerT. (Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life (pp. 21–46). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
GrissomJ. B. (2004). Reclassification of English learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(36), 1–34.
32.
GuitonG.OakesJ. (1995). Opportunity to learn and conceptions of educational equality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 323–336.
33.
HillL. (2012). California’s English learner students. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
34.
HillL. E.WestonM.HayesJ. (2014). Reclassification of English learner students in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
35.
KiblerA. K.ValdesG. (2016). Conceptualizing language learners: Socioinstitutional mechanisms and their consequences. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 97–116.
36.
LinquantiR.CookH. G. (2013). Toward a common definition of English learners: Guidance for states and state assessment consortia in defining and addressing policy and technical issues and options. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
37.
MavrogordatoM.WhiteR. S. (2017). Reclassification variation: How policy implementation guides the process of exiting students from English learner status. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. doi: 10.3102/0162373716687075. Available at http://eepa.aera.net
38.
McDonnellL. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 305–322.
39.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book for new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
MosquedaE. (2012). Linguistic minority students’ opportunities to learn high school mathematics. In KannoY.HarklauH. (Eds.), Linguistic minority students go to college (pp. 38–54). New York, NY: Routledge.
O’DayJ. A.SmithM. S. (2016). Quality and equality in American education: Systemic problems, systemic solutions. In KirschI.BraunH. (Eds.), The dynamics of opportunity in America (pp. 297–358). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
43.
OlsenL. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for California’s long term English learners. Retrieved from http://www.californianstogether.org/
44.
PopeN. G. (2016). The marginal effect of K-12 English language development programs: Evidence from Los Angeles schools. Economics of Education Review, 53, 311–328.
45.
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.
46.
Robinson-CimpianJ. P.ThompsonK. D. (2015). The effects of changing test-based policies for reclassifying English learners. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 00, 1–27. doi: 10.1002pam.21882
47.
Ruiz-de-VelascoJ.FixM. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
SaundersW.MarcellettiD. (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.
51.
ThompsonK. D. (2015a). English learner’s time to reclassification: An analysis. Educational Policy, 31(3):330–363. doi: 10.1177/0895904815598394
52.
ThompsonK. D. (2015b). Questioning the long-term English learner label: How classification and categorization can blind us to students’ abilities. Teachers College Record, 117, 1–50.
53.
UmanskyI. M. (2016a). Leveled and exclusionary tracking: English learner’s access to academic content in middle school. American Education Research Journal, 53, 1792–1833.
54.
UmanskyI. (2016b). 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.
55.
UmanskyI.ReardonS. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American Education Research Journal, 51, 879–912.
WangJ.GoldschmidtP. (1999). Opportunity to learn, language proficiency, and immigrant status effects on mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 101–111.
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.
