Prior research shows that English learners (ELs) lag behind their peers in academic achievement and education attainment. The persisting gap is partly attributed to ELs’ limited exposure to academic content. This article investigates the efficacy of a summer credit recovery program aimed at expanding high school newcomer ELs’ access to academic subjects. Leveraging student-level data from a large urban district in California, I use a difference-in-differences-in-differences approach to estimate the program’s impact on high school course taking, English proficiency, and graduation. Credit recovery increased the number of math, English Language Arts, science, and social science classes taken by newcomer EL students. Effects on 4- and 5-year graduation rates are imprecisely estimated. I also find suggestive evidence for positive effects on English proficiency.
AdelmanC. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
2.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ. S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
AsimM.DeeT. (2016, October). Mobile phones, civic engagement, and school performance in Pakistan (NBER Working Paper 22764). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w22764
4.
AtteberryA.McEachinA. (2016). School’s out: Summer learning loss across grade levels and school contexts in the U.S. today. In AlexanderK.PitcockS.BoulayM. (Eds.), The summer slide: What we know and can do about summer learning loss (pp. 35–54). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
5.
AugustineC. H.McCombsJ. S.PaneJ. F.SchwartzH. L.SchweigJ.McEachinA.Siler-EvansK. (2016). Learning from summer: Effects of two years of voluntary summer learning programs on low-income urban youth. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
6.
AugustineC. H.ThompsonL. E. (2017). Summer learning in Pittsburgh: Exploring programming gaps and opportunities. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
7.
BalfanzR.HerzogL.MacIverD. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42, 223–235.
8.
BeckerG. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 9–49.
9.
BermanR. (2004). Language development across childhood and adolescence. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
10.
BostickS. C. (2012). Course completion and Alabama high school graduation exam success: A case study of a credit recovery program in a central Alabama school district (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (UMI No. 3530097)
CallahanR. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 305–328.
14.
CallahanR. M.GándaraP. C. (2004). On nobody’s agenda: Improving English language learners’ access to higher education. In SadowskiM. (Ed.), Teaching immigrant and second-language students: Strategies for success (pp. 107–127). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
15.
CallahanR. M.HumphriesM. H. (2016). Undermatched? School-based linguistic status, college going, and the immigrant advantage. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 263–295.
16.
CallahanR. M.ShifrerD. (2016). Equitable access for secondary English learner students: Course taking as evidence of EL program effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52, 463–496.
17.
CallahanR. M.WilkinsonL.MullerC. (2010). Academic achievement and course taking among language minority youth in U.S. schools: Effects of ESL placement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 84–117.
18.
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.
D’AgustinoP. J. (2011). Redefining student success: A mixed-methods study of stakeholder perceptions of the use of credit recovery software and its impact on student achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (UMI No. 3489141)
EstradaP. (2014). English learner curricular streams in four middle schools: Triage in the trenches. Urban Review, 46(4), 535-573.
23.
EstradaP.WangH. (2018). Making English learner reclassification to fluent English proficient attainable or elusive: When meeting criteria is and is not enough. American Educational Research Journal, 55(2), 207–242.
24.
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).
25.
FreemanY. S.FreemanD. E.MercuriS. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: How to reach limited-formal-schooling and long-term English learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
26.
FreudenbergN.RuglisJ. (2007). Reframing school dropout as a public health issue. Preventing Chronic Disease, 4(4), 1–11.
27.
GándaraP. C.CallahanR. M. (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy, and the US labor market. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
28.
GándaraP. C.OrfieldG. (2012). Why Arizona matters: The historical, legal, and political contexts of Arizona’s instructional policies and U.S. linguistic hegemony. Language Policy, 11, 7–19.
29.
GershensonS. (2013). Do summer time-use gaps vary by socioeconomic status?American Educational Research Journal, 50(6), 1219–1248.
30.
GershensonS.HayesM. S. (2018). The implications of summer learning loss for value-added estimates of teacher effectiveness. Educational Policy, 32, 55–85.
31.
GoldenbergC. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32(2), 8–44.
32.
GoodmanJ. (2018). The labor of division: Returns to compulsory high school math coursework (NBER Working Paper 23063). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w23063
33.
GrabeW. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375–406.
34.
HarklauL. (1994). Jumping tracks: How language-minority students negotiate evaluations of ability. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 25, 347–363.
35.
HarrisL. (2009). Reducing dropout rates through expanded learning opportunities. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices.
36.
HeppenJ.AllensworthE.SorensenN.RicklesJ.WaltersK.TaylorS.MichelmanV.ClementsP. (2016). Getting back on track: Comparing the effects of online and face-to-face credit recovery in Algebra 1. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
37.
JacobB.DynarskiS.FrankK.SchneiderB. (2016). Are expectations alone enough? Estimating the effect of a mandatory college-prep curriculum in Michigan. Ann Arbor: Michigan Consortium for Educational Researc0h.
38.
JacobB.LefgrenL. (2004). Remedial education and student achievement: A regression-discontinuity analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 226–244.
39.
JaquetK.FongA. B. (2017). How do Algebra I course repetition rates vary among English learner students by length of time to reclassification as English proficient? (REL 2017–222). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West.
40.
JohnsonA. (2019a). The effects of English learner classification on high school graduation and college attendance. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–23. doi:10.1177/233285 8419850801
41.
JohnsonA. (2019b). The impact of English learner reclassification on high school reading and academic progress. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Advance online publication. doi:10.3102/0162373719877197
42.
JohnsonA. (2019c). A matter of time: Variations in high school course-taking by years-as-EL subgroup [Online]. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. doi:10.3102/0162373719867087
43.
JonesE. L. (2011). A second chance to graduation on time: High school students’ perceptions on participating in an online credit recovery program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/2579/.
44.
KannoY.CromleyJ. (2013). English language learners’ access to and attainment in postsecondary education. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 89–121.
45.
KannoY.KangasS. E. (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, 848–878.
46.
KearneyM. S.HarrisB. H.JácomeE.ParkerL. (2014). Ten economic facts about crime and incarceration in the United States. Washington, DC: Hamilton Project.
47.
KiefferM. J.ThompsonK. D. (2018). Hidden progress of multilingual students on NAEP. Educational Researcher, 47, 391–398.
48.
KnoxK. L.MoynihanJ. A.MarkowitzD. G. (2003). Evaluation of short-term impact of a high school summer science program on students’ perceived knowledge and skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 471–478.
49.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 569 (1974).
50.
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.
51.
MatsudairaJ. (2008). Mandatory summer school and student achievement. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 829–850.
52.
MayerA. P. (2012) Paving the way to college. In KannoY.HarklauL. (Eds.), Linguistic minority students go to college (pp. 55–73). New York, NY: Routledge.
53.
MurnaneR. J. (2013). U.S. high school graduation rates: Patterns and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 51, 370–422.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
57.
OlsenL. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for California’s long term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.
58.
RaudenbushS. W.RowanB.CheongY. F. (1993). Higher order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher, and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 523–553.
59.
ReamR. K. (2003). Counterfeit social capital and Mexican-American underachievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 237–262.
60.
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.
61.
ShinN. (2018). The effects of the initial English language learner classification on students’ later academic outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40, 175–195.
62.
ShortD.FitzsimmonsS. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.
63.
SlavinR. E.MaddenN.CalderonM.ChamberlainA.HennessyM. (2011). Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 47–58.
64.
UmanskyI. (2014). Peeling back the label: Does EL classification help or hurt students learning English?Stanford, CA: Stanford University Center for Education Policy Analysis.
65.
UmanskyI. (2016a). Leveled and exclusionary tracking: English learners’ access to core content in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1792–1833.
66.
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, 714–737.
67.
UmanskyI.HopkinsM.DabachD. B.PorterL.ThompsonK.PompaD. (2018). Understanding and supporting the educational needs of recently arrived immigrant English learner students: Lessons for state and local education agencies. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 35 Fed. Reg. 11595 (1970).
70.
ValdésG. (2004). Between support and marginalisation: The development of academic language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 102–132.
71.
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, 612–637.
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.
