Despite federal and state laws and regulations that require states and local districts to provide English language learners (ELLs) with support services, prior research has indicated that ELLs are, in general, lagging behind non-ELLs in academic achievement. An unanswered question is whether the initial designation of students as ELL influences their later academic achievement and how. Using a regression discontinuity design, this study compares the outcomes for students near the cutoff for being initially classified as ELL and initially fluent English proficient (IFEP) students. Among students near the cutoff, the classification had significant positive effects on ELLs’ academic achievement in elementary grades and, to some extent, in the later grades.
AbediJ. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8, 231–257.
2.
AbediJ. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14.
3.
AbediJ. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 27(3), 17–31.
4.
AbediJ.GándaraP. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 36–46.
5.
AbediJ.LordC. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 219–234.
6.
AbediJ.LordC.HofstetterC. (1998). Impact of selected background variables on students’ NAEP math performance (CRESST Report 478). Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
7.
AguilarV. (2010). Schooling English learners: Contexts and challenges. In California Department of Education (Eds.), Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches (pp. 1–20). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
8.
AngristJ. D.ImbensG. W.RubinD. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444–472.
9.
BaileyA. L.CarrollP. E. (2015). Assessment of English language learners in the era of new academic content standards. Review of Research in Education, 39, 253–294.
10.
BattistinE.RettoreE. (2008). Ineligibles and eligible non-participants as a double comparison group in regression-discontinuity designs. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 715–730.
CallahanR. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limited opportunities to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 305–328.
14.
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.
15.
CallahanR. M.WilkinsonL.MullerC.FriscoM. (2009). ESL placement and schools: Effects on immigrant achievement. Educational Policy, 23, 355–384.
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.
18.
Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989, 1006-07 (5th Cir. 1981).
19.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).
20.
CookT. D.ShadishW. R.WongV. C. (2008). Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within-study comparisons. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 724–750.
21.
DabachD. (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, 98–124.
22.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. (1965)
23.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub.L. 114-95 (2015).
24.
FloresE.PainterG.PachonH. (2009). ¿Qué pasa? Are ELL students remaining in English learning classes too long?Los Angeles, CA: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute.
25.
FloresS. M.BatalovaJ.FixM. (2012). The educational trajectories of English language learners in Texas. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
26.
GándaraP. C.RumbergerR. W.Maxwell-JollyJ.CallahanR. M. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
27.
GutiérrezK. D. (2005). Rethinking educational policy for English learners. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute Congressional Forum.
28.
GutiérrezK. D.JaramilloN. (2006). Looking for educational equity: The consequences of relying on Brown. In BallA. (Ed.), With more deliberates speed: Achieving equity and excellence in education-realizing the full potential of Brown v. Board of Education (pp. 173–187). Boston, MA: Blackwell.
29.
HahnJ.ToddP.Van der KlaauwW. (2001). Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a regression-discontinuity design. Econometrica, 69, 201–209.
30.
HemphillF. C.VannemanA. (2011). Achievement gaps: How Hispanic and White students in public school perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Education Progress. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
31.
HollandP. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 945–970.
32.
ImbensG.KalyanaramanK. (2012). Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression discontinuity estimator. Review of Economic Studies, 79, 933–959.
33.
ImbensG.LemieuxT. (2008). Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 615–635.
34.
ImbensG.RubinD. (2007). Causal inference: Statistical methods for estimating causal effects in biomedical, social, and behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35.
JacobR.ZhuP.SomersM.BloomH. (2012). A practical guide to regression discontinuity. New York, NY: MDRC.
36.
KatzS. R. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers and the structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100, 809–840.
37.
KenaG.Musu-GilletteL.RobinsonJ.WangX.RathbunA.ZhangJ.. . . VelezE. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
38.
KiefferM. J. (2008). Converging trajectories: Reading growth in language minority learners and their classmates, Kindergarten to Grade 8. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1187–1225.
39.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
40.
LinquantiR. (2001). The redesignation dilemma: Challenges and choices in fostering meaningful accountability for English learners (Policy Rep. No. 2001-1). Santa Barbara: Linguistic Minority Research Institute, University of California.
41.
LinquantiR.CookH. G. (2015). Re-examining reclassification: Guidance from a national working session on policies and practices for exiting students from English learner status. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
42.
LudwigJ.MillerD. L. (2007). Does head start improve children’s life chances? Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 159–208.
43.
MahoneyK. S.MacSwanJ. (2005). Reexamining identification and reclassification of English Language Learners: A critical discussion of select state practices. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 29, 31–42.
44.
National Research Council. (2011). Allocating federal funds for state programs for English Language Learners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
47.
OlsenL.EdwardsR. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York, NY: The New Press.
48.
ParrishT.PerezM.MerickelA.LinquantiR. (2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12: Findings from a five-year evaluation. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
49.
RaganA.LesauxN. (2006). Federal, state, and district level English language learner program entry and exit requirements: Effects on the education of language minority students. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 14(20), 1–29.
50.
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.
51.
Robinson-CimpianJ. P.ThompsonK. D. (2016). The effects of changing test-based policies for reclassifying English learners. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35, 279–305.
52.
Robinson-CimpianJ. P.ThompsonK. D.UmanskyI. M. (2016). Research and policy considerations for English learner equity. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 1–9.
53.
RubinD. B. (1978). Bayesian inference for causal effects: The role of randomization. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 34–58.
54.
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.
55.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D. (2009). The renaissance of field experimentation in evaluating interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 607–629.
56.
ThompsonK. D. (2012). Are we there yet? Exploring English learners’ journey to reclassification and beyond (Unpublished dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
57.
ThompsonK. D. (2015). Questioning the Long-Term English Learner label: How classification and categorization can blind us to students’ abilities. Teachers College Record, 117(12), 1–50.
58.
TrochimW. (1984). Research design for program evaluation: The regression-discontinuity approach. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
59.
UmanskyI. M. (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, 714–737.
60.
ValdésG. (1998). The world outside and inside schools: Language and immigrant children. Educational Researcher, 27(6), 4–18.
61.
ValdésG. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
62.
WangJ.GoldschmidtP. (1999). Opportunity to learn, language proficiency, and immigrant status effects on mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 101–111.
63.
WolfM. K.KaoJ. C.GriffinN.HermanJ. L.BachmanP. L.ChangS. M.. . . FarnsworthT. (2008). Issues in assessing English language learners: English language proficiency measures and accommodation uses—Practice review (CRESST Report 732). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California.
64.
YoungJ. W.ChoY.LingG.ClineF.SteinbergJ.StoneE. (2008). Validity and fairness of state standards-based assessments for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 13, 170–192.
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.
