In education circles, it’s relatively common to hear English learners (ELs) touted as one of the fastest-growing student groups in public schools. And that’s true—there are at least 1.5 million more ELs in the United States now than there were in 2000. Over 20 percent of U.S. children speak one of more than 400 non-English languages at home.
This growth means that these high-potential students are in essentially every community now, being served by schools in a wide range of ways. Of course, these students are as diverse as the U.S. communities they inhabit. Around 94 percent are children of color, and most are native-born American citizens—though many are children or grandchildren of immigrants. ELs’ families are at every socioeconomic level in the United States, though they are disproportionately likely to be lower-income.
This situation sets up a clear research question: Which community and school characteristics are most conducive to ELs’ success? New analysis from the U.S. Government Accountability Office offers something of an answer.
Educational Equity for ELs
First, it’s helpful to define “EL success.” As I’ve argued many times, ELs are a uniquely fluid student group. Students who have just tested into the ELs group are there because, according to federal statute, ELs are those children “whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny [them]…the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English.” So, by definition, children who test into the group generally struggle on English-only academic assessments, then make progress toward English proficiency, and then—usually—test out of the group once they reach proficiency in English. Unsurprisingly, ELs with higher levels of proficiency in English generally score much higher on academic assessments.
This dynamic—in which ELs who make adequate progress on English proficiency are removed from the group and thus from being measured—makes it generally inappropriate to frame educational equity for ELs in terms of opportunity or achievement gaps.
Rather, I’ve argued (along with others), efforts to make ELs’ K–12 experiences better and fairer should be measured against how effectively these efforts help ELs reach English language proficiency. That’s because research is pretty clear that former ELs—students who were once classified as ELs but have since reached proficiency in English—usually do as well or better than their never-EL, English-dominant peers. By contrast, long-term ELs (LTELs)—students who have not reached English proficiency after at least five years of language instruction in U.S. schools—generally have lower academic outcomes.
As such, the cause of advancing educational equity for ELs is fairly defined as the cause of maximizing the number of ELs who become former ELs and minimizing the number who become LTELs. It follows, of course, that policy advocates who wish to improve opportunities and outcomes for ELs should focus their energies on policies and practices that advance those priorities.
What Factors Are Linked with ELs’ Success?
The GAO report tracked Spanish-speaking ELs from ten districts in the Houston, Texas metropolitan area. One goal was to identify which “student, campus, and neighborhood characteristics” made it more or less likely that a student would still be classified as an EL after five years in school.
The variables with the greatest impact on ELs’ outcomes were somewhat unsurprising. The researchers found that ELs were more likely to become LTELs if they were retained in a grade at least once and/or were identified for special education services. By contrast, they found that ELs with higher English proficiency scores in first grade were less likely to become LTELs.
The study also considered which language instruction programs—dual-language immersion, bilingual education, or English-only instruction—were most effective for helping ELs avoid becoming LTELs. Their findings tracked with prior research: ELs in dual-language immersion programs were less likely to become LTELs and ELs in bilingual programs did nearly as well. By contrast, ELs in English-only programs were more likely to become LTELs. Interestingly, continuity of program also mattered: students who switched between two or even three of these different language instruction programs were the most likely to wind up as LTELs.
English learners in English-only programs were more likely to become long-term English learners.
The researchers also found some intriguing patterns in how these language programs’ influence shifted ELs’ outcomes differently at more or less socioeconomically advantaged schools. In the most economically disadvantaged schools—where low-income families made up 90 percent or more of the enrollment—dual-language immersion and bilingual programs were more effective than English-only programs. In schools where low-income families made up 51 percent or fewer of enrollment, bilingual programs were most effective at reducing ELs’ likelihood of becoming LTELs, and dual-language immersion and English-only were effectively tied.
This last finding should prompt further research about how language instruction’s effectiveness for ELs varies with the relative socioeconomic privilege of schools’ enrollment—a topic that has long been a central element of EL research at The Century Foundation (TCF). However, it is worth flagging that past research has found that U.S. housing and school enrollment policies tend to consign ELs to segregated, economically disadvantaged schools. Until this changes, it’s generally safe to prioritize investments in programs that work best for ELs on less privileged campuses, which is to say dual-language immersion and bilingual education programs.
Implications
ELs do best when they reach English proficiency relatively quickly—around five years after they start school. A growing series of studies have shown that dual-language immersion and bilingual education programs are the most effective means to helping the most ELs reach that point by that period. These new results from the GAO add to this research consensus.
The advocacy agenda stemming from these results should be relatively clear. As TCF has argued in the past, policymakers should invest considerably more resources into launching more bilingual learning opportunities. This will require increased formula funding for Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as well as new grants programs targeted at (1) launching new dual-language immersion and bilingual programs, and (2) growing diverse teacher pathways so that schools have enough bilingual teachers to staff them. And, of course, as this agenda catches on, policymakers will need to prioritize seats for ELs in dual-language immersion programs, since these campuses are often popular with privileged, English-dominant families.
Each piece of this agenda will take considerable work to achieve. And yet, it’s worth remembering what’s at stake. ELs make up a large—and growing—section of the U.S. public education system. Their success at school hinges on how well educators support their growing English skills—and it turns out the best way to do that is by supporting their bilingual development.
Tags: educational equity, government accountability office, English Language Learners
GAO Report: English Learners Benefit from Developing Both of Their Languages
In education circles, it’s relatively common to hear English learners (ELs) touted as one of the fastest-growing student groups in public schools. And that’s true—there are at least 1.5 million more ELs in the United States now than there were in 2000. Over 20 percent of U.S. children speak one of more than 400 non-English languages at home.
This growth means that these high-potential students are in essentially every community now, being served by schools in a wide range of ways. Of course, these students are as diverse as the U.S. communities they inhabit. Around 94 percent are children of color, and most are native-born American citizens—though many are children or grandchildren of immigrants. ELs’ families are at every socioeconomic level in the United States, though they are disproportionately likely to be lower-income.
This situation sets up a clear research question: Which community and school characteristics are most conducive to ELs’ success? New analysis from the U.S. Government Accountability Office offers something of an answer.
Educational Equity for ELs
First, it’s helpful to define “EL success.” As I’ve argued many times, ELs are a uniquely fluid student group. Students who have just tested into the ELs group are there because, according to federal statute, ELs are those children “whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny [them]…the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English.” So, by definition, children who test into the group generally struggle on English-only academic assessments, then make progress toward English proficiency, and then—usually—test out of the group once they reach proficiency in English. Unsurprisingly, ELs with higher levels of proficiency in English generally score much higher on academic assessments.
This dynamic—in which ELs who make adequate progress on English proficiency are removed from the group and thus from being measured—makes it generally inappropriate to frame educational equity for ELs in terms of opportunity or achievement gaps.
Rather, I’ve argued (along with others), efforts to make ELs’ K–12 experiences better and fairer should be measured against how effectively these efforts help ELs reach English language proficiency. That’s because research is pretty clear that former ELs—students who were once classified as ELs but have since reached proficiency in English—usually do as well or better than their never-EL, English-dominant peers. By contrast, long-term ELs (LTELs)—students who have not reached English proficiency after at least five years of language instruction in U.S. schools—generally have lower academic outcomes.
As such, the cause of advancing educational equity for ELs is fairly defined as the cause of maximizing the number of ELs who become former ELs and minimizing the number who become LTELs. It follows, of course, that policy advocates who wish to improve opportunities and outcomes for ELs should focus their energies on policies and practices that advance those priorities.
What Factors Are Linked with ELs’ Success?
The GAO report tracked Spanish-speaking ELs from ten districts in the Houston, Texas metropolitan area. One goal was to identify which “student, campus, and neighborhood characteristics” made it more or less likely that a student would still be classified as an EL after five years in school.
The variables with the greatest impact on ELs’ outcomes were somewhat unsurprising. The researchers found that ELs were more likely to become LTELs if they were retained in a grade at least once and/or were identified for special education services. By contrast, they found that ELs with higher English proficiency scores in first grade were less likely to become LTELs.
The study also considered which language instruction programs—dual-language immersion, bilingual education, or English-only instruction—were most effective for helping ELs avoid becoming LTELs.1 Their findings tracked with prior research: ELs in dual-language immersion programs were less likely to become LTELs and ELs in bilingual programs did nearly as well. By contrast, ELs in English-only programs were more likely to become LTELs. Interestingly, continuity of program also mattered: students who switched between two or even three of these different language instruction programs were the most likely to wind up as LTELs.
The researchers also found some intriguing patterns in how these language programs’ influence shifted ELs’ outcomes differently at more or less socioeconomically advantaged schools. In the most economically disadvantaged schools—where low-income families made up 90 percent or more of the enrollment—dual-language immersion and bilingual programs were more effective than English-only programs. In schools where low-income families made up 51 percent or fewer of enrollment, bilingual programs were most effective at reducing ELs’ likelihood of becoming LTELs, and dual-language immersion and English-only were effectively tied.
This last finding should prompt further research about how language instruction’s effectiveness for ELs varies with the relative socioeconomic privilege of schools’ enrollment—a topic that has long been a central element of EL research at The Century Foundation (TCF). However, it is worth flagging that past research has found that U.S. housing and school enrollment policies tend to consign ELs to segregated, economically disadvantaged schools. Until this changes, it’s generally safe to prioritize investments in programs that work best for ELs on less privileged campuses, which is to say dual-language immersion and bilingual education programs.
Implications
ELs do best when they reach English proficiency relatively quickly—around five years after they start school. A growing series of studies have shown that dual-language immersion and bilingual education programs are the most effective means to helping the most ELs reach that point by that period. These new results from the GAO add to this research consensus.
The advocacy agenda stemming from these results should be relatively clear. As TCF has argued in the past, policymakers should invest considerably more resources into launching more bilingual learning opportunities. This will require increased formula funding for Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as well as new grants programs targeted at (1) launching new dual-language immersion and bilingual programs, and (2) growing diverse teacher pathways so that schools have enough bilingual teachers to staff them. And, of course, as this agenda catches on, policymakers will need to prioritize seats for ELs in dual-language immersion programs, since these campuses are often popular with privileged, English-dominant families.
Each piece of this agenda will take considerable work to achieve. And yet, it’s worth remembering what’s at stake. ELs make up a large—and growing—section of the U.S. public education system. Their success at school hinges on how well educators support their growing English skills—and it turns out the best way to do that is by supporting their bilingual development.
Notes
Tags: educational equity, government accountability office, English Language Learners