Reclassification and Academic Success among English Language Learners: New Evidence from a Large Urban School District
-
Gary Painter
and
Edward Flores
Abstract: On average, English Language Learners (ELLs) have inferior academic performance than their peers who speak English fluently. Research has also shown that ELLs that are reclassified as English Proficient (R-FEP) often have outcomes that approach or exceed comparable peers who are initially fluent in English upon entering school, but many of these past approaches suffer from various methodological deficiencies. In this analysis, we analyse the impact of reclassification on a broad set of academic outcomes using a number of methods to address this question, including fixed effects and instrumental variables methods. There are clear differences in academic outcomes between those students who are never reclassified and those who are R-FEP English Proficient. However, the evidence suggests that, on the margin, there is little or no incremental benefit for students that are reclassified before their peers.
Appendix A Case selection
| Selection criteria | Removed | N= |
| All students in the 6th grade in 1999 | 50,526 | |
| Excluding students with missing 8th grade demographic data | 6,803 | 43,723 |
| Excluding students in schools with <100 in grade of cohort | 1,676 | 42,047 |
| Excluding students in special education | 5,351 | 36,696 |
| Excluding race groups with small sample size (Native-American identified) | 118 | 36,578 |
| Excluding English learners with missing reclassification data | 1,329 | 35,249 |
| Excluding English learners with missing classification data | 55 | 35,194 |
| Excluding files with missing CDE school data | 3,870 | 31,324 |
| Excluding students transferred out from 8th to 12th grade | 1,075 | 30,249 |
| Excluding files with missing nativity data | 1,539 | 28,710 |
| Final case selection | 28,710 |
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) official records, for one cohort, 1999–2005; demographic, English proficiency, course enrolment and test score data from 6th to 12th grade.
Appendix B Variable list
| Independent variables | Description | Coding |
| Background characteristics | ||
| Female | 1= Female, 0= Male | |
| Foreign born | Born outside of US | 1= Foreign Born, 0= Native Born |
| White | White race | 1= White Non-Latino, 0= Not White Non-Latino |
| Latino | Latino race | 1= Latino, 0= Not Latino |
| Asian | Asian race | 1= Asian, 0= Not Asian |
| Black | Black race | 1= Black, 0= Not Black |
| Reduced or free lunch | Receives free or reduced lunch | 1= Reduced or Free Lunch, 0= Not Reduced/ Free |
| SAT9 6th grade reading score | Percentile on SAT9 reading exam in 6th grade | Linear (0–100) |
| SAT9 6th grade math score | Percentile on SAT9 math exam in 6th grade | Linear (0–100) |
| Changed schools in MS | Changed schools in middle school | 1= Changed Schools in MS, 0= Did not change schools |
| Changed schools in HS | Changed schools in high school | 1= Changed Schools in HS, 0= Did not change schools |
| Middle school characteristics | ||
| MS Title 1 school | Middle school classified as “Title 1” school | 1= Title 1 school, 0= Not Title 1 |
| MS multiple tracks | Middle school had multiple academic calendars | 1= Multiple tracks, 0= One track |
| MS % teachers full credential | % of school teachers with full credentials | Linear (0–100) |
| % not proficient by 5th grade | % of MS peers not proficient by 5th grade | Linear (0–100) |
| MS % foreign-born | % of MS peers foreign-born | Linear (0–100) |
| MS % own racial group | % of MS peers in own racial group | Linear (0–100) |
| High school characteristics | ||
| HS Title 1 school | High school classified as “Title 1” school | 1= Title 1 school, 0= Not Title 1 |
| HS multiple tracks | High school had multiple academic calendars | 1= Multiple tracks, 0= One track |
| HS % teachers full credential | % of school teachers with full credentials | Linear (0–100) |
| % not proficient by 8th grade | % of HS peers not proficient by 5th grade | Linear (0–100) |
| HS % own racial group | % of HS peers in own racial group | Linear (0–100) |
| Reclassification variables | ||
| English only | English-only student | 1= English only, 0= not English only |
| Initially fluent | Language minority household, but initially fluent during first English proficiency test | 1= Initially fluent, 0= not initially fluent |
| Year classified as ELL | Year classified as English language learner | 0= Never, 1= Kindergarten, 2= 1st Grade, etc. |
| Never reclassified | Never reclassified as English proficient | 1= Never reclassified, 0= Reclassified |
| Functional by 3rd grade | Reclassified as English proficient (“Functional”) before or by the 3rd grade | 1= Reclassified before or by 3rd grade |
| 0= Never reclassified | ||
| Functional by 5th grade | Reclassified as English proficient (“Functional”) in 4th or 5th grade | 1= Reclassified in 4th or 5th grade |
| 0= Never reclassified | ||
| Functional by 7th grade | Reclassified as English proficient (“Functional”) in 6th or 7th grade | 1= Reclassified in 6th or 7th grade |
| 0= Never reclassified | ||
| Functional by 8th grade | Reclassified as English proficient (“Functional”) in 8th grade | 1= Reclassified in 8th grade |
| 0= Never reclassified | ||
| Proficient by 3rd grade | Reclassified as English proficient (“Proficient”) by 3rd grade | 1= Reclassified by 3rd grade |
| 0= Never reclassified | ||
| Proficient by 5th grade | Reclassified as English proficient (“Proficient”) in 4th or 5th grade | 1= Reclassified in 4th or 5th grade |
| 0= Never reclassified | ||
| Proficient by 7th grade | Reclassified as English proficient (“Proficient”) in 6th or 7th grade | 1= Reclassified in 6th or 7th grade |
| 0= Never reclassified | ||
| Proficient by 8th grade | Reclassified as English proficient (“Proficient”) in 8th grade | 1= Reclassified in 8th grade |
| 0= Never reclassified | ||
| Dependent variables | Description | Coding |
| Middle school outcomes | ||
| SAT9 8th grade reading score | Percentile on SAT9 reading exam in 8th grade | Linear (0–100) |
| SAT9 8th grade math score | Percentile on SAT9 math exam in 8th grade | Linear (0–100) |
| High school outcomes | ||
| Flunked 9th grade | Repeated the 9th grade | 1= Flunked 9th grade, 0= Did not flunk 9th grade |
| Dropped out of HS | Dropped out of high school | 1= Dropped out of High School, 0= Did not drop out |
| Passed CAHSEE | Passed the California High School Exit Exam | 1= Passed CAHSEE, 0= Did not pass CAHSEE |
| Took AP course | Took an “Advanced Placement” course in HS | 1= Took AP course, 0= Did not take AP course |
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the US Department of Education and the California Community Foundation. We also gratefully acknowledge the Latino Scorecard Education Action Team (LSEAT) for obtaining the data upon which this research was based. We thank Dr. Maria-Estela Zarate for her participation in the early planning stages of this research project, Zachary Harlow-Nash for his research assistance and Dr. Robert Rueda and Harry Pachon for helpful comments and thoughtful feedback. Lastly, we acknowledge Cynthia Lim and Esther Wong from the Los Angeles Unified School district for their timely assistance in matters related to the data.
References
Bialystock, E., and K.Hakuta. 1994. In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second-Language Acquisition. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar
Buriel, R.1994. “Immigration and Education of Mexican Americans.” In The Educational Achievement of Latinos: Barriers and Successes, edited by AidaHurtado and Eugene E.Garcia, 197–226. Santa Cruz, CA: Regents of the University of California.Search in Google Scholar
California State Auditor. 2005. “School Districts’ Inconsistent Identification and Redesignation of English Learners Cause Funding Variances and Make Comparisons of Performance Outcomes Difficult.” Bureau of State Audits. June2005. Accessed July8, 2012http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summary.php?id=476.Search in Google Scholar
Callahan, R. M.2005. “English Language Proficiency and Track Placement: Variable Effects on Academic Achievement.” In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, edited by JamesCohen, Kara T.McAlister, KellieRolstad, and JeffMcSwan, 429–451. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar
Callahan, R., L.Wilkinson, C.Muller, and M.Frisco. 2009. “ESL Placement and Schools: Effects on Immigrant Achievement.” Educational Policy23(2):355–84.10.1177/0895904807310034Search in Google Scholar
Cannon, J. S., A.Jacknowitz, and G.Painter. 2006. “Is Full Better Than Half? Examining the Longitudinal Effects of Full-Day Kindergarten Attendance.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management25:299–321.10.1002/pam.20174Search in Google Scholar
Dalton, B., J.Sable, and L.Hoffman. 2006. “Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public Elementary or Secondary School Districts in the United States: 2003–04: Statistical Analysis Report.” National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.Search in Google Scholar
De Jong, E. J.2004. “After Exit: Academic Achievement Patterns of Former English Language Learners.” Educational Policy Analysis Archives12(50):1–20.10.14507/epaa.v12n50.2004Search in Google Scholar
Driscoll, A. K.1999. “Risk of High School Dropout among Immigrant and Native Hispanic Youth.” International Migration Review33(4):857–75.10.1177/019791839903300402Search in Google Scholar
EdSource. 2008. English Learners in California: What the Numbers Say. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.Search in Google Scholar
Gandara, P., and R.Rumberger. 2003. The Inequitable Treatment of English Learners in California’s Public Schools. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute.Search in Google Scholar
Hakuta, K.1986. Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar
Hakuta, K., and R. M.Diaz. 1985. “The Relationship between Degree of Bilingualism and Cognitive Ability: A Critical Discussion and Some New Longitudinal Data.” In Children’s Language, Vol. 5, edited by Keith E.Nelson. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Hakuta, Butler and Witt. 2000. How Long Does it Take English Learners to Attain Proficiency? The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Policy Report 2000-1. Retrieved March28, 2013 from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Publications/%282000%29%20-%20HOW%20LONG%20DOES%20IT%20TAKE%20ENGLISH%20LEARNERS%20TO%20ATTAIN%20PR.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Harklau, L.1994. “Tracking and Linguistic Minority Students: Consequences of Ability Grouping for Second Language Learners.” Linguistics and Education6:217–44.10.1016/0898-5898(94)90012-4Search in Google Scholar
Katz, S. R.1999. “Teaching in Tensions: Latino Immigrant Youth, Their Teachers and the Structures of Schooling.” Teachers College Record100(4):809–40.10.1177/016146819910000405Search in Google Scholar
Keller, U., and K.Tillman. 2008. “Post-secondary Educational Attainment of Immigrant and Native Youth.” Social Forces87(1):121–52.10.1353/sof.0.0104Search in Google Scholar
Lam, T. C. M.1993. “Testability: A Critical Issue in Testing Language Minority Students with Standardized Achievement Tests.” Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development26(3):179–91.Search in Google Scholar
Levine, D. I., and G.Painter. 2008. “Are Measured School Effects Just Sorting? Causality and Correlation in the National Education Longitudinal Survey.” Economics of Education Review27(4):460–70.10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.01.004Search in Google Scholar
Mouw, T., and Y.Xie. 1999. “Bilingualism and the Academic Achievement of First- and Second-Generation Asian Americans: Accommodation with or without Assimilation?” American Sociological Review64(2):232–52.10.2307/2657529Search in Google Scholar
Olsen, L.1995. “School Restructuring and the Needs of Immigrant Students.” In California’s Immigrant Children: Theory, Research and Implications for Educational Policy, edited by R. G.Rumbaut and W. A.Cornelius, 209–31. San Diego, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California.Search in Google Scholar
Painter, G., and ZhouYu.2010. “Immigrants and Housing Markets in Mid-Size Metropolitan Areas.” International Migration Review44(2): 442–76.10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00787.xSearch in Google Scholar
Payan, R. M., and M. T.Nettles. 2006. Current State of English-Language Learners in the U.S.: K-12 Student Population (English-Language Learners Symposium Fact Sheet). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. http://www.etsliteracy.org/Media/Conferences_and_events/pdf/ELLsympsium/ELL_factsheet.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Peal, E., adn W. E.Lambert. 1962. The Relation of Bilingualism to Intelligence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.10.1037/h0093840Search in Google Scholar
Rivkin StevenG., Eric A.Hanushek, and John F.Kain. 2005. “Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement.” Econometrica73(2): 417–58.10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.xSearch in Google Scholar
Robinson, J.2008. “Essays on the Effectiveness of Policies and Practices for Reducing Cognitive Gaps Between Linguistic Groups and Socioeconomic Groups.” PhD diss., Stanford University.Search in Google Scholar
Rumbaut, R. G.1990. Immigrant Children in California Public Schools: A Summary of Current Knowledge. CDS report No. 11. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, John Hopkins University.Search in Google Scholar
Rumbaut, R. G.1995. “The New Californians: Comparative Research Findings on the Educational Progress of Immigrant Children.” In California’s Immigrant Children: Theory, Research and Implications for Educational Policy, edited by R. G.Rumbaut and W. A.Cornelius, 17–69. San Diego, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California.Search in Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. E., and L.Stiefel. 2006. “Is there a Nativity Gap? New Evidence on the Academic Performance of Immigrant Students.” Education Finance and Policy1(1): 17–49.10.1162/edfp.2006.1.1.17Search in Google Scholar
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., and S. M.Dornbusch. 1995. “Social Capital and the Social Reproduction of Inequality: Information Networks among Mexican-Origin High School Students.” Sociology of Education68:116–35.10.2307/2112778Search in Google Scholar
Wang, J., and P.Goldschmidt. 1999. “Opportunity to Learn, Language Proficiency, and Immigrant Status Effects on Mathematics Achievement.” Journal of Educational Research93(2): 101–11.10.1080/00220679909597634Search in Google Scholar
- 1
In the literature and in this study, English language learning students are sometimes referred to as English language learners (ELLs), English learners (ELs), or as English as a second language students (ESLs).
- 2
This was based on conversations with district staff. One can also note that many schools and district did not also follow the stated procedures. A report by the California State Auditor (http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summary/2004-120) notes that many English learners (62% of those surveyed) met the standards for reclassification, but remained English learners.
- 3
Because all students in our sample were in school until the end of the 8th grade, yet not all made it successfully through high school, we refer to the to those students who were not reclassified by the end of the 8th grade as “never reclassified.” See Figure 1 for distribution of English proficiency and non-proficiency in the sample.
- 4
Log odds ratios reveal the change in odds of success versus odds of failure according to the independent variable. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for the dependent variable “failed 9th grade” suggests that a value of 1 in the specified independent variable results in a ratio of retained/not-retained twice as high as that of the retained/not-retained ratio with a value of 0 in the specified independent variable.
- 5
Excluded from the analysis were students missing data, in special education, or who left LAUSD between the 8th and 12th grades.
- 6
Data show only 0.04% were reclassified in the 9th grade. There is the possibility that others were reclassified after 9th grade but it was not recorded by the district.
- 7
White and Asian students performed better than Latino and black students, and foreign-born students performed worse than native-born students. Students receiving a reduced or free lunch performed 5.06 points worse on the reading exam.
- 8
Some of the differences across years are not statistically different from each other.
- 9
Results available upon request.
- 10
Results available upon request.
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Masthead
- Masthead
- Contributions
- Women Rule: Preferences and Fertility in Australian Households
- Can Land Reform Avoid a Left Turn? Evidence from Chile after the Cuban Revolution
- Incentive Effects of Parents’ Transfers to Children: An Artefactual Field Experiment
- Reclassification and Academic Success among English Language Learners: New Evidence from a Large Urban School District
- Fairness, Search Frictions, and Offshoring
- The Incentive Effect of Equalization Grants on Tax Collection
- Why Have Labour Market Outcomes of Youth in Advanced Economies Deteriorated?
- A Commitment Theory of Subsidy Agreements
- The Effects of Transactions Costs and Social Distance: Evidence from a Field Experiment
- Syphilis Cycles
- Impact of Voucher Design on Public School Performance: Evidence from Florida and Milwaukee Voucher Programs
- Topics
- Outsourcing and Innovation: An Empirical Exploration of the Dynamic Relationship
- Economies of Scope, Entry Deterrence and Welfare
- Can Horizontal Mergers Without Synergies Increase Consumer Welfare? Cournot and Bertrand Competition Under Uncertain Demand
- Institutions and information in multilateral bargaining experiments
Articles in the same Issue
- Masthead
- Masthead
- Contributions
- Women Rule: Preferences and Fertility in Australian Households
- Can Land Reform Avoid a Left Turn? Evidence from Chile after the Cuban Revolution
- Incentive Effects of Parents’ Transfers to Children: An Artefactual Field Experiment
- Reclassification and Academic Success among English Language Learners: New Evidence from a Large Urban School District
- Fairness, Search Frictions, and Offshoring
- The Incentive Effect of Equalization Grants on Tax Collection
- Why Have Labour Market Outcomes of Youth in Advanced Economies Deteriorated?
- A Commitment Theory of Subsidy Agreements
- The Effects of Transactions Costs and Social Distance: Evidence from a Field Experiment
- Syphilis Cycles
- Impact of Voucher Design on Public School Performance: Evidence from Florida and Milwaukee Voucher Programs
- Topics
- Outsourcing and Innovation: An Empirical Exploration of the Dynamic Relationship
- Economies of Scope, Entry Deterrence and Welfare
- Can Horizontal Mergers Without Synergies Increase Consumer Welfare? Cournot and Bertrand Competition Under Uncertain Demand
- Institutions and information in multilateral bargaining experiments
