This study uses 9 years of longitudinal, student-level data from the Los Angeles Unified School District to provide updated, empirically-based estimates of the time necessary for English learners (ELs) to become reclassified as proficient in English, as well as factors associated with variation in time to reclassification. To illustrate how different aspects of proficiency develop, estimates of the time necessary for ELs to attain six separate reclassification criteria are provided. Findings corroborate prior cross-sectional research suggesting that the development of full proficiency in a second language typically takes 4 to 7 years. However, after 9 years in the district, approximately one-fourth of students had not been reclassified. There appears to be a reclassification window during the upper elementary grades, and students not reclassified by this point in time become less likely ever to do so. Findings illustrate the crucial role that students’ initial academic language proficiencies, both in English and their primary language, play in their likelihood of reclassification. This work has implications for the design of next-generation assessment and accountability systems, as well as for instructional practices.
AbediJ. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17-31.
2.
AudS.HussarW.PlantyM.SnyderT.BiancoK.FoxM.DrakeL. (2010). The condition of education 2010 (NCES 2010-028). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
3.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
BirdsongD. (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BoyleA.TaylorJ.HurlburtS.SogaK. (2010). Title III: Behind the numbers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
CongerD. (2009). Testing, time limits, and English learners: Does age of school entry affect how quickly students can learn English?Social Science Research, 38, 383-396.
9.
CongerD. (2010). Does bilingual education interfere with English-language acquisition?Social Science Quarterly, 91, 1103-1122.
10.
CookG.BoalsT.WilmesC.SantosM. (2007). Issues in the development of Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for WIDA consortium states. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
11.
CookG.LinquantiR.ChinenM.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.
FryR. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners?Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
16.
GándaraP.Maxwell-JollyJ.RumbergerR. W. (2008). Resource needs for English learners: Getting down to policy recommendations. Santa Barbara, CA: Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
17.
GeneseeF.GevaE.DresslerC.KamilM. (2008). Cross-linguistic relationships in second-language learners. In AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing reading and writing in second-language learners: Lessons from the report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 61-93). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
GhaliW. A.QuanH.BrantR.van MelleG.NorrisC. M.FarisP. D.. . . KnudtsonM. L. (2001). Comparison of 2 methods for calculating adjusted survival curves from proportional hazards models. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 1494-1497.
19.
GreeneJ. P. (1997). A meta-analysis of the Rossell & Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21, 103-122.
HakutaK.Goto ButlerY.WittD. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (Policy Report 2000-1). Berkeley, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
HillL. E.WestonM.HayesJ. (2014). Reclassification of English learner students in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_114LHR.pdf
24.
HopkinsM.ThompsonK.LinquantiR.AugustD.HakutaK. (2013). Fully accounting for English learner performance: A key issue in ESEA reauthorization. Educational Researcher42(2): 101-108.
25.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
26.
LinquantiR.CookG. (2013). Toward a “common definition of English learner”: 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. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2013/Toward_a_Common_Definition_2013.pdf
MacSwanJ. (2005). The “non-non” crisis and academic bias in native language assessment of linguistic minorities. In CohenJ.McAlisterK.RolstadK.MacSwanJ. (Eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 340-375). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
29.
MacSwanJ.RolstadK.GlassG. V. (2002). Do some school-age children have no language? Some problems of construct validity in the Pre-LAS Español. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 213-238.
30.
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.
SálazarJ. J. (2007). Master plan evaluation report for English learners—2005/2006. Los Angeles, CA: LAUSD Program Evaluation and Assessment Branch.
33.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34.
SlamaR. B. (2014). Investigating whether and when English learners are reclassified into mainstream classrooms in the United States: A discrete-time survival analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 220-252.
35.
SlavinR. E.CheungA. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction. Review of Educational Research, 75, 247-284.
36.
SlavinR. E.MaddenN.CalderónM.ChamberlainA.HennessyM. (2011). Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 47-58.
37.
UmanskyI. M.ReardonS. F. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 879-912.
38.
Van BuurenS.BoshuizenH. C.KnookD. L. (1999). Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 681-694.
39.
WilligA. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55, 269-317.
40.
WolfM. K.KaoJ. C.GriffinN.HermanJ. L.BachmanP. L.ChangS.FarnsworthT. (2008). Issues in assessing English language learners: English Language Proficiency measures and accommodation uses. Practice review (CRESST Report 732). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
