Accountability for long-term English learners

Understanding long-term ELs

Currently, there’s no universal LTEL definition (Sahakyan & Poole, 2022). However, states that receive federal Title III funding are required to report the number and share of ELs who have not been reclassified within five years (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). According to federal non-regulatory guidance, this reporting requirement does not establish a universal definition; rather, “the reporting requirement under ESEA Section 3121(a)(6) may be instructive in determining which ELs served under Title III are long-term ELs” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016, p. 38). According to data submitted by states to meet this requirement in 2020-21, 1.5 million ELs exceeded the five-year suggested period, representing 31% of the total EL population that school year (ED Data Express, 2023). In other words, a significant portion of ELs did not reclassify within what is considered a reasonable and developmentally appropriate timeline. Why does this matter?

OPEN IN VIEWER

Research has shown that students labeled as LTELs tend to have lower academic outcomes, are at higher risk of dropping out, and are less likely to graduate on time than other students (Cashiola, 2021). Conversely, ELs who reclassify by elementary school tend to go on to achieve academic success on par with, and in some cases exceeding, that of their monolingual peers (Villegas & Ibarra, 2022). However, as recent research concluded, negative outcomes among students labeled LTELs are “resulting symptoms of systemic problems, not the root cause nor the inevitability, of educational disparities” (Umansky & Avelar, 2022, p. 141). Illana Umansky and Janette Avelar (2022) found that students labeled as LTELs are uniquely positioned to expose cracks in the educational system that create unequal opportunities to learn and advance beyond the EL label. Rather than placing scrutiny on individual students labeled as LTELs, education leaders should be reflecting on the “distinct environmental and contextual factors that shape LTEL-considered students’ experiences” (Umansky & Avelar, 2022, p. 141).

In a seminal 2010 paper on LTELs, Laurie Olson identified certain shared schooling experiences among students who had fallen into the LTEL category in select districts in California. These include:

Not receiving language development support.

Ensuring that ELs are reclassifying in a reasonable and appropriate amount of time requires us to examine deep cracks that have existed in EL education for a long time. Before we can eliminate the systemic and institutional barriers that have failed these students — rather than continuing to place the onus on individual students — we must deal with several underlying data collection and policy issues.

Inconsistent thresholds

To start, without an official LTEL definition, we have an unclear, inconsistent, and incomplete understanding of how many students are not reclassifying in a reasonable amount of time.

Although data reported pursuant to Title III provides a starting point for how many students may be labeled as LTELs, federal law allows states to adopt their own thresholds for what constitutes a reasonable amount of time to be reclassified (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). A scan of states’ policies found that 28 states have adopted an LTEL definition (see Table 1). Of these, 16 states use a five-year threshold (in line with the non-regulatory guidance); 11 states use a six-year threshold; and one state (Oregon) uses a seven-year threshold. The rest do not have a working LTEL definition.

Having inconsistent definitions across the country means that a student may be considered a LTEL in one state and not another. Additionally, states that have adopted a different threshold than the one suggested by the U.S. Department of Education (five years) essentially have two different groups of students categorized as LTELs, one for federal reporting purposes and another for statewide policy and practice decisions.

Additionally, some states, such as California and Mississippi, include additional criteria. California, for example, states that, to be considered an LTEL, a student must be enrolled in grades 6-12, remain at the same English-language proficiency (ELP) level for two or more consecutive years, and score far below basic or below basic on the English language arts (ELA) assessment. And Mississippi states that an LTEL is a student whose progress toward English proficiency has stalled, who has not yet acquired adequate English skills, and who is struggling academically. Unlike a straightforward calculation such as the number of years a student has been an EL, some of these additional stipulations can be considered subjective. For example, in Mississippi, who decides what it means to have stalled in developing English, what “adequate English skills” are, and what it means to be “struggling academically”? These additional criteria may be open to interpretation and add a level of subjectivity.

Different reclassification expectations

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) allows states to establish their own criteria to determine whether students are ready to exit EL status. At minimum, criteria must include results from the statewide English language proficiency assessment, but states are allowed to require additional criteria. Experts in the field have cautioned that these criteria should focus only on students’ linguistic skills and minimize the potential for subjective judgments (Hakuta, 2011).

But even when states use only objective measures, inconsistencies abound. States that use the same proficiency exam (such as the WIDA ACCESS) have different cut scores to determine ELs’ language proficiency. Additionally, even though ESSA requires that ELs within a state be identified, assessed, and reclassified using the same standards, there is evidence that reclassification in some states still varies greatly from district to district (Hill et al., 2014). For example, a recent report by the Parent Organization Network in California found that the current reclassification system has too many requirements, only one of which is standardized, with too much variation in implementation across schools (Simeón, Amezcua, & Rosales, 2023).

Relatedly, the maximum amount of time an EL has to reach proficiency, also known as the maximum timeline to proficiency, varies by state. Every EL’s personal timeline to proficiency depends on individual characteristics, such as initial ELP level and age, for example. However, ESSA required states to adopt a maximum timeline to proficiency by which they expect all ELs in the state to exit EL status. A scan of states’ ESSA plans found that these timelines range from five to eight years (Villegas & Pompa, 2020). What’s more, maximum timelines to proficiency do not always align with states’ LTEL definition (see Table 1). And because ESSA does not enact accountability measures for schools when ELs exceed that timeline, practically speaking, these maximum timelines to proficiency carry little weight.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Select states’ LTEL definitions and maximum timelines to proficiency

State	LTEL Definition	Years to be considered a LTEL	Maximum timeline to proficiency	LTEL definition and maximum timeline aligned?
Arizona	An EL who has been enrolled in U.S. schools for more than five years, who is not progressing toward English proficiency, and who is struggling academically due to limited English skills.	5 years	Unclear	Unclear
Arkansas	Students classified as ELs for more than five years.	5 years	Grades K-2: 6 years Grades 3-5: 7 years Grades 6-12: 8 years	No
California	ELs who are enrolled in grades 6 to 12, have been enrolled in U.S. schools for more than six years, have remained at the same ELP level for two or more consecutive years, and who score far below basic or below basic on the ELA assessment.	6 years	5 years	No
Connecticut	Those who have not demonstrated English mastery within five school years.	5 years	5 years	Yes
Delaware	If an EL is classified for more than five years.	5 years	6 years	No
Hawaii	ELs who have been classified as English learners for five or more years and have not yet met the reclassification criteria.	5 years	5 years	Yes
Illinois	ELs who do not achieve proficiency within six years.	6 years	5 years	No
Indiana	Students who have not been able to attain English proficiency within five years.	5 years	6 years	No
Iowa	ELs classified for six years or longer.	6 years	5 years	No
Louisiana	ELs who have been receiving services for five or more years.	5 years	7 years	No
Maine	Students identified as ELs for more than five years.	5 years	6 years	No
Maryland	ELs who have been receiving services for more than six years.	6 years	6 years	Yes
Massachusetts	Unclear.	5 years	6 years	No
Michigan	ELs who have received instructional support for more than five years and have not yet met the state’s requirements for English proficiency.	5 years	6 years	No
Mississippi	Those who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for six or more years; are stalled in progressing toward English proficiency; have not yet acquired adequate English skills; and are struggling academically.	6 years	5 years	No
Nebraska	ELs who have not reached proficiency within six years of their participation in an EL program.	6 years	6 years	Yes
Nevada	ELs who have not achieved English proficiency within six years of initial classification.	6 years	6 years	Yes
New Mexico	ELs who do not exit EL status within approximately five years.	5 years	6 years	No
New York	Students who have completed at least six years of English language learner (ELL) services in a New York state school and continue to require ELL services.	6 years	5 years	No
North Dakota	ELs who have been receiving services for five or more years.	5 years	7 years	No
Oregon	Students who receive English language instruction, supports, and services in an English language development program for more than seven years.	7 years	7 years for regular ELs;8 years for students with interrupted formal education and dual-identified ELs	Somewhat
Pennsylvania	ELs that have identified for five years.	5 years	6 years	No
Rhode Island	A student who has completed more than six years of EL services.	6 years	6 years	Yes
South Dakota	An EL who has been identified as EL for more than five years.	5 years	6 years	No
Tennessee	Students who receive English as a second language (ESL) services for longer than six years. ELs become LTELs when they enter the seventh year of ESL services.	6 years	None	Unclear
Texas	Long-term emergent bilingual students have been in U.S. schools for six or more years and have not yet reclassified as English proficient.	6 years	Unclear	Unclear
Virginia	An EL who has received services for more than five years but is not yet proficient.	5 years	5 years	Yes
Washington	LTELs are those eligible for English language development instruction for five or more years; have stalled making progress toward English language proficiency; and are struggling academically.	5 years	6 years	No

The lack of consistency around definitions of proficiency, maximum timelines to proficiency, and LTEL status makes it difficult to track whether various models of EL instruction exacerbate or mitigate the likelihood that a student will be labeled a LTEL. In their work on LTELs, Umansky and Avelar (2022) found that there was an “overwhelming English language orientation, to the detriment of language diversity and core content instruction” and that the services ELs are provided are often homogenous and inappropriate (p. 141). Could these EL education characteristics be preventing ELs from reaching proficiency within a reasonable amount of time? Unfortunately, limitations of our data systems and policies do not allow us to see the whole picture.

English learners are grouped based on their assessed proficiency in English. Membership in this group is meant to be temporary.

Specific state-level data

To be sure, some states are paying more attention to LTELs than others, and we can learn from the data these states are collecting. California, for example, has an LTEL definition that it uses to collect and report data in a user-friendly portal (https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/). The state also created a category for ELs “at risk” of becoming LTELs (California Department of Education, n.d.-b). Thanks to these data-collection mechanisms, California leaders know that there are more than 370,000 LTELs in the state and an additional 211,000 students considered at risk of becoming LTELs (California Department of Education, 2023, n.d.-a).

In Texas, researchers at Rice University conducted extensive research and concluded that the state should adopt a five-year threshold for ELs to be classified as LTELs (Cashiola & Potter, 2020). They then used this definition to investigate the growth of the LTEL population in Texas between the 2000-01 and 2014-15 school years. During that time, the percentage of 1st graders who began school as ELs increased slightly, but the percentage of ELs who became LTELs increased by almost 90% (Cashiola & Potter, 2021). More specifically, their research found that 67% of ELs who started 1st grade in 2014-15 became LTELs (72,500 students), compared to 36% of ELs who started 1st grade in 2000-01 and became LTELs (around 24,800 students).

Michigan has implemented a policy to help ensure that administrative hurdles do not stand in the way of ELs who are ready to be reclassified, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will become LTELs. Here, the state implemented an “auto-exit” policy in the summer of 2020 for ELs in grades K-12 who had an overall performance score of 4.8 or higher on the state’s ELP assessment (WIDA ACCESS). The state first applied this policy to ELs in grades 3-12 and decided to expand to those in grades K-2 after commissioning the University of Michigan to conduct research on the matter (Mavrogordato & Bartlett, n.d.). These policies were adopted because the commissioned research found that educational experiences and policies that keep students classified as ELs for too long run the risk of having “deleterious effects such as restricted access to honors and college preparatory coursework, higher dropout rates, decreased rates of college enrollment, and a greater likelihood of needing remedial coursework in college” (Mavrogordato & Bartlett, n.d.).

State and federal policy recommendations

How can we translate what we’ve found (or not found) into accountability policies that ensure all English learners, regardless of where in the country they may live, are being provided with an adequate and effective education? Absent a universal LTEL definition, here are a few recommendations for state education agencies (SEAs) and the U.S. Department of Education to consider:

At minimum, SEAs should ensure they have a working LTEL definition that they can use to collect data on these students and make these data publicly accessible in a user-friendly way. States that do not have their own LTEL definition can simply publish the data they are already required to collect and report for Title III and begin to use these data to identify underlying factors affecting these students.

An EL does not become an LTEL overnight. Instead, the growing number of LTELs points to chronic systemic failures to help students reach English proficiency. Failure to address these issues will continue to have real-life implications for these students who need support, not stigmatization.