It should be clear from the descriptions of these studies that several common findings have emerged consistently in studies of EL reclassification patterns. First, Spanish speaking ELs are less likely to be reclassified, or take longer to do so, than speakers of other non-English languages (Conger, 2010; Grissom, 2004; Parrish et al., 2006; Slama, 2014; Thompson, 2012). This finding, which emerged in New York City, Massachusetts, and California, is somewhat troubling, since the majority of ELs are Spanish speakers, both nationwide and within most states. One consideration for
interpreting this finding is the possibility that Spanish-speaking ELs are more likely than speakers of other languages to enroll in bilingual language instruction programs7. If so, Umansky and Reardon (2014) observation about bilingual program design affecting reclassification rates could partially explain this pattern (i.e., students in such programs are unlikely to be reclassified before the program comes to its natural end, regardless of their actual proficiency). In Conger’s (2010) study of New York City ELs, she did indeed find that Spanish speakers were more likely to enroll in bilingual programs. The finding also may stem from other traits that are correlated with Spanish as a home-
language, rather than language itself. In some states and studies, Spanish speakers may be more likely than other students to come from high-poverty backgrounds or have parents with less education; both characteristics are associated with lower achievement in the general population.
7 To the extent that Spanish speakers are more likely than other ELs to come from low-SES backgrounds,
A second common finding is that the probability of a student being reclassified changes over time, with certain periods associated with peaks or dips in probability. Fifth grade, in particular, emerged somewhat consistently as a critical turning point for
reclassification. Two California studies (Thompson, 2013; Umansky & Reardon, 2014) and two Massachusetts studies (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education & DePascale, 2012; Slama, 2014) observed a peak in reclassification at fifth grade, followed by a decrease in the probability or rate of reclassification in middle school. Although Grissom’s California study (2004) stops at in grade 5, his findings also suggest a consistent increase in reclassification rates leading up to a peak in his final year of data.
A third finding is that, not surprisingly, students’ initial level of ELP plays a significant role in their reclassification probability (American Institutes for Research, 2013; Conger, 2010; Cook et al., 2012; Thompson, 2012). Within a single year, this finding is neither surprising nor problematic per se, as one would not necessarily expect a student who is a true beginner to master the entire English language in a single year (Prop 227 notwithstanding). What is more troubling is if students who begin as beginners remain unlikely to transition even after years of language instruction – this suggests that the instruction these students are receiving during their time as ELs is potentially not doing enough to help them learn the language and maintain their academic standing. It also suggests that, in studying reclassification, it is important to account for students’ ELP – either by conditioning or by grouping – as a check to make sure that these students, in particular, are not being “left behind” in the EL subgroup.
A fourth finding, related to the third, is that a considerable proportion of students remain ELs throughout their entire education careers. Slama (2014), Thompson (2012), and Umansky and Reardon (2014) all found that approximately a quarter of their students had not transitioned after 8, 10, and 12 years of observation, respectively. Parrish et al.’s (2006) estimate that only 40 percent of students had transitioned after 10 years in the subgroup is even more severe. There could be many possible causes for this stagnation that some students experience – poorly set reclassification cut scores; opportunity to learn issues in their academic courses; insufficient linguistic instruction, to name a few – but whatever the cause, it is problematic, and certainly cause for concern, that such a large portion of ELs can spend their entire K-12 careers in this subgroup without ever meeting the ELP achievement standards expected of them.
Finally, the one notable point of divergence across the studies summarized here was the average amount of time students took to reach proficiency. Here, we observed agreement within states, but diversity across states: the two Massachusetts studies found that students spent only about 3-4 years as ELs, on average, while the numerous
California studies found estimates of five or more years to proficiency, at least. These differences likely stem from state-level differences in ELP standards or reclassification policies, and possibly also from how the authors chose to define and calculate the average time to reclassification. It is important to understand, however, that neither of these values is “good” or “better,” per se; as referenced previously in this section,
reclassification is one metric of EL achievement that should be interpreted alongside other evidence – most notably, the post-reclassification achievement of students who have met this standard.
This final point highlights an important caveat to this study: namely,
reclassification is not a positive goal in itself, until it can be shown that students who are reclassified go on to do “well” academically, however this may be defined. This is relevant when considering conclusions such as Conger’s appraisal that bilingual
education is “harmful” for ELs, based on her finding that students in bilingual education take longer to be reclassified than students in ESL programs. While reclassification is an important goal that ELs should meet, it is only one indication of their achievement, or of a particular program’s benefits. A program that exits many students quickly should not necessarily be interpreted as “good” or “better,” until it is also shown that those exiting students fare well outside of the program. While the current study will not endeavor to address the post-reclassification performance of students (due to scope limitations, although such a study has been designed as a follow-up and is discussed further in the Appendix), it is important to recognize that this would be an important next step before drawing any strong policy conclusions about the validity or appropriateness of the state’s reclassification standards.