Thank you for your request to our REL Reference Desk regarding English Language
Learner reading and mathematics outcomes and reclassification. The information below
represents the most rigorous research available. Researchers consider the type of
methodology used and give priority to research reports that employ well-described and
thorough methods. The resources are also selected based on the date of the publication
with a preference for research from the last ten years.
Question: Is there are any data to indicate whether, in districts and schools which delay
reclassification, reading and math outcomes for students who were originally ELLs are
better or worse than in districts and schools which reclassify more quickly?
1. An Analysis of Reclassified English Learners, English Learners, and Native
English Fourth Graders on Assessments of Receptive and Productive
Vocabulary. 2013; Scott, J.A., Flinspach, S.L., Miller, T.F., Gage-Serio, O., &
Vevea, J.L.; Vocabulary Innovations in Education (VINE), University of
California-Santa Cruz; 17 pages.
Source: General Internet Search Using Google
http://vineproject.ucsc.edu/publications/ScottNRC58%20RFEP.pdf
From the abstract: “This paper describes a group of students who entered U.S.
schools as ELLs and emerged, by the end of fourth grade, as Reclassified Fluent
English Proficient (RFEP). The data come from a larger study designed to
enhance vocabulary knowledge, reading, and writing in fourth graders,
particularly for ELLs and those traditionally underserved in schools. The RFEP
students in this study shows considerable sophistication in their use and
understanding of English vocabulary. In our study, we are interested in fostering
such sophistication through a focus on the development of word consciousness.
Word consciousness can be defined as a metacognitive, metalinguistic, and
affective awareness of words. It is a generative strategy that moves away from
teaching a specific set of words to students towards helping them develop an
appreciation for the power of words to convey specific meanings and towards
building enthusiasm for word learning as a disposition (Scott, Skobel, & Wells,
2008; Scott & Nagy, 2004; Scott, 2004).”
November 2013
Page | 1
2. Understanding Patterns and Precursors of ELL Success Subsequent to
Reclassification. CRESST Report 818. 2012; Kim, J., Herman, J. L.; National
Center For Research On Evaluation, Standards, And Student Testing (CRESST).
ERIC Document # ED540604.
Source: ERIC
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED540604
From the abstract: “In English language learners' (ELLs) reclassification, the
tension between assuring sufficient English language proficiency (ELP) in
mainstream classrooms and avoiding potential negative consequences of
protracted ELL status creates an essential dilemma. This present study focused on
ELL students who were reclassified around the time they finished elementary
school (specifically students reclassified at Grades 4, 5, or 6) and attempted to
examine whether the reclassification decisions used for these students are valid
and supportive of their subsequent learning. In doing so, this paper also explores
methods that allow for drawing sound inferences on student learning subsequent
to reclassification. Recent advances in growth modeling are drawn upon to make
comparisons in subsequent learning more meaningful. The study found that
although there is evidence that reclassified ELLs tend to continue to catch up to
their non-ELL peers after reclassification, the magnitudes may be very modest in
virtual scale values over the grades and insufficient to attain proficiency. The
study also found that there was no evidence of former ELLs falling behind in
academic growth after reclassification, either relative to their non-ELL peers or in
terms of absolute academic proficiency levels.”
3. When to Exit ELL Students: Monitoring Success and Failure in Mainstream
Classrooms after ELLs' Reclassification. CRESST Report 779. 2010; Kim, J.,
& Herman, J. L.; National Center For Research On Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing (CRESST). ERIC Document # ED520430.
Source: ERIC
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED520430
From the abstract: “In English Language Learners' (ELLs) reclassification, the
tension between assuring sufficient English language proficiency (ELP) in
mainstream classrooms and avoiding potential negative consequences of
protracted ELL status creates an essential dilemma. This study assesses the
validity of existing systems in terms of gross consequences of reclassification. We
examine the subsequent academic success of reclassified ELLs in mainstream
classrooms, using statewide individual-level data merged from Grades 3 to 8 in a
local control state. Drawing on some recent advances in growth modeling
techniques, we control for students' performance levels prior to reclassification in
examining post-reclassification growth rates. The study found that ELL students
tend to make a smooth transition upon their reclassification and keep pace in
mainstream classrooms. This indicates that existing reclassification decisions are,
in general, supportive of ELL students' subsequent learning, with a caution that
such finding should be tempered by a great extent of heterogeneity in subsequent
learning. Results on one main component of reclassification criteria, ELP levels
upon reclassification, suggest that protracted ELL status due to too stringent ELP
November 2013
Page | 2
criteria may not be useful or even be detrimental to ELLs' learning in mainstream
classrooms.”
4. Reexamining Identification and Reclassification of English Language
Learners: A Critical Discussion of Select State Practices. 2005; Mahoney, K.,
MacSwan, J.; Bilingual Research Journal, Vol. 29, No.1; 11 pages; ERIC
Document # EJ724696.
Source: ERIC
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ724696
From the abstract: “In this article, the authors report select results of a national
survey of state requirements and recommendations regarding identification and
reclassification of English Language Learners (ELLs) conducted in academic year
2001-2002, called the "Survey of State Policies for Identification and
Reclassification of Limited English Proficient Students." The purpose of the
‘State Survey’ was twofold: (1) to obtain data regarding current state practices
with respect to identification and reclassification of ELLs; and (2) to raise
questions regarding the appropriateness of three dominant practices, namely, (a)
the use of academic achievement tests for the purpose of identification, (b) routine
assessment of children's oral native-language ability, and (c) the use of cutoff
scores in determining identification or reclassification of ELL status. It is argued
that such practices may lead to errors in identification and reclassification of
ELLs, which in turn may have negative consequences for students.”
5. Policy in Practice: The Implementation of Structured English Immersion in
Arizona. 2010; Lillie, K. E., Markos, A., Estrella, A., Nguyen, T., Trifiro, A.,
Arias, M.; Civil Rights Project / Proyecto Derechos Civiles. ERIC Document #
ED511331.
Source: ERIC
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED511331
From the abstract: “This study examines the implementation and organization of
the state mandated curriculum in the 4-hour SEI block in 18 K-12 classrooms in 5
different districts. We focus on the effects of grouping by language proficiency,
the delivery of the structure-based ESL curriculum, the provision of resources and
limiting of access to grade-level curriculum, and problems of promotion and
graduation for ELLs. In each of these areas, the implementation of the SEI 4- hour
block raises concerns with regard to equal educational opportunity and access to
English. Key among the findings of this study are: ELLs are physically, socially,
and educationally isolated from their non-ELL peers; they are not exiting the
program in one year, raising serious questions about the time these students must
remain in these segregated settings; reclassification rates are a poor indicator of
success in mainstream classrooms; and the four-hour model places ELLs at a
severe disadvantage for high school graduation. The only means for these students
to graduate with their peers appears to be through after school and summer school
programs that either did not exist or had been cut.”
November 2013
Page | 3
6. Que Pasa?: Are English Language Learning Students Remaining in English
Learning Classes Too Long? 2009; Flores, E., Painter, G., Harlow-Nash, Z.,
Pachon, H., & Tomas Rivera Policy, I.; Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. ERIC
Document # ED506966.
Source: ERIC
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED506966
From the abstract: “English language learners (ELLs) have typically performed
worse academically when compared to their English-fluent peers. Studies point to
a number of possible causes for ELLs' poor performance, and offer differing
recommendations for how best to educate them. This study by the Tomas Rivera
Policy Institute (TRPI) demonstrates the significant value of ELLs' transitioning
into mainstream English classrooms, and emphasizes the need for action despite
the ongoing policy debate over best practices for educating ELLs. The TRPI study
is based on analysis of official records provided by the Los Angeles Unified
School District for all non-special education students who were in 6th grade in
1999 (N=28,714). This study finds that even after accounting for other important
factors, obtaining sufficient English skills to transfer from English learning
classes to mainstream English classes (herein referred to as reclassification)
results in improved academic performance. A review of the current rates of
reclassification for LAUSD schools suggests that the average annual rate of
reclassification has not changed significantly in the last decade, suggesting that
there are still a large number of ELLs missing out on the academic benefits
associated with reclassification.”
7. Improving the Validity of English Language Learner Assessment Systems.
Full Report. 2010; Wolf, M., Herman, J. L., Dietel, R., & National Center for
Research on Evaluation, S.; National Center For Research On Evaluation,
Standards, And Student Testing (CRESST); ERIC Document #ED520528.
Source: ERIC
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED520528
From the abstract: “English Language Learners (ELLs) are the fastest growing
group of students in American public schools. According to Payan and Nettles
(2008), the ELL population doubled in 23 states between 1995 and 2005. The
U.S. Census Bureau estimates that by 2050, the Hispanic school-age population
will exceed the non-Hispanic white school-age public school population (Fry &
Gonzalez, 2008). Amidst these dramatic increases, ELL achievement remains
among the lowest of all students. For example, on the 2009 National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), 72% of 8th-grade ELL students scored below
basic in mathematics as compared to 26% of non-ELL students (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2009). Despite 8 years of strong No Child Left Behind
(NCLB, 2002) accountability provisions, ELL academic achievement remains one
of the greatest challenges confronting states, school districts, and schools.
Drawing from a 3-year research effort funded by the U.S. Department of
Education, UCLA's National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing (CRESST) has developed a list of five priorities for improving
the validity of assessment systems for ELL students. The authors define validity
November 2013
Page | 4
as the degree to which an assessment system produces accurate information about
ELL students' performance and provides a sound basis for policy decisionmaking. The authors' recommendations include improvements in: (1) English
Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments; (2) ELL Classification and
Reclassification; (3) Content Assessments for ELL Students; (4) ELL Test
Accommodations; and (5) Teacher Capacity and ELL Students' Opportunity to
Learn.”
Search Process:
Key words and search strings used in the search:
English Language Learner, ELL AND Reclassification OR Classification, Reading,
Mathematics, Outcomes, AND Districts, Achievement
Search databases and websites:
Institute of Education Sciences Resources (IES): Regional Educational Laboratory
Program (REL); IES Practice Guides; What Works Clearinghouse (WWC); Doing What
Works (DWW); Institute of Education Sciences (IES); National Center for Education
Research (NCER); National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
(NCEE); National Center for Special Education (NCSER); National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES)
Other Federally Funded Resources: The Assessment and Accountability
Comprehensive Center; The Center on Innovation and Improvement; The Center on
Instruction; The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality; National Center for
Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; National Center for
Performance Incentives; National Research and Development Center on School Choice,
Competition and Achievement; National Research Center for Career and Technical
Education; National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented
Search Engines and Databases: EBSCO Databases; ERIC; Google, Google Scholar
General Internet Search
Additional Resources: Education Development Center; WestEd; American Institutes of
Research; The Campbell Collaboration; Center on Education Policy (CEP); Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO); Data Quality Campaign; The Education Trust;
GreatSchools; Just for Kids; Kids Count; National Association of State Boards of
Education (NASBE); National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
Disclaimer:
This Ask A REL response was developed by REL-NEI under Contract ED-IES-12-C-0009
from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. The content does
not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education,
nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. government.
November 2013
Page | 5