What happens when academic achievement is used to determine English proficiency?

One in five public school children in the United States speaks a language other than English at home. Upon entering school, about half of these students are classified as Multilingual/English Learners (ML-ELs). This label indicates that they require specialized language support services, which include qualified teachers, direct instruction in English language development, and language supports in core content classes.

These scaffolds are intended to be temporary. Schools are required to help ML-ELs develop the English language proficiency they need to thrive in the classroom without any additional language support and ultimately exit EL status. But what determines when a student is ready to reclassify as “fully English proficient”?

The answer is not straightforward. Part of the complexity stems from the fact that each state sets its own reclassification policy. Federal statute requires states to assess English language proficiency (ELP) in speaking, listening, reading, and writing to make reclassification decisions. Beyond these, states are also free to include additional criteria, such as grades, teacher evaluations, or academic content knowledge as measured by standardized tests

This policy choice can be consequential for students, as reclassifying students inappropriately carries real risks. Criteria that result in ML-ELs reclassifying too early can cut students off from critical supports they still need to be successful in the classroom, leading to poorer outcomes over time. But holding students in EL status for too long can prevent students from accessing opportunities provided to mainstream students including core academic classes, advanced and upper-level content, and career and college readiness courses like career and technical education, especially in high school.

In our recent study, we explored what happens to secondary school ML-ELs when a state brings academic content knowledge into the reclassification process. Our findings paint a nuanced picture of how academic criteria can limit opportunity for some while simultaneously failing to shield others from the negative consequences of premature program exit.

Why (or why not) academic reclassification criteria?

As of 2023, 18 states include non-ELP assessments in the reclassification process. Among them, California, Texas, Florida, and New York—four of the states serving the largest number of ML-ELs—require students to meet minimum scores on English language arts (ELA) content exams in addition to ELP criteria to reclassify.

Why should non-ELP criteria like academic achievement be incorporated into a process meant to assess English proficiency?

Supporters’ logic is that using ELA measures can help ensure whether ML-EL students are academically prepared to succeed in a mainstream classroom environment. But opponents point out that standardized content exams often fail to represent ML-ELs’ true content knowledge because they are designed for native speakers. Requiring students to demonstrate academic content mastery first may unnecessarily delay reclassification for otherwise proficient students.

A large body of research estimates the effects of reclassification on students’ subsequent outcomes, but few studies tease out the implications of using specific criteria. More empirical evidence can help states weigh the pros and cons of their policy designs.

New evidence from Texas

In our recent study, we looked at Texas, one of the states that uses academic performance on state ELA tests to make reclassification decisions. During our study period (2013-2017), Texas reclassified ML-ELs based on three criteria:

• English Language Proficiency: Measured by reaching proficiency in speaking, listening, and writing on a state-approved ELP Assessment.
• Academic performance: Measured by meeting the passing standard on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), the state’s reading test.
• Teacher’s subjective evaluation.

Research shows that it typically takes students who enter U.S. schools in early grades four to seven years to reclassify as fully English proficient. We focus our analysis on eighth grade reclassification, right before the critical transition to high school when academic English demands increase substantially and courseloads become more differentiated. Looking at eighth grade allows us to estimate the effect of starting high school as a reclassified student on key outcomes for longer-term success, including advanced course completion, academic achievement in core content classes and end-of-course (EOC) tests, and high school graduation.

Like other causal studies on the effects of reclassification, we use a regression discontinuity (RD) design. We start by limiting our sample to ML-ELs who met the ELP criteria in speaking, listening, and writing. For these students, reclassification decisions were based on whether they passed the STAAR reading test. We then compare outcomes for students who scored just above the passing threshold, and thus were eligible to be reclassified as English proficient, to outcomes for students who scored just below that threshold and presumptively continued as “EL.” This method takes advantage of the fact that students just above and just below the threshold are, on average, very similar. By comparing outcomes for these two groups, we can isolate the effect of reclassification from unobservable student differences.

It is important to note that Texas also uses teachers’ subjective evaluations in the reclassification process; research shows that teacher input, idiosyncratic administrative error, and variation in policy implementation across schools mean that not all students who meet the test-based criteria are reclassified, and vice versa. In our study, 6% of ML-ELs who narrowly missed the cutoff were still reclassified. At the same time, 49% of ML-ELs who narrowly passed the test were not reclassified. Because STAAR reading scores did not perfectly predict reclassification, we used a fuzzy RD approach in which we measure the effects of reclassification for students who exited EL status solely because they met the STAAR criteria.  

Using administrative data from Texas public schools, we tracked five cohorts of approximately 21,000 students from the 2012-13 to 2016-17 school years who were classified as ELs in eighth grade and expected to graduate between 2017 and 2021. Our findings paint a mixed picture of the impact of using academic content criteria to reclassify students.

Improved access to advanced coursework for some, increased academic struggle and decreased likelihood of high school completion for others

Reclassification based on academic ELA criteria increased the likelihood of successfully completing an advanced course (e.g., Advanced Placement, dual enrollment) in high school by about 7 percentage points for the marginal student. Given that only 6% of eighth grade ML-ELs ever earn advanced course credit, this is an important change. These results suggest that the academic ELA criterion partially acts as an unnecessary barrier to opportunity.

At the same time, some students who reclassified in eighth grade struggled academically in their core high school classes. Marginally reclassified students were 8-10 percentage points more likely than peers who remained EL to fail core courses in science, social studies, and English (for reference, about half of peers who barely missed the STAAR cutoff to reclassify fail these courses). Reclassified students also scored 0.13 SD lower on the Algebra I end-of-course exam (students who marginally remained EL scored about 0.52 SD below the overall mean on average).

Finally, ML students who exited EL status before high school were 10 percentage points less likely to graduate on time than similar peers who remained ML-EL, 83% of whom graduated on time. Marginally reclassified students were also 7 percentage points less likely to graduate “college-ready” with the requisite credits for admission to many four-year institutions in Texas (11% of peers who remained EL graduated college-ready). This is unsurprising, given the negative effect on achievement and credit accumulation.

Higher rates of advanced credit completion alongside lower achievement and graduation rates might seem paradoxical. Descriptive analysis suggests that the students who accessed advanced courses through reclassification are largely a different subgroup than those who struggled in core classes. This may relate in part to school-level differences: Increases in advanced course-taking tend to be stronger in schools with lower ML-EL populations, whereas course failure results are stronger in schools with more ML-ELs. For the group of students who fail core courses, negative results suggest that the academic ELA standard was insufficient to ensure their readiness to succeed in mainstream classrooms.

Policy implications

Should academic criteria be used in the reclassification process? Our mixed findings suggest the answer is more complicated than a simple “yes” or “no.” Academic criteria were a barrier to reclassification for some students who could have succeeded in more advanced classes. At the same time, passing the ELA test was insufficient to ensure that all students were ready to succeed in mainstream courses without additional support.

Lawmakers in California recently introduced a bill to simplify their reclassification process, potentially eliminating academic proficiency criteria. Given our findings around access to advanced courses, we agree that states should be cautious in how they use non-ELP criteria in the reclassification process.

More importantly, we call on researchers and policymakers to think more expansively about how to support MLs throughout their time in school, with or without the EL label. One challenge with the binary “English learner” classification system is that students abruptly lose access to services once they reclassify.

State policy for MLs should not end at reclassification. Language supports are not intended to last forever, but perhaps they should not be removed all at once. For example, schools could increase access to mainstream courses for ML-ELs who demonstrate high proficiency on academic content exams while simultaneously continuing to offer some supports, such as access to ESL-certified educators or more training for content teachers about how to meet the needs of ML-ELs.

Federal law requires states to actively monitor students who have been reclassified for at least three years after they exit EL status. However, there is considerable ambiguity around what ongoing monitoring looks like in practice. States can further support reclassified students by clearly defining monitoring benchmarks and providing concrete guidance for how schools and districts can take action if students appear to be struggling.

Implementing such changes at scale would require change at multiple levels of education governance. Yet aligning accountability systems, funding, and instructional supports around students’ changing needs may better position multilingual learners for long-term success even after they shed the EL label.