Diagnóstico general de los edificios

As discussed in sections 4.5 and 5.1, intrastate mobility and retention in grade were two factors that accounted for some of the biggest differences in reclassification rates among otherwise similar students. This information may be useful from a policy perspective, as there are concrete steps this or any state could consider taking to try to mitigate the otherwise negative effects of these factors. First, the state might consider maximizing and facilitating the sharing of student information across districts, to try to ensure that students who move within the state can bring as much information as possible with them to their new district. Information about their past ELP instruction and

performance is likely to be particularly useful in this regard; relatedly, the extent to which the state can encourage districts to use the same or similar curricula and courses of study for EL language programs may also help minimize disruptions for students who move. Taken together, the idea behind these two suggestions is to try to minimize situations in which an EL moves to a new district and finds himself placed into an entirely new or different learning environment with respect to what he is taught, how he is taught, and what he is expected to already know. On the retention front, since the effects of retention seemed to diminish over time, the state might just wish to consider monitoring retained ELs to ensure that they do, in fact, fall into step with their new cohort after being retained, rather than continue to fall behind.

Another malleable factor that affected reclassification considerably was the type of language instruction a student enrolled in, particularly if that student was a Spanish

bilingual programs outperformed comparable students in EL-only bilingual programs by a considerable margin, regardless of whether they spoke Spanish or another home language (see Figure 4.5). They also performed comparably to similar students enrolled in ESL programs (who, generally speaking, tended to have higher reclassification rates). By contrast, Spanish speakers enrolled in EL-only bilingual programs were less likely to be reclassified than any other home language or program subgroup.

This is an important and potentially useful piece of information for the state, particularly since parents typically have a say in what types of programs their children enroll in. Reclassification aside, there are many reasons why parents may feel strongly that they want their students enrolled in bilingual programs. And indeed, even if students in such programs take longer to reclassify, the use of their home language may have other benefits that counterbalance the negative effects on time to reclassification. Several studies have found that students who enroll in bilingual programs tend to perform better than students in ESL programs across the full K-12 career (Collier & Thomas, 1989; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2008; Slavin & Cheung, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 2002; Umansky & Reardon, 2014). From a more pragmatic standpoint, many states – including the one studied here – have so-called “parent trigger” laws where a quorum of parents can demand that their district offer some type of bilingual education for their children. In short, it is neither practical nor, potentially, desirable to recommend that states not offer bilingual education as an option.

In light of this reality, the findings here suggest that states should potentially prioritize two-way bilingual programs as the bilingual model of choice, to the extent practicable. In other words, given that states are essentially required to have some kind of

bilingual offering, it may be prudent to focus primarily or exclusively on two-way

programs to satisfy this requirement. Two-way programs – also known as dual immersion programs – enroll both ELs and native English speakers; all students are taught in both languages, and the goal is for all students to achieve bilingualism and biliteracy by the program’s end (most programs are designed to last from either K-5 or K-8) (Genesee, 1999; Howard, Christian, & Genesee, 2004; US Department of Education; Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development; Policy and Program Studies Service, 2012; Valentino & Reardon, 2015).

As this description suggests, there may be several factors beyond the instruction itself that lead two-way programs to serve ELs well. For example, buy-in from native English-speaking families will mean there are more parents invested in the program’s quality and rigor – not to mention more parents who may feel empowered or entitled to intervene or speak up if this is not the case. Similarly, two-way programs also may help to promote a more positive school culture with respect to the value of other languages and cultures. Two-way programs, in other words, compel a greater proportion of the school’s community to care about language development and instruction. While there are many reasons why two-way programs may not always be feasible to implement – for instance, they require buy-in from non-EL students and parents; they also can be challenging for students who transfer into the program after kindergarten; they also require teachers who are trained and qualified to teach both content and language – the findings from this study suggest that such challenges may be worth surmounting, if possible.