Expert Podcast: Understanding How English Learners Count in ESSA Reporting

This transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies. If you notice an error, feel free to email [email protected].

CHAPTERS 

[00:00:00]: Why subgroup definitions matter under ESSA 

[00:08:33]: Transparency gaps and stakeholder visibility 

[00:09:01]: Including former ELs in accountability metrics 

[00:11:29]: Reporting with and without former ELs 

[00:13:57]: Data reporting nuances and Colorado example 

[00:17:03]: Graduation rate rules and rescinded regulations 

[00:19:02]: Federal guidance, monitoring, and next steps 

[00:21:06]: ESSA compendium, resources, and closing 

TRANSCRIPT

[00:00:01.280] 

Hi everyone, and thanks for joining us for this podcast from the Migration Policy Institute's National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy. My name is Margie McHugh and I'm the Director of the center. And I'm here today with Dr. Julie Sugarman, who's a Senior Policy analyst for Pre K to 12 education at the center. We've organized the podcast to to talk about the fourth in a series of what we're calling English Learner Insights. And it has to do well. The title of it actually is which English Learners Count When? And it's focused on understanding state English learner subgroup definitions in reporting that's required by the federal government under the Every Student Succeeds Act, which is the big federal law that governs the federal investment in K12 education. I just wanted to say as part of the intro that this EL insight builds on several earlier ones that Julie's written. One of the first ones was a guide to finding and understanding English learner data. And all of the ones in this series are designed to help folks kind of get more of a of a technical read, welcome people, I guess, who aren't professionals in the education world necessarily to kind of explore a bunch of the different issues related to English learners.

[00:01:33.780] 

Because a lot of times things are pretty technical as you'll hear a little bit more about with this English learner insight. And just as a way to kind of invite more people who are stakeholders in the education of immigrant and English learner children into some of the really big debates and system design reforms and the like that are going on so that they can kind of trace what are the impacts of these various policies on English learner kids and maybe figure out, you know, where things might be going wrong for kids that they care about or judge their systems against others. So the other, the other two that preceded this one, one is around legal protections for K12 English learner and immigrant background students, and the other one looks at English learner program models. Once you figure out and identify who English learners are, you realize there's these different key subgroups of them and different program models respond to their needs. I love the progression Julie's done here, where we're now at where the rubber really hits the road for people who are inside the state systems trying to contend with all these very big accountability issues under federal law and how do they actually do it because it's pretty deep and complex.

[00:02:58.440] 

So Julie, maybe could you just start by talking a little bit about kind of what's in this brief and what's not, you know, just because English. The whole English learner field is so huge. And, you know, there's. There's just a lot going on in terms of how the English learner subgroup kind of is threaded across, I guess, a bunch of different education policy areas. So maybe just give us the overview of what people can find in this particular insight and then we can get into a little bit more, some of why it all really matters.

[00:03:34.580] 

Great. Yeah, I think that that's a really critical distinction because one of the first places that the report goes is to look at who is an English learner in terms of the definition. But that's a very short section. It really just touches on the brief issues around testing and identifying English learners and the fact that what qualifies a student as an English learner in one state might not qualify them in another. That's a really big topic on its own. But that's not really the central part of this brief. This insight really goes deeper into how once children are identified as English learners or not, how ELs are brought into the EL subgroup and maybe excluded from the subgroup in certain cases for English language arts, math, English language proficiency, graduation rate, all of the different indicators that go into the accountability system. And also looking at how that's different for things that are just reported by states about how English learners are doing and how those things are actually used for accountability, because that's another really important distinction. So it's less about which individual children become English learners, Although I do talk about that just a little bit at the beginning to set the context.

[00:04:51.640] 

It's really about once we have this group, which members of the group count in the EL subgroup for all of these different indicators and items that are reported by states on the federally mandated reporting.

[00:05:05.160] 

Great. Maybe say a little bit more. I don't know if we're giving too much away by talking about this at the top, but. But maybe say a little bit more about kind of why this matters or how it connects to the sequence of other English learner insights. How do we wind up here?

[00:05:22.700] 

Yeah, how we ended up here is in looking at ESSA plans. And of course, we're about four or five years into. Well, three years into having ESSA plans and five years into ESSA altogether. We've been really trying here at the center to figure out exactly what the rules are, exactly how those are playing out in states, and it's a lot more complicated than we thought. So this really started with my thinking. This is really enormously complicated for someone like me who has a significant amount of time to devote to figuring it out. How is anybody going to understand what the rules are if they really don't have that time? I think that it's really important for people to understand who's included and who's not. Some of these decisions are more significant than others, and we'll talk about some examples. But we want people to understand really who's in the subgroup. And also there are stakeholders who are going to want to evaluate these policy choices because states had leeway to decide who would be included or excluded at certain points. And these are not necessarily things that we have a great deal of research on.

[00:06:35.940] 

So we're going to want to evaluate and keep track of whether states are doing things consistently. Are they reporting what they said that they were going to report? Are these things working the way that we thought they would? So all of that requires us to really understand at a very, very detailed level who's included in the subgroup. Great.

[00:06:58.880] 

So, yes, I'm sort of almost giggling here quietly, that when Julie said she has a lot of years of experience in this, I remember back to when No Child Left Behind was first paid, and what a really significant development it was in federal education policy that English learners were a subgroup that mattered for accountability purposes. And it was a really important moment to make sure we knew who these kids were and to be able to see them and how they were doing. And at least I recall that a lot of the idea then, and even under ESSA, when the law was subsequently, subsequently reauthorized, that we were kind of meant to have it be that parents and kind of local communities could follow this stuff. And here you have a PhD and it does feel like, especially reading this report, that you really do need a PhD to kind of understand what's going on. But so I guess with that in mind, do you want to give us maybe a few examples of, for example, how. What are some examples of where this might be visible to a parent or visible to a school board member?

[00:08:14.070] 

How do you break it out in your mind why these differences in the definitions of the subgroup matter, but who's going to come upon them from these different stakeholder groups that really care about the education of kids generally and immigrant and English learner kids more specifically?

[00:08:33.420] 

Yeah, and the way you put it is making me giggle a little bit because you, of course, have sort of foreshadowed something else we'll talk about, which is that people often aren't going to come across it and they're not going to recognize these differences because states are not doing a great job of being transparent about it. So one of the big ones, can

[00:08:52.980] 

they all call you then?

[00:08:54.140] 

Absolutely, yes. And I'm trying to keep track of

[00:08:57.380] 

that, but we'll give Julie's number later on.

[00:09:01.960] 

I think one of the really big ones that is a very big concern, and not just from a data nerd perspective, but from a real life consequences perspective, is including former English learners in English language arts and math. So under No Child Left Behind, states were allowed to include English learners after they had already, after they left English learner status, schools could include them for two years for accountability purposes. And this was done so that states would get credit because of course, sort of the definition of English learner is that they're not yet able to pass English language arts and math and science tests at the same rate as non-English learners. And so schools said, well, this isn't fair. As soon as these kids develop this ability, they're out of the group and we don't get credit for them. So this is sort of a compromise. And under ESSA, you're allowed to include these students for up to four years in ESSA plans. States were not particularly clear about. They were clear about whether they would include them or not, but a lot of them did not indicate whether it would be for two years or four years.

[00:10:09.400] 

So that's one issue. But the reason that this is important is that by giving schools credit, you're raising the passing rate, as it were, of English language arts and math. And that's great because it shows that English learners can be successful and it's not penalizing schools for having all of these current English learners who by definition couldn't pass the tests. But it also can be misleading because if it shows, for example, that the English learner students are looking really good and it's looking like they're closing the gap with non English learners, it's, it may be hard to know which ones of those are former ELs and which are current ELs. And so you really want to maintain that distinction of students who are current ELs still need support and they still need to need resources and, you know, need to get to that point. But then you also want to be able to show off where the kids get to and, oh, look, as former English learners, they're doing as well or better than their non-English learner peers. So we think having separate groups is really important for reporting those, for reporting purposes. But that's not something that's mandated in the law.

[00:11:26.970] 

So most states are not doing that.

[00:11:29.290] 

Can I stop you for a quick second there.

[00:11:31.090] 

Sure.

[00:11:32.410] 

And this is an honest question, and maybe it's in the brief, in the insight, and I don't remember, but so are many states or any states or districts, do they report it both with and without the former ELs? Because it would seem to me, if you were a policymaker, that, you know, this really is a tension from a policymaker perspective of how do you give schools credit because they deserve it for having ells exit the subgroup, but then you're only always leaving kids who by definition are still English learners. It makes schools look like they're doing nothing. And then you just pointed out the problem of mixing in former ELs. So do policymakers see it both with and without, or how do they understand the data when they're looking at it? And if some, you know, for people who are listening here, is it one of those things where states just, it's pretty random whether they're doing it or not and very different across states.

[00:12:29.340] 

So, yeah, And I do talk about this in the brief. The trick here is that the states are required to report the outcomes of students. So how many students were below basic or at basic or proficient or advanced? So if they have like four levels, they have to report how many of all students and each subgroup are at those levels on English language arts and math and so on. They are not allowed to use former ELs in that reporting. That reporting is not for accountability, though. They then have something that's called the Academic Achievement Indicator and the Academic Progress Indicator. And these two indicators, they may use former ELs, but the academic Progress Indicator is required to be reported, but the Academic Achievement Indicator is not. And for those listening at home, if your eyes are spinning, that's okay, it's in the report and you can get more details there. But this is one of those areas where the fact that we had regulations on exactly what was supposed to be reported and what didn't need to be reported, and then those were rescinded by the Trump administration when they first took office. That has really made everything more complicated because there were a lot more things required to be reported by the regulations, and some of those things, like the Academic Achievement Indicator, are no longer required.

[00:13:57.920] 

The bigger issue there is that states just really aren't that clear in terms of what you're looking at when you're looking at the, when you're looking at the information. And are they actually reporting all of the different calculations that they are supposed to be making? You know, we can trust that they're making those calculations that are going into the indicators but it's just hard to tell from the outside. But I will say that in the Insight, I profiled Colorado and what they're doing. And the reason that I did that primarily was because they did show all of the different pieces of work and all of the different ways of showing these results. And so that was a good example for me to bring to everybody so that they could see what it looked like when states do include all of the information.

[00:14:42.570] 

So I know that it's really hard to kind of work to think about these issues at the national level because of how different and uneven a lot of the state policies are, which is why I wasn't really joking about people getting in touch with you directly because I know a lot of people do. I often think there's only maybe like two dozen people per state, if even that, who understand what's deeply embedded into some of their policies. But to the extent that you not policies, necessarily policies and procedures, I guess about how all these things are calculated. But could you maybe talk a little bit about to the extent that you can look across states, what are some of the things that you would suggest folks think about or look at in terms of just some of the really the top line things that they should be aware of as kind of the sensitive touch points in the system for really understanding a state's approach and how

[00:15:45.750] 

it can be improved? Yeah, I think that the really important ones are the really important pieces of the puzzle. There are the one I mentioned about former English learners and also for English language arts and math, that recent arrivals can be excluded in their first year. And there's a whole set of options around that. So I think those are very important things to look at. Another one is the graduation rate, which again was sort of a victim of the regulation issue because there were new regulations under ESSA saying that all states must include any student who was an English learner anytime in high school in the subgroup for English learners. And those regulations were rescinded. So we go back to the previous No Child Left behind regulations and those said you can do it any way you want. You can include students who were ELs the last year in high school or just the last day that they were enrolled or anytime in the four years or any other rule, any other way you want. And those regulations didn't stipulate that states had to be public about that. So I do show in the Insight which states are doing what at this point, most of them are following the anytime time in high school sort of guideline.

[00:17:03.040] 

But I think that that's another one that's very, very important for people to keep track of. And I think that's probably one of my top priorities for states to fix or to include more information on on their data dashboards to make sure that when you're showing the graduation rate, just say, is this ELs anytime in high school or English, Current English learners plus two or four years of monitor or whatever it is? Yeah, I think those three really are probably the top of mind. And then there's about four or five others that I cover in the brief.

[00:17:41.110] 

So it sounds like, well, first of all, through the brief, folks can figure get a bit of a diagram about sort of where these different issues occur about who's in the subgroup for these different accountability reporting purposes, where the data exists otherwise as well, not necessarily for reporting purposes. So there's a big kind of state level roadmap in a sense of where folks should look, some examples of the context in which those are all provided. So it's a bit of an agenda there that folks can, I think, figure out in the brief. Back to the federal level, just before we close, there was this problem of a lot of things having been carefully banged out by, I think it was an expert panel that had been convened post the passage of the legislation to try and figure out how to make it as fair and transparent as possible how this would all be implemented. But then as you said, those roles were rolled back. So to the extent that there's also kind of a federal sort of agenda in here of where there's some ragged edges, do you want to just say a little bit about that before we close?

[00:19:02.270] 

Yeah, I think that, I know you

[00:19:03.670] 

mentioned a little bit of it earlier, but just to put a finer point on it.

[00:19:06.590] 

Yeah, I think coming back to those regulations, you know, we don't know that those were all of the right choices. And in a sense we'll have better information when ESSA eventually comes up for reauthorization. So that's sort of a good thing that we can be making those policy decisions with a little bit more empirical backing. But certainly nothing is stopping states from just following the regulations that were in existence. And I would say that for the most part states did, because those were, you know, the sort of logical choices. But I would say that also another piece that's important to know is that as states are monitored for Title 1, this is one of the things that the federal government is going to be looking at. It behooves states to go ahead and take a look and make sure that they are following all of the rules that were in ESSA and the new guidance that came out for report cards back in September to make sure that everything is in order, because the states are going to be looking at this with a fine tooth comb. And I think that they should. I think that that will also bring up a lot of the questions and sort of the gray areas that were in ESSA.

[00:20:20.640] 

I think that will go along. It will be sort of a painful process for those that have some errors or ways of doing things that aren't necessarily in line with the law. But I think it'll be a good process for taking a look at what needs to be changed.

[00:20:34.950] 

And with our the you mentioned earlier the ESSA compendium we had put together looking at the various states. So there was the impression that folks really, I don't know if it's fair to characterize it as that folks rushed in a sense to kind of pull their plans together and that it really didn't look like things hung together well in a few places. But that's another resource, I assume, for folks who want to take a closer look at what their state did related to this and other issues.

[00:21:06.410] 

And, you know, a lot of things have changed and states are continually updating. But I think that the ESSA compendium does a great job of showing what the range is, what the possibilities are. And I think that will also help the federal government when it's ready to reauthorize and look at maybe some opportunities that they hadn't thought of before based on some of the things that states did in 2016, 2017, when they put their plans together.

[00:21:30.240] 

Great. All right. Well, I think we'll leave it there because as I understand it, we're supposed to kind of keep it within what people's usual drive times are, commute times are. So it looks like we're just about there. But Julie, you are just a wealth of information that goes deep into all these systems. And I know you're always happy to talk to folks about how their systems design and how they should think about what are some of the areas for improvement. So, folks, you can find Julie on our website, Julie Sugarman, and we're at www.migrationpolicy.org. thank you very much for listening and please feel free to go to our website if you haven't already and download this EL Insight, Which English Learners Count When? Understanding State EL Subgroup Definitions in ESSA Reporting. Thank you.