Schools are legally required to ensure English learners have access to English-language instruction. They also have an obligation to ensure such students can access core academic content in mathematics, English language/arts, social studies, and science.
Yet not all English learners are enrolled in those core courses in their high school years, according to a new research brief. That puts them at risk of falling behind their classmates and not learning the academic skills they need to complete high school.
Ilana Umansky and Karen Thompson, associate professors at the University of Oregon and Oregon State University respectively, found evidence that English learners in both Oregon and Michigan were excluded from core content during their high school years. And they worry it’s a common practice elsewhere in the United States as well, they said.
In Oregon, for instance, there was about a 10-percentage-point difference between the proportion of English learners enrolled in ELA courses and the proportion of their non-English learner peers—a phenomenon that researchers refer to as exclusionary tracking.
The researchers analyzed course enrollment data from Oregon for 2013-2019 and data from Michigan for 2011-2015.
The new research highlights the need for school officials to pay attention to course enrollment data so they’re ensuring all English learners have access to the core academic content they need to graduate and aren’t falling behind their non-English learner peers as a result.
Why English learners are excluded from courses
The new research brief, published in late August by the National Research and Development Center to Improve Education for Secondary English Learners, part of the research firm WestEd, didn’t pinpoint causes for exclusionary tracking, but the researchers did find a common trend in the data from schools in both states.
For instance, dually identified students—those classified as both English learners and eligible for special education services—are far more likely to be excluded from core content.
The same goes for newcomers and students with lower levels of English-language proficiency, Umansky said.
Educators could be wrongly assuming that such students can’t simultaneously learn English alongside core academic content, she added.
“We can’t say that that’s happening or not. All we can say is that certain characteristics are associated with higher levels of exclusion,” Umansky said.
A prevailing hypothesis in past research has been that schools aren’t enrolling English learners in core courses because they are instead prioritizing English-language development courses in these students’ daily schedules.
But to Umansky and Thompson’s surprise, scheduling only explained why English learners with low English-language proficiency were missing out on core courses, not their English learner peers who were more familiar with English.
More research is needed to figure out exactly what’s keeping these English learners out of core courses.
Past research has explored potential reasons, Thompson said.
For instance, a lack of training on serving multilingual students for school counselors and other designated staff members tasked with deciding on course placements could be a factor, past research has suggested.
What educators can do to end exclusionary tracking
The new research brief highlights the need for local and state education leaders to dig more deeply into student course schedules and enrollment data to prevent exclusionary tracking, Umansky said.
Once education leaders have more data on these gaps, Thompson said, they can then discuss how to ensure not only that English learners have access to core courses, but that they can succeed in them.
For instance, it’s helpful to ensure all English learners are enrolled in core courses, but if the teachers in those classrooms aren’t trained in best practices for supporting multilingual students, they might not be providing the best learning environment for those students.
“We care about the opportunity to learn, but we also care that that opportunity is meaningful, that it’s not enough for students to just be placed in the classes if there’s not a structure for success,” Thompson said.
District leaders can then make investments to ensure educators have the tools they need to help English learners succeed in core courses, Thompson said.
In Oregon, for instance, some districts used COVID-19 relief funds to help teachers obtain license endorsements to work with multilingual students.
It can also be beneficial for school administrators to simply review English learners’ schedules, looking specifically at the classes in which they’re enrolled—and the classes that aren’t on their schedules—and asking why, Umansky said. This practice can help ensure English learners aren’t missing out on courses they need to graduate on time, Umansky said.
Messaging from state and local education leaders that it’s a priority to reduce exclusionary tracking can be powerful, said Fernanda Kray, a senior technical assistance consultant at the nonprofit American Institutes for Research, who did not participate in Umansky and Thompson’s research.
“What is the expectation that we are setting in ensuring full participation for students?” Kray said. “The message has to be clear that English-learner status or the English-language-proficiency level cannot be used to deny access to core content, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate—whatever course it is that they are entitled to or they desire.”
Teachers also need to collaborate, understanding that language instruction is a shared responsibility, and not strictly the domain of English-as-a-second-language teachers. Students can learn language through course content, and they can also pick up course content while learning language, Kray said.
This type of collaboration requires support and encouragement from school and district administrators, including space in master schedules that allows it to happen.
