A conversation with ... Robert Linquanti 

A researcher speaks about the lessons learned from Proposition 227

Robert Linquanti is Project Director in English Learner Evaluation and Accountability Support, and Senior Research Associate at WestEd. For the past five years, Linquanti also served as Associate Project Director of the legislatively mandated statewide evaluation study of Proposition 227, which WestEd and the American Institutes for Research have just completed. He has published and presented widely on evaluating English learner education policies, language proficiency reclassification, and improving accountability for ELs.

California Schools Managing Editor Kristi Garrett recently spoke with him about his study of Proposition 227 and its implications for how districts can best help English learners.

You conclude after a five-year study of the implementation of Proposition 227 that it makes little difference whether students are taught in a bilingual or an immersion setting. What did you find that does make a difference?

We found that statewide, English learner students were making comparable academic progress regardless of the language of instruction used. It was the quality of the instructional program that appears to make the difference. The schools that were doing much better with their ELs relative to their peers had clear expectations and a focus on ensuring that all ELs advance in their English skills as well as academically. They had a clear instructional plan for ELs, and systematically used data to monitor student performance on a regular basis. They were more likely to have a shared vision of what they wanted for their ELs and distributed leadership for realizing that vision. They were also more skilled at hiring teachers who were specially trained to work with these students — versus comparable schools that were not doing as well. The successful schools had a systematic approach to English language development and were more likely to have each teacher the EL student comes into contact with — not just an ELD teacher — stretching their students’ English and academic language skills while they engage them with grade-level content.

Who was it directing all of that activity?

It was shared schoolwide. Also, there was more likely to be a district-level vision for ELs — a focus on these students, clearly defined goals and consistency in policies and practices across schools within the district. District staff provided school sites with technical assistance, focused professional development and timely, useful data.

But the point is that the board recognized they had a population of students that needed special attention?

In several cases, yes. For example, this was very clear when we looked at the redesignation practices of different districts. We saw real differences in high-redesignating districts compared to low-redesignating districts in terms of accountability policies and practices. High-redesignating districts really operationalized and shared responsibility for the process. For example, the board would review statistics on how many ELs were making progress and how many who were “in range” were actually being redesignated. These districts also provided helpful data to school sites on kids’ redesignatable status at multiple points during the year. They would also help school sites to review student files and facilitate the process of redesignation. There was cultivation of certain practices and behaviors, distributed leadership and a real caring and commitment at the schools that were doing better by their ELs.

Did you find any instructional methods or approaches that work best for English learners?

Schools that were having more success were more aware of who their students were, so they were clearer on what their students’ needs were, and they would deploy staff accordingly. For example, if they knew they had large populations of kids who were coming into the school or district, they were responsive in terms of having a newcomer program in place. For the schools that offered primary language in instruction, they ensured their teachers were instructionally competent in that language. They were more likely to have core content instructional materials comparable to what the native English-speaking kids were getting. These schools were also more likely to focus on those critical literacy and language skills, the kind of academic language kids are going to need to be successful in school. Again, many schools offered primary language as well as structured English immersion. But they had a schoolwide focus, a sense of where they were going, and high expectations for kids’ progress and achievement. And the educators monitored their own performance with these kids and were constantly striving to do things better.

Was that a change from the way English learners were taught before Proposition 227?

Statewide, many educators noted that before Proposition 227 these kids really didn’t count. The majority of educators we talked to thought Proposition 227 had helped, not because of the mandated instructional program that it required, but rather due to the spotlight it cast on the needs of these English learners. But they also identified other factors such as the Public Schools Accountability Act, which was when these kids started to count in the Academic Performance Index, and especially the No Child Left Behind Act, where they now count as a subgroup for Title I “adequate yearly progress” and are the focus of Title III. They also noted that Proposition 227 had not substantially influenced EL redesignation, integration or academic performance.

Speaking of redesignation, it was shocking to read your estimate that the probability of an English learner being redesignated as fluent after 10 years in California is less than 40 percent.

It is a very dramatic number. We have to remember that redesignation is composed of several criteria. One of those criteria is English language proficiency as measured by CELDT (California English Language Development Test), but there are several others, including academic achievement in core subject matter. Districts also set their own criteria and include grades, district writing prompts and local assessments. So what gets you into the EL category is very different from what gets you out of it. Our statewide surveys and interviews found that students often remain in English learner status, not because of English language proficiency issues, but due to academic achievement issues, and to some extent, poorly implemented policies and practices. This really put a spotlight on the quality of students’ access to and engagement with grade-level academic subject matter while they’re learning English. If educators believe that first you learn English, and only when your English is at a certain level, you receive grade-level instruction — that is a recipe for students to fall behind academically. There needs to be a much greater emphasis on ensuring that students have access from the very beginning to grade-level content instruction, even while they’re learning English. This is easy to say but difficult to do because it depends on improving the quality of instruction, differentiating instruction and scaffolding content for kids who are learning the language. It takes long-term, on-site professional development and sustained instructional leadership throughout the district to make it happen.

So, looking back, was it realistic to expect students to transition to English-only instruction after one year, as Proposition 227 assumed?

Not at all. We’ve concluded that Proposition 227 was based on a faulty premise, that if you just immerse students in English for one year, then they’re going to transition and reach grade-level performance much more quickly. The evidence has not borne that out.

Our data analyses and teacher and administrator surveys all indicate that this expectation is completely unrealistic for the vast majority of English learners, who are taking more than three years to meet the criteria for redesignation. Very few students meet the criteria to be considered “reasonably fluent” — let alone redesignated fluent English proficient — after a year.

Do you find that districts generally have a low redesignation rate because students really are not mastering English and accessing the core curriculum, or is it a reflection of district policies? In other words, is this a teaching problem or an organizational problem?

It’s both. The redesignation criteria were not necessarily lower in the higher-redesignating districts compared to lower-redesignating districts. But when we compared districts with higher redesignation rates to those with lower redesignation rates relative to the state average, districts with higher rates had much more highly organized procedures and systems in place. School staff had clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and district staff provided helpful, useful data on their students at multiple times during the year to school sites; they would pitch in and help; they saw themselves as being in service to school sites. Districts that were lower-redesignating tended to leave it to the schools and not have as much ownership for it.

It sounds like it was seen as more of an administrative compliance issue for those lower-redesignating districts.

Exactly. And that connects to how much internal accountability there was at the district level. The higher-redesignating districts carefully monitored progress on each criterion, and that was part of an overall effort to ensure that EL students were moving forward.

Did you look at whether there was any difference in EL performance in districts that use solely the state-adopted materials versus those that add supplemental materials?

Where there was systematic focus on developing kids’ academic language skills, there was also very clearly an effort to have standards-based teaching that stretched kids’ productive skills in both academic English language development and English language arts. In other words, they saw ELD and ELA as connected, not separate. We also saw that they more often had a schoolwide focus on ELD, and fostered language development in all subjects throughout the day. They were more likely to align instruction for ELs across classes within grades, across grade levels within schools, and across schools within the district.

What else can school boards and superintendents do to make sure their programs for English learners are effective?

There are many lessons that school boards and superintendents can take away from this study. One, is there a districtwide vision, focus and set of expectations for progress for these students? Two, how carefully do they invest their professional development resources relative to students’ and teachers’ demonstrated needs? Three, do they have their instructional resources in the form of teachers and materials deployed in the most effective ways possible?

There is a statewide phenomenon where schools that have higher concentrations of ELs tend to have fewer teachers credentialed to instruct these kids. And schools with lower concentrations of these kids have greater percentages of teachers credentialed to teach them. So this is a real question for district leadership — boards and superintendents — to consider. It’s also a systemic issue of equitable distribution of resources, and which schools teachers gravitate toward.

What other questions should district leaders be asking?

How accountable do they hold themselves for how well these kids progress? Do they have clear goals for progress and for achievement, both linguistically and academically? Do they monitor their kids’ progress? Do they act on their data? Do they look carefully at where kids are stagnating and why, and where they need to invest in professional development? The schools and districts that are doing better by their ELs tended to be more strategic and long-term in their professional development efforts. They were more focused on what they knew their kids needed, and therefore they were more focused on making sure their teachers got the professional development they needed. I think these are real take-home ideas for district leadership.

In the final analysis, what has been the impact of Proposition 227?

On the positive side, it focused attention on English learners and made more people aware of the existence of this population and the importance of serving them well.

But we conclude in our report that Proposition 227 focused on the wrong issue. The focus on the language of instruction we think has distracted attention from what the really critical issues are. We recommended that the state and educators move beyond this fruitless debate over language of instruction, and focus on the quality of instruction.

So was any harm done by the initiative or the way it was implemented?

We heard in the early years in particular that there was a lot of confusion with respect to what Proposition 227 allowed and didn’t allow. There was confusion about what structured English immersion should look like, and about what constituted “overwhelmingly in English.” And at the beginning, of course, there was also a threat of lawsuits against teachers who failed to comply. So there was a lot of worry, concern and lack of guidance. But that has improved over time as people have become more aware and more familiar with implementing these programs.

What still concerns us is the provision of alternative program waivers. Structured English immersion is now the default instructional program setting for these students. But parents have the right to request and be granted a waiver for their students to receive instruction in an alternative program that uses primary language in instruction. We saw some districts that did not act on any waivers, even though many waivers were submitted. We also saw districts where nothing really seemed to change after Proposition 227, so it was not clear whether they were providing a clear set of options for parents to choose from. It does depend somewhat on the population and on the resources in the school or district, but we think there’s a real need for further clarification and guidance in this area from the state.

What happens now?

We’re under no illusion that this debate around bilingual education is just going to disappear, because the use of the student’s primary language is still a very emotional issue for a lot of folks. Bilingual education is a lightning rod for ongoing debates in our society concerning immigration policy, national identity and the culture wars. It’s important that we get beyond this particular debate about language of instruction, which really has been fruitless. We have made several recommendations to the state and school districts; perhaps the most important is that we learn from our own successes. There are dozens of California schools and districts with large concentrations of ELs that are doing very well with these students. We need to systematically learn from them and strengthen the instructional leadership, technical support and professional development needed to expand on that excellence.

Why is it so important that we succeed at raising the academic achievement of English learners?

We’re talking about a population that constitutes 25 percent of the kids in public K-12 schools in California. If you look at grades K-3, it’s 33 percent. If you look at the population that has ever been EL, it’s about 45 percent of our students. This is a population we cannot afford to ignore. Even redesignated students, as they continue through the grades, often need additional support. It’s very important that we serve this population well because they will be working in our state, in our economy, and we have a moral imperative to serve these kids well.

Educators don’t get into this business to make millions. They get into it because they believe in education and the future of our democracy. These kids are absolutely crucial to that future, so we neglect them at our peril.

Kristi Garrett (kgarrett@csba.org) is managing editor of California Schools.