By Camila Morales and Alonzo Lepper
In this report, we explore how English Learner (EL) reclassification policies vary across states and the relationship between states’ policy structures and the characteristics of their EL populations. EL reclassification policies outline the criteria ELs must meet to attain English language proficiency. Once reclassified, ELs no longer receive targeted language support services. A growing body of evidence links reclassification determinations to future academic outcomes and points to the importance of setting appropriate benchmarks for determining reclassification decisions.
We begin by examining EL reclassification policy documents and identifying four distinct groups of state policies based on the kind of reclassification requirements as of December 2023: 1) states with a single ELP criterion, 2) states with multiple ELP criteria, 3) states with non-ELP criteria listed as an optional requirement, and 4) states with mandated non-ELP criteria. We then combine data from Consolidated State Performance Reports (2018, 2019, and 2022) and the National Center for Education Statistics (2000 and 2010) to examine how reclassification policies relate to the prevalence and growth of ELs, their demographic characteristics, and the share of long-term ELs.
Our key findings:
- States with a higher share of EL students generally implement more complex reclassification policies involving multiple criteria and non-ELP requirements. Approximately one-third of ELs nationwide must demonstrate proficiency in non-ELP assessments to qualify for reclassification.
- States that have experienced faster growth in their EL population over time are more likely to rely exclusively on ELP requirements and impose fewer criteria as part of their reclassification policies.
- The kind of test-based criteria, rather than the number, is likely a more salient determinant of long-term EL status.
- When states impose relatively more complex reclassification policies, they tend to moderate these structures by selecting comparatively less rigorous cutoffs on the composite ELP assessment requirement.