Understanding and Supporting the Educational Needs of Recently Arrived Immigrant English ...

80 Pages·2017·1.37 MB·English

March 2018
Understanding and Supporting the
Educational Needs of Recently Arrived
Immigrant English Learner Students:
Lessons for State and Local Education Agencies
THE COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS
The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nonpartisan, nationwide nonprofit organization of public
officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Columbia,
the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions. CCSSO provides leadership,
advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues. The Council seeks member consensus on major
educational issues and expresses their views to civic and professional organizations, federal agencies, Congress,
and the public.
Suggested Citation: Umansky, I., Hopkins, M., Dabach, D. B., Porter, L., Thompson, K., Pompa, D. (2018).
Understanding and supporting the educational needs of recently arrived immigrant English learner students:
Lessons for state and local education agencies. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Ilana Umansky
Megan Hopkins
Dafney Blanca Dabach
Lorna Porter
Karen Thompson
Delia Pompa
The authors extend their thanks to a number of individuals who helped support the research and writing of
this report. These include Fen Chou, Kenji Hakuta, and all of the members of the Council of Chief State School
Officers’ English Learner State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards. We also wish to thank Kylie
Hiemstra, Hayley Weddle, and Peter Bjorklund for excellent research assistance. Finally, we are grateful to the
many state, district, and school leaders and educators who contributed their time and expertise to this project.
COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS
Carey Wright (Mississippi), President
Carissa Moffat Miller, Executive Director
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700 • Washington, DC 20001-1431
Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.ccsso.org
© 2018 by CCSSO. Understanding and Supporting the Educational Needs of Recently Arrived Immigrant English
Learner Students: Lessons for State and Local Education Agencies is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
ExEcUtIvE SUmmARy norms and characteristics of a new country,
community, and school setting (Short & Boyson,
The foreign-born population in the United 2012; Suárez-Orozco, Rhodes, & Milburn, 2009).
U
n
States is larger than it has ever been with over Given this wide range of challenges, it is no d
e
40 million immigrants living in the country. U.S. surprise that education agencies struggle to rsta
n
classrooms are increasingly diverse, with well develop policies and practices that adequately d
in
g
over two million foreign-born children ages address RAIELs’ needs. a
n
d
5 through 17 enrolled in school, roughly 4.1 S
There is limited understanding of who RAIELs u
percent of the total student population (Brown p
p
are as a student group and how their needs o
& Stepler, 2016). Not only are there a record rtin
differ from those of English learners more g
number of immigrant youth, but changing th
broadly. A number of case studies explore e
migration patterns have resulted in immigrant E
the incorporation of students with refugee d
families and communities throughout the U.S., u
c
not just in traditional immigrant destinations status and unaccompanied minors in U.S. atio
n
schools (e.g., Short & Boyson, 2012), and a
(Massey & Capoferro, 2008; Terrazas, 2011). l N
research has identified a number of student e
These arriving immigrants bring tremendous e
d
characteristics that are associated with higher s
assets and strengths to U.S. classrooms o
or lower academic outcomes among immigrant f R
and communities, yet it remains important e
c
youth (Suárez-Orozco, Gaytán, Bang, Pakes, e
to build understanding of how existing n
O’Connor, & Rhodes, 2010). There is limited, if tly
structures can best support these students’ A
success in U.S. schools. any, research, however, examining how different rriv
e
levels of the education system (i.e., state, d
Im
Recently arrived immigrant English learners district, school) interact to shape the RAIEL m
ig
(RAIELs) are a highly diverse group, student experience. ra
n
encompassing important subgroups such as t E
students with refugee status, unaccompanied This report, and the studies that form the nglis
backbone of the findings reported here, h
minors, and students with limited or interrupted L
e
were initiated by the Council of Chief State a
formal education (SLIFEs). RAIELs arrive in the r
n
U.S. filtering into all grade levels, with varied School Officers’ (CCSSO) English Learner State er S
Collaborative on Assessment and Student tu
initial English proficiency levels, educational d
e
Standards (EL SCASS). This group, made up n
backgrounds, and home language literacy ts
of leaders of English learner education from : L
levels. These students bring unique and valued e
s
state departments of education across the so
strengths to the classroom, but also frequently n
s
face shared challenges. While RAIELs share with country, identified a need to understand and fo
improve their work supporting the education r S
other English learners (ELs) a common need to ta
of immigrant students who had recently arrived te
acquire English proficiency, they also often have a
n
in the U.S. d
needs that non-recently arrived EL students L
o
do not typically have. These include mental, This report explores answers to three critical cal E
physical, and social needs that are shaped by d
questions: (1) Who are recently arrived immigrant u
c
dislocation and trauma exposure; academic a
EL students? (2) What are their educational tio
needs that pertain to limited or interrupted n
needs? and (3) What school, district, and A
g
prior formal schooling; and adjustment to the e
state-level policies and practices are being n
c
ie
s
i
implemented to support them? Our hope is SEctIoN I: chARActERIStIcS
that the report offers information, support, and ANd SchooLINg oUtcomES
guidance for the work of both state departments of RAIELS
s
e
ci of education and local education agencies as
n
e
g they design, implement, adapt, and evaluate Who are RAIELs? In the two states examined,
A
n
o their programs, policies, and services for this RAIELs were an immensely diverse set of
ati
c important group of students. students constituting about 1 percent of
u
d
E the overall student population in each state.
al The report is organized into three main
oc Important subgroups of RAIELs included
d L sections. Section I reports findings from refugee students, migrant students,
n
a descriptive quantitative analyses of RAIEL
e unaccompanied minors, SLIFEs, and students
Stat students in two U.S. states, filling gaps in our with disabilities. On average, RAIELs were from
or understanding of (1) who RAIEL students are,
s f low-income families. A sizable proportion of
n (2) how they are doing in school, and (3) how
o RAIELs were from Spanish-speaking homes, but
s
s
e they are being served in school. Section II
L important populations also spoke Arabic and
s: reports descriptive findings from case studies
nt Somali, among other languages. Characteristics
e
d conducted in six school districts serving RAIELs
u of RAIELs differed by home language (which
er St around the country. That section is organized serves as an imperfect proxy for country
arn around the following two questions: (1) How or region of origin). RAIELs arrived in U.S.
e
L are districts and schools responding to meet
h schools at all ages and grades, with the largest
s
gli the needs of RAIEL populations? and (2) How proportions entering in kindergarten and the
n
nt E do RAIEL supports vary across districts? While smallest proportions entering in the 11th and
gra we cannot make claims about the effectiveness 12th grades. RAIELs were often clustered into
mi
of any particular district policy or program, we
m schools and districts that served large RAIEL
d I provide an overview of how these districts, all of
e populations, but many also attended low-
v
Arri which were recommended as having innovative incidence RAIEL schools and districts.
y practices in place for RAIELs, have stepped
ntl
e up to the challenge of meeting RAIELs’ needs. How are RAIELs doing in school? In both
c
e
of R Section III draws on interviews with leaders states examined, RAIELs had academic
s within 18 state education agencies (SEAs) to performance similar to other ELs but far below
d
e
e examine the role of SEAs in supporting RAIEL that of non-immigrant, English-speaking
N
al education. In that section, we describe what students. RAIELs’ English proficiency levels
n
o
ati state directors of English learner services tended to be lower than other ELs, but they
c
u
d (referred to as Title III directors; see Glossary) made rapid growth across their first three years
E
e report as key challenges regarding their in the U.S. Despite rapid growth, most RAIELs
h
g t work supporting RAIEL education and their were neither English proficient, nor at grade
n
orti perspectives on the main roles that SEAs have level academically, after three years. Secondary
p
p
u in supporting RAIEL education, including key school-aged RAIELs faced steep obstacles for
S
nd strengths and limitations within those roles. graduation. Graduation rates for these students
a
g were between 30 and 60 percent (depending
n
di In this executive summary, we synthesize the
n on state and grade of arrival), far below their
a
erst main findings from each section of the report. non-immigrant, English-speaking peers.
d
n
U
ii
How are RAIELs served in school? In the understand students’ prior schooling and
one state where we have data about RAIEL experiences. Concerning the second goal,
services we found that few RAIEL students, districts employed a range of strategies,
U
n
even among those who enter in later grades, from taking pictures and videos to introduce d
e
were in specialized newcomer programs in students and families to their new schools, rsta
n
school. Instead, the dominant programmatic to riding the bus to and from school with d
in
g
pattern at the elementary school level was students during their first week, to assigning a
n
d
sheltered content instruction, with push-in or RAIELs a buddy or mentor within the school. S
u
pull-out English language development (ELD) p
p
Community partnerships. In all districts, o
instruction. The dominant pattern at the middle rtin
community partners offered wraparound g
and high school levels was a separate ELD class th
services to RAIEL students and families related e
and sheltered content instruction in English. E
to housing, food and nutrition, clothing, d
(See Glossary for definitions of newcomer u
c
programs, ELD, and sheltered instruction). physical and mental health, supplementary atio
n
education, adult language learning, and/ a
l N
or translation. In most cases, these services e
e
d
were coordinated by district- or school- s
SEctIoN II: thE RoLE of o
based personnel who served as school- f R
SchooL dIStRIctS IN e
c
community brokers. In general, the most e
SUppoRtINg RAIEL EdUcAtIoN extensive supports offered via community- ntly
A
based partnership organizations tended to rriv
The six districts we examined were responding e
focus on refugee students and families, with d
to RAIELs’ needs by creating a continuum of Im
wraparound services for non-refugee RAIELs m
supports along the K-12 (and beyond) trajectory ig
primarily offered by school-based staff on ra
and broadening the types of supports at any n
a case-by-case basis. These partnerships t E
given point in that continuum. We focused our n
g
analyses on five key points on that continuum. often allowed school districts to focus more lish
attention on the linguistic and academic needs L
e
a
Intake. Intake processes for RAIELs supported of RAIELs, trusting that other needs were rn
e
two distinct but complementary goals: (1) being supported by partners. r S
tu
d
to obtain information about students and e
Programs and placements. In elementary n
families that would inform program placement ts
schools, districts tended to place RAIELs in : L
e
and support provisions; and (2) to welcome s
general education for most or all of the day, so
refugee students and families and facilitate n
s
and often tried to place RAIELs with general fo
their transition to U.S. schools. Several of education teachers who had EL certification r S
the districts created intake offices for RAIEL ta
(see Glossary). High school offerings tended te
students or had developed standardized RAIEL a
n
to be more specialized and separated, d
intake processes to facilitate these two goals. L
sometimes in the form of newcomer centers, oc
Related to the first goal, districts used a variety a
other times by clustering RAIELs in particular l E
of assessments, including language proficiency du
neighborhood schools. At all levels, districts c
a
(English, and in some cases, home language) negotiated a careful balance between tio
n
and academic tests, stress screeners to identify A
supporting what they considered competing g
possible trauma, and parent interviews to e
n
c
ie
s
iii
core needs of RAIEL students: academic, Graduation. School districts grappled with
social, psychological, linguistic, and career. supporting RAIELs’ pathways to graduation,
Decisions about this balance were district- work, and/or post-secondary education. For
s
e
ci specific and also varied by school level, RAIELs who arrived in elementary and, to a
n
e
g RAIEL age, district and school leadership lesser extent, middle school, there was often
A
n
o philosophy, and community context. a sense across districts that these students
ati
c Programmatic decisions were intertwined would be on track to graduate. The prognosis
u
d
E with larger tensions surrounding the need for RAIELs who arrived in their early or later
al
oc to ensure RAIELs had access to specialized teens, however, was considered more tenuous.
L
d supports while simultaneously addressing While graduation was considered within reach
n
a
e their need for opportunities available to the for students able to take credit-bearing classes
at
St general school population. as they began high school, it was difficult
or
s f for students to acquire sufficient credits
n Personnel, staffing, and capacity building.
o within four years if they began high school in
s
s
e Three key facets of districts’ responses to
L newcomer classes or programs (which typically
s: RAIELs were (1) how EL directors shaped
nt do not earn content-area credits). This was
e
d programs, (2) how districts added (or adapted)
u also true if they were placed into mainstream
er St staff positions, and (3) how districts approached classes but failed to pass them. Districts had
arn building teacher capacity. EL directors typically multiple ways of supporting RAIEL students
e
L played a central role in efforts to welcome
h in acquiring graduation credits or in providing
s
ngli RAIELs and coordinate district responses in alternatives to graduation requirements. These
nt E supporting RAIELs. They shaped programs even included online credit recovery programs,
gra as they simultaneously faced many obstacles, world language requirements that gave credit
mi
chief among them a lack of resources. Districts
m for students’ home language literacy, and
d I also created new positions or adapted existing
e awarding credits for classes taken outside
v
Arri positions to support RAIELs, including positions the U.S. However, graduation rates among
y such as refugee liaisons, community liaisons,
ntl older RAIEL students remained an enormous
e and newcomer graduation specialists. Finally,
ec challenge across all six districts.
of R districts responded by creating or offering
s professional development (PD) opportunities
d
e
e to teachers and administrators in supporting
N
al RAIELs (although this often took the form SEctIoN III: thE RoLE of
n
o StAtE EdUcAtIoN AgENcIES IN
ati of general EL-related PD). Some districts
c SUppoRtINg RAIEL EdUcAtIoN
u
d created incentives for teachers to get EL
E
e teacher certification, while others offered more
h
g t widespread PD on instructional modifications Interviewing Title III directors from 18 states,
n
orti for general education teachers. PD that was we found that SEAs face similar challenges with
pp regard to supporting RAIEL education and are
u more specifically targeted toward RAIEL
nd S education focused on refugees or trauma- developing a set of functions to respond to
a district, school, and student needs.
g informed practice, with two districts partnering
n
di
n with refugee resettlement organizations to Building from challenges. State Title III
a
erst provide informational PD. directors faced shared challenges with regard
d
n
U
iv
to supporting RAIEL education. These common (LEAs) regarding RAIELs such as requiring
challenges included the following: additional data collection elements.
U
(a) supporting secondary-school age RAIELs, Funding. A major role of the SEA was n
d
e
distributing and monitoring funds that rs
(b) collecting data regarding RAIELs, ta
originated from state and federal levels. n
d
in
Broader EL Title III funding, as well as more g
(c) implementing effective intake and a
enrollment policies and practices for targeted funds, were used to support RAIEL nd
S
educational initiatives. As with compliance, u
RAIELs, p
p
the state’s role in providing and monitoring o
(d) having sufficient and appropriate RAIEL- funding for RAIEL education was described rting
specific resources, and as both inhibiting and enhancing RAIEL the
E
education. Limitations were most notably d
u
(e) supporting low-incidence or rapid influx c
RAIEL districts. tied to the availability of funds — almost all atio
n
interviewees expressed that there were simply a
l N
State education agency functions. All state not enough funds at the federal or state level e
e
d
Title III directors reported that their SEA for RAIEL education. In contrast, some directors s
o
engages in roles of compliance, funding, and expressed that they had the power within their f R
e
c
technical assistance with regard to RAIEL state role to shape funding channels. These e
n
education. The scope of what that engagement directors explained that part of their role was to tly A
entailed, however, varied across states. There determine how funds for ELs were distributed rriv
e
were two areas where there was more variation to LEAs. This allowed them to actively adjust d Im
in the agency role described, as fewer SEAs funding based on significant increases in m
ig
reported participating in or facilitating networks immigrant student populations, or to support ra
n
and partnerships and very few SEAs reported smaller districts that may not have enough EL or t E
n
g
engaging in policymaking specific to RAIELs. immigrant populations to qualify for refugee or lis
h
We detail each of the five functions below. immigrant grants (see Glossary). L
e
a
r
n
Compliance. Federal compliance requirements Technical assistance. All 18 states reported er S
drove data collection, reporting, and monitoring engaging in functions regarding the provision tu
d
e
functions within state Title III divisions. Director of RAIEL-focused guidance and technical nts
responses suggested that their role in compliance assistance to LEAs. Informal guidance : L
e
s
work could both limit and enhance the scope of was frequently described in the context so
n
s
RAIEL-specific actions. Some directors stated of responding to immediate and specific fo
that their role could be limited in that often situations arising in schools or districts. r S
ta
compliance activities were seen to drive or enable Directors described these calls for support as te a
n
agency actions, in effect restricting the areas single-case phone calls or emails from district d
L
of Title III directors’ work as well as resource personnel, school administrators, teachers, oc
a
allocation. In contrast, other directors reported or even families. SEAs also supported the l E
d
u
that federal compliance requirements gave SEAs education of RAIELs through more formalized ca
new authority, allowing the state to mandate technical assistance. Technical assistance often tion
A
specific actions from local education agencies included professional development as well g
e
n
c
ie
s
v
as printed or online resources. Guidance and two states varied regionally, with one in the
technical assistance was an area where SEAs Midwest and the other in the Northeast. Both
appeared to be very active, yet state Title III directors noted that RAIELs, and SLIFEs more
s
e
ci directors expressed mixed views on their ability specifically, were student groups of particular
n
e
g to provide accurate and sufficient guidance. focus at the state and local levels. In the first
A
n
o Some expressed a sense of not having enough case the state developed a mandated intake
ati
c knowledge themselves to be able to support process, described as state-level regulations,
u
d
E LEAs, while others saw this area as one in which which included a state-level definition of SLIFE,
al
oc they were able to devote resources to building a survey developed at the state level to identify
L
d up expertise to help support LEAs. An example SLIFEs, an assessment tool to assess home
n
a
e from one state was the internal development of language literacy, a video for parents to inform
at
St a handbook that focused specifically on RAIEL them of resources and rights at the state level,
or
s f students, drawing on collaborative stakeholder a requirement that a qualified staff member
n
o input to address context-specific LEA needs. complete the interview, and a regulation that
s
s
e
L allows for reassessment of placement decisions
s: Partnerships/Networks. Education is
nt to ensure proper student placement. In the
e
d collaborative work, and many of the state Title
u second case, the state included RAIEL-specific
er St III directors interviewed talked extensively regulations within larger EL reform legislation.
arn about their participation in, or facilitation of, Specifically, the legislation included a focus on
e
L partnerships and networks. Some were very
h capacity-building to support RAIELs as well as a
s
ngli structured and formal, while others were requirement for LEAs to develop individualized
nt E informal and reliant on personal relationships. learning plans (ILPs; see Glossary) for SLIFEs.
gra While the makeup and purpose of collaborative
mi
work varied, many described these networks This report explores an important, but often
m
d I and partnerships as promoting both resources overlooked and poorly understood, need in
e
v
Arri and information-sharing around RAIELs. Nine U.S. schools — the education of recently arrived
y directors mentioned being part of formal immigrant English learner students (RAIELs).
ntl
e statewide networks that were focused on We hope that the report supports the work
c
e
of R immigrant and/or refugee needs. In addition to of SEAs and LEAs, broadening opportunities
s formal networks, eight directors described their and improving experiences and outcomes of
d
e
e engagement as members of informal networks recently arrived immigrant EL students.
N
al and/or partnerships. Directors often described
n
o
ati their role in partnerships and networks (formal
c
u
d or informal) as one that facilitated more
E
e meaningful engagement in RAIEL-specific work.
h
g t
n
orti Policymaking. Sixteen out of 18 state Title
p
p III directors reported that they did not have
u
S
d specific state-level policies regarding RAIEL
n
g a education. Two did, both states with relatively
n
di large immigrant populations and a history of
n
a
st serving RAIELs in their schools. Notably, the
er
d
n
U
vi
coNtENtS

U
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1 n
d
e
rs
Section I: Characteristics and Schooling Outcomes of RAIELs in Two States .............................................6 ta
n
d
in
Who are RAIEL Students? .......................................................................................................................7 g
a
n
d
How are RAIEL Students Doing in School? ...........................................................................................16 S
u
p
p
o
How are RAIEL Students Being Served in School? ...............................................................................23 rtin
g
Key Themes ...........................................................................................................................................24 th
e
E
d
u
Section II: The Role of School Districts in Supporting RAIEL Education ...................................................26 c
a
tio
n
Intake .....................................................................................................................................................28 a
l N
e
e
Community Partnerships .......................................................................................................................30 d
s
o
Programs and Placement ......................................................................................................................31 f R
e
c
e
n
Personnel, Staffing, and Capacity Building ...........................................................................................34 tly
A
Graduation ............................................................................................................................................35 rrive
d
Im
Key Themes ...........................................................................................................................................37 m
ig
ra
Section III: The Role of State Education Agencies in Supporting RAIEL Education .................................40 nt E
n
g
Building from Challenges ......................................................................................................................41 lis
h
L
e
State Education Agency Functions .......................................................................................................43 ar
n
e
r S
Key Themes ...........................................................................................................................................52 tu
d
e
n
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................54 ts
: L
e
s
References ..................................................................................................................................................57 so
n
s
fo
Glossary......................................................................................................................................................60 r S
ta
Methodological Appendix .........................................................................................................................63 te a
n
d
About the Authors .....................................................................................................................................66 Lo
c
a
l E
d
u
c
a
tio
n
A
g
e
n
c
ie
s
vii
s
e
ci
n
e
g
A
n
o
ati
c
u
d
E
al
c
o
L
d
n
a
e
at
St
or
s f
n
o
s
s
e
L
s:
nt
e
d
u
St
er
n
ar
e
L
h
s
gli
n
E
nt
a
gr
mi
m
d I
e
v
Arri
y
ntl
e
c
e
R
of
s
d
e
e
N
al
n
o
ati
c
u
d
E
e
h
g t
n
orti
p
p
u
S
d
n
a
g
n
di
n
a
st
er
d
n
U
viii