Classroom Composition for Students Labeled English Learners: The Best of Intentions Gone Awry and Rectification

• In Event: Accepting Our Responsibilities as Educators, Scholars, and Innovators: Reclaiming Educational Equity Efforts in a Color-Evasive World

Abstract

This is a tale of a classroom composition policy for elementary students labeled English learners gone awry—despite the best of intentions. It is also the tale of policy rectification, due to the curiosity, courage, and efforts of university researcher-district partners and school staff.

Context and the Resulting Policy
In 2013, District 1 policymakers were under pressure to improve EL language and content achievement, increase reclassification rates, and reduce the number of students labeled long-term ELs. In combination, the deficit EL definition; legal mandates for language services; and accountability pressures gave rise to the notion that language proficiency is the primary challenge to EL school success and the need to segregate ELs for “specialized” instruction. For guiding policy, research on the achievement effects of EL student classroom-level segregation was unavailable. Unconvinced by recommendations for classroom composition based on non-EL specific research (Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010), policymakers relied on their experiences and perspectives. For its English-only program, which educated 89% of its ELs, District 1 enforced a classroom composition policy that largely segregated its ELs from their non-EL peers. The rationale for the policy was that increased homogeneity in separate EL classrooms would increase teacher focus on ELs’ ELD and ELA instructional needs and therefore increase instructional effectiveness—and by extension—improve student learning.

Unintended Achievement Consequences
Fortunately, researcher-district partners agreed that research was essential for determining whether ELs would exhibit higher performance in more segregated versus more integrated classrooms. Research findings were corroborative across methods involving analysis of district-wide administrative data and school staff interviews (Author and colleagues, 2019). After accounting for student-, classroom-, and school-level covariates, we found that ELs in more segregated classrooms exhibited lower performance, on average, on state tests of ELA, mathematics, and ELP and little evidence that classroom number of ELP levels was related to achievement. School staff consistently detailed the instructional, academic, and socioemotional opportunities to learn afforded by the diversity/heterogeneity of integrated classrooms.

Rectification
Key conditions for rectification included: (a) a researcher-district partnership that focused on answering research-, policy-, and practice-relevant questions and consensus-driven prioritization of research topics; (b) ongoing sharing of results and discussion of policy implications; (c) a mutual goal to enhance success for students, teachers, and schools; and (d) openness to empirical findings and the courage to modify policy. Initially, despite lack of empirical evidence for the effectiveness of the policy, district policymakers were resistant to making changes. However, they supported another round of research on the topic. Lack of progress on elementary EL achievement led to rewriting the EL Master Plan, which triggered revisiting all policies. Simultaneously, a new set of policymakers assumed the helm. Replication evidence from the second study (Author and colleague, 2020) and input from school staff, parents, and students in a series of community meetings converged. These conditions provided a solid basis and rationale for changing the policy to no longer require EL student classroom-level segregation.

Author

• Peggy Estrada, University of California - Santa Cruz