A 50-State Review of Policies for Identifying Indigenous English Learners

• In Event: English Learner Policy and Indigenous Students: Understanding Policy and Promoting Linguistically and Culturally Sustaining Education

Abstract

Purpose & Perspective

In 2018, approximately eight percent of English learner students (ELs) in U.S. public schools were American Indian and Alaska Native students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015), Indigenous students have different eligibility requirements for receiving Title III language services compared to immigrant-origin students. Unique to Indigenous students is that those who speak English as their first or dominant language may still be classified as ELs if a heritage language has had a “significant impact” on their English language proficiency (ESSA, 2015, Section 8101[20]). What is meant by a “significant impact” has not been defined federally, however, leaving an open question of how, if at all, states differentiate EL identification policies for Indigenous students. The literature on EL identification has largely focused on immigrant-origin students (Carjuzaa & Ruff, 2016; Villegas, 2020), and has not examined how Title III eligibility requirements for Indigenous students are operationalized within states. This study intends to fill this gap. Specifically, the study addresses two questions:

1. Across the 50 states, how many states differentiate EL identification policies for Indigenous students and how do they do so?

2. According to state EL education directors, what are the implications of distinct state EL identification policies for the identification of Indigenous ELs?

Methods & Results

To answer these questions, we conducted a 50-state review of approved state ESSA plans, state EL education guidelines, and other documents (e.g. home language surveys). Coding these documents, we developed a typology of state Indigenous EL identification policies including states with no differentiation of policy for Indigenous students (28), states using a procedure that could be implemented to differentially identify Indigenous ELs (15), and states that have a clear EL identification policy tailored to Indigenous students (7). We describe each of the three types and highlight case studies.

Additionally, we conducted online semi-structured interviews with state EL education directors from all three state-types, asking about their perceptions of the origins and implementation of their state policies; the implications of their policies for the identification of Indigenous ELs, including the characteristics of Indigenous ELs and the degree to which EL services were tailored to meet Indigenous students’ needs; and what directors thought was working well, and not working well, about their state EL identification policies with regard to Indigenous students. Coding and qualitative analyses of these interviews are in progress and will be completed by December, 2021.

Significance

To date, research on EL identification policies and procedures (Bailey & Kelly, 2013; Linquanti et al., 2016; Salerno & Andrei, 2021) has overlooked Indigenous students. As such, we have little understanding of whether and how states may differentially identify Indigenous students, nor the implications of these policies on the characteristics of Indigenous students classified as EL or on how educational services can support Indigenous EL-classified students. This study fills this important gap.

Authors

• Taiyo Itoh, University of Oregon

• Ilana M. Umansky, University of Oregon