Beyond English Instruction: A Multistate Analysis of Lau’s Unfulfilled Promise of Access to Core Content

• In Event: Ecologically Just Conditions for Secondary Multilingual English Learners: Course Access, Teacher Collaboration, Curriculum, and Instruction

Abstract

Objectives & Theoretical Perspectives
The Supreme Court’s Lau v. Nichols (1974) ruling established core rights of multilingual students developing English—1) instruction towards developing English proficiency; and 2) equitable and accessible grade-level academic content. However, the second right may not be consistently upheld. Some multilingual students face exclusionary tracking, meaning full exclusion from courses in particular content areas (Callahan, 2018; Estrada, 2014; Umansky, 2016). At its core, the concept of opportunity to learn (OTL) is that students’ learning is shaped by their access to resources, instruction, and curricular content. Lau was intended to enhance OTL for students learning English. However, Lau’s mandate of specialized services for specific students may have contributed to the inequities it sought to prevent. Specifically, the creation of the English learner (EL) label – necessary for identifying eligible students – imposed costs (Link & Phelan, 2013), including weakened exposure to grade-level content, diminished teacher expectations, inferior access to English-proficient peers, and stigmatization (e.g., Brooks, 2018; Dabach, 2014; Estrada, 2014; Kanno & Kangas, 2014). In this study we explore the prevalence of exclusionary tracking in high school by grade and subject area, as well as the structural, organizational, and demographic predictors of exclusion.


Methods & Data Sources
We draw on statewide data for all students in grades 9-12 from Oregon (2013-2014 through 2018-2019) and Michigan (2011-2012 through 2014-2015). We categorized students into three groups: current, former, or never EL-classified students (Thompson et al., 2023). We define EL exclusionary tracking as a negative gap between the proportion of current EL students enrolled in a specific subject (English language arts [ELA], math, science, social studies, electives, and a full course load) compared to their never or former EL peers. For research question one – the prevalence of exclusionary tracking – we calculated the proportion of students enrolled in each subject and compared the results by state, grade, and language classification. We used two-level logistic regression to answer our second research question about the role of structural, organizational, and demographic factors in predicting course access among EL students.


Results
EL-classified students faced significant exclusionary tracking. In Oregon, across grade levels, current ELs were 12 percentage points less likely to be in a full course load than never ELs, while the comparable figure in Michigan was five percentage points. In both states, enrollment gaps were most prevalent in ELA. Structural, organizational, and demographic factors were critical predictors of course enrollment. ELs’ disproportionate exclusion is exacerbated by policies that determine course placement by ELP level, special education status, and newcomer status. In addition, Latinx students disproportionately faced exclusionary tracking.

Significance
Multilingual students’ OTL lies at the heart of Lau v. Nichols. Yet with evidence mounting around the phenomenon of exclusionary tracking, this study set out to document the prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of EL-classified students’ disproportionate exclusion from academic content. Our study scales up documentation of exclusionary tracking to the state and cross-state level, examining patterns of exclusion across content areas and grades, and exploring structural, organizational, and demographic factors related to exclusion.

Authors

• Ilana M. Umansky, University of Oregon

• Nami Shin, University of Kansas

• Karen D. Thompson, Oregon State University

• Janette Dalila Avelar, University of Oregon

• Jaclyn B. Bovee, Oregon State University