New Research Highlights Need for more Differentiation in English Learner Education for Indigenous Students

At the end of March, the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) held its annual conference in Austin, Texas that brought together multidisciplinary researchers to discuss inclusion and how to incorporate diverse voices in public policy. Among the many issues covered at the conference, one session focused on the intersection of Indigenous students and English learners (ELs). The session, Indigenous Students As English Learners: Examining the Policy Landscape and Student Outcomes, included three presentations related to Indigenous ELs, and the research presented raised legitimate questions as to whether Indigenous students are being accurately and appropriately identified as ELs.

The first important clarification offered during the session had to do with how we identify and classify Indigenous students as ELs. Unlike students who traditionally come to mind when it comes to needing language support services, Indigenous ELs are not required to have a non-English home or primary language. In fact, federal law has specific eligibility criteria that differentiates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous ELs. These criteria place more of an emphasis on whether the student comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on their level of English language proficiency, rather than what the home language may be (see Box 1). However, as authors Ilana M. Umansky, associate professor at the University of Oregon, Taiyo Itoh, graduate student at the University of Oregon, and Jioanna Carjuzaa, professor at Montana State University found in their paper, “Indigenous Students and English Learner Identification: A Fifty-State Policy Review,” very few states and localities have actually figured out how to operationalize this differentiated criteria.

In their review of state policies related to how Indigenous ELs are identified, they found that only four states (Montana, North Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin) clearly differentiate the processes and criteria used to identify Indigenous ELs compared to non-Indigenous ELs. The rest fall into one of three other categories including ‘No Differentiation’, ‘Possible Differentiation’, and ‘Ambiguous Differentiation.

Box 1. Comparison of EL eligibility criteria as defined in the Every Student Succeeds Act pertaining to immigrant-origin and Indigenous students.

Given that most Indigenous ELs speak English at home, even if it is a non-standard English variety that has been influenced by their heritage language, the authors question “whether, and under what conditions, it is beneficial for Indigenous students to be identified as ELs.” This question was further explored in a companion paper which sought to investigate these questions within the context of Alaska Native ELs. In their paper, Umansky and her colleagues at the University of Oregon, Manuel Vazquez Cano and Lorna M. Porter examined the impact of EL classification on students from Alaska Native backgrounds compared to non-Alaska Native EL students in five school districts.

In this study, the researchers first identified Alaska Native students who entered kindergarten with high levels of English language skills as measured by the screener used to classify ELs. They then looked at two groups of students: 1) those not classified as English learners because they scored just above the cutoff used to determine EL status; and 2) those classified as ELs because their scores on the screener were not quite high enough to be classified as proficient. After identifying these two groups of nearly identical students, one classified as EL and the other not, the researchers could examine the impact of EL classification by comparing these two groups of students' math and ELA scores in 3rd-5th grade, as well as on the likelihood of special education identification and school attendance.

Here, the authors found that being classified as an EL had a large negative impact on the academic outcomes of Alaska Native ELs in math and ELA, especially in the 3rd and 4th, an impact that was not observed among non-Alaska Native ELs in the same districts. Additionally, the study did not find evidence that being identified as an EL impacted their likelihood of being identified for special education, or on their attendance in K–5th grade.

As both of the studies stated, EL services as we know them today are largely shaped by and cater to the stereotypical EL student who is of immigrant origin, has a non-English home language, and is learning English as a second language. And as a result, being identified as an English learner can have both positive and negative repercussions, depending on how aligned services are to students’ characteristics. Considering that Alaska was categorized as having ‘Ambiguous Differentiation’, together, these studies suggest that unclear guidance in how to differentiate classification procedures for Indigenous ELs and how to provide culturally responsive supports can be detrimental to their academic outcomes. In Alaska, the real-life implications of not providing ELs supports specifically for Alaska Native students are reflected in the fact that by 7th grade, Indigenous ELs are reclassified at lower rates than non-Alaska Natives.

The APPAM session allowed these researchers to bring to light the real-life implications that EL identification procedures can have on Indigenous students. In creating differentiated identification procedures that take into consideration the history of linguistic oppression and attrition these communities have experienced, states and districts can begin to tailor language support services to their particular needs so that they can benefit from their K-12 education, which in the end, is the primary purpose of identifying students for language support services in the first place.

Enjoy what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates on what’s new in Education Policy!