Data Collection and Reporting

Between the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in late 2015, local, state, and federal data collection and reporting requirements evolved significantly. Today, schools collect a variety of background information on individual students, including ELs, such as eligibility and enrollment in special education and free and reduced-price lunch services, country of birth, and language spoken at home.¹ In addition, schools collect data on how current and former ELs perform on academic standardized tests, and whether ELs are making progress in achieving English proficiency. Thanks to this student-level data, we are able to see how ELs are performing across a variety of important indicators. Other aggregate data are often used to measure and compare the quality of opportunities provided to students across schools.² Some of these data are used for accountability, while others are simply reported, but they all provide invaluable insight into ELs and their educational opportunities.

Despite the proliferation of data, the image presented of ELs is still heavily framed from a deficit perspective. For example, ELs’ academic achievement scores are frequently used to compare the EL subgroup to their non-EL peers. However, there is growing acknowledgement that comparing EL and non-EL achievement may not be the most appropriate comparison, as it views ELs through a deficit lens defining their capabilities by a lack of proficiency.³ In addition, while the federal government collects statewide data on an annual basis, data hubs and sources maintained by the federal government often lag years behind the current reporting period. This means that the public is unable to access the plethora of data and information that currently exists in a timely and user-friendly manner.

To ensure data are not outdated by the time they are released to the public and that they represent the full range of ELs’ potential, we offer the following data collection and reporting policy recommendations:

1) Improve federal data collection and reporting practices by:

Releasing data collected from states more frequently and in a timely manner.

• For example, the last Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPR) represents data from the 2015–16 school year.⁴ Likewise, the last Title III Biennial Report to Congress released was for school years 2014–16 and it was published four years after the reporting period ended.⁵
• Outdated accountability measures linked to NCLB are still reflected in EL state profiles published by the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) and the data sources used are from 2014.⁶ These sources should be updated to reflect accountability changes under ESSA.

Expanding and updating EDFacts Data Files that are publicly available for ELs.

• The education field would benefit from having access to downloadable files for the wide range of EL data collected from states on an annual basis. Currently, the only file available for ELs on the EDFacts website is enrollment data from the 2012–13 school year.⁷

Developing state capacity around how to complete the CSPR to improve data reliability and efficacy.

Re-designing EL data stories and fact sheets published by the Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) to reflect a more asset-based approach.⁸

• Currently, OELA focuses on the growing gap between ELs and non-ELs as represented by NAEP data, which does not offer a complete picture of ELs’ academic abilities, especially after they achieve English proficiency. These data stories and fact sheets could be complemented by information on how ELs perform once they reach English proficiency (i.e., former EL achievement).

2) Collect and report data on the types of programs ELs and DLLs in preschool to 12th grade have access to/are enrolled in (i.e., English as a second language, dual language, etc.) through Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) general school and district reports, as well as their English learner reports.

The terminology used to describe this population throughout CRDC should also be updated to reflect current law (i.e., English learners, not limited English proficient (LEP)).

3) Increase transparency of data currently collected on former and long-term ELs by making these data publicly available across various data hubs and resources.

Title III of ESSA requires states to report on the academic achievement of former ELs each year up to four years after they exit EL services, as well as on the number and percentage of long-term ELs.⁹ ESSA also requires that data be collected on ELs’ progress in reaching English proficiency, former ELs, and ELs who also are students with disabilities. To date, these data are not publicly available on NCELA’s demographic and state data, EDFacts Data Files, or NCES.

ED Data Express Title III data hub presents former EL performance in math and ELA, as well as EL proficiency and progress rates. This could serve as a starting point to disaggregate data for the various subcategories (long-term EL, dual-identified ELs, etc.) represented in the EL subgroup.¹⁰

While substantial resources have been devoted to developing data systems to track ELs’ enrollment, access, progress, and achievement in K–12 education, the opposite is true in early education.¹¹ Dual language learners (DLLs), defined as children between the ages of birth to eight who are learning English in addition to their home language, are dispersed across a range of settings including Head Start, state pre-K, center-based child care, family child care, and family friend and neighbor care—all of which collect and report data in disparate ways, if at all. Combined with the lack of cohesion and investment in early education as a unified system, we currently lack accurate information on the number of DLLs being served across all early childhood settings, the services they receive and their learning outcomes.

At the federal level, Head Start requires grantees to report on the number of DLLs served, which has helped to shape the policies that guide the program. DLLs make up nearly 30 percent of children in Head Start and in 2016, Head Start’s Performance Standards were updated to include a stronger focus on supporting DLLs’ bilingualism and biliteracy. These standards emphasize the use of home language in instruction and assessment, elevate bilingualism and biliteracy as a strength, and outline the need for teachers to possess the requisite competencies and skills to support DLLs and their families.

By contrast, the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) program, which provides funding to states for child care subsidies for low-income working families, currently fails to capture the extent to which DLLs and their families are being served and to provide strong standards related to DLLs, beyond having linguistically accessible websites for consumer information. States are required to report on the demographics of children being served, including the primary language spoken at home; however, these data are significantly lagged and of low quality due to the number of states reporting insufficient/invalid data.¹² These shortcomings, paired with the almost complete lack of standards specific to DLLs in CCDBG and in state child care systems, create a system that is inadequate in its services to DLLs.

These gaps in data reporting make it challenging for policymakers to focus the necessary resources towards ensuring that DLLs have access to early childhood education programs that support their linguistic, academic, and socioemotional development. To help close these data gaps and early education systems better serve DLLs, we recommend the following:

1. Ensure all early childhood programs that receive federal funding conduct home language surveys at program entry to better understand the number of DLLs in the ECE system and target resources and professional development requirements more effectively.
2. Provide guidance on best practices for identifying DLLs across all early childhood systems¹³ and how to align those systems with K–12 to facilitate smoother transitions.
3. Strengthen CCDBG by amending data reporting requirements to ask about all of the languages spoken in the home, rather than only the primary language, and specifying that states develop standards for effectively serving DLLs.
4. Task the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with conducting a study on bilingual support and instruction in Head Start to better understand the implementation of the HS Performance Standards. This report would help increase transparency about federal monitoring of these standards and the support available to programs if they fall short of meeting expectations.