A critical examination of the academic trajectories of ESL

youth

Bruce Garnett, PhD

BC School District 36 (Surrey)

Canadian Council on Learning

Research questions

What do the academic trajectories of BC ESL students look like? How do their trajectories differ by personal

background factors including: ethno-cultural group; English language proficiency; gender; age on entry; socio-economic status?

How do these personal background factors interact? What is the interaction of the personal background

effects upon the structural effects? What policy implications can be drawn from the

responses to these questions?

Population

1997 Grade eight cohort ESL students n = 7 527; any student who received one or more

years of ESL service and claimed a home language other than English.

Chinese (Chinese, Mandarin, Cantonese) – 3365 South Asian (Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu) – 1470 Vietnamese – 373 Philippino (Tagalog, Pilipino) – 323 Spanish – 291 Persian -284 Korean –239 Other – 1182

Native English speakers n = 37 612; any student who never received ESL service and claimed only English as a language spoken at home.

Ethno-cultural group and graduation

Graduation rates of NES vs. ESL ethno-cultural groups

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

% Grad in 5

% Grad in 6

% Grad in 5 69% 68% 72% 81% 70% 66% 64% 63% 64% 58% 56%

% Grad in 6 75% 74% 79% 87% 79% 75% 73% 72% 71% 66% 63%

All students

NES ESL ChineseSouth Asian

Persian Philipp. Korean Other Viet. Spanish

Graduation rates of NES vs. ESL ethno-cultural groups

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

% Grad in 5

% Grad in 6

% Grad in 5 69% 68% 72% 81% 70% 66% 64% 63% 64% 58% 56%

% Grad in 6 75% 74% 79% 87% 79% 75% 73% 72% 71% 66% 63%

All students

NES ESL ChineseSouth Asian

Persian Philipp. Korean Other Viet. Spanish

Ethno-cultural group, English proficiency and graduation

Graduation rates by ethno-cultural group: 2+ years of high school ESL

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

% Grad in 5 68% 68% 78% 65% 59% 58% 56% 54% 49% 47%

% Grad in 6 74% 77% 85% 74% 72% 72% 67% 66% 58% 54%

NES ALL ESL ChineseSouth Asian

Korean Persian Other Philipp. Viet. Spanish

Estimated family income, ethno-cultural group and graduation

Six year graduation rates by estimated family income

50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%

Low income

High income

Gender, ethno-cultural group and graduation (beginner ESL)

NES vs. beginner ESL five and six year grad rates by gender and ethno-cultural group

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

male grad in five 64% 63% 73% 59% 47% 44% 58% 40% 60% 50%

female grad in five 72% 74% 83% 73% 46% 64% 60% 58% 57% 62%

male grad in six 71% 73% 82% 68% 55% 58% 71% 50% 73% 63%

female grad in six 76% 81% 89% 82% 54% 74% 74% 66% 71% 68%

NES ESL ChineseSouth Asian

Spanish Philippino Korean Viet. Persian Other

Age of entry and graduation

ESL graduation rates by age of entry

55%

65%

75%

85%

Five year graduation rate 76% 73% 70% 70% 71% 65% 61%

Six year graduation rate 82% 78% 76% 78% 77% 75% 71%

seven eight nine ten eleven twelve thirteen

Logistic regression model: Odds ratios of graduation in six years

Odds of graduating in six years

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Gender

ES

L C

hin

ese

ES

LS

outh

Asia

n

ES

LS

panis

h

ES

LP

hilippin

o

ES

LK

ore

an

ES

LV

ietn

am

ese

ES

LP

ers

ian

Fam

ily incom

e

Age o

f entr

y

FS

A r

eadin

g

Pro

port

ion E

SL

Academ

ic

clim

ate

Incom

e index

Education index

IV Significant results

Even odds

Nagelkerke r sq. =.357

Themes

The ESL label is of limited value due to the wide variation within this category.

Disadvantage is additive and multiplicative. First language academic knowledge (not just English

proficiency) appears correlated with success. The male disadvantage generally extends to ESL

groups. Most ethno-cultural groups appear to aspire to academic

success. Schools have further to go to reduce inequalities. School population composition effects appear minimal.

Policy implications

Disaggregate data for decision making. Assess for prior learning before entry to the system. Target support towards groups most in need. Schools should do what schools do best (i.e. teach

language and content). The policy mix should target both students and schools

(time, attitudes, professional development). ESL support should be ongoing. Provide additional time for graduation.