demographic overview of the lep and flep population in ... · * 76,955 leps were identified for...
TRANSCRIPT
0
Demographic overview of the LEP and FLEP population in Michigan
(2011-2012)
September 2013
Sylvia Oh
Key questions – LEP population
• Who were identified as LEP students in 2011-2012 and what were their characteristics?
– How many students were identified as LEP? – What was their socioeconomic status? – What were their languages spoken? – How many of them received immigrant services? – What were their countries of birth? – How many students were identified as students with disabilities?
• As a subgroup, how many of them were identified as having speech/language impairment as their primary disability code?
• How did each characteristic specified above differ? – By ISDs and districts? – By the size of ISDs and districts? – By languages spoken?
1
76,953* were identified as LEP in 2011-12, majority of them came from large regions
Number of LEPs by the size** of ISDs and districts
(2011-12)
Characteristics of ISDs and districts by size
76,953 76,953 100%
80%
60% Large
Medium
Small 40%
20%
0% ISD District
Small Medium Large
ISDs Average # of students
5,823 11,441 63,256
Total # of students
110,649 217,378 1,201,8 60
# of ISDs 19 19 19
Distri cts
Average # of students
191 853 4,195
Total # of students
56,058 248,973 1,224,8 56
# of districts
293 292 292
* 76,955 LEPs were identified for funding and service purposes in 2012-13 (the record of 2 students were not located in MSDS 2011-12). ** The largest 1/3 of ISDs and districts based on the number of students enrolled were determined as large, the next largest 1/3 as medium, and the smallest 1/3 as small. Source: MSDS 2011-2012 (As data for EOY 2013 was not available, MSDS 2011-12 was referred to obtain demographic information of LEPs identified for 2012-13.); CEPI headcount data
2
Approximately 80% of the LEP population was concentrated in the top 4 ISDs
The top 17 ISDs by the number of LEPs enrolled (2011-12)
Number of LEPs enrolled
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Way
ne
Oak
land
Ken
t
Mac
om
b
Ott
awa
Ingham
Was
hte
naw
Van
Bure
n
Kal
amaz
oo
Ber
rien
Oce
ana
Gen
esee
St.
Jose
ph
Cal
houn
Bra
nch
Musk
egon
Sag
inaw
Percent (%): 38 16 13 10 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3Note: Rest of ISDs had less than 1% of the total LEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012
The top 12 districts where LEP students were enrolled in
Districts by the number of LEPs enrolled (2011-12)
Number of LEPs enrolled
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Dea
rborn
City
Sch
ool D
istr
ict
Det
roit C
ity
Sch
ool
Dis
tric
t
Gra
nd R
apid
sPu
blic
Sch
ools
War
ren
Conso
lidat
ed
Sch
ools
Wal
led L
ake
Conso
lidat
ed
Sch
ools
Lansi
ng P
ublic
Sch
ool D
istr
ict
Utica
Com
munity
Sch
ools
Tro
y Sch
ool
Dis
tric
t
Ces
ar C
hav
ezAca
dem
y
Wes
t O
ttaw
aPu
blic
Sch
ool
Dis
tric
t
Farm
ingto
n P
ublic
Sch
ool D
istr
ict
Ken
twood P
ublic
Sch
ools
Percent (%): 11 10 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
4Note: Rest of districts had less than 2% of the total LEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Number of LEPs who were eligible for free lunch
(2011-12)
Geographical distribution of economically disadvantaged LEPs
(2011-12)
74% of LEPs were economically disadvantaged and most of them came from large regions
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
76,953 100%
80%
60% Non-eligible
Eligible 40%
20%
0%
56,995 56,995
Large
Medium
Small
ISD District
5 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Among 56,995 economically disadvantaged LEPs, ~80% spoke Spanish and Arabic
Top 10 native/home languages spoken by economically disadvantaged LEPs
(2011-12) Number of LEPs
30000
20000
10000
0
Percent (%): 52 29 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
6 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
But, other languages also had higher percentage of economically disadvantaged LEPs
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Top 10 native/home languages* in terms of the percentage of economically disadvantaged LEPs
(2011-12)# of economically disadvantaged
LEPs / # of LEPs by language
7* Languages spoken by more than 100 LEPs Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Of all native/home languages spoken by LEPs,~70% of them were Spanish and Arabic
Top 10 native/home languages spoken by LEPs (2011-12)
Number of LEPs
30000
20000
10000
0
Percent (%): 46 25 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
8Note: Rest of languages were spoken by 1% or less of the total LEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Large ISDs had more diversity in language, but the overall ranking was similar
Small ISDs Medium ISDs Large ISDs
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100% 100%
80% 80% Others**
Arabic Russian 60%
Others*
60%
VietnameseTagalog 40% 40%
ChineseChinese
German 20%Arabic 20%
SpanishSpanish 0% 0%
Others***
Hmong
Urdu
Japanese
Chinese
Syriac
Vietnamese
Albanian
Bengali
Arabic
Spanish
* Other languages in small ISDs included German, Korean, Gujarati, German, Punjabi, Vietnamese, Japanese, Telugu, Thai, Oromo, etc. ** Other languages in medium ISDs included Korean, Punjabi, Japanese, Portuguese, Urdu, Russian, Telugu, Hindi, Hmong, French, etc.
9*** Other languages in large ISDs included Korean, Romanian, Aramaic, Burmese, Bosnian, Telugu, French, Somali, Russian, etc. Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Likewise, large districts had more diversity, but the overall ranking was similar
Small districts Medium districts Large districts
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Others**
Albanian
Vietnamese
Chinese
Somali
Urdu
German
Syriac
Bengali
Arabic
Spanish
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Others***
Urdu
Korean
Hmong
Japanese
Syriac
Chinese
Vietnamese
Bengali
Albanian
Arabic
Spanish
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Others*
Armenian
Urdu
French
Ukrainian
German
Bengali
Arabic
Spanish
* Other languages in small districts included Somali, Mandingo, Gujarati, Vietnamese, Amharic, Tagalog, etc. ** Other languages in medium districts included Romanian, Punjabi, Gujarati, Aramaic, Telugu, Bosnian, Tagalog, etc. *** Other languages in large districts included Urdu, Romanian, Aramaic, Burmese, Bosnian, Telugu, French, Russian, Hindi, Somali, etc. Source: MSDS 2011-2012
10
Immigrant services receivers by the
size of ISDs (2011-12)
Immigrant services receivers by the size of districts
(2011-12)
100% 100%
80% 80%
60% 60%
40% 40%
20%
0%
Not received
Not received
20% Received Received
0%
10% of LEPs received immigrant services, most of them came from large regions
Number of Immigrant services
receivers (2011-12)
100%
80%
60%
40% Not received
20% Received
0%
smal
l
Med
ium
Larg
e
smal
l
Med
ium
Larg
e
11 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Among 7,862 LEPs who received no immigrantservices, ~73% speak Spanish and Arabic
Top 10 native/home languages spoken by those who did not receive immigrant services
(2011-12) Number of LEPs
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Percent (%): 50 23 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
12 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Arabic-speaking immigrants received much immigrant services due to their significant increase in number recently
Top 10 native/home languages spoken by those who received immigrant services
(2011-12) Number of LEPs
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Percent (%): 44 8 7 4 3 3 3 2 2 2
13 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Nearly 60% of the LEP population was born in the US
Top 10 countries of birth of LEP population (2011-12)
Number of LEPs
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Percent (%): 61 6 6 5 2 2 1 1 1 1
14 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
More than 70% of LEPs who were born in the US spoke Spanish and Arabic
The top 10 native/home languages spoken by LEPs who were born in the US
(2011-12) Number of LEPs
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Percent (%): 40 37 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
15 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Large ISDs had more diversity in birthplaces, but the overall ranking was similar
Small ISDs Medium ISDs Large ISDs
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100% 100%
Others*** 80% 80% JapanOthers**
Others* Brazil India 60% 60%China Lebanon
MexicoMexico Bangladesh
40% USA 40% Mexico
Yemen Yemen
20% 20% Iraq
USA USA
0% 0%
* Other countries in small ISDs included Philippines, China, Thailand, Ethiopia, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, etc. ** Other countries in medium ISDs included Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Ethiopia, Thailand, India, Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Haiti, etc.
16*** Other languages in large ISDs included Myanmar, China, Korea, Vietnam, Syria, Puerto Rico, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Nepal, etc. Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Likewise, large districts had more diversity, but the overall ranking was similar
Small districts Medium districts Large districts
100% 100% 100%
Others** Others*** 80% 80% 80%Others* Lebanon India
Mexico Saudi Arabia Lebanon 60% 60% 60%
Bangladesh BangladeshIraq
Iraq 40% Mexico40% 40% Bangladesh
YemenMexico Yemen20% 20% 20% IraqYemen
USA USAUSA 0% 0% 0%
* Other countries in small districts included Pakistan, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Honduras, Puerto Rico, El Salvador, etc. ** Other countries in medium districts included Jordan, India, Canada, Liberia, Puerto Rico, Kenya, Philippines, etc.
17*** Other languages in large districts included Japan, Albania, Canada, Myanmar, Korea, Vietnam, Syria, etc. Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Speech and language impairment
11% of LEPs had disabilities, 3% with speech and language impairment
Number of LEPs who were identified with primary disability
(2011-12)
76,953 100%
80%
Other disabilities*
60%
40%
None 20%
0%
Geographical distribution of LEPs with disabilities
(2011-12)
8,510 8,510 100%
80%
60% Large
Medium 40%
Small
20%
0% ISD District
* Other disabilities included cognitive, emotional, hearing, visual, and physical impairments, early childhood developmental delay, specific learning disability, severe multiple impairment, autism spectrum disorder, traumatic brain injury, deaf-blindness, and other health
18impairment Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Speech and language impairment
Speech andlanguage impairment
40%
No distinct pattern in geographical distribution of speech and language impairment
ISDs by the size (2011-12)
Districts by the size (2011-12)
100% 100%
80% 80%
Other disabilities
Other disabilities 60% 60%
40%
20% 20%
0% 0% Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
19 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Key questions – FLEP population
• Who were identified as FLEP students in 2011-2012 and what were their characteristics?
– How many students were identified as FLEP? – What was their socioeconomic status? – What were their languages spoken? – How many of them received immigrant services? – What were their countries of birth? – How many students were identified as students with disabilities?
• As a subgroup, how many of them were identified as having speech/language impairment as their primary disability code?
– How many FLEP students were re-classified as LEP students within 2 years of monitoring after their exit?
• How did each characteristic specified above differ? – By ISDs and districts? – By the size of regions? – By languages spoken?
20
6,213* LEPs achieved English proficiency; higher percentage in mid-sized regions
Number of FLEPs by the size of ISDs and districts
(2011-12)
% of LEPs who became FLEPs by the size of ISDs and districts
(2011-12)
6,213 6,213 100% 14%
12% 80%
10%
60% Large 8% Small
Medium Medium6%40% Small Large
4% 20%
2%
0% 0% ISD District ISD District
* Total 9,801 students exited the LEP program in 2011-12; those who exited for reasons other than proficiency in English (graduation, parent request, and others) were not counted as FLEP in this analysis. 21Source: MSDS 2011-2012
~65% of FLEP population was concentrated in the top 3 ISDs
The top 10 ISDs by the number of FLEPs enrolled (2011-12)
Number of FLEPs enrolled
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Oak
land
Way
ne
Ken
t
Mac
om
b
Was
hte
naw
Ott
awa
Ingham
St.
Jose
ph
Ber
rien
Oce
ana
Percent (%):
27 26 12 6 6 3 3 2 1 1
22Note: Rest of ISDs had 1% or less than 1% of the total FLEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012
However, the list for the percentage of LEPs who exited the program was quite different
The top 10 ISDs by the percentage of LEPs who exited the LEP program
(2011-12) # of FLEPs / # of LEPs
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Mar
quet
te A
lger
Lenaw
ee
Coor
Mid
land
Bay
Are
nac
Cla
re G
ladw
in
St.
Jose
ph
Jack
son
Eat
on
Was
hte
naw
23 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
The top 10 districts where FLEP students were enrolled in
The top 10 districts by the number of FLEPs enrolled (2011-12)
Number of FLEPs enrolled
800
600
400
200
0
Tro
y Sch
ool
Dis
tric
t
Dea
rborn
City
Sch
ool D
istr
ict
Ann A
rbor
Public
Sch
ools
Pontiac
City
Sch
ool
Dis
tric
t
Farm
ingto
n P
ublic
Sch
ool D
istr
ict
Plym
outh
-Can
ton
Com
munity
Sch
ools
Cre
stw
ood S
chool
Dis
tric
t
Novi
Com
munity
Sch
ool D
istr
ict
Lansi
ng P
ublic
Sch
ool D
istr
ict
Stu
rgis
Public
Sch
ools
Percent (%):
10 6 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2
24Note: Rest of districts had 2% or less than 2% of the total FLEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012
The top 10 districts by the percentage of LEPs who exited the LEP program
(2011-12)
The top 10 districts by the percentage of LEPs who exited the LEP program
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
# of FLEPs / # of LEPs
Ree
se P
ublic
Sch
ools
Legac
y Char
ter
Aca
dem
y
Conco
rd
Com
munity
Sch
ools
Nort
h S
agin
aw
Char
ter
Aca
dem
y
South
Arb
or
Char
ter
Aca
dem
y
Para
gon C
har
ter
Aca
dem
y
Ques
t Char
ter
Aca
dem
y
Burt
on G
len
Char
ter
Aca
dem
y
Chan
dle
r W
oods
Char
ter
Aca
dem
y
Mat
taw
an
Conso
lidat
ed
Sch
ool
25 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
56% of FLEPs were economically disadvantaged and most of them came from populous regions
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
Non-eligible
Eligible
6,213
Number of FLEPs who were eligible for free lunch
(2011-12)
Geographical distribution of economically disadvantaged FLEPs
(2011-12)
3,455 3,455 100%
80%
60% 5.8*
11.0 6.7
5.5
10.1 3.7
Large
Medium 40%
Small
20%
0% ISD District
26* Percentages in the bar indicate the percentage of FLEP in each size category of ISDs or districts Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Out of 3,455 FLEPs who were economically disadvantaged, 73% spoke Spanish and Arabic
Top 10 native/home languages spoken by economically disadvantaged FLEPs
(2011-12) Number of FLEPs
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Percent (%): 54 19 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1
27 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
The percentage of disadvantaged, but proficiency-achieved LEPs was higher for other languages
Top 10 native/home languages* in terms of the percentage of disadvantaged LEPs who achieved proficiency
(2011-12) # of FLEPs / # of LEPs
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
28* Languages spoken by more than 100 LEPs Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Of all native/home languages spoken by FLEPs,53% of them were Spanish and Arabic
Top 10 native/home languages spoken by FLEPs (2011-12)
Number of FLEPs
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Percent (%): 38 15 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
29 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
However, the percentage of LEPs who achieved proficiency was higher for other languages
Top 10 native/home languages* in terms of the percentage of LEPs who achieved proficiency
(2011-12) # of FLEPs / # of LEPs
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
30* Languages spoken by more than 100 LEPs Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Large ISDs had more diversity in languages spoken by FLEPs
Small ISDs Medium ISDs Large ISDs
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100% 100%
Others* 80% 80% Gujarati
French60% 60%
Creoles Tagalog Vietnamese Russian 40% 40%Japanese Chinese Arabic Telugu Chinese20% 20% Arabic German Spanish Spanish
0% 0%
Others**
Japanese
Urdu
Bengali
Albanian
Vietnamese
Telugu
Korean
Chinese
Arabic
Spanish
* Other languages in medium ISDs included Hmong, Korean, Macedonian, Mandar, Tamil, Telugu, Armenian, Bengali, etc. 31** Other languages in medium ISDs included Hmong, Hindi, Syriac, Tamil, Romanian, Gujarati, German, Bosnian, Telugu, etc.
Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Likewise, large districts had more diversity in languages spoken by FLEPs
Small districts
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Panjabi
Flemish
Vietnamese
Gujarati
Spanish
Arabic
German
Medium districts
100% Others* Hindi Albanian
80% Korean Romanian Telugu60% Panjabi Gujarati
40% Urdu Chinese Vietnamese
20% Bengali Arabic Spanish0%
Large districts
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Others**
Hmong
Urdu
Japanese
Albanian
Vietnamese
Telugu
Korean
Chinese
Arabic
Spanish
* Other languages in medium districts included Bosnian, Polish, Tagalog, Lao, Tamil, Somali, French, Oromo, etc. 32** Other languages in large districts included Hindi, Syriac, Tamil, Bengali, Romanian, Gujarati, German, Bosnian, etc.
Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Immigrant services receivers by the
size of ISDs (2011-12)
Immigrant services receivers by the size of districts
(2011-12)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Not received
Not received
Received Received
ll um
Med
i
eLa
rg
ll um
Med
i
e La
rg
6% of FLEPs received immigrant services, but there was no distinct geographical pattern
Number of immigrant services
receivers (2011-12)
100%
80%
60%
40% Not received
20% Received
0%
sma
sma
33 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Among FLEPs who did not receive immigrant services, 55% spoke Spanish and Arabic
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Percent
Top 10 native/home languages spoken by FLEPs who did not receive immigrant services
(2011-12) Number of FLEPs
(%): 40 15 5 3 3 2 2 2 2 2
34 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
FLEP students who came from districts where there has been a significant increase in the number of immigrants recently received immigrant services
Top 10 native/home languages spoken by FLEPs who received immigrant services
(2011-12) Number of FLEPs
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percent (%): 18 12 9 8 5 4 4 3 3 3
Source: MSDS 2011-2012
35
Nearly 70% of the FLEP population was born in the US
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Percent
Top 10 countries of birth of the FLEP population (2011-12)
Number of FLEPs
(%): 69 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
36 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
However, higher percentage of those who were born in other countries achieved English proficiency
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Top 10 countries* in terms of the percentage of LEPs who achieved English proficiency
(2011-12)# of FLEPs / # of LEPs
37* Countries where more than 100 LEPs were born Source: MSDS 2011-2012
The top 10 native/home languages spoken by FLEPs who were born in the US
The top 10 native/home languages spoken by FLEPs who were born in the US
Number of FLEPs
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Percent (%): 38 22 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
38 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Large ISDs had more diversity in birthplace
Small ISDs Medium ISDs Large ISDs
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100% 100%
Others***
Bangladesh80% 80% Others* Others** Yemen Yemen S. Korea Albania
60% 60%Mexico Germany Japan USA Canada Canada
Spain 40%40% Iraq China S. Korea Mexico Mexico20% 20% USA India
USA0% 0%
* Other countries in small ISDs included Philippines, United Arab Emirates, China, Honduras, India, Italy, Vietnam, etc. ** Other countries in medium ISDs included Philippines, India, Brazil, Japan, Niger, Netherlands, etc.
39*** Other languages in large ISDs included Germany, China, Philippines, Pakistan, Vietnam, Lebanon, Romania, etc. Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Likewise, large districts had more diversity
Small districts Medium districts Large districts
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100% 100%
Others* Others**
80% 80% Germany
China
Romania
S. Korea Canada60% Canada 60% Albania
Philippines Japan
El Salvador 40% India 40% Iraq
YemenMexico S. Korea
Mexico Bangalesh 20%20%
Mexico Canada
India USA
USAUSA0% 0%
* Other countries in medium districts included Honduras, Puerto Rico, Albania, Cuba, Iraq, Liberia, Ukraine, etc. ** Other countries in large districts included Yemen, Pakistan, Vietnam, Philippines, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Romania, Sri Lanka, etc. Source: MSDS 2011-2012
40
Number of FLEPs who were identified with primary disability
(2011-12)
Geographical distribution of FLEPs with disabilities
(2011-12)
6,213 206 206
3% of FLEPs had disabilities, 1% with speech and language impairment
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Speech and language impairment
Other disabilities*
None
100%
80%
60% Large
Medium 40%
Small
20%
0% ISD District
* Other disabilities included cognitive, emotional, hearing, visual, and physical impairments, early childhood developmental delay, specific learning disability, severe multiple impairment, autism spectrum disorder, traumatic brain injury, deaf-blindness, and other health
41impairment Source: MSDS 2011-2012
No distinct pattern in geographical distribution of speech and language impairment
ISDs by the size Districts by the size (2011-12) (2011-12)
100% 100%
80% 80%
Other disabilities
Other disabilities 60% 60%
Speech and language impairment
Speech andlanguage impairment
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0% Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
42 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Number of FLEPs who were re-classified as LEP
(2011-12)
Geographical distribution of those who re-entered the LEP
(2011-12)
5% of the FLEP population re-entered the LEP program in 2011-2012
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
6,213
Re-entered
FLEP
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
206 206
Large
Medium
Small
ISD District
43 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
The percentage of re-entered FLEP was greater in large ISDs and districts
The percentage of re-entered The percentage of re-entered FLEP by the size of districts
(2011-12)
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
FLEP by the size of ISDs (2011-12)
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0% Small Medium Large Small Medium Large
44 Source: MSDSSource: MSDS 2011-20122011-2012
Top 10 ISDs where there were FLEP students who re-entered the LEP program
Top 10 ISDs where there were FLEP students who re-entered the LEP program
Number of re- (2011-12) classified LEPs
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Percent (%): 39 20 14 5 3 3 2 2 2 1
45 Source: MSDSSource: MSDS 2011-20122011-2012
Top 10 ISDs in terms of the percentage of re-entered FLEP students
Top 10 ISDs*in terms of the percentage of re-entered FLEP students
(2011-12)# of re-classified LEPs / # of FLEPs
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Ingham
Monro
e
Kal
amaz
oo
Musk
egon
Bay
Are
nac
Tra
vers
e Bay
Gen
esee
Alle
gan
Are
aEduca
tional
Ser
vice
Agen
cy
Sag
inaw
Ken
t
46* ISDs with 10 or more FLEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Top 10 districts where there were FLEP students who re-entered the LEP program
(2011-12) Number of re-classified LEPs
140 120 100 80 60 40 20
Top 10 districts where there were FLEP students who re-entered the LEP program
0
Lansi
ng P
ublic
Sch
ool D
istr
ict
Tro
y Sch
ool
Dis
tric
t
Kel
loggsv
ille
Public
Sch
ools
Pontiac
Aca
dem
y fo
rExc
elle
nce
Fore
st H
ills
Public
Sch
ools
Kal
amaz
oo
Public
Sch
ools
Bay
City
Sch
ool
Dis
tric
t
Bed
ford
Public
Sch
ools
Wal
led L
ake
Conso
lidat
ed
Sch
ools
Musk
egon,
Public
Sch
ools
of
the
City
of
Percent (%): 39 9 8 6 5 5 3 3 2 2
47 Source: MSDSSource: MSDSSource: MSDS 2011-20122011-20122011-2012
Top 10 districts* in terms of the percentage of re-entered FLEP students
(2011-12)
Top 10 districts in terms of the percentage of re-entered FLEP students
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
# of re-classified LEPs / # of FLEPs
Pontiac
Aca
dem
y fo
rExc
elle
nce
Fore
st H
ills
Public
Sch
ools
Lansi
ng P
ublic
Sch
ool D
istr
ict
Bed
ford
Public
Sch
ools
Kel
loggsv
ille
Public
Sch
ools
Van
der
bilt
Char
ter
Aca
dem
y
Linco
ln
Conso
lidat
ed
Sch
ool D
istr
ict
Kal
amaz
oo
Public
Sch
ools
Flin
t, S
chool
Dis
tric
t of
the
City
of
Bay
City
Sch
ool
Dis
tric
t
48* Districts with 10 or more FLEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Nearly half of those who re-entered the LEP program spoke Spanish
Top 10 native/home languages spoken by those who re-entered the LEP program
(2011-12)Number of re-classified LEPs
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Percent (%): 53 9 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1
49 Source: MSDS 2011-2012
Spanish also ranked high in terms of the percentage of re-entered FLEP students
Top 10 native/home languages* in terms of the percentage of re-entered FLEP students
(2011-12)# of re-classified LEPs / # of FLEPs
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
50* Languages spoken by 100 or more FLEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012