1
Addendum: Academic Achievement Among English Learners (ELs) in Wisconsin: An Analysis of
ELs Based on 5th Grade Reclassification Status and English Language Proficiency Test Scores1
Richelle Andrae, Derek Field, Moira Lenox, Max Pardo
A report for the Department of Public Instruction
Workshop in Public Affairs, Spring 2017
A Primer on ELs in Wisconsin
This appendix is intended to serve as a stand-alone document, providing a broad overview of EL
programs, policies, and demographics. Its contents support a more targeted report on the
evaluation of reclassification processes produced by the same authors, titled Academic
Achievement Among English Learners (ELs) in Wisconsin: An Analysis of ELs Based on 5th
Grade Reclassification Status and English Language Proficiency Test Scores (2017). Please
contact UW-Madison’s La Follette School of Public Affairs with further questions.
Achievement Gaps
A broad body of evidence has examined achievement gaps in America’s schools (NCES 2015).
Achievement gaps refer to a statistically significant difference between the academic achievement
of one student group compared with another, usually as measured by standardized test scores. Such
gaps are identified between white and black students, poor and wealthy students, and recent
immigrant students as compared to native-born students (Winkleby et al. 1992; Duncan and
Murnane 2011). These gaps in achievement are worth noting because early academic outcomes
can serve as indicators for outcomes later in life, such as degree completion and eventual income,
health, and consumption patterns (Kuncel and Hezlett 2007; Winkleby et al. 1992).
1 ©2017 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. All rights reserved. The Robert M. La Follette
School of Public Affairs is a teaching and research department of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The school
takes no stand on policy issues; opinions expressed in these pages reflect the views of the authors.
2
Figure 1: Educational Achievement Leads to Improved Long-Term Outcomes
Source: Authors’ Analysis, Review of Relevant Literature
Scholars and policymakers across the United States are interested in effective interventions for
reducing achievement gaps. In addressing achievement gaps, English Learner (EL) students are a
key area of interest for stakeholders in Wisconsin. These students are also known as Limited
English Proficiency (LEP), English Learners (ELs), English as a Second-Language (ESL)
students, or bilingual students. The Department of Public Instruction (DPI) is responsible for
oversight of primary and secondary education and acts as the primary support mechanism for EL
education throughout Wisconsin. DPI provides Bilingual-Bicultural Program guidelines, including
standards for educational programming, funding eligibility, teacher certification requirements, and
ongoing metrics to evaluate program successes (DPI 2017h). For the purpose of this report,
programs, funding, and policies for only public schools in Wisconsin are considered; data from
private schools is not available.
This appendix will describe EL programming, demographics, regulations, and accountability in
Wisconsin. The narrative approach is designed to provide a snapshot of EL-related trends and
policies, along with an overview of an EL student’s “lifecycle” in a Wisconsin public school,
including steps of identification, enrollment, testing, support, and reclassification – the graduation
from EL programming.
EL Programming Nationwide
Nationally, 15 percent of ELs receive no supplemental education or programming that supports
the development English proficiency (McKeon 2005). Only 8 percent of ELs receive 10 or more
hours per week of supplemental specialized EL instruction. However, the vast majority of students
receive at least minimal support. This support may range from a dual-language immersion program
to lower-dose interventions such as EL resource teachers who lack their own classrooms, serving
students a few hours each week. Dual-language programs, where the goal is for a student to attain
bilingual, bicultural, and bilingual status, are growing in popularity, with pilot programs cropping
up across the United States (Harris 2015).
3
Attainment
The 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires states to annually test all students in English
language arts and mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. To comply,
Wisconsin developed the Wisconsin Student Assessment System, made up of a series of
standardized tests for different grade levels and learner capabilities. Legislative action has changed
the state standardized assessment type twice over the period of our analysis. From 2002 to 2011,
the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exams (WKCE) tested Wisconsin students in grades 3
through 8 in reading and mathematics (DPI 2017k). In 2010, Wisconsin elected to join the Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium to use their “next generation assessments” – known as the
Badger exam in Wisconsin – for 3rd through 8th graders to measure career and college readiness
(DPI 2017d). During the 2015-2016 school year, Wisconsin began using the Wisconsin Forward
Exam to test students in grades 3 through 8 in language arts and mathematics, grades 4 and 8 in
science, and grades 4, 8, and 10 in social studies (DPI 2017k).
Wisconsin Achievement Gap
Compared to their non-EL peers, EL students fare poorer on Annual Measurable Achievement
Objectives (AMAOs) as measured by Wisconsin’s state testing in both reading/language arts and
mathematics. EL students take both specialized EL assessments and general state assessments,
although they have the option of taking standardized tests using accommodations, such as extra
time or word-to-word dictionaries (Shanebrook-Smith 2017). Accommodation data collected by
DPI fails to reflect whether or not students were merely offered accommodation services, or if they
used the provisions. It is also unknown that if they used the provisions, what specific provisions
they were given.
The following table shows a comparison of academic performance between students with limited
and full English proficiency. Current ELs fare poorer compared to the overall student population,
but monitored former ELs demonstrate better academic performance when compared to both other
groups.
Table 1: Percentage of English Learners, Monitored Former English Learners, and All Students Scoring Proficient or Above on State Assessments (School Year 2013-2014)
Monitored Former
ELs
ELs All Students
Math 52% 18% 49%
Reading / Language Arts 34% 6% 37%
Source: EDFacts / Consolidated State Performance Report, 2013-14. Via the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
4
The four-year graduation rates for Wisconsin students in the 2014-2015 school year were:
- All students: 88.5 percent (DPI 2017a)
- Monitored former ELs: 89 percent (DPI 2017a)
- Current ELs or those that did not complete EL programming: 62.2 percent (DPI 2017a)
Graduation rates for current ELs rise to 72.8 percent for the five-year rate and 76 percent for the
six-year rate (DPI 2017a). As noted previously, academic attainment can have real-life impacts on
an individual’s achievement later in life.
EL Demographics in Wisconsin
In Wisconsin, 5.4 percent of public school students are considered ELs, totaling 49,560 of all
students in kindergarten through grade 12 during the 2013-2014 school year (DPI 2016; DPI
2017b). While this rate is slightly lower than the national figure of 9.3 percent, the population is
nonetheless of particular interest for educators and policymakers (NCES 2016). Home languages
spoken by Wisconsin students in the 2013-2014 school year include:
- Spanish or Castilian (30,378 students, or 65 percent of total EL population)
- Hmong (7,447 students, or 16 percent of total EL population);
- Arabic, Chinese, Russian and all other languages (8,882 students, or 19 percent of total EL
population)
Of the 424 Wisconsin public school districts, 80 percent have at least one registered EL student
enrolled (DPI 2017e). A map of the distribution of ELs throughout Wisconsin shows that these
students are mostly concentrated in the central and southwestern areas of the state.
5
Figure 2: 2015-2016 EL Statewide Concentration Map
Source: DPI
Based on recent DPI data, the following summary statistics from the 2015-2016 EL population
(both current and former ELs) describe the students specifically in grades three through eight, a
total of 22,590 individuals. As observed in the table below, the average scores of current EL
students on both the math and reading sections of the exam are well below those of all students,
while those who have exited EL programming perform slightly better than the total student
population.
This is consistent with prior research, which shows that high-achieving former EL students may
achieve proficiency above native English-speaking students (Hill, Weston, and Hayes 2014). We
elected not to include ACCESS scores from 2015-2016 in the table because the exam changed
from a traditional paper and pencil to a digital test in the 2015 school year.
6
Table 2: Wisconsin EL Students Grades 3-8, Characteristics, 2015-2016 School Year
Characteristic Percent of
EL Population
Race Hispanic 67%
Asian 25%
White 6%
Other 3%
Gender Male 52%
Female 48%
Free and Reduced
Lunch Eligibility
FRL 82%
Non-FRL 18%
School Locale Code City 53%
Suburb 23%
Town 14%
Rural 8%
Years in EL
Programming
One, Two, or Three
Years
8%
Four, Five, or Six
Years
76%
Seven or Eight Years 6%
Student with
Individualized
Education Plans (IEPs)
None 87%
Specific Learning
Disability
6%
Speech or Language
Impairment
3%
Other 4%
Source: Authors’ Analysis, DPI data 2015-2016 school year
Table 3: Interpretation of State Standardized Test Results, 2014-2015 Scores
Score Ranges
Content Area Grade Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced
English
Language Arts
3 330-521 522-569 570-623 624-900
4 340-545 546-591 592-649 650-930
5 350-563 564-609 610-669 670-940
6 360-571 572-621 622-670 671-950
7 370-584 585-637 638-696 697-960
8 380-591 592-651 652-707 708-970
Mathematics 3 360-516 517-559 560-610 611-760
4 405-535 536-587 588-632 633-800
5 430-573 574-610 611-657 658-830
6 440-581 582-625 626-687 688-870
7 450-605 606-646 647-711 712-880
8 470-619 620-666 667-717 718-890
Source: DPI Forward Assessment Data 2014-2015
7
Snapshot of an EL Student
To gain greater insight regarding EL student achievement, it is helpful to examine an EL throughout
the student’s educational trajectory. A “lifecycle” of an EL student illustrates the multiple stages of
EL education, which varies from student to student, as well as among both schools and districts.
However, a basic map of EL processes shows many commonalities. While the lifecycle may be linear
for some students, it can be less direct for others, where completion of a step may result in later
returning to an earlier step.
Figure 3: Lifecycle of an EL Student
Source: Authors’ evaluation based on relevant research and administrator interviews
Identification
In accordance with Wisconsin Administrative Code, districts are required to make an initial
identification of students who meet at least one of the following criteria through a home language
survey:
- Students who communicate in a language other than English
- Students whose families communicate in a language other than English
- Students who use a language other than English in regularly in non-school
settings (Wisconsin Statute § 13.06)
This information is generally discovered when a student’s family completes an enrollment
application for school. If any of the above criteria apply, a student must be assessed for EL status.
As this initial identification does not by itself automatically classify a student as an EL student,
DPI sets forth the following additional guidelines for districts to identify EL students and place
them in the appropriate education program:
1. Academic History – Assess the academic histories of students who have been
identified by the home language survey. This assessment should include academic
8
records from all schools attended, course grades, and other information on everyday
classroom performance, to identify any language barriers that could negatively affect
the student’s academic performance. If no negative affect is identified, a student need
not be subject to any further evaluation of English proficiency.
2. English Proficiency Assessment – Evaluate student's level of English proficiency
using the WIDA-ACCESS Placement Test (W-APT) screener or the MODEL test. If
the student’s score is less than an ELP 6, the student will be classified as an EL and
will be placed in an educational program that is appropriate for his/her level of
English proficiency.
3. Academic Placement – Consider the relationship between the student’s grades,
achievement scores, English proficiency, and parental input to create a holistic profile
that will determine the student’s academic placement.
4. Parental Notification – Notify parents within 30 days to gain their permission for
their student’s placement in the appropriate educational program (DPI 2009).
Bilingual Bicultural (BLBC) Programming
Under Wisconsin Administrative Code, a district must establish a bilingual-bicultural education
program if any school within that district meets the following criteria:
- If there are 10 or more EL students from a given language group in kindergarten to grade
3 at a particular elementary school.
- If there are 20 or more EL students from a given language group in grades 4 to 8 at a
particular elementary, middle, or junior high school.
- If there are 20 or more EL students from a given language group in grades 9 to 12 at a
particular high school (Wisconsin Statute § 115.97(2)).
As of the 2015-16 school year, 36.9 percent of all districts in Wisconsin had a least one school that
met these criteria and approximately 21,508 EL students, or 95.2 percent of the EL student
population, were enrolled in these districts (DPI 2017b).
To be eligible for state aid, bilingual-bicultural education programs in Wisconsin must fall under
one of the following program models:
1. Dual Language Education Programs – Programs under this model are aimed at students
becoming bilingual and biliterate.
- Developmental bilingual programs utilize the first language of EL students to
teach content and guarantee that those student gain proficiency in English. All
students enrolled are from the target language population.
- Two-way immersion programs serve both EL students from a particular language
group and native English speakers. Both English and the partner language are used
in content instruction (MMSD 2014).
2. Transitional Bilingual Programs – Programs under this model initially use the first
language of EL students in instruction but quickly transition to most or all of instruction in
9
English. These programs are aimed at English acquisition and transition into mainstream
classrooms.
- Sheltered English instruction programs provide instruction to EL students with
lower English proficiency, often newcomers to the United States. Instruction is
given in English, adapted to the student’s level of English proficiency. The goal of
the program is English acquisition and once this is achieved, students are served by
other types of bilingual-bicultural education programs.
- Structured English immersion programs support EL students in mainstream
classrooms. Students receive individual support from ESL teachers and bilingual
aides.
- Content-based ESL programs are often used to serve large groups of EL students
when dual language education programs are not possible. Using English as the
language of instruction, typical content areas are math, language arts, social studies,
and science (MMSD 2014).
Programming and support look different for students, schools, and districts. According to one
system administrator, DPI is not overly prescriptive with the types of programming it must offer
for ELs. Rather, goals such as college and career readiness are expressed, and districts are guided
to support those statewide aims through dissemination of best practices. For example, schools no
longer strive to isolate ELs in separate classrooms, but prefer structured English immersion
programs that integrate EL students into regular instruction. This model stresses the value of co-
teaching, or the use of certified ESL teachers who assist EL students in their regular classrooms.
Spotlight: Programming in Kenosha Unified School District
The Kenosha Unified School District has established specific supports for students in kindergarten
through elementary school, middle school, and high schools. These systems are not generalizable,
but they give a sense of the depth and degree of assistance that ELs receive:
- Kindergarten and 1st grade supports: Students with low ELP levels (ELP 1.0-1.9)
receive specialized English Language Development (ELD) Intervention time four
times a week, for 30 minutes each session. Students work in small groups of two to
six with an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher. Five elementary schools in
Kenosha will pilot ELD intervention in second and third grade during the 2017-2018
school year.
- 2nd grade through 5th grade supports: Co-teaching is the primary EL support.
- Middle school supports: Co-teaching is encouraged, but the primary support is an
ELD-specific elective course, where the majority of EL students are enrolled. EL
Resource Rooms are staffed part-time by ESL teachers. At the district’s five
comprehensive middle schools, ELs receive the ELD elective course five days a
week, 45 minutes per session.
- High school supports: Co-teaching is only provided for the lowest-performing
students. High schools may have ESL content-certified teachers in areas such as
math. EL students are enrolled in Level I, II, or III of an EL-specific course. A
Resource Room is staffed throughout the school day.
10
Kenosha uses a Language Development Plan (LDP) for all EL students, describing their academic
performance goals and accommodations (if any), and are used as a collaborative tool to support
programming.
Special Models: Charter and Dual Language Immersion Schools
Both charter schools and Dual Language Immersion (DLI) institutions provide a unique
opportunity for Wisconsin students to participate in their educational experiences. Both are rising
in popularity in the state, serving EL and non-EL students.
Charter Schools
Charter schools in Wisconsin also offer EL programs, administer ACCESS exams and
standardized test scores, and report their student data to DPI. Charter schools may be authorized
by and accountable to school districts or by special non-district “authorizers” such as the city of
Milwaukee or the University of Wisconsin System. While the regulatory requirements and forms
of state support and guidance for BLBC programs in these schools are the same as for traditional
public schools, charter schools are allowed and encouraged to deviate from practices typical of
traditional public schools in instruction methods, some curriculum, pedagogy, classroom and
schedule structure, etc. This creates the vast potential for heterogeneity of practices and student
outcomes within Wisconsin’s charter schools that we cannot address with our given data.
Dual Language Immersion (DLI) Schools
DLIs promote multicultural and multilingual competencies and provide EL programming for some
students (MMSD). Enrollees receive academic content instruction in two language areas. Spanish-
English DLIs support both native and non-native language speakers, but those acquiring English
may experience DLI as part of their EL programming. Some DLI schools have higher
concentrations of students eligible for the Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) program and may have
increased numbers of ESL teachers.
Future Developments in EL Programming
DPI has recently prioritized development of a statewide “Crosswalk” of EL programs. This guide,
in draft form at the time of this paper’s publication, is intended as a classification system for EL
programs, identifying characteristics such as:
- Program model description (language goal, class composition, and audience)
- Programming requirements
- Teacher licensing requirements
This document is intended as a vital step in determining the range of programming available to
students in various schools and districts.
11
Assessment and Accountability
Accountability is a major area of focus for the EL population in Wisconsin. NCLB required
additional, EL-specific accountability measures on top of those required for non-EL students (DPI
2017c). However, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) made key changes to accountability
metrics, no longer requiring the state to include these measures for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016
school years. Regardless, accountability and assessment remain vitally important to EL
stakeholders, and performance is systematically monitored.
Wisconsin’s assessment of ELs begins when a student first enters public school. WIDA ACCESS,
the EL-specific English proficiency assessment, is administered annually in adherence to
guidelines from WIDA, a consortium that supports the education of language learners in 33 states
(WIDA 2014). WIDA administers the ACCESS assessment, provides professional development
for instructors, and determines testing standards. English Language Proficiency (ELP) codes
describe student performance on a six-point scale, from 1 (Entering) to 6 (Reaching). Decimal
scores interpret grade-level specific scale scores and do not represent interval data (WIDA 2011).
Three composite scores in oral language, literacy and comprehension across the language domains
determine the final overall scale score. Composite scores are determined from a weighted
combination of four domains as follows:
Table 4: Contribution of Language Domains to ACCESS for ELs Composite Scores
Type of
Composite
Score
Contribution of Language Domains (By Percent)
Listening Speaking Reading Writing
Oral Language 50% 50% - -
Literacy - - 50% 50%
Comprehension 30% - 70% -
Overall 15% 15% 35% 35%
Source: WIDA ACCESS Score Report, 2016
It is important to note that WIDA is re-scaling the scoring on ACCESS exams starting with the
2016-2017 ACCESS assessment year (WIDA 2016). This will make it more difficult to get a given
score and will likely serve as a discontinuity point that future analyses of ACCESS performance
must account for to make pre- and post-change scores comparable. The current assessment,
Forward Exam, was first administered in the 2015-2016 school year.
While EL students take ACCESS assessments annually, depending on their level of English
proficiency, EL students are often required to also take part in regular standardized testing (see
Appendix I). Prior to Forward, the Badger Exam was administered in the 2014-2015 school year,
preceded by the WKCE assessment (DPI 2017k; DPI 2017e). The Forward Exam is administered
online in the spring, depending on the grade and subject matter (DPI 2017k). The following table
summarizes statewide standardized tests by subject, which the majority of EL students are required
to take.
12
Table 5: Standardized Testing Schedule, by Subject
Subject Assessment Year
English Language Arts Grades 3-8
Math Grades 3-8
Science Grades 4 and 8
Social Studies Grades 4, 8, and 10
Source: DPI
Reclassification
In Wisconsin, EL students have historically been reclassified as English proficient (ELP 6) and
exited from bilingual-bicultural education programs in one of two ways:
1. Automatic Reclassification
An EL student can be automatically be reclassified as English Proficient (ELP 6) under one of
the following conditions:
- Achieving an overall score of 6.0 on the ACCESS exam in grades K-12.
or
- Achieving an overall score of 5.0 or above and a literacy subscore 5.0 or more
on the ACCESS exam in grades 4-12 (DPI 2011).
State law allows school districts to determine which of the above reclassification criteria to
use. Decisions are made by ESL teachers, administrators, and other instructors as necessary.
Criteria such as standardized test results, attendance, school engagement, community supports,
and behavior patterns may be factors included in the reclassification decision, according to
district administrators. Parents and students may also be involved, providing input regarding
the individual preferences of families. Practices in exiting students vary across both schools
and districts throughout Wisconsin.
2. Manual Reclassification
Districts can also use their discretion to manually reclassify under the following conditions:
- If an EL student’s academic performance shows clear English proficiency at
an overall score of 5.0 on the ACCESS exam but he/she has not been
automatically reclassified because of failure to reach the literacy subscore
threshold, districts can manually reclassify the student from limited English
proficient (ELP 5) English Proficient (ELP 6).
- If an EL student has reached an overall score of 6.0 on the ACCESS exam but
his/her academic performance suggests the student should maintain EL status,
districts can manually reclassify the student from English Proficient (ELP 6)
to limited English proficient (ELP 5) (DPI 2017g).
To manually reclassify, the district should evaluate two of the following pieces of evidence
that support the decision to reclassify:
13
- District benchmark examinations
- State assessments
- Writing samples/performance assessments
- Academic records (DPI 2017f)
Under NCLB, districts were required to monitor English proficient students (ELP 6) for two
years after they exited EL classification. Under NCLB’s successor, the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA), that period has been extended to four years (U.S. Department of
Education 2016). First-year reclassified students are considered 6.1s, while second-year
students are considered 6.2s (Shanebrook-Smith 2017).
However, due to changes in data reporting from Wisconsin school districts to DPI, students
will no longer be automatically reclassified – all reclassifications will now be done manually.
Re-entry to EL Programming
After being reclassified and exited from EL programming, most students never re-enter current EL
status. However, some students backslide, are re-evaluated, and eventually re-enter EL
programming (Shanebrook-Smith 2017). Some districts have established specific protocol for
when this should occur.
Spotlight: Reclassification in Kenosha Unified School District
The Kenosha Unified School District follows this defined process:
1) Reclassified students are monitored for two years after exit from the EL program.
This includes a formal online assessment by their homeroom or general teacher in
both January and late April or early May of the two years following reclassification.
If enough negative points are noted on a student’s evaluation, a system flag is
triggered, notifying the school’s ESL teacher(s). At that point, the ESL teacher will
discuss student progress with the primary classroom teacher.
2) If the team decides that additional re-evaluation is necessary, the student will retake
the ACCESS test.
3) If the student scores a 5.0 or higher on the ACCESS test, he/she will remain as a
reclassified, monitored student. If the student scores lower than a 5.0, a meeting will
be initiated to discuss re-entry with the child and family.
4) The student either re-enters EL programing or remains as a reclassified EL.
However, it appears that re-entry happens on a negligible basis. Considering the small sample size
and the dependence on educators’ monitoring practices and use of their discretion, we do not think
the data offers much opportunity to consider re-entry in this analysis.
14
Funding
Federal Funding
Both federal and state funds support ELs in Wisconsin. The U.S. Department of Education
determines Title III grant awards to the states using a formula that takes into account the number
of EL and immigrant students enrolled in each state. This program requires 95 percent of the grant
to be distributed as subgrants to the school districts within the state (U.S. Department of Education
2016). In Wisconsin, Title III funding for the 2015-16 school year amounted to $145 per student
and has generally ranged from $140 to $148 in recent years (DPI 2017f). The number of students
is based on completed EL-specific assessments. If a student completes the majority of an
assessment but not the entire test, the student is not counted for federal metrics (Anonymous
Interview 2017). For that reason and others, administrators feel pressured to ensure that every
single EL completes the required assessments. All federal funding must be used to “supplement,
not supplant” other revenue sources. For example, if a district EL administrator was funded
through general revenue but the position was cut due to revenue decreases, Title III money could
not be used to refund the position. Title III federal funding flows through the state, but is
administered with the discretion of district leadership. Title III funding can be used for:
- ESL teacher salaries
- Consultants
- Instructional materials
- Translation services (Laurie Burgos 2017)
Laurie Burgos of the Verona Area School District notes that by working across program areas,
such as Title I (low-income) and Title II (special needs), administrators can more effectively and
efficiently leverage federal funding. Additionally, there is no limit on carrying over funds from
year to year, allowing districts more flexibility to use Title III dollars.
National Context
States support EL programming in a variety of ways. As of 2013, all but eight states provided EL-
specific funding to support student achievement (Horsford, Mokhtar, and Sampson 2013).
Wisconsin is one of the majority of states that provides additional funding for ELs. However, state
funding varies broadly, and Wisconsin administrators note that EL funding does not adequately
support student services (Anonymous Interview 2017). States use one of four strategies to
appropriate funding:
- Block grants
- Additional per-pupil dollars
- Weighted formulas
- General lump sums
15
While Wisconsin funding cannot be equally compared to that of other states, a brief overview of
EL funding in other cities, as seen below, shows the wide variation in additional funding for each
EL student.
- Broward District (Florida): $4,837 per student
- Clark District (Nevada): $119 per student
- Houston District (Texas): $2,588 per student
- Miami-Dade District (Florida): $4,677 per student
Wisconsin Funding
Wisconsin Act 9 of the 1999 biennial budget set aside an additional $250,000 above and beyond
initial state funding for BLBC appropriation (DPI 2017b; Wisconsin Statute § 115.995). This sum
is divided proportionally each year across every district with at least a 15 percent EL population.
In the 2014-2015 school year, 10 school districts qualified for the special appropriated funds. The
remaining full appropriation, roughly $8.25 million, is divided evenly among all districts according
to their approved budgets and EL populations, with this funding considered categorical aid. The
average approved cost per EL student in a program that receives categorical district aid is $3,238.
During the 2013-2014 school year, 51 districts qualified for such categorical aid. However, the
average state reimbursement for each EL student in categorically eligible programs was only $325.
Therefore, districts receive approximately 8 percent to 12 percent in reimbursement of the total
approved cost per EL student. That being said, not all EL students in Wisconsin attend school in a
district that is eligible for categorical aid.
Relevant Law and Administrative Code
Both federal and state government provides authority, resources, and guidelines for programs that
support English language acquisition among students whose primary language is not English.
Local school districts administer these programs for their EL population if certain conditions
apply.
Federal Statutes, Administrative Requirements, and Regulation
The Title III program – established as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
and reauthorized under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 – is a federal grant program targeted
at ensuring equal educational opportunities for English Learner (EL) students. As a condition of
receiving Title III funds, states are required to institute accountability measures, called Annual
Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs), to monitor the following:
- Annual increases in the number or percentage of EL students making progress in
learning English
- Annual increases in the number or percentage of EL students attaining English
proficiency
- Making adequate yearly progress (AYP) for EL students.
16
AMAO 1 and AMAO 2 refer to growth and attainment of English language proficiency under
NCLB, while AMAO 3 measures academic gains of ELs.2 While AYP is defined federally, the
definitions of “making progress” and “attaining proficiency” are left to the discretion of the states
(U.S. Department of Education 2010). NCLB also required states to assess ELs’ English language
proficiency annually in four language domains to measure their progress: listening, reading,
writing, and speaking. This requirement is the basis for the ACCESS exam structure, which we
describe in more detail below.
State Statutes, Administrative Requirements, and Regulation
Article X of the Wisconsin State Constitution defines and empowers the elected State
Superintendent of Public Instruction to provide education “free and without charge for tuition to
all children between the ages of 4 and 20 years…” (Wisc. Const. Art. X). Further defining this
authority, the Wisconsin State Statute chapter §115 states:
“It is the policy of this state to provide equal educational opportunities by ensuring
that necessary programs are available for limited-English proficient pupils. ... To
this end, this subchapter establishes bilingual-bicultural education programs for
pupils in school districts with specified concentrations of limited-English proficient
pupils. ...” (Wisconsin Statute § 115.95(2))
The Wisconsin Administrative Code for the Department of Public Instruction builds on this by
laying out criteria establishing bilingual bicultural education programs. State statute section
§115.97 requires all districts to provide bilingual-bicultural education programs for any of their
schools that meet any of the following criteria:
- If there are 10 or more EL students from kindergarten to grade 3 at a particular elementary
school
- If there are 20 or more EL students from grades 4 to 8 at a particular elementary, middle,
or junior high
- If there are 20 or more EL students from grades 9 to 12 at a particular high school
(Wisconsin Statute § 115.97(2); Wisconsin Statute § 115.95(2).))
Furthermore, all school districts with at least one EL student are required to follow specific
procedures for identification, assessment, classification, and testing of EL students.
Identification of ELs
The district is required to identify any students who fit the definition of an EL student:
- Students who communicate in a language other than English
- Students whose families communicate in a language other than English
- Students who communicate in a language other than English regularly in non-
school settings
2 In Title I, AMAO 3 corresponded to AMO, not AMAO.
17
These students are to be identified using a home language survey and an approved English
proficiency assessment.
Assessment of ELs
The district is required to assess the English proficiency level of each of the identified students
using an approved English proficiency assessment and place them in the appropriate education
program. The assessment process may use these supplemental indicators:
- Prior academic records
- Course grades
- Information on everyday classroom performance
Classification of ELs
The district must classify the identified student as one of the following:
- Level 1 – Beginning preproduction
- Level 2 – Beginning production
- Level 3 – Intermediate
- Level 4 – Advanced intermediate
- Level 5 – Advanced
- Level 6 – English proficient
Standardized Testing of ELs
The district should determine on an individual basis whether an EL student should take the
standardized test or an alternate assessment, with these specifications in mind:
- EL students at English proficiency level 1 or 2 have to take an alternate
assessment, even if they also take the standardized test
- EL students at English proficiency level 1 or 2 who have attended Wisconsin
public school for 3 or more full consecutive years must take the standardized test
of reading or English language arts using tests written in English
- If the district has determined that an EL student who meets this criteria has not
reached a level of English proficiency for the test results to be valid or reliable,
they can continue to assess the EL student with an alternate assessment for no
more than two additional consecutive years
EL students at English proficiency level 3 through 5 have to participate in standardized testing
but may also participate in alternate testing.