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.