Exit Criteria for English Language Learner Programs

In accordance with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 (“No Child Left Behind”), each state must identify processes and criteria to guide school districts in exiting or removing English language learners (ELLs) from a range of specialized services offered to students previously identified by the school as ELL or limited English proficient. The terms exit or reciassification (used synonymously) denote the process in which a student who has previously been identified as limited English proficient exits, or is removed from, programs and services for which they are no longer eligible. This includes transitional bilingual education programs but not necessarily dual-language programs.

Most commonly, such students are subsequently placed in a general education setting in which English is the only mode of instruction except, possibly, for foreign-language classes. Students no longer require, or are eligible to receive, services such as transitional bilingual education (TBE) or English as a Second Language (ESL) support. The term limited English proficient (LEP) is commonly used in policy to identify [Page 289]and define students for whom English is not their first or native language. LEP-identified students vary in their abilities to speak, read, or write English; some have little or no ability to do so, while others demonstrate a moderate command of English. The term came into the language of schools after the passage of the 1968 federal Bilingual Education Act, which established Title VII categorical funding. Title VII funding streams were used to develop materials for use with LEP-identified students, including entrance and exit criteria instruments. With the Lau v. Nichols (1974) case and subsequent 1975 Lau Remedies, schools were required to provide compensatory education for ELLs, allowing them to exit their status as LEP students and equally access curricular resources in English in a “reasonable” amount of time.

Exit criteria for ELLs vary across policy contexts at the state, district, and school campus levels. Variability exists in how policy is developed and interpreted according to the orientation toward English language acquisition and programs provided for ELLs. For example, districts or campuses with accomodationist bilingual education or dual-language programs that promote the use of native language in the acquisition of English may choose a different approach toward the use of exit criteria than those districts or schools that reflect more-assimilationist English-first orientations in programming for ELLs, in which the native language is minimally used and English is the primary mode of instruction. Within the United States, TBE models of bilingual education or ESL predominate. These programs tend to focus on English acquisition as the primary goal, rather than maintenance of native language while acquiring English.

Assuming transitional frameworks, each state has different criteria for determining the process of exit or reclassification of LEP students as fluent or proficient English students. While each state is encouraged to develop its own process in accordance with federal statutes, similarities exist across states. The following section reviews and compares the exit criteria and follow-up procedures across five states with the largest population of ELLs: California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas.

...