The danger of using a single study to inform policy for English learners

We are a collective of researchers who focus on English learner (EL) education. After reading
coverage of the working paper, ​"​An Extra Year to Learn English? Early Grade Retention and the
Human Capital Development of English Learners​" by David Figlio and Umut Özek,​ we are
compelled to raise critical concerns and questions related to the study’s assumptions, approach,
and findings.

What do the study’s findings tell us (and not tell us)?

The headline of this study, and its ​related media coverage​, is that “repeating third grade could
help struggling English learners.” In reality, the findings and implications are not so simple.
First, a key detail is underplayed in the working paper: the “intervention” being studied is not
third-grade retention ​per se​, but rather the “substantial instructional support in reading for
retained students, including at least 90 minutes of reading instruction each day using effective
instruction strategies and high-performing teachers” that retained students are mandated to
receive under Florida law. ​In other words, it is unclear ​which​ intervention benefited students:
Was it grade retention? Targeted reading instruction? Great teachers offering that instruction?
Some combination of the above? Given these multiple factors, we cannot assume that grade
retention was the cause of beneficial effects. Further, ​Figlio and Özek’s findings focused on ELs
mirror those of ​a previous NBER working paper​ that uses similar methods to examine the effects
of Florida’s retention policy for all students, both ELs and non-ELs; thus, we do not know
whether ELs differentially benefit from the intervention. (Also see a ​2015 NEPC report​ for a
critical review of the previous study.)

Importantly, the benefits on reading achievement that the authors found from third-grade
retention with instructional intervention ​dissipated after just a few years​. The reason for this
trend is unclear, and additional research is needed to understand it. For example, the dissipating
benefits could suggest that struggling ELs would profit from continuous high-quality teaching
and additional responsive instructional support ​rather than​ grade retention.

Additionally, the study’s findings show that grade retention with substantial instructional support
relates to later outcomes for only a very small group of ELs. The central statistical method used
by the authors, regression discontinuity, yields results that are only valid regarding the
population ​near the cutoff under study​, which is a much smaller proportion of the total study
sample. As such, we simply do not know whether the authors’ findings can be extrapolated to
other ELs. Whether grade retention is a good idea for all struggling ELs is not a finding this
study can support.

We also note that the working paper makes no mention of the socio-emotional effects of
retention. Ample research on grade retention suggests that it is not only ineffective, but can be
detrimental to students’ sense of self-worth and self-efficacy, as well as their long-term
achievement outcomes (including high school graduation).

What assumptions are made, and how do these reflect what we know about EL education?
The authors suggest that their findings offer a solution to solving ELs’ “English deficiencies.”
We find that this assertion reveals deficit views of ELs when our schools and classrooms are not
currently set up in ways that afford ELs with equitable access to rigorous content and language
instruction. In fact, the study perpetuates long-held, inaccurate notions about EL instruction. For
example, on p. 5, the authors state: “The promise of early grade retention policies for English
learners is that they provide additional time for these students to acquire the necessary English
skills before they are exposed to more challenging course content.” But learning English is ​not​ a
prerequisite for learning content. Research over the last two decades, most recently summarized
in a ​2018 report by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine​, shows that
to foster equity, access, and academic success for ELs, educators must engage ELs in both
language and content learning ​simultaneously.​ A sequential approach to EL education, focused
on English acquisition before affording students full access to content, leaves students
increasingly behind their non-EL peers. As such, we question whether merely reducing time to
English proficiency should be a top priority. A more systemic solution supported by research is
to redesign our districts, schools, and classrooms so that ELs—and all students—simultaneously
learn academic content, analytical practices, ​and​ language. Indeed, the new college and career
ready content standards being implemented in schools across the US call for this approach, and
the most recent authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act mandates
alignment between content and English language proficiency standards.

Further, focusing solely on third-grade ELs’ reading levels to make retention decisions obscures
the important relationship between ELs’ academic progress, English language proficiency, and
time in the school system. As many EL scholars have documented, these factors are critical to
understanding and fostering EL progress in any system. ​Moreover, whether or not ELs are
enrolled in a bilingual program is a critical factor in contextualizing their progress. Research has
shown that, while ​Latino ELs enrolled in bilingual programs are reclassified as
English-proficient at a slower pace in elementary school, they have higher overall
reclassification, English proficiency, and academic performance by the end of high school
compared to similar peers in English immersion programs. Considering these factors, would the
authors suggest that an EL in an English immersion program be treated the same as an EL in a
bilingual program, or an EL who has been in the US for three years be treated the same as an EL
who has been in the US for one year? A robust body of research in EL education clearly tells us
that would not be best practice.

Finally, the authors equate students’ “latent human capital” with math scores. Among many
problematic assumptions here is their overlooking the wealth of linguistic and cultural assets ELs
bring to schools and classrooms, assets that are rich sources of social capital.

In essence, the study’s findings provide limited evidence of support that an intensive intervention
benefits a small percentage of ELs for a few years. Accordingly, policymakers should not infer
that the study supports widespread retention, or indeed that it supports retention at all. Without
situating Figlio and Özek’s study in the broader scholarship on EL education, and fully
considering its limitations and implications, policymakers risk applying this study’s findings in
ways that could exacerbate inequalities for ELs. We therefore urge caution and care in promoting
or undertaking major policy changes for students who are already too often racially,
socioeconomically, and linguistically marginalized in our schools and communities.
Patricia Anders, University of Arizona
Carol Brochin, University of Arizona
Marta Civil, University of Arizona
Renée Clift, University of Arizona
Mary Carol Combs, University of Arizona
Leah Durán, University of Arizona
Walter Doyle, University of Arizona
Carol Evans, University of Arizona
*Molly Faulkner-Bond, WestEd
Raul C. Gonzalez, University of Arizona
Rodrigo Gutiérrez, University of Arizona
*Megan Hopkins, University of California, San Diego
Donna L. Jurich, University of Arizona
Amanda Kibler, Oregon State University
Tatyana Kleyn, The City College of New York
*Francesca López, University of Arizona
*Robert Linquanti, WestEd
Danny C. Martínez, University of California, Davis
Ramón Antonio Martínez, Stanford University
Anne-Marie Núñez, The Ohio State University
Deborah Palmer, University of Colorado Boulder
Luis Poza, San José State University
*Lucrecia Santibañez, Claremont Graduate University
Valerie Shirley, University of Arizona
Karen Thompson, Oregon State University
Ilana Umansky, University of Oregon
Desireé Vega, University of Arizona
Colin Waite, University of Arizona
Marcy Wood, University of Arizona

*Primary authors. Please send any correspondence regarding this statement to Megan Hopkins
(​mbhopkins@ucsd.edu​) and/or Francesca L​ó​pez (​falopez@email.arizona.edu​).