Thinking about how we group students and how we measure learning

By Nathan Storey, Center for Research and Reform in Education, Johns Hopkins University

It is common in politics to paint all members of a group as a homogenous block, united in their views and responses to certain issues. Unfortunately, the same trend often occurs in how we consider the impact of education policies and practices. This oversimplification is particularly evident in the over-reliance on standardized state and national assessments to inform us about student performance and learning.

A team of researchers from University of Chicago used data from Chicago Public Schools between 2014 and 2016 to examine the performance of current and former English Learners (ELs). Their analysis underscored the importance of considering English Learners not as one monolithic group, but one with nuance and variation. The researchers broke the data into four groups: long-term English Learners without individualized education programs (IEPs), long-term English Learners with IEPs, late-arriving English Learners (in the district less than six years), and former English Learners.

The authors also pushed the literature in a new direction by incorporating data beyond state standardized assessments, including graduation rates, cumulative GPA, SAT scores, and immediate two- and four-year college enrollment rates. This approach provided a more comprehensive picture  of English Learners’ learning and progress.

The findings revealed  that while current English Learners were behind the district average in graduation rates, former English Learners had higher graduation rates than the district average. Former English Learners also had higher cumulative GPA and SAT scores than the district average, as well as greater high school graduation and college enrollment rates than the district average. In contrast, students who received supplemental EL instruction throughout their education without being deemed English proficient generally had lower GPA, SAT scores, and graduation rates than their peers.

This study highlights the importance of critically examining  how we study and think of groups of students and the data that we use to measure student progress and learning. By embracing a more nuanced approach, educators and policymakers can better understand and address the diverse needs of students.