(i.e., had not reached“partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are
fundamental”for mathematics), whereas 41% of ELL students’performed below
the basic level (NCES 2013 ).
This differential in achievement is also found internationally. In so much as we
can compare students who are tested in a language they speak at home with students
who are tested in a language they donotspeak at home, results of the 2012
administration of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) are also
suggestive of a linguistic basis for the academic achievement gap. The international
mathematics average for 15-year-old students tested in a language they speak at
home was 501, whereas the average was 462 for students tested in a language that
differs from the one they speak at home (NCES 2014 ).
ELL students in the U.S. who are not proficient in English by the end of
first-grade show achievement gaps with English-speaking peers in reading and
mathematics, although the gap in reading narrows over time, while continuing to
widen in mathematics (Halle et al. 2012 ). In terms of linguistic outcomes for ELL
students, the same factors that characterize the heterogeneity in this group also
account for differences in their rate of English acquisition. Being older at school
entry, having a higher family income, more parent education, greater participation
in cultural activities by the family, and parent beliefs that language is not a barrier to
their involvement in school are associated with the more rapid progression in
English proficiency (Halle et al. 2012 ).
There is increasing concern for students who spend considerably longer periods
of time designated as needing language services. As many as 60% of U.S.-born
ELL students remain designated as ELL in a state-wide, incoming high school
cohort after presumably 9 years of education in U.S. schools (Slama 2012 ). In
California, in order to bring attention and resources to this situation, students are
officially classified“Long-Term ELLs”if they spend more than 6 years receiving
ELL language support services. The rate of English acquisition, however, also
appears strongly correlated with the type of program in which students are enrolled
(e.g., English immersion, bilingual, dual-immersion). Slower rates of acquisition
(e.g., up to 6 years) may be seen in programs that include the use of the student’s
first language but such programs ultimately better position students for academic
attainment in reading and mathematics and successful reclassification tofluent
English proficiency status (Umansky and Reardon 2014 ).
47.2.3 Teacher Preparation and Effectiveness
According to available nationwide statistics reported in 2002 by NCES, only 12.5%
of the approximately three million teachers in the U.S. received eight or more hours
of training to work with ELL students, despite the fact that 42% of them had taught
ELL students. In 2008, the National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition (NCELA) concluded that teacher preparation in the U.S. is woefully
lacking in meeting the needs of large numbers of ELL students. Given the current
47 Imperatives for Teacher Education: Findings from Studies... 699