Programs and policies related to the education of English learners are often based on the belief that fluency in English is the primary, if not sole, requirement for academic success. While English is in fact necessary for academic success in U.S. schools, so is a strong base in content-area academics. This study investigated the effects of track placement and English proficiency on secondary English learners’ academic achievement while taking students’ previous schooling and length of time enrolled in U.S. schools into account. In the case of a variety of outcomes, track placement was a better predictor of achievement than proficiency in English. Results indicate that track placement is a better predictor of English learners’ academic performance than proficiency in English, highlighting the importance of quality instruction for English learners.

The Williams vs the State of California class action suit on behalf of poor children in that state argues that California provides a fundamentally inequitable education to students based on wealth and language status. This article, an earlier version of which was prepared as background to that case, reviews the conditions of schooling for English learners in the state with the largest population of such students, totaling nearly 1.6 million in 2003, and comprising about 40 percent of nation’s English learners. We argue, with evidence, that there are seven aspects of the schooling of English language learners where students receive an education that is demonstrably inferior to that of English speakers. For example, these students are assigned to less qualified teachers, are provided with inferior curriculum and less time to cover it, are housed in inferior facilities where they are often segregated from English speaking peers, and are assessed by invalid instruments that provide little, if any, information about their actual achievement. We end with suggestions for ways in which teachers, administrators, and policymakers can begin to address these inequities, even while legal remedies may remain in the distant future.

The disproportionate identification of learning disabilities among certain socio-demographic subgroups, typically groups who are already disadvantaged, is perceived as a persistent problem within the education system. The academic and social experiences of students who are misidentified with a learning disability may be severely restricted, while students with a learning disability who are never identified are less likely to receive the accommodations and modifications necessary to learn at their maximum potential. We use the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 to describe national patterns in learning disability identification. Results indicate that socio-demographic characteristics are predictive of identification with a learning disability. While some conventional areas of disproportionality are confirmed (males and language minorities), differences in SES entirely account for African-American and Hispanic disproportionality. Discrepancy between the results of bivariate and multivariate analyses confirms the importance of employing multivariate multilevel models in investigation of disproportionality.

The 1974 Lau decision requires that U.S. public schools ensure a meaningful education for students learning English. English as a Second Language (ESL) placement is an institutional response to the linguistic needs of these students; however, its academic implications remain largely unexplored. Using nationally representative data from the Educational Longitudinal Study (ELS), the effects of ESL placement on college preparatory course enrollment and academic achievement of language minority students are estimated, first with fixed effects regression models and then with multi-level propensity score matching techniques. While numerous school and individual level factors beyond language proficiency predict ESL placement, a significant negative estimated effect of ESL placement on science enrollment and cumulative GPA is consistently found. Perhaps more important, however, no positive effects of ESL placement on the achievement of language minority youth are found when accounting for English proficiency and other potential covariates.

Placement of some students into the courses needed only for high school graduation, and others into those that prepare them for college constitutes academic stratification. This study uses data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 to investigate whether students labeled with learning disabilities complete fewer academic courses by the end of high school compared to their peers who are not labeled. Results indicate large disparities in completion of college preparatory coursework, especially in math, science, and foreign language, even net of students’ academic preparation for high school, and their cognitive and noncognitive skills. The evidence supports the possibility that school processes contribute to the poorer course-taking outcomes of students labeled with learning disabilities.

Considerable research investigates the immigrant advantage, yet little work examines the influence of school-based linguistic status. Contradictory patterns exist: research identifies both an immigrant advantage and a language minority disadvantage in college going. Although not all immigrant youth are language minorities, many do speak a language other than English. Educators in U.S. schools group immigrant students into three discrete linguistic categories: native English speakers, language minorities not in ESL, and English learner (EL) students. We employ multivariate methods to investigate immigrant college going by linguistic status using the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002. Results suggest an immigrant advantage only among the two immigrant groups not in ESL, and evidence of undermatching—wherein students choose post-secondary options for which they are over prepared—among high achieving EL students. Expanded understanding of the immigrant advantage might improve EL students’ pathways into college, stemming this loss of human capital.

Students identified with learning disabilities experience markedly lower levels of science and mathematics achievement than students who are not identified with a learning disability. Seemingly compounding their disadvantage, students with learning disabilities also complete more credits in non-core coursework—traditionally considered non-academic coursework—than students who are not identified with a learning disability. The Education Longitudinal Study of 2002, a large national dataset with both regular and special education high school students, is utilized to determine whether credit accumulation in certain types of non-core coursework, such as Technology and Communications courses, is associated with improved science and math course-taking outcomes for students with learning disabilities. Results show that credit accumulation in Technology and Communications coursework uniquely benefits the science course-taking, and comparably benefits the math course-taking, of students identified with learning disabilities in contrast to students who are not identified with a learning disability.

Education researchers have been impacted by COVID-19 as school closures interrupted ongoing education research, including clinical trials, case study and ethnographic inquiry in schools, and longitudinal studies using federal, state, or district administrative data. The recommendations we present here focus on immediate and future actions education researchers can take to support public health and educational institutions dealing with a pandemic. Clearly not exhaustive, our recommendations are intended to prompt the education research community to collectively consider how the field’s efforts can both inform the knowledge base and support frontline educators and health care researchers dealing with COVID-19.