50-State Comparison: English Learner Policies

50-State Comparison: English Learner Policies

What measures do schools use to reclassify students as "English proficient"?

May 2020

The following information was gathered from state statute and regulation only. The information included here captures the metrics used to reclassify English learners as English proficient. Twenty-four states explicitly require students to score proficiently on an English language proficiency exam. Some states consider additional metrics, including academic performance, statewide assessments, and teacher observations and recommendations. For additional information, visit the state EL guidance documents.

View the full 50-State Comparison: English Learner Policies here.
STATE
arrow_upward
What measures do schools use to reclassify students as "English proficient"?
Source
Federal Law State and local education agencies must ensure the annual English language proficiency (ELP) assessment of all English learner (EL) students and monitor their progress from year to year. The English language proficiency assessment must be valid, reliable, and aligned to state English language proficiency standards. To demonstrate proficiency on the ELP assessment and exit the English learner program, EL students must have either separate proficient scores in each language domain or a composite score of "proficient" derived from scores in all four language domains. U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter: English Learner Students and Limited English Proficient Parents (2015)
Alabama Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Alaska English language proficiency assessment. Alaska Admin. Code tit. 4, § 34.055
Arizona English language proficiency assessment. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15-756.05
Arkansas Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
California (1) English language proficiency assessment.
(2) Performance in basic skills as compared to English proficient pupils.
(3) Teacher evaluations.
(4) Parental recommendations.
Cal. Educ. Code § 60810 (West)

Cal. Educ. Code § 313 (West)

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, § 11302

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, § 11303

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, § 11304
Colorado English language proficiency assessment. 1 Colo. Code Regs. § 301-62:2224-R-2.00
Connecticut English language proficiency assessment. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 10-17f
Delaware English language proficiency assessment. Code Del. Regs. 14 900
District of Columbia Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Florida (1)English language proficiency assessment.
(2)English language arts assessment.
(3)ELL Committee determination.
Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 6A-6.0903
Georgia (1)English language proficiency assessment.
(2)LEA reclassification review.
Ga Comp. R. & Regs. 160-4-5-.02
Hawaii Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Idaho Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Illinois English language proficiency assessment. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 23, § 228.25
Indiana Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Iowa (1)English language proficiency assessment.
(2)Teacher observations and recommendations.
Iowa Admin. Code r. 281-60.3(280)
Kansas Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Kentucky Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Louisiana English language proficiency assessment. 28 La. Admin. Code Pt XI, 4001
Maine Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Maryland English language proficiency assessment. Md. Code Regs. 13A.05.07.03
Massachusetts Each school district establishes reclassification criteria in accordance with department guidelines. 603 Mass. Code Regs. 14.02
Michigan Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Minnesota Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Mississippi Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Missouri Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Montana Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Nebraska English language proficiency assessment. 92 Neb. Admin. Code Ch. 15, 007
Nevada (1)English language proficiency assessment.
(2)Teacher documentation and recommendation.
Nev. Admin. Code 388.645
New Hampshire Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
New Jersey (1)English language proficiency assessment.
(2)Classroom performance.
(3)Reading level in English.
(4)State achievement test performance.
(5)Teaching staff judgement.
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 18A:35-19.1

N.J. Admin. Code § 6A:15-1.10
New Mexico English language proficiency assessment. N.M. Admin. Code 6.29.5
New York (1)English language proficiency assessment.
(2)Statewide English language arts assessment.
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8, § 154-2.3
North Carolina English language proficiency assessment. 16 N.C. Admin. Code 6D.0312
North Dakota Language support team review. N.D. Admin. Code 67-28-01-03

N.D. Admin. Code 67-28-01-05
Ohio Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Oklahoma Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Oregon English language proficiency assessment. Or. Admin. R. 581-023-0100

Executive Numbered Memo 004-2018-19
Pennsylvania Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Rhode Island Criteria outlined in the English Language Instructional Program Exit Criteria document. R.I. Code R. 20-30-3.16
South Carolina Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
South Dakota Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Tennessee Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Texas (1)English language proficiency assessment.
(2)Reading or English language arts assessment.
(3)Agency-approved, criterion-referenced tests.
(4)Teacher evaluation.
Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 29.056
Utah Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy. However, Local education agencies must notify parents when their student exits alternative language services. The notice must include the means used to assess the English language proficiency of the student. Utah Admin. Code r. R277-716-4
Vermont Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy. However, a student is no longer classified as an English learner if they demonstrate proficiency in English through multiple means and demonstrates acceptable performance in content subjects. 7-1 Vt. Code R. § 24
Virginia Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Washington English language proficiency assessment. Wash. Admin. Code 392-160-035
West Virginia Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.
Wisconsin (1) English language proficiency assessment.
(2) Academic records
(3) Course grades
(4) Information on everyday classroom performance
Wis. Admin. Code PI § 13.07

Wis. Admin. Code PI § 13.09
Wyoming Governed by the department of education’s EL guidebook or federal law rather than state policy.