1. Introduction
In this summary, we present research from a literature review and state policy analysis on effective policies, practices, and programs for supporting students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE) in K-12 (Kindergarten–12th Grade) schools.
2. Background
To effectively define, identify, and support the growing and diverse number of SLIFE in Massachusetts K-12 schools, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education contracted the Center for Applied Linguistics to conduct a four-year research study on best practices for the education of SLIFE. The research presented in this summary comes from a 2022 literature review and state policy analysis and will be followed by an analysis of Massachusetts’ SLIFE data and qualitative research with Massachusetts SLIFE and the educators who serve them.
This research is grounded in an assets-based, culturally-responsive approach that recognizes and promotes the value and integration of students’ bilingualism, social language abilities, and authentic ways of learning into the learning norms and standards of their schools.
3. Research questions
This study investigated two research questions:
1. What information about SLIFE nationally and in Massachusetts can help accurately identify and provide effective, differentiated services for SLIFE students?
2. What are effective policies, practices, and programmatic approaches for supporting the academic success and well-being of SLIFE in Massachusetts and the nation?
4. Characteristics of SLIFE
Although there is no standard U.S. federal definition of SLIFE and states may identify and report the number of SLIFE in their schools in different ways, information gathered from state-reported data and a small number of empirical studies estimates that 2%–20% of English Learners (ELs) in the United States are SLIFE (Fleischman & Hopstock, Reference Fleischman and Hopstock1993; Fry, Reference Fry2005; Potochnick, Reference Potochnick2018). While the needs of SLIFE are often centered in discussions about these students, SLIFE bring unique linguistic and cultural strengths to the classroom that can and should serve as the foundation for developing and delivering effective programs.
Strengths of SLIFE include their funds of knowledge and expertise from their own lived experiences and backgrounds that can help to activate prior knowledge; existing proficiency in their home language(s); informal learning skills that may traditionally be undervalued in formal education settings; oral language skills, including interpersonal skills; cultural assets, including skills and values associated with students’ cultural backgrounds that may help them acclimate well to working collaboratively in the classroom; and resilience from the often challenging circumstances they have experienced, which can help them to persevere and express agency when faced with challenges in their education (Barba et al., Reference Barba, Newcombe, Ruiz and Cordero2019; DeCapua & Marshall, Reference DeCapua and Marshall2011; Hos et al., Reference Hos, Murray-Johnson and Correia2019).
SLIFE arrive in the U.S. from a variety of countries and for a variety of reasons. The needs of this group of students are directly related to the nature of their interruption in schooling, making it critical for educators to learn more about individual students’ journeys to and through U.S. schools and classrooms. Overall, SLIFE may be impacted by three types of factors on this journey: pre-migration factors, which may include political instability, civil unrest, and education quality in the home country (Potochnick, Reference Potochnick2018); during migration factors, which may include documentation processes and political instability in the home country and the U.S., as well as the length or condition of the migration journey (Olivares-Orellana, Reference Olivares-Orellana2020); and post-migration factors, which may include acculturation stress for students and their families, resettlement processes, and the availability of school resources designed to meet their needs (Drake, Reference Drake2017; Flores, Reference Flores2022; Hos, Reference Hos2020).
5. Definitions and identification
The term SLIFE generally refers to ELs who have some degree of interruption or limitation to formal schooling in their native country, though there is no official definition of SLIFE at the national level in the U.S., and states, districts, and schools thus vary in how they define and identify this group of learners. To review state definitions and identification criteria for SLIFE, we conducted an analysis of state department of education websites for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
We identified definitions of SLIFE in 20 states. Common components of these definitions include: immigration status or history, school history, grade-level knowledge and skills, native language literacy, and age or grade level. While some states provide extensive definitions that include specific criteria and information about all or most components (e.g., Minnesota), other states provide fewer details and focus on one or two components (e.g., Maryland). Differences among state SLIFE definitions include how criteria are defined (e.g., the minimum age or grade level of students), how requirements are described (e.g., the amount and extent of interruption or limitation to formal schooling), and how gaps in education are measured (e.g., how many years below grade level students are performing in literacy or numeracy skills).
We also identified information about SLIFE identification processes in 18 states. Although identification processes differ across states, our findings indicate that SLIFE identification is often integrated into the EL identification process, in which additional steps are taken beyond the federally-mandated home language survey to identify ELs. Common components of SLIFE identification include supplemental home language survey questions, an English language assessment, a caretaker and/or student interview, a native language literacy and/or numeracy assessment, and a review of relevant academic records, though some states may only elect to include one or a few of these steps, and resources provided for identification vary widely.
6. Instructional practices and program models
Findings from the literature review highlight various best practices for working with SLIFE in K-12 schools, including recommendations for effective instructional practices and program models.
Overall, educators are encouraged to utilize assets-based approaches to instruction that focus on what students can do rather than what they cannot do and use students’ assets as the foundation for developing and delivering instruction (Bajaj & Suresh, Reference Bajaj and Suresh2018; DeCapua & Marshall, Reference DeCapua and Marshall2011; Hos, Reference Hos2020); trauma-informed instruction that involves recognizing the signs of trauma, employing trauma-sensitive practices, and providing students with supports and services they need within and beyond the classroom (DeCapua et al., Reference DeCapua, Marshall and Tang2020); thematically-organized curricula that allow students to draw connections from the real world and their own lived experiences (DeCapua & Marshall, Reference DeCapua and Marshall2010); and culturally-responsive practices that acknowledge students’ unique cultural backgrounds and skills and leverage them as bridges to new learning (DeCapua et al., Reference DeCapua, Marshall and Tang2020). Researchers have also recommended ways to support SLIFE in specific areas of need, including English language acquisition, literacy development, academic content attainment, socio-emotional growth, and meaningful school participation, and recommendations for supports in these areas can be found in the full report linked at the end of this summary.
Although few studies have been conducted on emerging program models for SLIFE, researchers agree that SLIFE benefit from programs that are designed specifically for students with limited academic experiences and provide the services and supports required to address their needs (Cohan & Honigsfeld, Reference Cohan and Honigsfeld2017). Three types of programs have been noted in the literature to effectively support SLIFE's academic success and socio-emotional well-being: separate site models, in which students engage in a SLIFE-specific program in a distinct location for multiple years before returning to their home school; within site models, in which students participate in a SLIFE-specific program within their home school for a limited number of years; and whole school models, in which all students in the home school are SLIFE and instruction is targeted to meet their specific needs. When determining program type, schools are encouraged to consider the number of students to be served, available resources for program development and delivery, and the qualifications and educational philosophies desired for teachers working in these programs.
7. Discussion
Findings from this research indicate that, although information about and resources for meeting SLIFE's needs remains limited, there has been increased recognition of SLIFE and focus on the distinct services and supports they need in recent years. While a growing number of states have defined SLIFE and provide information about identification, identification practices and the resulting types of and access to support, services for SLIFE vary significantly. Standardized definitions and identification practices along with shared resources can help ensure that SLIFE enrolled in K-12 schools nationwide are being served equitably and effectively. Finally, despite the inclusion of native language literacy and numeracy assessments in the SLIFE identification process in many states, limited information is available about these assessment practices and how to find assessments measuring these skills in students’ home languages, making it challenging to identify place and to support SLIFE in U.S. K-12 schools and classrooms.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000290.
To view the full report, please visit https://www.doe.mass.edu/ele/slife/literature-review.pdf.
