Dual Language Learners

Updated: November 2014

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

2

Nearly one in three U.S. children lives in a household where a language other than

English is spoken. Dual language learners have the potential to excel in an

increasingly diverse society. However, their academic achievement lags behind

that of children whose only home language is English.

Importance

Dual language learners (DLLs) are a diverse group of children. Many are, or have parents who are, recent

immigrants, but their home language environment may include both English-speakers and those who

maintain a heritage language long after the immigration experience. Some are infants and toddlers acquiring

two languages simultaneously; others are older children learning English after having gained facility in

another language.1

Language acquisition is one of the most important developmental accomplishments of childhood. As early

as infancy, young children begin making sense of language they hear, and producing language-like

vocalizations. Over time, they acquire vocabulary, become more proficient in speaking according to the rules

of their language, and participate in more complex conversation. These developments, together with

knowledge of the relationships between letters/signs and sounds that are part of developing literacy, in turn

underlie an ability to read and write. Learning a second language after one already has facility in a primary

language naturally follows a somewhat different process than simultaneous learning of two languages.2

Worldwide, many children grow up in multi-lingual families or societies.3 Research has demonstrated

conclusively that learning two or more languages concurrently, far from being a disadvantage, is associated

with multiple benefits, provided that the child is supported in maintaining both languages. Full fluency in a

language is most easily gained when a child is exposed to it in the first few years of life; after that time,

language learning becomes more difficult, though certainly not impossible. Knowing more than one

language is also associated with cognitive flexibility and other aspects of executive control; with skills in

divergent thinking, perspective-taking, and symbolic representation; and with multicultural awareness.4

There are also social-emotional benefits to developing and maintaining bilingualism. When children can

speak their parents’ heritage language, they are able to maintain closer relationships with family members.5

The research evidence finds that young DLLs have social-emotional skills equal to or better than those of

monolingual English speakers.6

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

3

Nevertheless, when children or their parents lack proficiency in English, they may be at a disadvantage.7

DLLs, on average, enter school with lower English literacy skills than those of monolinguals,8 and research

finds that it takes between four and seven years for DLLs to become proficient in academic English (needed

for success in the classroom).9 Those DLLs who become proficient in English by the end of first grade have

better academic outcomes over time than do DLLs who do not become proficient in English by the end of

first grade.10

There is no single consistently used definition of dual language learners. The one used here takes an

inclusive approach, counting as DLLs all children living in a household where one or more members speak a

language other than English. We assume that these children, in addition to their exposure to a non-English

language, have some degree of exposure to English. For children in this group who are five and older, we

can further identify those who speak English less than “very well.”

Trends

Between 2004 and 2013, the number of U.S. children living in households where a language other than

English was spoken increased from 20 million to 23 million children. (Appendix 1) That is an increase from

28 to 32 percent of all children. The proportion of children in Spanish-language households increased from

19 to 22 percent in 2012, but fell to 21 percent in 2013, and those in Asian-and-Pacific-Island-language

households increased from three to four percent. Those in other-Indo-European-language households

remained steady, at about five percent. (Figure 1)

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

4

Even while the proportion

of children who are dual

language learners has

grown, a steadily

declining number of

children in these

households speak

English less than “very

well”: between 2004 and

2013, the number

decreased from 2.8

million to 2.4 million

children. This represents

a decrease from 20 to 15 percent of all dual language learners older than four years. (Appendix 3)

The U.S. Department of Education estimates that, across all reporting public school districts in the nation

(elementary and secondary grades), there were 4.5 million English language learner (ELL)a students (nine

percent of all students) in the 2011-12 school year.11

a The Department defines English language learners as students served in programs of language assistance, such as English as a second language, high-intensity language training, and bilingual education.

27.8

32.332.0

18.5

21.6 21.4

4.8 4.9

3.3 3.9

1.2 1.70.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Pe

rce

nt

Of all U.S. Children (ages birth to 17), Percentage Living in a Non-English-Language Household*: 2004-2013

All Languages other than English

Spanish

Other Indo-European

Asian and Pacific Island

Other

*Households where one or more people speaks a language other than English.Source: Child Trends analysis of the American Community Survey.

Figure 1

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

5

Differences by Household Language

Among children living in non-English language households, Spanish is by far the most prevalent household

language, accounting for about two-thirds of DLLs, or about 16 million children in 2013. The next largest

group (about four million children) are those in households using some other Indo-European language, such

as French, German, Russian, or Hindi, followed by children in households using an Asian or Pacific Island

language (about three million). (Appendix 1)

Among children five and older living in non-English households, the proportion speaking English less than

“very well” was 15 percent in 2013. Children in households using an Asian or Pacific Island language were

the most likely to speak English less than very well (16 percent), and those in households speaking a

language that was not an Indo-European, Asian, or Pacific Island language were the least likely (nine

percent). (Figure 2)

14.515.4

11.5

15.7

9.4

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

All Non-English Languages Spanish Another Indo-EuropeanLanguage

Asian or Pacific IslandLanguages

Some Other Language

Pe

rce

nt

By Household Language, Percentage of Children (ages 5-17) Who Speak English Less than "Very Well": 2013

Figure 2

Source: Child Trends analysis of the American Community Survey.

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

6

Differences by Age

Younger children in non-English households are more likely than their older peers to speak English less than

very well. In 2013, 16 percent of such children ages 5 to 12 spoke English less than very well, compared

with 11 percent of children ages 13 to 17. (Appendix 3)

Differences by Household Income

Children living in households where a language other than English is spoken are more likely to be poor than

are children in English-only households (28 versus 19 percent, in 2013). Child poverty rates are highest in

Spanish-speaking households (33 percent), and in those using languages in the “other” category (33

percent); they are lower in households using Indo-European languages other than Spanish (17 percent), and

in households using Asian or Pacific Island languages (13 percent). (Figure 3)

18.9

27.832.7

16.6

13.1

32.7

19.4

27.631.3

20.2 18.6

23.9

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

English-OnlyHouseholds

All Non-EnglishLanguages

Spanish Another Indo-European Language

Asian or Pacific IslandLanguages

Some Other Language

Pe

rce

nt

Among Children under 18, Percentage who are Poor or Low-Income*, by Household Language: 2013

Poor Low-Income

Figure 3

*Poverty is defined as having a family income that is less than the Federal Poverty level. Low -Income is defined as having a family income that is between 100 and 199 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.Source: Child Trends analysis of the American Community Survey.

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

7

Children in poorer families are more likely to speak English less than very well. In 2013, 20 percent of DLL

children in poor families (that is, those with incomes at or below the federal poverty level) spoke English less

than very well, compared with 16 percent of DLL children in low-income families (those with incomes less

than twice the federal poverty level), and ten percent of DLL children in non-poor families. (Appendix 3)

Differences by Family Structure

In 2013, children living in households where a language other than English is spoken were somewhat more

likely to live with two parents than were children whose only language is English (64 and 61 percent,

respectively). Children whose home language was in the non-Spanish Indo-European, or Asian and Pacific

Island groups were most likely to live with two parents (79 percent, each), followed by those in homes using

“other” languages (71 percent), English-only (61 percent), and Spanish (57 percent). (Appendix 2)

Differences by Academic Achievement

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) provides the only representative estimates of

students’ academic achievement that are comparable over time and across states. Among the NAEP data

are estimates of proficiency in reading and math, at fourth and eighth grades.

The NAEP assessments are not designed specifically with ELL students in mind, and thus may not

accurately reflect ELL students’ abilities. School districts are permitted to provide a number of testing

accommodations for ELL students, but (as of 2013) only about half of tested ELLs received these.12 Still,

NAEP data provide the most consistent benchmark to examine students’ progress over time. In turn,

students’ progress reflects, in part, the capacity of schools to meet the educational needs of all enrolled

children.

In reading at fourth grade, the proportion of ELL students achieving at the Basic level or above13 has

increased from 18 percent in 2000, to 31 percent in 2013. (Figure 4) In math at eighth grade, 20 percent of

ELLs were at the Basic level or above14 in 2000, compared with 30 percent in 2013. (Figure 5) In 2013,

former ELL students (those who received ELL services within the past two years) were not statistically

different from non-ELL students on this reading measure, and, on the math measure, performed significantly

better than current ELL students, but less well than non-ELL students. (Figures 4 & 5)

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Pe

rce

nt

Percent of U.S. Public School Students Scoring at the Basic Level or Above in 4th-Grade Reading, by English Language Learner Status:

Selected Years, 2000-2013

4th-grade reading, non-ELLs 4th-grade reading, ELLs 4th-grade reading, former ELLs

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress Mathematics Assessments (NAEP), 2000-2013 Reading Assessments. Accessed through the NAEP Data Explorer, at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/

Figure 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Pe

rce

nt

Percent of U.S. Public School Students Scoring at the Basic Level or Above in 8th-Grade Math, by English Language Learner Status: Selected

Years, 2000-2013

8th-grade math, non-ELLs 8th-grade math, ELLs 8th-grade math, former ELLs

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress Mathematics Assessments (NAEP), 2000-2013 Mathematics Assessments. Accessed through the NAEP Data Explorer, at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/

Figure 5

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

9

The families of DLLs are more likely to be poor than those of non-DLLs, which may account for some of their

lagging achievement, but DLLs also disproportionately attend public schools that have low test scores; ones

that are segregated with respect to race, geography, and proportion of DLLs.15 Other features of DLLs’

experience may also hamper their academic achievement. Limited English proficiency is associated with

limited access to health and mental health care, and other social services.16 In addition to learning two

languages, DLLs also may have to adapt to two different sets of cultural expectations.17 Pressure to speak

English, along with discrimination and stigma, can lead to stress for DLLs.18 Thus, multiple factors may

contribute to DLLs’ lagging academic outcomes compared with monolingual students.

State and Local Estimates

State and local estimates on the number of children, ages five to 17, by language spoken at home and

English-speaking ability, are available from American FactFinder at: http://factfinder2.census.gov (tables

B16004 and C16004)

International Estimates

None available.

National Goals

None.

What Works to Make Progress on This Indicator

There are few rigorous evaluations of specific interventions to assist the development of DLLs; and, given

the diversity of this group, it is difficult to provide more than a summary of best practices. Research finds that

the best way to promote dual language learning, and to strengthen other aspects of the well-being of DLLs,

is to support children’s progress in the use of both English and their first language.19

Because language and culture are closely interrelated, children who maintain fluency in their first language

are more likely to develop a self-concept that incorporates a positive identification with their heritage.20

When children lose facility with their home language, it can disrupt family communication, interfere with

relationships, end the transmission of intergenerational wisdom, and harm the child’s self-concept.21 DLLs

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

10

benefit from early exposure to high-quality conversation in each language, and from continued contextual

support for speaking both languages.22 Young DLLs need additional scaffolds and supports in lessons,

because they are simultaneously learning the new language and the new content.23, 24

In the U.S., schools and other child-serving institutions can be challenged by a need to respond to DLLs who

may represent numerous non-English languages. In some school districts, it may not be feasible to have

instructional materials or assessments in all home languages represented by students. However, academic

and other assessments conducted in English should take account of the capacities of DLLs, who may not

yet have the specialized vocabulary assumed by these assessments, or familiarity with other conventions of

test-taking in English.25 One recommended strategy, where feasible, is “conceptual scoring,” where

comparable items are developed in both languages, and the child may provide a response in either

language.26

Programs that improve the school readiness of DLLs provide responsive language interactions in both

English and the child’s home language, opportunities for children to practice new skills and vocabulary,

frequent and appropriate assessment to guide individualized instruction, and parental engagement.27

Teachers of young DLL children need to have specific competencies related to the development of language

and literacy, but also the knowledge and skills to promote DLL children’s social-emotional development.28

Related Indicators

School Communication in Parents’ Native Language: www.childtrends.org/?indicators=school-

communication-in-parents-native-language

Immigrant Children: www.childtrends.org/?indicators=immigrant-children

Racial and Ethnic Composition of the Child Population: www.childtrends.org/?indicators=racial-

and-ethnic-composition-of-the-child-population

Reading Proficiency: www.childtrends.org/?indicators=reading-proficiency

Early School Readiness: www.childtrends.org/?indicators=early-school-readiness

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

11

Definition

Data for this indicator are taken from a survey, with English and Spanish versions, that is mailed to

households, with follow-ups by phone and in person. Prior to 2007, the survey was offered in English only.

With the survey, information is also given on how to complete the survey by telephone in English, Spanish,

Chinese, Russian, Korean, or Vietnamese. Follow-up may also include an in-person survey with an

interpreter. More information on how the American Community Survey strives to be inclusive of people who

do not speak English is available here:

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/survey_methodology/acs_design_methodology_ch09_2014.pdf

As used here, a dual language learner (DLL) is a child living in a household where at least one person older

than five years speaks a non-English language. The household language was recorded as the language

spoken by the first non-English speaker on the following list: householder, spouse, parent, sibling, child,

grandchild, other relative, stepchild, unmarried partner, housemate, and other. Thus, some children

designated as DLLs may speak only English, particularly if the non-English-speaking household member is

a non-relative. A list of languages included in the various categories is available here:

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/SubjectDefinitions/2013_ACSSubjectDefin

itions.pdf (pages 139-140)

Survey respondents were also asked whether children, ages five years and older, who spoke a language

other than English at home, spoke English “very well”, “well”, “not well”, or “not at all.” Children who spoke

only English at home were included with those who spoke English very well.

Data Source

Child Trends original analysis of the 1-year 2004-2013 American Community Survey Public Microdata

Sample (ACS PUMS).

Raw Data Source

American Community Survey

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

12

Appendix 1 - Household Language1 of Children Ages Birth to Age 17: 2004-2013

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of Children (millions)

English Only 52.6 51.8 51.8 51.7 51.5 51.3 50.6 50.2 49.7 49.9

All Languages other than

English2 20.3 21.4 21.8 21.9 22.2 22.9 23.3 23.4 23.7 23.4

Spanish 13.5 14.3 14.7 14.8 14.9 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 15.7

Other Indo-European 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6

Asian and Pacific Island 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9

Other 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3

Percent of Children

English Only 72.2 70.8 70.4 70.3 69.9 69.1 68.5 68.2 67.7 68.0

All Languages other than

English2 27.8 29.2 29.6 29.7 30.1 30.9 31.5 31.8 32.3 32.0

Spanish 18.5 19.6 20.0 20.1 20.3 20.9 21.1 21.3 21.6 21.4

Other Indo-European 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.1 4.9

Asian and Pacific Island 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.9

Other 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7

1 Children in non-English households live with at least one person (relative or non-relative) who speaks a language other than English; such children may

speak English only.

2 Languages in the “Other Indo-European” category include most European languages (such as German and Russian), as well as languages from India,

such as Hindi. Persian and Urdu are also included in this category. Languages in the “Asian and Pacific Island” category include the languages of East Asia

(such as Chinese and Korean), as well as Pacific Island languages such as Tagalog and Hawaiian. Turkish is also included in this category. Other languages

include American Indian and African languages, Hungarian, Arabic, Hebrew, and Finnish.

Source: Child Trends original analysis of the 1-year American Community Survey Public Microdata Sample (ACS PUMS).

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

13

Appendix 2 - Of Children Ages Birth to 17, Percentage with Selected Demographic Characteristics, by Household Language1: 2004-2013

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

English Only

Poverty Status2

Poor 16.2 16.1 16.0 15.7 15.8 17.2 18.6 19.1 19.3 18.9

Low-Income 18.9 18.6 18.4 18.4 18.6 19.2 19.7 19.8 19.8 19.4

Not Poor 63.3 63.7 64.1 64.5 64.4 62.3 60.3 59.8 59.5 60.2

Unknown 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5

Family Structure3

Two Parents 63.6 63.5 62.9 62.9 63.1 62.3 61.6 60.9 60.7 60.7

Mother Only 24.8 24.7 24.9 25.1 25.4 26.6 27.1 27.5 27.4 27.3

Father Only 5.7 5.8 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.6 7.0 7.1 7.1

No Parents 5.9 6.0 6.0 5.7 5.1 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.8 4.9

Non-English

Poverty Status2

Poor 23.1 23.8 22.7 22.2 23.0 25.1 26.7 28.3 28.3 27.8

Low-Income 27.5 27.2 27.5 27.2 26.9 27.0 27.6 27.4 26.8 27.6

Not Poor 48.0 47.5 48.3 49.3 49.1 46.8 44.6 43.2 43.9 43.4

Unknown 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2

Family Structure3

Two Parents 68.0 66.2 66.8 66.9 66.7 66.0 64.9 64.4 64.3 64.1

Mother Only 20.0 20.5 20.4 20.7 21.1 22.8 23.5 24.3 24.3 24.2

Father Only 6.2 6.8 7.0 6.8 7.2 7.0 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.5

No Parents 5.8 6.5 5.9 5.6 4.9 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.3

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

14

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Spanish

Poverty Status2

Poor 27.4 27.8 26.5 26.2 27.3 29.9 31.6 33.6 33.4 32.7

Low-Income 31.5 31.0 31.5 31.1 30.9 31.0 31.2 30.9 30.4 31.3

Not Poor 39.5 39.3 40.3 41.2 40.5 37.7 35.8 34.3 35.1 34.7

Unknown 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3

Family Structure3

Two Parents 62.6 61.0 61.1 61.4 61.0 59.8 58.5 57.9 57.8 57.4

Mother Only 23.9 23.9 24.0 24.2 25.0 27.2 28.2 29.0 29.1 28.9

Father Only 6.9 7.6 8.1 7.9 8.5 8.2 8.5 8.4 8.7 9.0

No Parents 6.6 7.5 6.8 6.4 5.6 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.7

Other Indo-European Languages

Poverty Status2

Poor 13.7 14.5 13.2 12.3 12.9 14.3 15.3 16.4 16.3 16.6

Low-Income 18.5 18.5 18.8 18.9 17.9 18.1 20.1 19.9 19.3 20.2

Not Poor 66.8 66.0 67.2 67.9 68.7 66.9 64.0 63.1 63.6 62.6

Unknown 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6

Family Structure3

Two Parents 79.8 77.8 79.4 79.2 79.8 80.1 79.9 78.7 79.4 78.8

Mother Only 12.2 13.6 12.5 12.9 13.0 13.0 13.3 14.3 13.5 14.4

Father Only 4.1 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.4 4.0

No Parents 3.9 4.1 3.8 3.8 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.8

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

15

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Asian and Pacific Island

Languages

Poverty Status2

Poor 12.8 12.8 11.9 11.9 11.0 12.2 12.7 13.5 14.7 13.1

Low-Income 19.4 18.9 18.1 17.3 17.6 17.4 18.9 19.3 18.0 18.6

Not Poor 67.1 67.5 69.2 70.1 70.8 69.7 67.7 66.7 66.7 67.3

Unknown 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.9

Family Structure3

Two Parents 80.2 78.2 79.7 79.1 79.7 80.1 79.0 79.1 78.5 79.4

Mother Only 10.2 11.8 11.1 12.5 11.5 12.2 12.7 13.3 13.6 12.6

Father Only 5.0 5.3 4.8 4.5 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.7 4.3

No Parents 4.6 4.7 4.3 3.8 3.9 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.2 3.7

Other Languages

Poverty Status2

Poor 23.5 26.4 27.7 24.1 24.4 25.3 30.3 31.4 31.4 32.7

Low-Income 24.2 23.7 24.3 25.1 23.8 22.9 24.0 24.2 24.1 23.9

Not Poor 51.3 49.0 47.3 50.2 51.1 50.8 45.1 44.0 43.8 42.6

Unknown 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8

Family Structure3

Two Parents 71.7 70.1 72.2 72.8 72.2 72.5 69.7 70.7 69.9 71.1

Mother Only 16.2 17.4 18.2 16.8 17.8 17.8 20.1 19.5 20.2 19.5

Father Only 6.8 7.0 5.5 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.5 5.9 6.1 5.8

No Parents 5.3 5.5 4.2 4.5 4.3 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.6

1 Children in non-English households live with at least one person (relative or non-relative) who speaks a language other than English; such children may

speak English only.

2 Poor is defined as having a family income below the federal poverty level. Low-income is defined as having a family income between 100 and 199 percent

of the federal poverty level. Not poor is defined as having a family income at 200 percent of the federal poverty level or more.

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

16

3 If a second parent was an unmarried partner of someone who was not the householder, they are not counted as a parent.

Source: Child Trends original analysis of the 1-year American Community Survey Public Microdata Sample (ACS PUMS).

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

17

Appendix 3 – Number of Children, Ages 5-17, who Speak English less than "Very Well," by Household Language1, and Share among all Children in Non-English Households, by Age Group and Family Income: 2004-2013

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of Children who

Speak English Less than

"Very Well" 2,776,259 2,833,831 2,747,277 2,724,201 2,662,817 2,643,899 2,702,763 2,577,659 2,470,236 2,443,807

Household Language

Spanish 2,066,692 2,120,541 2,059,862 2,042,708 1,982,126 1,939,020 1,991,953 1,860,763 1,743,344 1,736,398

Other Indo-European 358,036 312,277 280,907 290,861 282,365 283,509 285,876 290,708 295,072 293,203

Asian and Pacific Island 303,837 328,177 328,725 318,948 310,194 329,952 328,402 336,930 335,747 331,610

Other 47,694 72,836 77,783 71,684 88,132 91,418 96,532 89,258 96,073 82,596

Percent of Children who

Speak English Less than

"Very Well"

All Non-English Only Households 19.5 18.9 18.0 17.9 17.3 16.7 16.3 15.4 14.5 14.5

Poverty Status2

Poor 28.4 27.4 26.2 26.1 26.0 25.0 23.2 22.6 20.2 20.0

Low-Income 23.1 22.6 21.3 21.7 20.5 19.4 19.0 16.7 16.4 16.3

Not Poor 13.3 12.8 12.4 12.2 11.8 10.8 10.5 10.1 9.8 9.8

Age

5 to 12 Years 21.2 20.7 19.9 19.9 19.3 18.7 18.5 17.5 16.5 16.4

13 to 17 Years 16.7 16.0 14.9 14.6 14.2 13.3 12.6 12.0 11.2 11.3

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

18

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Spanish 22.0 21.2 20.1 19.9 19.4 18.3 17.9 16.7 15.3 15.4

Poverty Status2

Poor 29.5 28.2 26.9 26.6 26.7 25.0 23.3 22.5 19.9 19.4

Low-Income 24.6 23.9 22.7 22.8 21.7 20.3 19.8 17.2 16.4 16.4

Not Poor 14.8 14.6 13.9 13.8 13.1 11.6 11.7 10.9 10.2 10.6

Age

5 to 12 Years 24.0 23.4 22.4 22.4 21.8 20.7 20.8 19.2 17.7 17.7

13 to 17 Years 18.6 17.6 16.4 15.9 15.5 14.2 13.2 12.3 11.3 11.4

Other Indo-European Languages 14.2 12.3 11.2 11.7 10.9 11.2 10.8 11.0 11.1 11.5

Poverty Status2

Poor 24.9 23.0 21.3 21.6 20.7 21.4 20.6 20.9 21.4 21.7

Low-Income 19.8 16.4 14.1 16.2 13.9 14.8 13.9 13.0 13.6 15.0

Not Poor 10.5 8.9 8.4 8.8 8.3 7.9 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.6

Age

5 to 12 Years 14.9 12.7 11.5 12.4 11.7 12.1 11.5 11.8 12.2 12.6

13 to 17 Years 13.0 11.7 10.6 10.6 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.7 9.3 9.6

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

19

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Asian and Pacific Island

Languages 17.7 18.4 18.1 17.6 17.4 17.1 16.1 16.5 16.0 15.7

Poverty Status2

Poor 30.1 30.1 31.5 33.9 31.9 31.6 29.2 29.9 27.0 29.8

Low-Income 20.7 25.5 23.6 23.8 23.4 21.8 21.1 21.2 22.3 22.2

Not Poor 14.1 14.0 14.2 13.0 13.5 13.2 11.9 12.1 11.6 11.1

Age

5 to 12 Years 19.2 20.1 20.5 19.2 19.2 18.9 17.7 17.7 17.3 16.9

13 to 17 Years 15.3 15.9 14.5 15.0 14.5 14.1 13.6 14.5 13.9 13.8

Other Languages 8.0 10.7 11.0 10.1 11.5 12.1 11.9 10.6 10.9 9.4

Poverty Status2

Poor 13.0 20.0 18.0 16.2 19.7 23.5 19.7 19.0 15.6 15.0

Low-Income 7.5 11.2 11.7 12.2 11.8 9.9 13.4 9.7 12.0 7.7

Not Poor 6.2 5.8 7.0 6.5 7.7 7.7 6.5 5.4 7.1 6.2

Age

5 to 12 Years 8.4 11.1 11.7 11.1 12.3 12.7 12.5 11.2 11.4 9.8

13 to 17 Years 7.2 10.0 9.9 8.5 10.2 11.0 11.0 9.4 9.8 8.6

1 Not all children living in household that are not English only actually speak a language other than English, they only live with at least one person (relative or non-

relative) who does.

2 Poor is defined as having a family income below the federal poverty level. Low-income is defined as having a family income between 100 and 199 percent of the

federal poverty level. Not poor is defined as having a family income at 200 percent of the federal poverty level or more.

Source: Child Trends original analysis of the 1-year American Community Survey Public Microdata Sample (ACS PUMS).

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

20

Endnotes

1 McCabe, A., Bornstein, M. H., Guerra, A. W., et al. (2013). Multilingual children: Beyond myths and toward best

practices. Social Policy Report, 27(4), 1-21.

2 Espinosa, L. M. (2013). PreK-3rd: Challenging common myths about dual language learners. New York: Foundation for

Child Development.

3 Bank Street College. (undated). The benefits of being bilingual. Retrieved from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-

system/cultural-linguistic/docs/benefits-of-being-bilingual.pdf

4 Castro, D. C., Garcia, E. E., & Markos, A. M. (2013). Dual language learners: Research informing policy. Chapel Hill:

The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.

McCabe, A., et al. Op. cit.

Halle, T. G., Whittaker, J. V., Zepeda, M., et al. (in press). The social-emotional development of dual language learners:

Looking back at existing research and moving forward with purpose. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.

5 McCabe, A., et al. Op. cit.

6 Halle, T. G., et al. Op. cit..

7 Skinner, C., Wight, V. R., Aratani, Y., Cooper, J. L., & Thampi, K. (2010). English language proficiency, family economic

security, and child development. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty.

8 Castro, D. C., et al. Op. cit.

9 Center for Public Education. (2007). What research says about English language learners: At a glance. Retrieved from

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Instruction/What-research-says-about-English-language-learners-At-

a-glance

10 Halle, T.G., Hair, E.C., McNamara, M., Wandner, L., & Chien, N. (2012). Predictors and outcomes of early vs. later

English language proficiency among English language learners in the ECLS-K. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

27(1), 1-20.

11 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education

Agency (School District) Universe Survey", 2011-12 v.1a; "State Nonfiscal Public Elementary/Secondary Education

Survey", 2011-12 v.1a.

12 The U.S. Department of Education’s list of accommodations includes extended testing time, small-group or one-on-one

testing, and test directions (and, for math, test items) read aloud in Spanish. National Center for Education Statistics.

(2013). NAEP accommodations increase inclusiveness. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/accom_table.aspx

13 The National Assessment Governing Board for the NAEP defines the Basic level as follows:

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

21

“Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to locate relevant information, make simple

inferences, and use their understanding of the text to identify details that support a given interpretation or conclusion.

Students should be able to interpret the meaning of a word as it is used in the text.

“When reading literary texts such as fiction, poetry, and literary nonfiction, fourth-grade students performing at the Basic

level should be able to make simple inferences about characters, events, plot, and setting. They should be able to identify

a problem in a story and relevant information that supports an interpretation of a text.

“When reading informational texts such as articles and excerpts from books, fourth-grade students performing at the Basic

level should be able to identify the main purpose and an explicitly stated main idea, as well as gather information from

various parts of a text to provide supporting information.”

National Assessment Governing Board. (2012). Reading framework for the 2013 National Assessment of Educational

Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

14 The National Assessment Governing Board for the NAEP defines the Basic level as follows:

“Eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should exhibit evidence of conceptual and procedural understanding

in the five NAEP content areas. This level of performance signifies an understanding of arithmetic operations—including

estimation—on whole numbers, decimals, fractions, and percents.

“Eighth-graders performing at the Basic level should complete problems correctly with the help of structural prompts such

as diagrams, charts, and graphs. They should be able to solve problems in all NAEP content areas through the

appropriate selection and use of strategies and technological tools—including calculators, computers, and geometric

shapes. Students at this level also should be able to use fundamental algebraic and informal geometric concepts in

problem solving.

“As they approach the Proficient level, students at the Basic level should be able to determine which of the available data

are necessary and sufficient for correct solutions and use them in problem solving. However, these eighth-graders show

limited skill in communicating mathematically.”

National Assessment Governing Board. (2012). Mathematics framework for the 2013 National Assessment of Educational

Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

15 Fry, R. (2008). The role of schools in the English language learner achievement gap. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic

Center.

16 Ibid.

17 Halle, T. G., et al. Op. cit.

Dual Language Learners

November 2014

22

18 Winsler, A., Burchinal, M. R., Tien, H-C., et al. (2014). Early development among dual language learners: The roles of

language use at home, maternal immigration, country of origin, and socio-demographic variables. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 29, 750-764.

19 Winsler, A., et al. Op. cit.

20 Espinosa, L. M. (2013). Early education for dual language learners: Promoting school readiness and early school

success. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Halle, T. G., et al. Op. cit.

21 Office of Head Start. (2008). Dual language learning: What does it take? Washington, DC: Administration for Children

and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

22 McCabe, A., et al. Op. cit.

23 Skinner, C., et al. Op. cit.

24 August, D., Artzi, L., Haynes, E. F., & Corwin, L. (2012). Developing oral proficiency in dual language learners—The

Vocabulary Improvement and Oral Language Enrichment and Literacy through Stories (VIOLETS) program. AccELLerate!

[National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition], 4(2), 2-4.

25 Pena, E. D. & Halle, T. G. (2011). Assessing preschool dual language learners: Traveling a multiforked road. Child

Development Perspectives, 5(1), 28-32.

Skinner, C., et al. Op. cit.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Lopez, A. & Zepeda, M. (2012). Dual language learner teacher competencies (DLLTC) report. Alliance for a Better

Community. Retrieved from http://afabc.org/getattachment/dc29dace-6bf4-4216-9f1d-5eab2d975bd1/DLLTC-Report.aspx