Fact Sheet
F eAb ur ug ua rs ty 22001187

English Learners in Michigan
D e m o g r a p h i c s , O u t c o m e s , a n d S t a t e A c c o u n t a b i l i t y Po l i c i e s

E L

P

o p u l a t i o n

F

a c t s

By Julie Sugarman and Courtney Geary

This fact sheet provides an overview of key characteristics of the foreign-born and
English Learner (EL) populations in Michigan. It aims to build understanding of the state
demographic context, how ELs are performing in K-12 schools, and the basics of state
policies for EL education under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), enacted in
December 2015. The transition to ESSA is ongoing, with states slated to update their data
reporting systems by December 2018. As a result, the data this fact sheet uses to describe
student outcomes primarily reflect systems and accountability policies developed under
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, in effect from 2002 through 2015). Many of the changes
expected as ESSA is implemented will improve the accuracy and availability of these data.

The first section examines the demographics of Michigan using U.S. Census Bureau 2016
American Community Survey (ACS) data, and EL students as reported by the Michigan
Department of Education. A discussion of EL student outcomes as measured by standardized
tests follows, and the fact sheet concludes with a brief overview of Michigan accountability
mechanisms that affect ELs under ESSA.

I.  Demographic Overview of Foreign-Born and EL Populations
in Michigan
In 2016, approximately 662,000 foreign-born individuals resided in Michigan, accounting
for 7 percent of the state population—a smaller share compared to immigrants in the United
States overall (14 percent), as seen in Table 1. The growth rate of the foreign-born population
in Michigan slowed from 47 percent in the period between 1990 and 2000 to 27 percent
between 2000 and 2016, a rate smaller than that of the U.S. immigrant population more
generally. Nevertheless, the growth rate of Michigan’s foreign-born population far outpaces
the growth rate of the native-born population. Age group trends in Michigan mirror broader
national trends, with disproportionately smaller shares of foreign-born individuals in the
birth-to-age-17 brackets compared to the native born.
With a relatively small population of immigrants, it follows that the share of school-age
children with one or more foreign-born parents is smaller in Michigan (13 percent) than in
the United States overall (26 percent), as shown in Table 2. Additionally, about 82 percent of
children of immigrants in Michigan were native born, compared to 86 percent nationwide.
In Michigan, 15 percent of children in low-income families had one or more foreign-born
parents, which is about half the size of the share of low-income children nationally.

 Table 1. Foreign- and U.S.-Born Populations of Michigan and the United States, 2016
Michigan
Number
Share of total population
% change: 2000-16
% change: 1990-2000
Share under age 5
Share ages 5-17
Share ages 18+

United States

Foreign Born
U.S. Born
Foreign Born
662,279
9,266,021
43,739,345
6.7%
93.3%
13.5%
Population Change over Time
26.5%
-1.6%
40.6%
47.3%
5.3%
57.4%
Age Group
0.9%
6.1%
0.7%
7.0%
17.0%
5.1%
92.1%
76.9%
94.2%

U.S. Born
279,388,170
86.5%

Source: Migration Policy Institute (MPI) Data Hub, “State Immigration Data Profiles: Demographics & Social,”
accessed May 16, 2018, www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/demographics/MI/US/.

Number of ELs. ACS data on the Limited
English Proficient (LEP) population rely on
self-reporting of English proficiency, with
LEP individuals counted as those who speak
English less than “very well.” At the national
level, ACS data indicate that 5 percent of U.S.
children ages 5 to 17 are LEP,1 while data the
states submitted to the federal government put
the EL share of the total K-12 population at 10
percent in Fall 2015.2

11.6%
9.3%
7.0%
18.5%
74.5%

At the state level, ACS data indicate that 2
percent of Michigan children ages 5 to 17
are LEP.3 In contrast, the most recent data
from the Michigan Department of Education,
from school year (SY) 2017–18, indicate ELs
represented 6 percent of the state K-12 student
population, or 97,838 students.4

Table 2. Nativity and Low-Income Status of Children in Michigan and the United States, 2016

Children between ages 6 and 17 with
Only native-born parents
One or more foreign-born parents
Child is native born
Child is foreign born
Children in low-income families
Only native-born parents
One or more foreign-born parents

Michigan
Share of
Number
Population
(%)
1,421,502
100.0
1,234,083
86.8
187,419
13.2
153,294
10.8
34,125
2.4
858,605
100.0
727,639
84.7
130,966
15.3

United States
Share of
Number
Population
(%)
47,090,847
100.0
34,838,528
74.0
12,252,319
26.0
10,501,024
22.3
1,751,295
3.7
28,363,805
100.0
19,216,957
67.8
9,146,848
32.2

Note: The definition of children in low-income families includes children under age 18 who resided with at least one
parent and in families with annual incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold.
Source: MPI Data Hub, “State Immigration Data Profiles: Demographics & Social.”

2
English Learners in Michigan: Demographics, Outcomes, and State Accountability Policies

 Fact Sheet
Table 3. Nativity of Michigan and U.S. LEP Students, 2012–16
Share of K-12 LEP Children Born in the United States
(%)
Grades K-5
Grades 6-12
Total
Michigan
71.7
56.6
United States
82.3
56.5

63.7
70.6

Note: Analysis based on Limited English Proficient (LEP) children ages 5 and older enrolled in grades K-12.
Source: MPI analysis of U.S. Census Bureau pooled 2012–16 American Community Survey (ACS) data, accessed
through Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota, “Integrated Public Use Microdata Series,” accessed
April 25, 2018, https://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Although ACS data seem to undercount EL
children, they can be used to examine (with due
caution) the nativity of ELs, a variable school
data systems do not capture. Table 3 shows that
in Michigan, almost two-thirds of school-aged
children who were reported as LEP in census
data were born in the United States, with a
larger share among elementary school children
than older students. The rate of native-born
LEP children in the United States overall was
somewhat higher, at 71 percent.
The most recent data available that show the
top languages spoken by ELs in Michigan come
from the Consolidated State Performance
Reports submitted by each state to the federal
government. Table 4 shows that in SY 2015–16

Spanish was spoken by approximately 40
percent of Michigan ELs, and Arabic was spoken
by the second-largest share at 24 percent.
Bengali, Chinese, and Albanian rounded out the
top five languages.
Among Michigan school districts with
enrollment of more than 1,500 ELs, four of the
top five districts with the largest number of ELs
were located within the Detroit metropolitan
area (Grand Rapids being the exception). Table
5 also shows that in the districts with the most
ELs, these students made up between 9 percent
(Ann Arbor Public Schools) and 61 percent
(School District of the City of Hamtramck) of
total enrollment.

Table 4. Top Home Languages Spoken by Michigan ELs, SY 2015–16
Share of ELs with a Home Language
Number of ELs
Other Than English
(%)
Spanish; Castilian
35,912
40.2
Arabic
21,201
23.7
Bengali
2,300
2.6
Chinese
1,639
1.8
Albanian
1,632
1.8
EL = English Learner; SY = School Year.
Note: Share calculated based on 89,376 Limited English Proficient (LEP) students reported by the state in 2015–16.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, “SY 2015-2016 Consolidated State Performance Reports Part I— Michigan,”
updated October 18, 2017, www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/sy15-16part1/index.html.

3
Migration Policy Institute

 Table 5. Number of ELs and EL Share of Students in Michigan School Districts with More Than
1,500 ELs, SY 2017–18
EL Share of Students in District
Number of ELs
(%)
Dearborn City School District
9,886
47.3
Detroit Public Schools Community District
6,130
12.0
Grand Rapids Public Schools
4,357
26.6
Warren Consolidated Schools
4,147
29.6
Utica Community Schools
3,244
11.9
Troy School District
2,220
16.8
School District of the City of Hamtramck
1,992
60.7
Kentwood Public Schools
1,903
20.8
Lansing Public School District
1,852
17.1
Ann Arbor Public Schools
1,586
8.9
Melvindale-North Allen Park Schools
1,528
49.9
EL = English Learners, SY = School Year.
Note: To access the data used to create this table, select in the report settings section “2017–18” for school year and
“Student Count” for data files.
Source: Michigan Department of Education, “MI School Data—K-12 Student Data File,” accessed July 5, 2018,
www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles2/EntitySummary/SchoolDataFile.aspx.

Finally, Table 6 shows that as grade level
increases, the population and share of ELs in
Michigan K-12 schools generally decrease.
Whereas 9 percent of early-elementary students
were ELs in SY 2017–18, 5 percent of students in
grades 9 through 12 were. This reflects the trend
that more students achieve English proficiency
(and thus exit EL status) over time than
immigrate to the United States as adolescents or
remain ELs beyond the typical five- to seven-year
time frame.

II.  EL Student Outcomes in
Michigan
Michigan uses the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs5 for
annual assessment of students’ English language
proficiency. Table 7 shows the share of ELs
achieving English language proficiency in SY
2016–17, by grade band.6
Across the state, 20 percent of K-12 ELs reached
proficiency in SY 2016–17. The share was

Table 6. Number of ELs and EL Share of Students in Michigan, by Grade, SY 2017–18
Grades K-2
Grades 3–5
Grades 6–8
Grades 9–12
EL share of students in
8.8%
8.4%
5.7%
4.7%
grade band
Number of ELs
28,612
27,374
19,208
22,367
EL = English Learner; SY = School Year.
Source: Michigan Department of Education, “MI School Data—Student Count,” accessed July 5, 2018,
www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles2/StudentInformation/StudentCounts/StudentCount.aspx.

4
English Learners in Michigan: Demographics, Outcomes, and State Accountability Policies

 Fact Sheet
December 2016

Table 7. Share of Michigan ELs Achieving English Language Proficiency (%), by Grade, SY 2016–17
Grades
Grades
Grades
Grades
Kindergarten
All Students
1–2
3–5
6–8
9–12
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Share of ELs
9.7
14.9
30.8
18.4
17.3
19.9
achieving proficiency
EL = English Learner; SY = School Year.
Source: Michigan Department of Education, “MI School Data—WIDA Proficiency,” accessed June 6, 2018,
www.mischooldata.org/Wida2/WidaAccess/WidaProficiency.aspx.

highest in late elementary school (grades 3­to 5)
and decreased in middle and high school.
Next, the fact sheet looks at outcomes of the EL
subgroup on state standardized assessments.
It is important to note two things about the
participation of ELs on these assessments.
First, compared to other student subgroups
based on ethnicity, poverty, gender, and special
education status, ELs are a much more dynamic
population: as students gain proficiency,
they exit the EL subgroup and new ELs are
identified as they enter the U.S. school system.
By definition, students who remain in the EL
subgroup are not performing at a level where
their achievement on mainstream assessments
is comparable to that of their English-proficient
peers. Whereas this lag is expected for students
in their first several years of learning English,
concerns about the significant numbers of longterm ELs—those identified as ELs for six or
more years—not scoring proficient in English
language arts (ELA) and math have driven
policymakers to strengthen the ways they
hold schools accountable for EL outcomes on
academic assessments.
Second, under NCLB, states were allowed
to exempt newly arrived EL students from
taking the ELA test for one year and to exclude
the math scores of those newcomers from

accountability reports. For that reason, the
results below do not include all Michigan ELs.
The rules for including newly arrived ELs in
reports on subgroup outcomes will change
as ESSA provisions go into effect in 2018 (see
“Accountability for EL Academic Achievement”
below).

Michigan administers the Michigan Student
Test of Educational Progress (M-STEP) for
accountability purposes. The M-STEP for ELA
and math are given in grades 3 to 8; science in
grades 5, 8, and 11; and social studies in grades
5, 8, and 11. In 2017—the year for which results
are given in this section—the science test was
given in grades 4, 7, and 11. Outcomes are
reported as four levels: not proficient, partially
proficient, proficient, and advanced.7 Students
also take the College Board SAT as part of the
Michigan Merit Examination for high school
students, with scores reported using the same
levels as the M-STEP.8
Table 8 shows considerable achievement gaps
between the share of ELs and of non-ELs who
scored proficient or advanced in reading, with
that gap growing larger at older grade levels.
The gap was smallest in 3rd grade (11 points)
and largest on the grade 11 SAT reading and
writing (46 points).

5
Migration Policy Institute

 Table 8. Share of Michigan ELs and Non-ELs Scoring Proficient or Advanced in English Language
Arts (%), by Grade, SY 2016–17
SAT Reading
MSTEP English Language Arts
and Writing
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Grade 11
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Share of ELs scoring
34.0
22.9
24.5
14.0
15.8
21.5
16.1
proficient or advanced
Share of non-ELs
scoring proficient or
45.3
45.9
53.0
45.5
46.6
49.6
61.9
advanced
EL = English Learner; SY = School Year
Source: Michigan Department of Education, “MI School Data—Grades 3-8 Assessments—Proficiency,” accessed
July 5, 2018, www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles2/AssessmentResults/AssessmentGradesProficiency.
aspx; Michigan Department of Education, “MI School Data—High School Assessments—Proficiency,” accessed July
5, 2018, www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles2/AssessmentResults/AssessmentHighSchoolProficiency.aspx.

As with ELA, there are considerable gaps
between ELs and non-ELs on the MSTEP and
SAT math assessments (see Table 9). The
gaps generally grew larger with grade level,
increasing from 6 points (grade 3) to 26 points
(grade 11).
Science and social studies test scores also
show considerable gaps between ELs and
non-ELs (see Table 10). For science, less than
5 percent of ELs reached the proficient or
advanced level at each grade, even as the share
of non-ELs scoring proficient or advanced
increased in successively older grades. In the
social studies test, by comparison, ELs only
fell below the 5-percent mark in grade 5. The

gap between ELs and non-ELs was smallest in
grade 5 (approximately 18 to 23 points) and
largest in grade 11 (37 points).

Finally, graduation rates in Michigan have been
increasing over the last five years for students
overall and for subgroups such as ELs, though
the EL rate decreased slightly for the class
of 2017. The share of ELs to graduate within
four years was 69 percent, compared to a
four-year graduation rate of 80 percent for all
students.9 These rates are comparable to those
at the national level for the most recent year
available (SY 2015–16), which were 67 percent
for ELs and 84 percent for all students.10

Table 9. Share of Michigan ELs and Non-ELs Scoring Proficient or Advanced in Mathematics (%),
by Grade, SY 2016–17
MSTEP Mathematics

Share of ELs scoring
proficient or advanced
Share of non-ELs
scoring proficient or
advanced

SAT Math

Grade 3
(%)

Grade 4
(%)

Grade 5
(%)

Grade 6
(%)

Grade 7
(%)

Grade 8
(%)

Grade 11
(%)

41.7

25.5

15.3

13.4

13.0

14.2

12.2

47.4

43.4

36.5

35.6

37.7

34.7

37.8

EL = English Learner; SY = School Year
Source: Michigan Department of Education, “MI School Data—Grades 3-8 Assessments;” Michigan Department of
Education, “MI School Data—High School Assessments.”

6
English Learners in Michigan: Demographics, Outcomes, and State Accountability Policies

 Fact Sheet
Table 10. Share of Michigan ELs and Non-ELs Scoring Proficient or Advanced in Science and
Social Studies (%), by Grade, SY 2016–17
Science
Grade 4
(%)
Share of ELs scoring
proficient or advanced
Share of non-ELs
scoring proficient or
advanced

Grade 7
(%)

Social Studies
Grade 11
(%)

Grade 5
(%)

Grade 8
(%)

Grade 11
(%)

<5*

<5

<5

<5

7.8

10.2

15.5

24.0

34.7

22.9

32.9

47.3

EL = English Learner; SY = School Year
*The state does not provide an exact percentage when a share is less than 5 percent of students.
Source: Michigan Department of Education, “MI School Data—Grades 3-8 Assessments;” Michigan Department of
Education, “MI School Data—High School Assessments.”

III.  Accountability under ESSA
In 2017, all 50 states (plus the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico) submitted plans
to the U.S. Department of Education that
outline their approach to complying with new
accountability regulations under ESSA. Among
the new requirements are provisions requiring
states to standardize how they identify students
for and exit them from EL status, extending the
number of years schools can include former
ELs’ scores in reporting on the outcomes
of the EL subgroup, and allowing states to
develop their own English language proficiency
indicator (replacing the three required Annual
Measurable Achievement Objectives in NCLB).
Implementation of the new policies began in
SY 2017–18. However, as many states have
adopted new or significantly revised English
language proficiency assessments over the last
few years, some intend to wait to update their
English language proficiency benchmarks until
they have collected sufficient data from the new
assessments.
Learn More about ELs and ESSA

For additional analysis, maps, and statelevel data on English Learner education
in the United States, check out the MPI
ELL Information Center and its
ESSA resources.

A. 

Identification and Reclassification of
ELs

Following federal guidelines, all states require
schools to follow a two-step process for
identifying students as ELs. First, parents or
guardians complete a home-language survey
when they enroll their child in a new school
district. The survey generally includes one
to four questions to identify students whose
first language is not English or who live in
households where a language other than English
is spoken.

If students in such circumstances do not already
have scores from a state-approved English
language proficiency test on file, they are given
a screening test to gauge their English language
ability in listening, speaking, reading, and
writing (as required by ESSA). Students scoring
below proficient are categorized as ELs. Schools
must inform parents in a timely manner of their
child’s English language proficiency level and
of the types of support the school can provide,
including the right to opt out of services (but not
the right to decline EL status and subsequent
annual testing).11

In Michigan, students are screened for initial EL
identification using the WIDA ACCESS Placement
Test (W-APT) and a state-approved early literacy
or reading test. Students are identified as ELs
if they score below a designated level on the
W-APT and below grade level in reading. Once
identified, ELs are given the WIDA ACCESS for

7

Migration Policy Institute

 ELLs 2.0 annually until they score highly enough
to be reclassified as English proficient. To be
reclassified, students must have a composite
score of at least 4.5 out of 6.0 on the ACCESS,
with a score of at least 4.0 on both the reading
and writing subtests, and pass additional reading
and writing tests. The state recommends that
students in kindergarten through 2nd grade
continue to receive EL services until they pass
the statewide M-STEP ELA exam by scoring
either proficient or advanced, which is given for
the first time in third grade. However, districts
may use a state-approved reading test and a local
writing test to determine whether students in
younger grades can exit EL status. Students in
grade 3 or higher must get a passing score on the
M-STEP ELA or a state-approved local reading
test. If using a state-approved local reading
test, the district also considers local writing
assessments in determining if a student is ready
to exit EL services.12

personalized growth targets from one year to
the next. The Michigan ESSA plan describes
two methods for calculating these targets: (1)
estimating the growth required each year to
meet the ultimate target in the expected number
of years, and (2) a growth model that compares
how a student performed relative to the average
performance of students with a similar profile.14

Whereas parents and teachers are primarily
interested in the progress of individual students
toward English language proficiency, state
accountability systems track whether the ELs
in entire schools and districts are progressing
to and achieving proficiency within the statedetermined timeline. States include English
language proficiency in their accountability
systems in two ways. First, they set a long-term
goal for increasing the percent of students
making progress toward proficiency (with
interim goals along the way), and, second,
they include an annual indicator of progress
toward English language proficiency in the
calculation they use to identify schools in need of
improvement.13

C. 

B. 

Accountability for English Language
Proficiency

Michigan students are expected to take a
maximum of six years to achieve English
language proficiency, with expectations
for individual students set based on their
initial English proficiency level. Students
will be considered on track if they meet their
8

It is not clear from this plan whether only one
or both methods were used to set the state’s
long-term goals. However, the plan did state that
about 46 percent of ELs made enough progress
in SY 2015–16 to achieve proficiency within the
given timeline. Using this baseline, the state aims
to increase the share of ELs making the expected
amount of progress by between 1 percent and
2 percent each year, with a goal of reaching
59 percent by SY 2024–25. In line with ESSA
guidance, Michigan plans to factor in whether
schools are making relatively less progress in
moving students toward English proficiency in
their criteria for identifying schools in need of
comprehensive support and improvement.15

Accountability for EL Academic
Achievement

In addition to progress toward English
proficiency, ESSA requires states to report
and include in their accountability systems
data on how well ELs, as a subgroup, are
performing on the indicators that apply to all
students (including ELA, math, and science
tests; graduation rates; and a school-quality or
student-success indicator such as attendance).
Using this information, ESSA calls for states to
identify schools for comprehensive support
and improvement based on the performance of
all students, including subgroups of students,
and for targeted support and improvement for
schools that have one or more underperforming
subgroups such as ELs.
As noted earlier, the EL subgroup is unique
in that students exit the subgroup once they
reach a level at which their English proficiency
is no longer keeping them from general

English Learners in Michigan: Demographics, Outcomes, and State Accountability Policies

 Fact Sheet
December 2016

academic achievement similar to that of their
English-proficient peers. Because of this,
ESSA allows states to include former ELs
within the EL subgroup for up to four years
after they have exited EL status. Former EL
students’ scores in math and reading can
thus be used in accountability measures as
a way to give schools credit for the progress
those students have made. Michigan will not
include former ELs in their calculation of
academic achievement and academic progress
indicators.16

Unlike for other subgroups, ESSA also provides
two types of exemption states may choose
to apply to recently arrived ELs on state
standardized tests:

1.  In their first year in the United States, ELs

can be exempt from taking the ELA test.
They must be tested in math that year, but
their scores will not be included in accountability calculations. Regular test-taking
and accountability procedures will apply
thereafter.

2.  ELs take ELA and math tests in their first

year, but their scores can be excluded from

accountability measures. In the second
year, outcomes on both tests are reported
as a growth score from year one to year
two. From their third year on, students
are assessed and their scores included in
accountability measures as is done for all
students.

States also have a third option: they may assign
option 1 to some recently arrived ELs and
option 2 to others based on characteristics such
as their initial English language proficiency
level.17 Michigan’s ESSA plan indicates it will
use option 1 for its recently arrived ELs.18
As states move forward with ESSA
accountability plans, policymakers are
taking the opportunity to revise existing
regulations on funding, program requirements,
teacher training, and other aspects of school
administration. Provisions that affect EL
students should be scrutinized closely by
stakeholders at all levels, whether parents,
teachers, or community organizations. Data
on EL demographics and performance, such as
those provided in this fact sheet, will prove an
important tool in this effort.19

9
Migration Policy Institute

 Endnotes
1 

Migration Policy Institute (MPI) Data Hub, “State Immigration Data Profiles: Language & Education,” accessed
April 25, 2018, www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/language/MI/US/.

3 

MPI Data Hub, “State Immigration Data Profiles: Language & Education.”

2 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), “Table 204.20: English Language
Learner (ELL) Students Enrolled in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by State: Selected Years, Fall 2000
through Fall 2015,” updated October 2017, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_204.20.
asp?current=yes.

4 

Michigan Department of Education (MDE), “MI School Data—Student Count,” accessed July 5, 2018, www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles2/StudentInformation/StudentCounts/StudentCount.aspx

5 

The ACCESS for ELLs—which stands for Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State
for English Language Learners—is an English language proficiency assessment given annually to English Learners (ELs) in the 39 states and U.S. territories that make up the WIDA Consortium. For more information on the
consortium, see WIDA, “Home,” accessed July 24, 2018, www.wida.us.

6 

Although the exit criteria changed in Fall 2017, the criteria used in SY 2016-17 called for students to be exited
with a composite score of 5 and a minimum score of 4.5 in all four domains (listening, speaking, reading, and
writing), along with consideration of their score on the state English language arts test. See, for example, Holland
Public Schools, “New LEP Entrance and Exit Criteria (Updated Spring 2015),” accessed July 13, 2018,
www.hollandpublicschools.org/downloads/esl/summary_new_entrance_and_exit_criteria.pdf.

7 MDE, “Spring 2017 Michigan M-STEP Guide to Reports” (exam guidance, November 7, 2017), www.michigan.
gov/documents/mde/2017_M-STEP_GTR_598970_7.pdf.
8 

MDE, “MI School Data—High School Assessments—Proficiency,” accessed July 5, 2018, www.mischooldata.org/
DistrictSchoolProfiles2/AssessmentResults/AssessmentHighSchoolProficiency.aspx; MDE, “Michigan Merit
Examination,” accessed July 13, 2018, www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-22709_35150---,00.html.

9 

10 
11 

MDE, “MI School Data—Grad/Dropout Rate—2016–17,” accessed July 5, 2018, www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles2/StudentInformation/GraduationDropoutRate2.aspx.

NCES, “Table 219.46. Public High School 4-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR), by Selected Student
Characteristics and State: 2010-11 through 2015-16,” updated December 2017, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/
digest/d17/tables/dt17_219.46.asp?current=yes.
U.S. Department of Education, Tools and Resources for Identifying all English Learners (Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2016), www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/chap1.pdf.

12 MDE, Entrance and Exit Protocol, English Learner Program (Lansing, MI: MDE, 2017), www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Entrance_and_Exit_Protocol_updated_May_2016_550634_7.pdf.
13 
14 

Susan Lyons and Nathan Dadey, Considering English Language Proficiency within Systems of Educational Accountability under the Every Student Succeeds Act (Chicago: Latino Policy Forum and Center for Assessment,
2017), www.latinopolicyforum.org/publications/reports/document/Considerations-for-ELP-indicator-in-ESSA_030817.pdf.

Both of these methods provide useful information; however, it is not clear how the state intends to combine
them into a single calculation. Method 1 sets predetermined targets for each student that indicate whether
enough progress is being made each year to meet an end goal. Method 2 indicates whether each student
improved his or her score more or less than the average of his or her peers, but it cannot be assumed that this
average represents sufficient growth each year to meet the end goal. For a detailed explanation of how these two
methods may be used independently as English language proficiency indicators, see Oregon Department of Education, Oregon’s Consolidated State Plan Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Education, 2017), www.oregon.gov/ode/rules-and-policies/ESSA/Documents/APPROVED%20OR_ConsolidatedStateplan8-30-17.pdf.

15 MDE, Michigan’s Consolidated State Plan Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (Lansing, MI: MDE, 2017),
www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Michigan-ESSA-Plan_11-15-17_606136_7.pdf.

10

English Learners in Michigan: Demographics, Outcomes, and State Accountability Policies

 Fact Sheet
16 Ibid.
17 

EdTrust, “Setting New Accountability for English-Learner Outcomes in ESSA Plans,” accessed April 26, 2018,
https://edtrust.org/setting-new-accountability-english-learner-outcomes-essa-plans/.

18 MDE, Michigan’s Consolidated State Plan.
19 

For additional information on accessing and understanding state EL demographic and outcome data, see Julie
Sugarman, A Guide to Finding and Understanding English Learner Data (Washington, DC: MPI, 2018), www.migrationpolicy.org/research/guide-finding-understanding-english-learner-data.

About the Authors
Julie Sugarman is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy, where she focuses on issues
related to immigrant and English Learner students in elementary and secondary
schools. Among her areas of focus: policies, funding mechanisms, and district- and
school-level practices that support high-quality instructional services for these
youth, as well as the particular needs of immigrant and refugee students who first
enter U.S. schools at the middle and high school levels. Dr. Sugarman earned a B.A.
in anthropology and French from Bryn Mawr College, an M.A. in anthropology
from the University of Virginia, and a Ph.D. in second language education and culture from the
University of Maryland, College Park.
Courtney Geary was an intern at the MPI National Center on Immigrant
Integration Policy, where she provided research assistance on a variety of projects
related to English Learner education policy. She has worked as a Title III ESL
Tutor for the Tuscaloosa County School District in Alabama since 2016, primarily
with elementary-age Arabic speakers. Her research interests include educational
access and outcomes for English Learners in the Deep South, and educational
and social services for refugees and victims of conflict. She is a student at the
University of Alabama, where she is pursuing a B.S. in interdisciplinary studies
with a focus in international crisis management.

11
Migration Policy Institute

 Acknowledgments
The authors thank former Migration Policy Institute (MPI) interns Kevin Lee and Abby Scott for
their research assistance, and colleagues Jie Zong and Jeanne Batalova for their compilation of
the U.S. Census Bureau data used throughout this fact sheet. They also gratefully acknowledge the
support of colleagues Leslie Villegas, Lauren Shaw, Margie McHugh, Delia Pompa, and Michelle
Mittelstadt.

This fact sheet was developed for the National Partnership to Improve PreK-12 Success for
Immigrant Children and Youth, a collaboration of state-level immigrant policy organizations
working with MPI’s National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy to improve the quality of
education provided to English Learner (EL) children and youth. Support for this series of fact sheets
was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and
the Walton Family Foundation supported an earlier project upon which this series builds.
For more information on the impact of the Every Student Succeeds Act on EL and immigrant
students, visit: www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/nciip-english-learners-and-every-studentsucceeds-act.

© 2018 Migration Policy Institute.
All Rights Reserved.
Cover Design: April Siruno, MPI
Layout: Sara Staedicke, MPI
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Migration Policy Institute. A full-text
PDF of this document is available for free download from www.migrationpolicy.org.
Information for reproducing excerpts from this publication can be found at www.migrationpolicy.org/about/copyright-policy.
Inquiries can also be directed to communications@migrationpolicy.org.
Suggested citation: Sugarman, Julie and Courtney Geary. 2018. English Learners in Michigan: Demographics, Outcomes, and State
Accountability Policies. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

12
English Learners in Michigan: Demographics, Outcomes, and State Accountability Policies

 The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) is an independent,
nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank dedicated to the study of the
movement of people worldwide. The Institute provides analysis,
development, and evaluation of migration and refugee policies at the local,
national, and international levels. It aims to meet the rising demand for pragmatic responses to the challenges and opportunities that migration presents
in an ever more integrated world.

w w w

.M

i g r at i o n

P

o l i c y

.

o r g

1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036
202-266-1940 (t)   202-266-1900 (f)

/I

n t e g r at i o n