LTELs aren't a student failure — they're a systems failure. Learn how district governance, leadership accountability, and classroom practice can change outcomes for every English Learner.
The persistent challenge of Long-Term English Learners (LTELs) stems from district governance rather than student deficits. The systems and priorities we set determine English Learner success. While governance establishes conditions, it does not directly change classroom outcomes. The key issue is whether our governance structures are designed to achieve results and whether they impact students at the level of daily instruction.
Superintendents and board members often ask, “Why aren’t more students reclassifying?” A more pressing question is, “What in our system allows students to remain classified as English Learners for extended periods?” If LTEL status results from our policies and structures rather than student effort, we must consider our responsibilities as leaders at every level.
Nationwide, students classified as Long-Term English Learners—those in English Language Development (ELD) programs for over five years—often remain in middle and high school as English Learners. They must take annual proficiency assessments and enroll in ELD courses, which can limit access to Advanced Placement, dual credit, and Career and Technical Education pathways. This leads to lower graduation rates, reduced postsecondary enrollment, and diminished earning potential.
This is a governance issue. The systems we design, including master schedules, program structures, and accountability frameworks, either create or limit opportunities. When LTELs remain in remedial tracks, it is not due to a lack of ability, but because our systems have not provided timely and appropriate opportunities.
John Kresky, Founder and CEO of Summit K12, has put it plainly in his recent OpED about LTELs:
“Long-term English Learners are not a student problem to be managed; they are a systems problem to be solved.”
His framing is a useful discipline for any board or superintendent, as it shifts accountability away from students and squarely onto the structures adults control.
Many LTELs do not appear to be struggling. They understand school routines, participate in class, complete assignments, and navigate the building confidently. They possess social fluency, but experience alone does not develop academic language. A student who is conversationally fluent may still be years behind in the academic language, literacy, and writing required for reclassification. When schools mistake social fluency for academic readiness, they stop teaching the language students need. The resulting plateau is not the student’s fault, but ours.
Researchers studying Long-Term English Learners frequently describe this pattern as an instructional plateau. Students participate in literacy activities-reading texts, completing assignments, and participating in discussions- but receive limited explicit instruction in the
academic language needed to summarize ideas, explain reasoning, justify claims, and construct extended written arguments. Without structured opportunities to practice producing language in these ways, progress slows.
The WIDA 15-state study found LTEL rates ranging from 2% to 24% across states using the same English language proficiency assessment. These differences persist even with similar reclassification criteria, indicating that local and state policy—not student characteristics—drive outcomes. Laurie Olsen’s research in California confirms that LTEL status results primarily from inconsistent programs, limited curricula, and district-level scheduling and resource decisions, rather than from students' inability.
If policy drives outcomes, the solution must be structural. However, structural solutions are effective only if they reach the classroom and if a board-level goal actually influences daily teaching practices.
Real progress for Long-Term English Learners does not result from isolated programs or compliance checklists. It occurs when governance, leadership, and accountability align around clear priorities that extend throughout the system. The board adopts a goal, the superintendent develops a strategy, the principal organizes the school, instructional coaches support teachers in implementing priorities, and teachers teach and support, while adjusting classroom instruction as needed. There is a clear throughline, and every link is essential. The work begins, not ends, when the board adopts a resolution.
Amelia Larson, Chief Academic Officer at Summit K12, emphasizes in “From District Vision to Classroom Action” that district-level goals only yield results when they are reflected in master schedules, coaching cycles, and explicit language instruction in classrooms. Governance is necessary, but not sufficient, until it reaches this level.
District leaders have several governance levers that directly influence LTEL outcomes across the system. Three are particularly powerful: program design, instructional expectations, and accountability.
The following actions reflect how those levers can be used strategically.
Boards should adopt clear, measurable goals to reduce LTELs and ensure timely reclassification, and hold leadership accountable. These goals must be actionable and directly linked to expectations for principals and teachers.
Regularly audit master schedules and program pathways to identify where ELD courses limit access to rigorous options or where students are placed in remediation by default. Ensure LTELs are scheduled into grade-level content rather than filler periods. The schedule serves as a governance document.
New York’s Integrated ENL co-teaching model provides both language and content instruction, reducing academic isolation. However, integration alone is insufficient. Schools must explicitly teach academic language, rather than relying on literacy activities for language acquisition. Students may complete assignments without making necessary language gains. Shifting from assigning literacy tasks to explicitly teaching language structures, such as summarizing, comparing, justifying, and writing with precision, enables significant progress.
Reclassification should be the expected outcome, not a pleasant surprise. Texas’s LPAC model requires districts to convene committees that monitor EL progress and make data-driven placement decisions. An intervention that isolates LTELs from rigorous content is not supported. It is continued marginalization under a different label.
Boards set policy. Superintendents build strategy. Principals make multilingual learner growth visible in school improvement plans. Coaches focus on how often students produce language in structured, meaningful ways—not just on how often they receive it. Teachers use cycles of read, talk, write, and revise to move students from passive exposure to active language production. California’s LCAP/LCFF framework links funding and accountability to measurable EL outcomes, showing what it looks like when governance requires results rather than document compliance.
If governance drives outcomes, then district leadership must also be accountable for measurable results. A commitment to results will require prioritizing measurement. Are fewer students remaining classified as LTELs each year? Are more students meeting reclassification criteria within five years? Are ELs making measurable language gains? Are LTELs enrolled in AP, CTE, and dual credit courses? Supplemental funding, whether Title III or state, must be tied to demonstrated progress rather than compliance. Persistently high LTEL rates indicate a governance failure, not a student deficit.
Federal accountability and Title III funding are important, but the primary imperative is both moral and practical: each year a student remains an LTEL is a lost opportunity. Districts should expect increased scrutiny regarding how federal funds lead to proficiency gains. Leaders who act proactively will be better positioned than those who wait for external mandates. Can we afford not to act?
Technology alone will not solve the LTEL challenge. However, when aligned with governance priorities and instructional strategy, technology-enabled language development tools and data systems can accelerate progress.
Technology is most valuable when it helps teachers move students from receiving to producing language, tracks growth over time, and provides data for timely intervention. District leaders should ensure that adopted tools align with strategies that reach classrooms.
If you are a superintendent, you should ask yourself: “Does our master schedule make it possible for an English learner to access every opportunity available to their peers?” If you are a board member: “Are our goals designed to produce results for English Learners, or just to check compliance boxes?” If you are a principal: “Is multilingual learner growth a visible priority in our school improvement plan, or does it belong only to the ELD department?” If you are an instructional coach: “Am I helping teachers increase structured language output, or focusing only on engagement?” If you are a teacher: “Am I explicitly teaching the language structures my students need for this task, or assigning the task and hoping they figure it out?”
If the answers are not a clear yes, the work has not reached all levels of the system.
Share this essay with your board. Review your board resolutions and superintendent strategic plans to determine whether your governance structures are designed to achieve results for English Learners—or to justify their absence. Then go one step further: examine whether those structures actually reach classrooms. The intervention is not a new program; it is effective governance translated into daily practice. The plateau is not destiny. When districts build systems that connect boardroom priorities to classroom practice, LTELs do not just exit a program; they gain access to fuller participation in academic learning.
Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the Unkept Promise of Educational Opportunity for California’s Long-Term English Learners. Californians Together.
WIDA. (2019). Exploring the Long-term English Learner Population Across 15 WIDA States. WIDA Research Report. https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/WIDA-Report-Long-Term-English-Learner-Population.pdf
California Department of Education. (2024). Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
Texas Education Agency. (2020). LPAC Framework Manual. https://www.txel.org/media/04lnzead/lpac-framework-manual.pdf
New York State Education Department. (2024). Integrated ENL Resources. https://www.nysed.gov/bilingual-ed/intelish-new-language-enl-resources
Council of the Great City Schools. (2019). English language learners in America’s great city schools: Demographics, achievement, and staffing.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED597915.pdf
Comprehensive analysis of district-level leadership, staffing, and accountability practices in urban ELL programs.
Grapin, S. E., & Kim, E. (2025). District supervisors’ sensemaking and implementation of English language development standards: WIDA 2020 edition. AERA Open, 11(1).
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23328584251352816
Analyzes how district leaders interpret and implement WIDA ELD standards, emphasizing the role of leadership in bridging policy and classroom practice.
Villegas, L. (2023). Accountability for long-term English learners. Kappan Online.
https://kappanonline.org/accountability-for-english-learners-villegas/
Explores state and district accountability frameworks, superintendent/board responsibilities, and policy levers for LTEL outcomes.