Advocates warn a Newsom proposal could change how California defines long-term English learners, potentially delaying help.
A proposed change in how California defines long-term English learners is drawing urgent pushback, with educators and advocates warning it could slow down when students get the support they need.
The concern centers on a policy change Gov.. Gavin Newsom included in legislation attached to his January budget proposal. often called a “trailer bill.” The proposal would adjust the state’s definitions for students who are “at risk of becoming long-term English Learners” and students classified as “long-term English learners.”
At the heart of the debate is a push to standardize definitions across multiple state systems.. Right now. students who take longer to become proficient in English can face barriers later on. including challenges enrolling in college-preparatory courses and electives in middle and high school.. Long-term English learners are currently defined in two separate ways—through the state accountability “dashboard” and through Dataquest. the state’s enrollment information database.. Advocates say this inconsistency can already create confusion for school districts. and the governor’s plan would make all systems rely on a single definition.
Under Newsom’s proposal, the state would define long-term English learners as students who have not reached English proficiency within seven years. Supporters of alignment across systems argue that using one timeline could make reporting clearer and more consistent across districts.
But controversy has quickly escalated around the proposal’s separate definition of students “at risk of becoming long-term English learners.” In Newsom’s plan. that “at risk” category would be narrowed to students who have not achieved English proficiency within six years.. Currently. the “at risk” definition uses a combination of enrollment time. English proficiency results on the ELPAC. and performance relative to grade-level standards on the state English language arts achievement test.
Educators and advocates say this shift could change not only paperwork. but also practice in classrooms—especially in the critical years when students can still be redirected toward stronger language growth.. They argue the earlier identification of students who are falling behind is essential to preventing them from becoming long-term English learners.
Veronika Lopez-Mendez. executive director of the Multilingual Education Department at San Diego Unified School District. described the stakes for students in elementary grades.. She warned that if adults wait too long to identify students who are not on track to reclassify. the ability to intervene effectively may be lost.. Her central point was that intervention should not begin in earnest in later grades. but rather earlier. when students are still in the elementary setting.
The proposal also prompted immediate protest from advocates and education leaders across the state.. A letter opposing the change was signed by advocates and leaders from multiple English learner organizations. school districts and county offices of education. as well as the California Teachers Association.. The letter argued that narrowing the “at risk” definition could delay support intended to prevent students from becoming long-term English learners.
In their counterproposal. the letter writers urged a different way to define who is “at risk. ” one that keeps focus on earlier progress markers.. They suggested that the “at risk” category include students who have been enrolled for four years and scored at Level 2 or below on the ELPAC. or students enrolled for five to six years who scored at Level 3 or below.. They also argued the approach matches California’s English Learner Progress Indicator. which is built around the expectation that English learners advance by at least one proficiency level per year.
Supporters of that alternative timeline say the current “at risk” framing helps schools target students earlier. particularly in fourth and fifth grade.. Shelly Spiegel-Coleman. strategic adviser for Californians Together. said identifying students during these grades creates a practical opportunity for teachers to tailor instruction because students are often with the same teacher throughout the school year.. Her argument was that earlier knowledge helps educators target needs in time to accelerate progress.
The policy is now moving through California’s legislative process amid disagreement over how it was introduced.. The Assembly Subcommittee on Education Finance voted Tuesday to reject the proposal and refer it to the Education Committee as a separate bill rather than as part of the budget package. so it can be considered more carefully.. The Senate is still weighing the measure.
Assemblymember Darshana Patel, D-San Diego, raised questions during the hearing about why the proposal advanced through the budget process rather than through a policy committee. The concern, as Patel framed it, was that the route taken could limit the depth of policy scrutiny for a complex issue.
Assemblymember David Alvarez. D-Chula Vista. who leads the subcommittee. said expediting state-level dashboard publications is not the core justification for how the state defines long-term English language learners.. He also pointed to the sensitivity and complexity of the proposal and said it has implications for hundreds of thousands of students learning English as a second language.
At the hearing. Sade Neri. a finance budget analyst for the California Department of Finance. said the proposal was intended to reflect research indicating students take between five and seven years to become English proficient.. She added that the intent was to give students closer to the end of that timeframe to reach proficiency.
Neri also acknowledged concerns raised by critics, saying the administration is aware of the feedback and plans to consider it for the governor’s May revision to the budget proposal, expected to be released this week.
Beyond the definitions themselves. the dispute reflects a deeper question about timing: when a student is labeled “at risk” can shape when districts decide to intervene. how early schools staff supports. and whether students receive targeted instruction before the window narrows.. Advocates stress that language development is not only a measurement issue but also a scheduling issue—support systems have to be mobilized early enough to change outcomes.
For districts. a single definition across state systems could reduce confusion. but educators say any shift that narrows the “at risk” group could unintentionally reduce the number of students receiving proactive services.. In practice. that could alter eligibility for certain interventions and change how districts plan curriculum support in middle and high school down the line.
If the “at risk” definition is adjusted during the legislative process. it may also influence how accountability information is interpreted by schools and the public.. Because the proposal would also affect how systems report long-term English learners. changes could have ripple effects across planning. staffing. and compliance—even in classrooms where the students’ language learning needs have not changed.
For now, the measure’s path is unsettled as lawmakers continue consideration and the governor’s budget revision approaches.. For families and educators. the central concern remains consistent: the earlier schools can identify students who are not on track. the better chance those students have to stay on a path toward stronger English proficiency and broader academic access.
English learners long-term English learners ELPAC California education policy Newsom budget trailer bill reclassification timeline