Annual Report of the
State Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program
Educating English
Language Learners
in Washington State
School Year 2001-02
Dr. Terry Bergeson
State Superintendent of
Public Instruction
December 2003
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Old Capitol Building
P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
For more information about the contents
of this document, please contact:
Helen Malagon
E-mail: hmalagon@ospi.wednet.edu
Phone: 360.725.6151
To order more copies of this document,
please call 1-888-59-LEARN (I-888-595-3276)
or visit our Web site at http://www.k12.wa.us/publications
Please refer to the document number below for quicker service:
03-0060
This document is available online at:
http://www.k12.wa.us/research/pubdocs/pdf/LEPreport2002_final.pdf
This material is available in alternative format upon request.
Contact the Resource Center at (888) 595-3276, TTY (360) 664-3631.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Annual Report of the State Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program
School Year 2001-2002
Dr. Terry Bergeson
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Mary Alice Heuschel
Deputy Superintendent, Learning and Teaching
Pete Bylsma, Director
Research and Evaluation
Lisa Ireland, Data Analyst
Research and Evaluation
Helen Malagon, Supervisor
Bilingual Education
December 2003
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Old Capitol Building, P.O. Box 47200, Olympia WA 98504-7200
Dr. Terry Bergeson, State Superintendent
Mary Alice Heuschel, Deputy Superintendent, Learning and Teaching
Greg Hall, Assistant Superintendent, Assessment and Research
Bob Harmon, Assistant Superintendent, Special Programs
Richard Gomez, Director, Bilingual and Migrant Education
Helen Malagon, Supervisor, Bilingual Education
About This Document
Copyright © 2003 by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia,
Washington. The contents of this document may be reproduced and distributed without
permission for educational purposes.
Funding for this report was provided by the Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program, a
state-funded program. For more information about the contents of this document or the
program, please contact:
Helen Malagon, Supervisor
Bilingual Education
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
PO BOX 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
E-mail: hmalagon@ospi.wednet.edu
Phone: 360.725.6151
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by Pete Bylsma and Lisa Ireland in the Research and Evaluation
Office and Helen Malagon in the Bilingual Education Office. Other OSPI staff helped in
the preparation of this document, including Richard Gómez, Marty McCall, Pam Peppers,
Sue Shannon, Steve Shish, Pattie Squiqui, and Kim Thompson.
Suggested Citation
Bylsma, Pete; Ireland, Lisa; and Malagon, Helen (2003). Educating English Language
Learners in Washington State. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia,
WA.
The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction complies with all federal and state rules and
regulations and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age,
or marital status.
CONTENTS
Executive Summary
1
Section 1 – Introduction
3
Background
Washington’s Program For LEP Students
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Section 2 – Staffing and Instruction
7
Most Expenditures Are Staff-Related
Staffing Issues
Instructional Strategies and Programs
Section 3 – Students Served
16
Total LEP Student Enrollment
Uneven Distribution of LEP Students
Grades of Students Served
Students Served by Other Programs
Section 4 – Languages Spoken
23
Number of Students Speaking Various Languages
Wide Disparity in the Number of Languages Among Districts
Section 5 – Length of Stay and Academic Achievement
30
Section 6 – Language Proficiency and WASL Test Results
34
Appendix A – Languages Spoken
Appendix B – District Language Totals
Appendix C – District Participation Rates
Appendix D – Length of Stay Data
39
41
62
72
Abbreviations
ELL
ESL
FTE
ITBS
LEP
OSPI
WASL
WLPT
English language learners
English-as-a-second language
full-time equivalent
Iowa Test of Basic Skills
limited English proficient
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Washington Assessment of Student Learning
Washington Language Proficiency Test
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
As Washington becomes a more diverse society, the state’s transitional bilingual
instruction program serves an increasing number and percentage of students
whose primary languages is other than English and have English language skill
deficiencies that impair their learning in regular classrooms. Student who are
English language learners (ELL) often have lower levels of academic
performance and higher retention and dropout rates than their English-fluent
peers. As the number of students with limited English proficiency (LEP) increases
and meeting higher academic standards is required, issues related to meeting the
needs of these students are receiving more scrutiny. The Legislature requires the
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to report on the program each year.
The state program provides extra funding to districts for services to LEP students.
In school year 2001–2002, the state provided about $44 million for the program.
This was 4 percent more than the previous year, a much slower rate of increase
than in previous years, which was due to a relatively small increase in LEP
enrollment and a slight decrease in per pupil funding. Districts supplemented state
funding with about $12.7 million in local funds. Hence, districts spent nearly $57
million in state and local funds educating LEP students in 2001–02. The federal
government provided about $2.7 million more for LEP students.
Results in
Brief
A total of 72,215 LEP students were served statewide, slightly more than the
previous year. Most of these LEP students receive little or no instruction in their
primary language, even though research has found that long-term academic
performance is better when students have significant exposure to instruction in
both English and their primary language. The nationwide shortage of qualified
teachers that speak other languages and the number of different languages spoken
by students across the range of grades in many districts limit the possibility of
many schools providing instruction in both English and students’ primary
language. Consequently, many LEP students stay in the program for a long period
of time and have lower test scores than their English-speaking peers.
Staffing &
Instruction
Most funds allocated for educating LEP students are spent for staff salaries and
benefits. Few students receive instruction in their primary language in part
because of a shortage of qualified teachers. Most instruction for LEP students in
Washington is provided by instructional aides who often lack much formal
training in second language learning strategies. These aides typically provide
intensive instruction in English-as-a-second language (ESL) in a classroom
setting but provide little or no instruction in the students’ primary language. Thus,
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
1
the program is more accurately called an ESL program. However, fewer than half
of all teachers of LEP students have an ESL endorsement.
Students
Served
The program served a total of 72,215 LEP students, slightly more than the
previous year. The rate of growth was the slowest in 15 years. The increase is
influenced by several factors, including the faster growth of the non-English
speaking student population due to higher immigration and birth rates, and a
higher rate of students entering than exiting the program. LEP students are not
evenly distributed across the state—23 different districts served over 1,000 LEP
students and these students represented at least 25 percent of all students in 21
districts; other districts serve few or no LEP students. Some districts experienced
a large increase in the number of LEP students they serve, while others are
serving fewer LEP students. Almost half of all LEP students are found in Grades
K–3, and many are served by other state and/or federal programs as well.
Languages
Spoken
A total of 190 different languages were represented in the program in school year
2001-2002. Spanish was spoken by more students (61 percent) than students
speaking all the other languages combined. Seven other languages were spoken
by at least 1,000 students, and 25 percent of all LEP students in Washington
spoke one of these other seven languages. The number of students speaking some
languages (e.g., Russian and Ukrainian) has grown considerably, while the
number speaking other languages (e.g., Vietnamese and Cambodian) continues to
decline. Twenty-five districts had at least 20 different languages spoken among
their LEP students, while 51 districts had at least 95 percent of their LEP students
whose primary language is Spanish.
Length of Stay
The program is intended to provide temporary services for up to three years until
LEP students can develop adequate English language skills. About 20 percent of
the state’s LEP students left the program in school year 2001–2002, and a
majority had been in the program no more than two years. However, 28 percent of
the students have been in the program for more than three years. Research shows
that learning “academic” English takes 5 to 7 years.
Language
Proficiency
and WASL
Test Results
The Washington Language Proficiency Test (WLPT) was first administered in
spring 2002 as a tool to assess English language ability in reading and writing.
Results of these tests reveal that among LEP students, reading proficiency is
much lower than writing proficiency in the early grades but not in the middle and
high school grades. The vast majority of the students in Grades 9–12 are in the
two lowest levels and represent a sizable proportion of LEP students in those
grades. Due to changes in federal law, thousands of students who have very
limited or no English proficiency must now take the Washington Assessment of
Student Learning (WASL). Fewer LEP students meet the WASL standard than
students with English fluency, regardless of the grade or subject matter.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
2
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 1
BACKGROUND
Washington and the nation as a whole are becoming a more ethnically and
linguistically diverse society. Over 90 percent of recent immigrants come from
non-English-speaking countries, and many of these immigrants arrive with little
or no formal education. Minority groups also have higher birth rates, and many
native-born ethnic group members do not speak English in the home. These
immigration and birth patterns are contributing to the increase in the linguistic
diversity of our public schools. This is especially true in the West and in urban
areas where students with limited English proficiency (LEP)1 are concentrated.
There is great variation among students who speak a primary language other than
English. Some are recent arrivals from foreign countries while others have been
born and raised in the United States. The level of education received prior to
immigrating to the U.S., family socioeconomic status, and cultural background
also differ. Students coming from the same country may speak different languages
or dialects. In addition, differences exist within groups. For example, the first
wave of southeast Asian refugees was comprised of highly educated people, while
subsequent refugees were less well educated. Thus, generalizations about any
group of students may mask important background characteristics that are
important to understand when designing appropriate curricular interventions.
Students not proficient in using the English language have a higher risk of
academic failure. When children with little or no previous exposure to the English
language enter the public schools, they are often unable to profit fully from
instruction in English. Research has found that LEP students tend to have lower
levels of academic performance in math and reading, higher rates of retention in
grade, and much higher dropout rates than their English-fluent peers. As the
number of LEP students in public schools continues to grow and meeting higher
academic standards is required, issues related to the needs of these students and
their academic progress are receiving greater scrutiny.
WASHINGTON’S PROGRAM FOR LEP STUDENTS
Educating LEP students is primarily a state and local responsibility. While the
federal government provides support for LEP students through various programs,
districts say they rely heavily on state aid and local revenue to fund English-
1
These students are also referred to as English language learners (ELL).
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
3
Section 1  Introduction
language acquisition programs.2 The state’s Transitional Bilingual Instruction Act
of 1979, which was amended in 1984, provides extra state funding to Washington
districts for services to students who have a primary language other than English
and have English language skill deficiencies that impair their learning in regular
classrooms.3 The major objective of the transitional bilingual instruction program
is for students to develop competence in English language skills. Instructional
assistance is restricted to students who have very little or no English speaking
ability and are in most need of help, as defined by the eligibility requirements.4
Bilingual education is the use of two languages in instruction, English and one
other. The non-English language is a bridge, a language the child understands,
that can be used while English skills are being acquired. As a student learns more
English, there is a corresponding decrease in the use of the primary language.
This is the “transitional” aspect of the program as established in Washington.
Although the program is for “bilingual instruction,” relatively few students in the
program actually receive much formal instruction in their primary language (see
Section 2). Thus, the program could more accurately be called an ESL program. A
reliance on instruction in English rather than in a student’s primary language is
common in other states as well.5
Program Funding
Districts receive extra state funding for each eligible LEP student. This funding is
allocated based on the average number of LEP students enrolled each month. In
school year 2001–02, the state provided an extra $707 for each of the 62,522 LEP
students.6 The per pupil amount is adjusted annually and is about 17.2 percent
more than the base amount provided for all students.
In school year 2001–02, the state provided a total of $44.0 million for the
program, a 4 percent increase from the previous year. Figure 1-1 shows the
growth of state funding for the program over the last 16 years. The figure does not
adjust the funding amounts for inflation. Appropriations for the 2001–2003
biennial budget were for $86.9 million.
2
See Public Education: Title I Services Provided to Students With Limited English Proficiency, U.S.
General Accounting Office, December 1999.
3
Beginning in 1979, LEP students were funded along with certain special education students as
part of a “special needs” grant. In 1984, funding for the program was set up as a separate
allocation. Other program changes were made in the 1984 law, including how eligible students are
identified.
4
The transitional bilingual instruction program operates under the authority of RCW 28.A180.060
and as detailed in chapter 392-160 WAC.
5
See Public Education: Meeting the Needs of Students With Limited English Proficiency, U.S.
General Accounting Office, February 2001.
6
This was the average number of students enrolled in the program each month, as reported by
districts on the most recent P223-H report. The total number of LEP students served by the
program was 72,215—see Sections 3 for more information on enrollment trends.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
4
Section 1  Introduction
Figure 1-1: Growth in State Funding for the Program
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
State funding*
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
1986- 1987- 1988- 1989- 1990- 1991- 1992- 1993- 1994- 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 2000- 200187
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
* Not adjusted for inflation
School Year
The state is not the only source of revenue for the program. Districts can choose
to supplement their state program funds with funds raised at the local level for
programs educating LEP students. In school year 2001–2002, districts used about
$12.7 million in local funding to educate LEP students. In addition, various
federal programs can be used to support LEP students, including funding from
Title I and programs for migrant, immigrant, and special education. However, the
federal funding is minimal compared to state and local funding.
Program Eligibility
Program funding is intended for those with the greatest need, so not all students
who have a primary language other than English may be eligible. To be eligible, a
student must have a primary language other than English and their English
language skills must be sufficiently deficient or absent to impair learning in an
all-English classroom. The program is for eligible students in grades K–12.7
To identify eligible pupils, districts conduct an initial assessment to determine a
student’s language proficiency. Students are eligible if they score below a
minimum level on an oral language proficiency test selected and administered by
the district.8 An annual reassessment must be made for a student to continue in the
program. In November 2001, educators representing various parts of the state
selected the Language Proficiency Test Series as the single test to be used
statewide for the annual assessment, beginning in the spring of 2002.9 Eligibility
7
Beginning in school year 1997–98, prekindergarten students were no longer eligible for bilingual
program services.
8
Most districts use the Language Assessment Scales (LAS or Pre-LAS) to determine initial
eligibility. The LAS cut-off score for eligibility is Level 3–Limited English Speaker and the range
of the total score is between 65–74.
9
The selection of a single test was required by ESSHB 2025, passed by the 2001 Legislature. In
the past, districts could use a number of different norm-referenced tests for the annual assessment.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
5
Section 1  Introduction
ends when a student scores at Level IV on the reading portion and Level III on
the writing portion of the Washington Language Proficiency Test (WLPT).
Students who meet the reading WASL standard and score at a level slightly below
meeting standard on the writing WASL (7 of 12 points in grades 4 and 7 and 13
of 24 points in grade 10), as well as students who reach the 35th percentile on a
nationally normed test of reading and language arts, must also exit the program.
Districts must have empirical evidence to keep a student in the program for more
than three years.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The Legislature requires the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
to review the program and report each year on the results of that review. This
report provides information on the program for LEP students in school year 2001–
2002 as well as historical information. Specifically, this report discusses the
following topics:
 Staffing patterns and instruction to implement the program.
 Enrollment patterns of students who have participated in the program and how
the patterns have changed over time.
 The languages spoken by students in the program.
 The amount of time students spent in the program.
 Academic performance of LEP students served by the program.
To address these topics, we examined data obtained from all 187 districts that had
an approved state program for LEP students in school year 2001–2002. The data
were provided on the district annual reports. We also used data reported by
districts in previous years. The district reports were checked for consistency, and
districts were contacted when discrepancies were found.
Since school-level data are not collected on the program, the report provides data
aggregated at the state and district levels. Districts began reporting the number of
LEP students at the school level in the spring of 2000. However, information
about the type of program used to educate LEP students is not available at the
school level.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
6
STAFFING AND INSTRUCTION
SECTION 2
Nearly all expenditures used to educate LEP students are for staff, mainly salaries.
Although research has found that students perform better when provided more
intensive instruction in their primary language, few students receive this type of
instruction. One reason for this is the relative shortage of qualified teachers. Most
instruction for LEP students in Washington is provided by instructional aides,
typically in a classroom setting with some ESL instruction. Less than half the
teachers in the program have an endorsement in teaching either ESL or bilingual
education.
MOST EXPENDITURES ARE STAFF-RELATED
In school year 2001–2002, expenditures for educating LEP students totaled $59.4
million. Of this amount, about 77 percent came from the state, 19 percent came
from the local districts themselves and 5 percent came from federal sources.10
Nearly all of the funding for educating LEP students was spent on instructionrelated activities, mainly in the form of salaries and benefits for teachers and
instructional aides. Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1 show the amounts and proportions
spent on various categories in school year 2001–2002.
Table 2-1: Staff Costs Account for Most Program Expenditures
(School Year 2001–02)
Type of Program
Expenditure
Total
Expenditures
Percent of
Total
Salaries–certificated staff
$23,515,820
39.6%
Salaries–classified staff
$19,430,038
32.7%
Employee benefits
$12,472,543
21.0%
Instructional supplies
$2,345,045
3.9%
Other
$1,642,557
2.8%
Total
$59,406,003
100.0%
10
The state does not keep track of how funds from different revenue sources are spent on various
programs, so an analysis of program expenditures includes revenues from sources in addition to
the state funds designated for the bilingual program.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
7
Section 2  Staffing and Instruction
Figure 2-1: Proportion of Expenditures Spent for the Bilingual Program
Other
Expenditures,
6.7%
Staff Benefits,
21.0%
Salaries
Certificated Staff
39.6%
Salaries
Classified Staff
32.7%
STAFFING ISSUES
LEP students need access to properly qualified, highly skilled teachers in order to
meet high standards. However, one obstacle facing the education of LEP students
is the shortage of qualified staff to provide instruction. Many districts report
difficulties recruiting teachers qualified to teach students with limited English
proficiency. Providing training to teachers with LEP students also appears to be a
problem. During school year 1997–98, less than 40 percent of teachers nationally
reported having received some training to teach students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds.11
In the current education reform movement that aims to have all students meet
high academic standards, schools face a challenge to find and train staff to meet
the needs of the growing number of students with limited English proficiency.
The new federal No Child Left Behind Act requires teachers of LEP students to be
“highly qualified” if they teach core academic subjects. This requirement will put
an additional strain on the supply of teachers for these students.
The Professional Educator Standards Board has established a program that can
help address this issue in Washington. The Alternative Routes to Teaching
Program supports the formation of field-based partnerships between school
districts, educational service districts, and higher education teacher preparation
programs to offer alternative routes to teacher certification. This effort targets
experienced paraeducators and mid-career professionals with expertise in areas
where Washington is experiencing shortages. The 2001 Legislature created a
grant program that provides stipends and tuition assistance for this program.
11
See Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Preliminary Report, U.S. Department
of Education, 1999.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
8
Section 2  Staffing and Instruction
Qualifications and Training of Program Staff
Of the Washington teachers who provided instruction to LEP students in school
year 2001–2002, about half (49.7%) had an ESL endorsement and one-third
(32.6%) had a bilingual endorsement. (Some teachers have both an ESL and
bilingual endorsement.) In terms of training, 106 of the 187 districts (57%)
involved in the program provided some in-service training on ESL and bilingual
education to teachers. More districts, 124 of the 187 districts (66%), provided
such training to instructional aides. Training on multicultural issues was less—
about 51 percent of the districts provided such training to either teachers or aides.
The numbers above overstate the level of training among teachers who provide
instruction to LEP students. Many teachers and aides who teach these students are
not funded by the program, and data are not collected on the qualifications and
training of these staff. Some districts have a significant number of staff hired to
educate LEP students who are not funded by the state program.
Types of Staff
Districts have relied mainly on instructional aides to provide instruction to LEP
students. In school year 2001–2002, there were 2,621 total staff involved in
providing instruction in the program. Of this amount, there were 1,799 instructional
aides, more than double the number of teachers (822). In terms of full-time
equivalent (FTE) staff involved in the program, aides represented about 58 percent
of the total FTEs in school year 2001–2002, slightly less than the previous year.
The total number of staff involved in the program is about the same as the previous
year, with slightly more certificated staff and slightly fewer instructional aides.
Table 2-2 and Figure 2-2 provide more information on the FTE staffing trends.
Table 2-2: Five-Year Staffing Trends (in FTEs)
Type of Staff (FTE)
1997–98
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
2001-02
Teachers
Percent of total
389
40.0%
435
40.0%
467
43.8%
487
39.4%
520
42.0%
Instructional aides
Percent of total
584
60.0%
654
60.0%
600
56.2%
748
60.6%
719
58.0%
Total FTEs
973
1,089
1,067
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
1,235
1,239
9
Section 2  Staffing and Instruction
Figure 2-2: Change in FTE Staff Involved in the Program
800
700
Total FTE Staff
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1997-98
1998-99
Teachers
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
Instructional Aides
Student/Staff Ratios
With more instructional aides involved in the program, the LEP students per aide
ratio is lower than the ratio of LEP students per teacher. The student/staff ratios
can be measured in different ways by using the total number of students and staff
in the program, the average number of students served per month, and the total
number of FTE staff. The ratios are slightly smaller when calculated in terms of
the average number of students served and much larger when measured in terms
of FTE staff.
Table 2-3 shows various ratios for school year 2001–2002. Figure 2-3 shows the
ratios for the last three years using FTE staff data. The ratio of students per
bilingual program instructional staff has declined due to the large increase in the
number of aides.
Table 2-3: LEP Student/Bilingual Program Staff Ratios (School Year 2001–02)
Teachers
Aides
All Staff
Total staff
822
1,799
2,621
Staff FTE
520
719
1,239
87.9
40.1
27.6
76.1
34.7
23.9
120.2
87.0
50.5
Student/staff ratio1
(based on total students
and total staff)
Student/staff ratio2
(based on average number of
students served and total staff)
Student/staff ratio2
(based on average number of
students served and FTE staff)
1
2
Ratio based on the total (72,215) number of LEP students served.
Ratio based on the average (62,522) number of LEP students served.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
10
Section 2  Staffing and Instruction
Average Student/FTE Staff
Figure 2-3: LEP Student/Program Staff Ratios, Three-Year Trend
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
119.2
122.3
120.2
92.8
87.0
79.6
52.2
Students/Teachers
1999-00
Students/Aides
2000-01
48.2
50.5
Students/Teachers+Aides
2001-02
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMS
Nationwide a variety of instructional strategies and approaches have been
implemented in recent decades with the goal of teaching the large LEP student
population. These range from having no instruction in the student’s primary
language and providing only ESL instruction to providing instruction over an
extended period in both English and the student’s primary language.12
In Washington, the services provided to LEP students are described in two ways:
instructional focus and program model. Instructional focus describes the methods
by which students are actually instructed with differing emphases and
methodologies. Program model describes the setting or circumstances in which
the services are delivered. These approaches differ in their effectiveness.
Instructional Focus
Most (73%) LEP students receive little or no instruction in their primary
language, according to district reports. Due to staffing constraints and the number
of languages that are spoken in some districts, it may not be possible to provide
any instruction in a student’s primary language. Most districts rely on intensive
ESL instruction to educate LEP students. Districts with large numbers of LEP
students speaking a particular language are more likely to offer instruction in that
language.
12
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to place a student with limited English proficiency
into a regular English-only classroom and provide no special instruction support (Lau v. Nichols).
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
11
Section 2  Staffing and Instruction
Districts report their instructional focus in four categories, which are defined
below. In addition, some districts report that they provide instruction using some
other strategy or a combination of strategies.
1. Primary Language Development: Language development in both English
and the primary language is the focus. The goal is to enable the student to
become academically and socially fluent in both languages.
2. Academic Language Development: Academic skills and literacy are
provided in the primary language with additional intensive ESL instruction.
When the student reaches moderate English reading competency, academic
instruction in the primary language is discontinued.
3. Limited Assistance in the Primary Language: Students are provided with
intensive ESL instruction with additional basic skills and literacy offered in
English with limited assistance in the primary language. This may include
academic tutoring provided by noncertificated personnel, translations,
interpretations, etc.
4. No Primary Language Support: Students are provided with intensive ESL
instruction and may receive other special instructional services which enable
them to participate in regular all-English classrooms.
Table 2-4 and Figure 2-4 report the number of students served in each of the four
state-defined instructional focus categories. Because students may be served in
more than one category, the totals reported exceed the unduplicated total number
served.
Table 2-4: Enrollment by Type of Instructional Focus (School Year 2001–02)
Number of
Students
Percent
of Total
Primary Language Development
3,322
4.6%
Academic Language Development
9,528
13.2%
Limited Assistance in the Primary Language
29,835
41.3%
No Primary Language Support
22,773
31.5%
8,292
11.5%
Instructional Focus
Other or combinations
Note: Percent based on unduplicated count of students served (72,215).
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
12
Section 2  Staffing and Instruction
Figure 2-4: Enrollment by Type of Instructional Focus (School Year 2001-02)
Number of LEP Students .
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Primary
Language
Development
Academic
Languuage
Development
Limited
No Primary
Assistance in the Language Support
Primary
Language
Other
Instructional Focus
Program Model
While the instructional focus differentiates the instructional strategies used, the
program model describes the setting or circumstances in which the services are
delivered. Districts report five categories of program models, which are defined
below.
1. Self-Contained Classroom: Students are in an all-bilingual classroom that
offers instruction in English/language arts appropriate for the student’s level
of English competence and sometimes provides academic instruction in the
primary language. The bilingual reading/language arts instruction is parallel,
not supplementary, to that offered in the regular classroom.
2. Center Approach: Non-English speaking students are scheduled for a large
portion of the day in a bilingual center offering intensive English language
development and, in some cases, instruction in the primary language. Students
return to the regular classroom only for those subjects not requiring significant
English language interaction.
3. In-Classroom: Eligible students who have attained some English language
proficiency are provided, in the regular classroom, with ESL instruction by a
specialized instructor and, in some cases, with academic instruction in the
primary language.
4. Pull-Out: Takes students from the regular classroom to provide ESL and, in
some cases, academic instruction in the primary language. Instruction is
delivered either in small groups or on an individual basis.
5. Tutoring: Provides students with a bilingual tutor who assists individual or
small groups in completing class assignments or provides limited assistance in
ESL.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
13
Section 2  Staffing and Instruction
Table 2-5 and Figure 2-5 report the number of students served by program model.
Because students may be served in more than one model, the totals reported
exceed the unduplicated total number served.
Table 2-5: Enrollment by Type of Program Model (School Year 2001–02)
Number of
Students
Percent
of Total
10,924
15.1%
2,749
3.8%
In-Classroom
20,522
28.4%
Pull-Out
23,363
32.3%
Tutoring
6,429
8.9%
13,282
18.4%
Program Model
Self-Contained Classroom
Center Approach
Other or combinations
Note: Percent based on unduplicated count of students served (72,215).
Number of LEP Students
.
Figure 2-5: Enrollment by Type of Program Model (School Year 2001–02)
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
SelfContained
Classroom
Center
Approach
InClassroom
Pull-Out
Tutoring
Other
Program Model
Effectiveness of Strategies
Research has been conducted to determine the effectiveness of different
approaches for educating LEP students. In general, studies have found that the
more instruction that is provided in the student’s primary language, the better the
overall academic performance of the student over a long-term period.13 Experts
13
See Reading and Second Language Learners—Research Report, OSPI, April 1999, and School
Effectiveness for Language Minority Students, Thomas, W. and Collier, V., National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, December 1997. The effects of different instructional
approaches may not be seen in the short-term since language acquisition in an academic context is
a long-term process.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
14
Section 2  Staffing and Instruction
believe that developing proficiency in one language promotes the development of
proficiency in a second language. Results of the analysis of student-level data that
OSPI reported in 2000 were consistent with this conclusion.14 These findings
would indicate that more academic instruction needs to be given in the student’s
primary language rather than simply relying on English-language instruction.
However, the shortage of trained staff to provide instruction in many primary
languages continues to limit this possibility. Moreover, recent research has found
that LEP students in middle and high schools are less likely to receive bilingual
instruction than LEP students in elementary grades.15
OSPI is working to improve the effectiveness of the program by (1) developing
standards and benchmarks for English language learners, (2) implementing the
new statewide annual assessment for LEP students (see Section 6), (3) developing
a system that will track LEP students’ academic progress through the use of a
unique student code assigned to each student, (4) revising the definitions and
forms used in the program to conform to national definitions used in research, and
(5) providing districts with more guidance on program implementation.
14
We found that the average length of time LEP students had spent in the program was less when
they were receiving more intensive instruction in their primary language along with instruction in
English. See Educating Limited-English-Proficient Students in Washington State, OSPI,
December 2000.
15
See Overlooked and Underserved: Immigrant Students in U.S. Secondary Schools, Ruiz-deValasco, J. and Fix, M, Urban Institute, December 2000.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
15
STUDENTS SERVED
SECTION 3
The number and percentage of LEP students in Washington continued to
grow, but at a much slower rate than in previous years. These students are
not evenly distributed across the state. Some districts serve either a large
number or a high percentage of LEP students, while other districts serve few
or no LEP students. Some districts have experienced a high rate of growth
in their LEP student population, while other districts are serving fewer LEP
students. Nearly half the LEP students are found in Grades K–3. Many are
served by other state or federal programs as well.
TOTAL LEP STUDENT ENROLLMENT
In school year 2001–2002, the program served 72,215 students. This was 1,784
more (2.5%) than in the previous year, the slowest rate of growth in 15 years. The
average monthly FTE enrollment in the program was 62,522 (the number used for
state funding purposes). The program served slightly more males (52.6%) than
females (47.4%). This proportion of males to females has remained about the
same for the past 17 years.
The percentage of LEP students in the state has slowly risen over the last 15 years
(see Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1). In school year 2001–02, 7.2 percent of the state’s
students were in the program, up from 7.1 percent in the previous year. The
increase in the level of LEP students in the state is influenced by several factors.
First, the non-English speaking student population is growing faster than the
English-speaking student population because of higher immigration and birth
rates.16 In addition, when a district develops an approved program, its LEP
students would be added to the number of students in the program. Finally, the
increase is influenced by a higher rate of students entering the program compared
to the rate of students exiting the program—20,484 students entered and 14,352
left the program, a net difference of 6,132. (See Section 5 for more information on
those leaving the program.)
16
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, both the Asian and Hispanic populations have a higher
percentage of the total Washington population in 2000 than in 1990. It is hard to determine the cause
of the increase—birth rates, refugee flows from abroad and other states, the strength of the economy
in different parts of the country, and the relative quality of ESL programs can all affect the growth of
the non-English speaking population. Census estimates that Hispanics will become the largest
minority group in the United States by 2005. (For more information, see Status and Trends in the
Education of Hispanics, April 2003, NCES, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003008.pdf.)
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
16
Section 3  Students Served
Table 3-1: Growth of LEP Student Enrollment
Year
Total
Enrollment
Total
LEP
Percent
LEP
770,538
785,854
805,913
833,906
862,423
889,680
908,017
928,669
945,283
964,642
984,564
993,623
997,580
997,487
1,002,257
17,800
21,062
24,279
28,473
34,338
38,735
44,266
47,214
50,737
54,124
56,939
62,132
66,281
70,431
72,215
2.3%
2.7%
3.0%
3.4%
4.0%
4.4%
4.9%
5.1%
5.4%
5.6%
5.8%
6.2%
6.6%
7.1%
7.2%
1987–88
1988–89
1989–90
1990–91
1991–92
1992–93
1993–94
1994–95
1995–96
1996–97
1997–98
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
2001-02
Figure 3-1: Percentage of LEP Students Statewide Has Gradually Increased1
8%
7.1% 7.2%
7%
6%
4.9% 5.1%
5%
4.0%
4%
3%
2.3%
2.7%
3.0%
5.8%
5.4% 5.6%
6.2%
6.6%
4.4%
3.4%
2%
1%
0%
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
-8
-8
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-0
-0
-0
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
Percentage is based on the total number of LEP students served and the total
number of students in the state (i.e., headcounts).
UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION OF LEP STUDENTS
LEP students are not evenly distributed across the state. A total of 187 districts
had students in the program in school year 2001–02, which is 63.2 percent of the
state’s districts. The percentage has remained about the same the past few years
(see Figure 3-2). These 187 districts enroll over 96 percent of the state’s total
student population.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
17
Section 3  Students Served

In the 187 districts, 21 had LEP students representing at least 25 percent of
their total average enrollment (see Table 3-2), while 40 districts had LEP
students representing less than one percent of their total average enrollment.
Districts that had LEP students in the program had an average of 7.4 percent
LEP students, a higher percentage than the previous year (6.5%).

In terms of the number of LEP students served, 23 of the 187 districts each
had more than 1,000 LEP students (see Table 3-3 and Figure 3-3). These 23
districts had 65.6 percent of all LEP students served. On the other hand, 20
districts had programs serving less than 10 LEP students.

Some districts experienced tremendous growth in the number of LEP students,
while others had fewer LEP students than in previous years. Table 3-3 and
Figure 3-4 show the districts that had at least 1,000 LEP students in school
year 2001–02. Evergreen (Clark County) had about 24 percent more LEP
students than in the previous year, and four other districts had at least eight
percent more. On the other hand, eight districts—Edmonds, Kennewick, Lake
Washington, Sunnyside, Tacoma, Toppenish, Vancouver, and Wenatchee—
had fewer LEP students than the previous year. Two more districts—Wahluke
and Spokane—served more than 1,000 LEP students for the first time, while
Othello no longer served at least 1,000 LEP students.
The following figures and tables show the number of districts with a bilingual
program as well as the districts with the highest percentage and number of LEP
students served. Appendix B and C provide more information on the percentage
and number of students served.
Figure 3-2: Number of Districts with a Program for LEP Students
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
152
162
173
176
176
183
176
181
178
182
185
187
187
-90 0-91 1-92 2-93 3-94 4-95 5-96 6-97 7-98 8-99 9-00 0-01 1-02
89
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
9
1
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
18
Section 3  Students Served
Table 3-2: Districts With At Least 25% LEP Students (School Year 2001–02)
District
1. Palisades
2. Roosevelt
3. Wahluke
4. Toppenish
5. Bridgeport
6. Brewster
7. Orondo
8. Prescott
9. Manson
10. Pasco
11. Royal
12. Othello
13. Paterson
14. Warden
15. North Franklin
16. Cape Flattery
17. Yakima
18. Quincy
19. Wapato
20. Mabton
21. Tukwila
1
Total
Students1
51
15
1,533
3,327
638
982
181
255
657
9,120
1,314
2,979
92
951
1,891
523
14,353
2,227
3,309
802
2,532
Average LEP
Enrollment1
40
11
880
1,894
344
442
81
103
259
3,574
485
1,099
30
297
569
149
4,080
631
934
223
657
Percent LEP
Students
78.4%
73.3%
57.4%
56.9%
53.9%
45.0%
44.8%
40.4%
39.4%
39.2%
36.9%
36.9%
32.6%
31.2%
30.1%
28.5%
28.4%
28.3%
28.2%
27.8%
25.9%
Monthly average
Table 3-3: Districts With At Least 1,000 LEP Students (School Year 2001-02)
Total LEP Students
by School Year
District
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Seattle
Yakima
Pasco
Kent
Tacoma
Vancouver
Toppenish
Federal Way
Highline
Bellevue
Mount Vernon
Edmonds
Wenatchee
Kennewick
Evergreen (Clark)
Mukilteo
Renton
Sunnyside
Lake Washington
Everett
Wapato
Wahluke
Spokane
2001-2002
5,792
4,566
4,205
3,281
2,242
2,225
2,183
2,155
2,068
1,835
1,651
1,572
1,477
1,448
1,419
1,304
1,279
1,251
1,208
1,157
1,042
1,033
1,013
2000-2001
5,564
4,444
3,996
3,066
2,355
2,250
2,279
2,071
2,066
1,801
1,606
1,608
1,530
1,508
1,146
1,116
1,090
1,422
1,292
1,107
982
955
928
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Percent
Increase in
LEP Students
in Past Year
4.1%
2.7%
5.2%
7.0%
-4.8%
-1.1%
-4.2%
4.1%
0.1%
1.9%
2.8%
-2.2%
-3.5%
-4.0%
23.8%
16.8%
17.3%
-12.0%
-6.5%
4.5%
6.1%
8.2%
9.2%
19
Section 3  Students Served
Figure 3-3: Districts Serving At Least 1,000 LEP Students
(School Year 2001–02)
Seattle
5,792
4,566
Yakima
Pasco
4,205
Kent
3,281
Tacoma
2,242
Vancouver
2,225
Toppenish
2,183
Federal Way
2,155
Highline
2,068
Bellevue
1,835
Mount Vernon
1,651
1,572
Edmonds
Wenatchee
1,477
Kennewick
1,448
Evergreen (Clark)
1,419
Mukilteo
1,304
Renton
1,279
Sunnyside
1,251
Lake Washington
1,208
Everett
1,157
Wapato
1,042
Wahluke
1,033
Spokane
1,013
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
GRADES OF STUDENTS SERVED
Most students served by the program are in the early grades. LEP students in
grades K–3 accounted for nearly half the LEP students served in school year
2001–02. The percentage of LEP students gradually declines in the higher grades.
New LEP students—those served for the first time by the district—represented
about 28 percent of the total LEP student enrollment. However, some of these
students may not be new to the program—some may have been served by the
program in another district, but the state does not yet have a way to track the
movement of these students. As expected, LEP students in kindergarten comprise
most of the new students. Grade 9 shows an increase in the number of new and
total LEP students, which mirrors the enrollment trend for all students.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
20
Section 3  Students Served
Table 3-4 and Figure 3-4 show for each grade level the number of total and new
LEP students served.
Table 3-4: Total and New LEP Enrollment by Grade Level
(School Year 2001–02)
Percent of
Total LEP Total LEP
Grade
Students
Students
K
9,374
13.0%
1
9,844
13.6%
2
8,521
11.8%
3
7,522
10.4%
4
6,171
8.5%
5
5,444
7.5%
6
4,577
6.3%
7
3,985
5.5%
8
3,608
5.0%
9
4,601
6.4%
10
3,744
5.2%
11
2,835
4.0%
12
1,975
2.7%
Ungraded
14
0.0%
Total
72,215
New LEP
Students
8,464
2,261
1,373
1,204
934
875
830
801
741
1,430
772
473
323
3
Percent of
New LEP
Students
41.3%
11.0%
6.7%
5.9%
4.6%
4.3%
4.1%
3.9%
3.6%
7.0%
3.8%
2.3%
1.3%
1.6%
20,484
100.0%
100.0%
New LEP Students
Percentage of Total
LEP Students
90.3%
23.0%
16.1%
16.0%
15.1%
16.1%
18.1%
20.1%
20.5%
31.1%
20.6%
16.7%
16.3%
21.4%
28.4%
Figure 3-4: Total and New LEP Student Enrollment by Grade Level
(School Year 2001–02)
10,000
9,000
Number of LEP Students
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Grade Level
Total LEP Students
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
New LEP Students
21
Section 3  Students Served
STUDENTS SERVED BY OTHER PROGRAMS
Some LEP students also receive other services. Table 3-5 and Figure 3-5 provide
more information on LEP students receiving services from other federal and state
programs. The large number of these students served by Title I reflects the fact
than many of them are enrolled in schools that have “schoolwide” Title I
programs, which support all students in the school. It also reflects the fact that
LEP students tend to come from low-income families.
Table 3-5: Number and Percentage of LEP Students Receiving Support by
Other Programs (School year 2001–02)
Number of LEP
students served by
other program
14,631
Other programs
supporting LEP students
Learning Assistance Program
Special Education (state or federal)
Percent of all
LEP students
20.3%
4,928
6.8%
Title I Migrant Education
14,192
19.6%
Title I
33,277
46.1%
Figure 3-5: Number of LEP Students Receiving Support in Other Programs
(School Year 2001–02)
Learning Assistance
Program
Special Education
(state or federal)
Title I M igrant
Education
Title I (any program)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Number of LEP students
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
22
LANGUAGES SPOKEN
SECTION 4
Students served by the program spoke a total of 190 languages. However,
61 percent spoke Spanish and another 24 percent spoke one of seven other
languages – Russian, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Korean, Somali, Tagalog, or
Cambodian. Some districts had many different languages spoken among
their LEP students—25 districts had at least 20 languages spoken by LEP
students. On the other hand, many other districts served only LEP students
whose primary language is Spanish. The number of students speaking some
languages has grown dramatically, while the number speaking other
languages has declined.
NUMBER OF STUDENTS SPEAKING VARIOUS LANGUAGES
A total of 190 primary, non-English languages were represented among the
students served by the program in school year 2001–02.17 For the last 15 years,
students speaking Spanish accounted for more LEP students than students
speaking all the other languages combined. In school year 2001-02, Spanish was
the primary language spoken by 61 percent of all LEP students. However, this
percentage is slightly less than the previous year because of the slower growth
among the Spanish-speaking LEP population. Nationwide about 75 percent of
LEP students speak Spanish.
Besides Spanish, seven other languages were spoken by at least 1,000 LEP
students in Washington: Russian, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Korean, Somali,
Tagalog, and Cambodian.18 About 24 percent of all Washington LEP students
spoke one of these seven languages. In contrast, over half of the 190 languages
were spoken by less than 10 students statewide.
The number of LEP students speaking some languages has risen while the number
speaking other languages has declined. For example, of the 14 languages spoken
by at least 400 LEP students statewide, the number speaking Russian increased by
more than 34 percent and those speaking Arabic increased by more than seven
percent in one year. On the other hand, the number speaking Bosnian,
Cambodian, Vietnamese, Somali, Punjabi, and Mandarin declined.
17
Some districts could not identify the languages spoken by their LEP students, so there may be
more than 190 languages spoken by LEP students statewide.
18
The total of 1,538 LEP students spoke one of the dialects of Chinese.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
23
Section 4  Languages Spoken
The following tables and figures provide more information on the number of
students speaking the various languages represented in the program. Appendix A
lists the number of students speaking the different languages in the program.
Table 4-1: Frequency of Languages Spoken by LEP Students Served
LEP Students Served
Number of
Language Groups
1,000 or more
100–999
10–99
1–9
8
29
52
101
Total
190
Table 4-2: Spanish-Speaking LEP Students Served
School Year
1984–85
1985–86
1986–87
1987–88
1988–89
1989–90
1990–91
1991–92
1992–93
1993–94
1994–95
1995–96
1996–97
1997–98
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
2001–02
Total LEP
Students
13,939
15,024
16,352
17,800
21,062
24,279
28,473
34,338
38,735
44,266
47,214
50,737
54,124
56,939
62,132
66,281
70,431
72,215
Total Spanishspeaking LEP
Students
5,617
6,611
7,375
9,256
11,416
13,329
15,518
18,680
21,498
24,568
26,818
29,833
32,366
34,106
37,349
40,662
43,656
44,018
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Percent
Spanish
40.3
44.0
45.1
52.0
54.2
54.9
54.5
54.4
55.5
55.5
56.8
58.8
59.8
59.9
60.1
61.3
62.0
61.0
24
Section 4  Languages Spoken
Figure 4-1: Growth Among Spanish-Speaking and Other LEP Students
Total Number of LEP Students
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
19
87
-8
19 8
88
-8
19 9
89
-9
19 0
90
-9
19 1
91
-9
19 2
92
-9
19 3
93
-9
19 4
94
-9
19 5
95
-9
19 6
96
-9
19 7
97
-9
19 8
98
-9
19 9
99
-0
20 0
00
-0
20 1
01
-0
2
0
Spanish
Other Languages
Table 4-3: One-Year Change in Enrollment, by Major Language Group
Language
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Spanish
Russian
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Korean
Somali
Tagalog
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Punjabi
Arabic
Bosnian
Japanese
Chinese-Mandarin
School Year
2001–02
2000–01
44,018
7,028
3,542
2,751
1,878
1,097
1,054
1,004
831
712
496
456
442
425
Change from
2000–01
43,656
5,233
3,442
2,953
1,858
1,134
1,030
1,152
821
720
462
525
423
434
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
0.8%
34.3%
2.9%
-6.8%
1.1%
-3.3%
2.3%
-12.8%
1.2%
-1.1%
7.4%
-13.1%
4.5%
-2.1%
25
Section 4  Languages Spoken
Table 4-4: Six-Year Change in Enrollment, by Major Language Group
Language
1996–97
Spanish
32,367
Russian
3,907
Ukrainian
1,645
Vietnamese
3,792
Korean
1,563
Somali
533
Tagalog
881
Cambodian
1,724
All languages 54,124
1997–98
34,099
4,089
1,961
3,585
1,514
650
910
1,685
56,939
1998–99
37,349
5,049
2,598
3,478
1,610
657
838
1,697
62,132
1999–00
40,662
5,480
2,895
3,201
1,804
892
1,047
1,444
66,281
2000–01 2001–02
43,656
44,018
5,233
7,028
3,442
3,542
2,953
2,751
1,858
1,878
1,134
1,097
1,030
1,054
1,152
1,004
70,431
72,215
Pct. Change
1997–2002
36.0%
79.9%
115.3%
-27.5%
20.1%
105.8%
19.6%
-41.8%
33.4%
Figure 4-2: Six-Year Growth of LEP Students, by Major Language Group
6-year growth in LEP population
120%
115.3%
105.8%
100%
79.9%
80%
60%
36.0%
33.4%
40%
20.1%
19.6%
20%
0%
All
students
-20%
Spanish
Russian
Ukrainian Vietnamese
Korean
Somali
Tagalog
Cambodian
-27.5%
-40%
-41.8%
-60%
Figure 4-3: Number Speaking Some Languages Increased While Others Declined
Number of LEP Students
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Russian
Ukrainian
1997-98
Vietnamese
1998-99
Korean
1999-00
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Somali
Tagalog
2000-01
Cambodian
2001-02
26
Section 4  Languages Spoken
WIDE DISPARITY IN THE NUMBER OF
LANGUAGES AMONG DISTRICTS
Some districts provide instruction to LEP students speaking many different
languages. In school year 2001-02, 25 districts served students in 20 or more
languages (see Table 4-5). Nearly all of the 25 districts are located in western
Washington along the I-5/I-405 corridor. Kent, Seattle, and Edmonds served the
most languages.
In contrast, some districts had all or nearly all of their LEP students speaking
Spanish. In 51 districts where at least 20 LEP students were served, more than 95
percent of those students spoke Spanish (see Table 4-6). Forty-three districts
served LEP students who spoke only one primary language (usually Spanish).
Figure 4-4 shows how the number of languages served varied in school year
2001–02. Appendix B provides more information on the number of languages
spoken in the districts and the number of students speaking the languages.
Table 4-5: Districts Serving More Than 20 Languages (School Year 2001–02)
District
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Kent
Seattle
Edmonds
Highline
Bellevue
Lake Washington
Federal Way
Shoreline
Renton
Tukwila
Everett
Vancouver
Tacoma
Clover Park
Northshore
Evergreen (Clark)
Mukilteo
Auburn
Spokane
Issaquah
Bellingham
Marysville
Kennewick
Richland
North Thurston
Number of
Languages
Total LEP
Enrollment
77
65
63
57
54
54
52
51
47
41
38
37
36
35
34
34
34
31
31
28
25
23
21
21
20
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
3,281
5,792
1,572
2,068
1,835
1,208
2,155
660
1,279
672
1,157
2,225
2,242
908
575
1,419
1,304
932
1,013
251
459
311
1,448
322
216
LEP Enrollment to
Languages Ratio
42.6
89.1
25.0
36.3
34.0
22.4
41.4
12.9
27.2
16.4
30.4
60.1
62.3
25.9
16.9
41.7
38.4
30.1
32.7
9.0
18.4
13.5
69.0
15.3
10.8
27
Section 4  Languages Spoken
Table 4-6: Districts With at Least 95 Percent LEP Students Speaking Spanish1
(School Year 2001–02)
District
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Yakima
Pasco
Wenatchee
Wapato
Wahluke
Othello
Quincy
Walla Walla
North Franklin
Royal
Prosser
Grandview
Brewster
Bridgeport
Warden
Granger
Manson
Lake Chelan
White Salmon Valley
Mabton
College Place
Highland
Cascade
Selah
Okanogan
Cashmere
Oroville
Kiona-Benton City
East Valley (Yakima)
Shelton
Prescott
Mount Adams
Orondo
Tonasket
Zillah
Stanwood
Ocean Beach
Omak
Woodland
Winlock
Union gap
Finley
Total LEP
Students
Total
Spanish-Speaking
LEP Students
4,566
4,205
1,477
1,042
1,033
979
749
641
636
593
589
551
482
360
353
335
293
275
252
235
203
193
174
172
158
154
140
138
127
125
116
103
90
86
86
64
62
61
60
60
60
57
4,522
4,056
1,447
1,019
1,033
936
748
611
631
592
587
549
482
360
352
335
293
273
249
235
200
193
171
167
158
154
139
135
127
124
116
103
90
86
86
61
60
59
58
58
60
57
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Percent
Spanish
99.0%
96.5%
98.0%
97.8%
100.0%
95.6%
99.9%
95.3%
99.2%
99.8%
99.7%
99.6%
100.0%
100.0%
99.7%
100.0%
100.0%
99.3%
98.8%
100.0%
98.5%
100.0%
98.3%
97.1%
100.0%
100.0%
99.3%
97.8%
100.0%
99.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
95.3%
96.8%
96.7%
96.7%
96.7%
100.0%
100.0%
28
Section 4  Languages Spoken
Total LEP
Students
District
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Dayton
Kittitas
Entiat
Palisades
Touchet
Lind
Paterson
Pateros
La Conner
Total
1
Total
Spanish-Speaking
LEP Students
Percent
Spanish
49
49
45
43
42
38
36
34
31
49
49
45
43
42
38
36
34
31
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
22,502
22,139
98.4%
Only districts serving at least 20 LEP students are listed. A total of 14 districts
serving fewer than 20 LEP students had only Spanish-speaking students in the
program.
Figure 4-4: Number of Languages Served By Districts
60
54
Number of Districts
50
43
40
32
33
30
25
20
10
0
1
2–4
5–9
10–19
20 or more
Number of Languages Served
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
29
LENGTH OF STAY
SECTION 5
The state program is intended to provide temporary support services for up to
three years until LEP students can develop adequate English language skills.
While most students have been in the program no more than two years, 28 percent
had been in the program for more than three years, and about 10 percent had
been in the program for more than five years. In addition, fewer students exited
the program and more were retained in grade than in previous years.
The purpose of the program is to provide temporary services for up to three years
until LEP students can develop adequate English language skills. Thus,
instruction is provided in a “transitional” program. As discussed in Section 1,
students are eligible to enter the program if they score below a certain level on an
oral language proficiency test. Each year districts reassess their LEP students to
determine if they can continue in the program. Eligibility ends when a student
scores at Level IV on the Reading portion and Level III on the Writing portion of
the Washington Language Proficiency Test (WLPT). Students who meet the
reading WASL standard and score at a level slightly below meeting standard on
the writing WASL (7 of 12 points in grades 4 and 7 and 13 of 24 points in grade
10), as well as students who reach the 35th percentile on a nationally normed test
of reading and language arts, must also exit the program. Districts must have
empirical evidence to keep a student in the program for more than three years.
Concerns have been raised about the length of time students spend in the program.
Each LEP student generates extra funding for the district, and the number of
students in the program continues to grow at a faster pace than the overall student
population. The growth in the program can be a result of several factors, as
discussed in Section 3. However, many students stay in the program for more than
the three years, which contributes to the growing number of students served.
LEP students leave the program in several ways. They can be transitioned out of
the program by meeting the exit performance criteria. A student meeting the exit
criteria is expected to perform adequately in a regular, all-English classroom. A
student can also leave the program by either graduating or dropping out of school.
Finally, some students leave for other reasons.
Approximately 20 percent of the LEP students served during school year 2001–02
left the program. About nine percent (6,705) were either transitioned out of or
graduated from the program. (Appendix D lists this information for each district.)
Another 11 percent (7,647) dropped out or left for other reasons.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
30
Section 5  Length of Stay
Of the students that continued to be served, two trends are worth noting. First, the
number of retained students stayed about the same after a sharp increase in
2000-01. Second, a higher percentage of students continued in the program
compared to 1997–1998 (from 75.7% to 80.1%).
The tables below provide more information about the number of LEP students
leaving and remaining in the program.
Table 5-1: Status of Students Served in the Last Five Years
1997–98
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
2001–02
Percent
of Total
13,824
13,898
16,474
15,844
14,352
19.9%
1,080
5,007
1,297
6,440
1,117
5,095
1,079
6,607
1,221
5,398
1,365
8,490
1,236
6,022
464
8,122
1,296
5,409
426
7,221
1.8%
7.5%
0.6%
10.0%
43,115
48,234
49,807
54,587
57,863
80.1%
41,678
1,437
46,674
1,560
47,959
1,848
50,306
4,281
53,614
4,249
74.2%
5.9%
56,939
62,132
66,281
70,431
72,215
Exited program
Graduated
Transitioned
Dropped out
Unknown/other reasons
Continuing in program
Promoted
Retained
Total LEP students served
Table 5-2: Number and Percent of Students Transitioned or Graduated from
the Program by Time in Program (School Year 2001–02)
Time in Program
Less than 1 year
1–2 years
2–3 years
3–4 years
4–5 years
More than 5 years
Total
1
Total
Number
Served
Number of LEP
Students Transitioned
or Graduated1
Percent of Total
Number Served
23,785
16,221
11,969
7,633
5,006
7,601
72,215
1,089
1,443
1,440
1,080
779
874
6,705
4.6%
8.9%
12.0%
14.1%
15.6%
11.5%
9.3%
Does not include others who exited the program through other means.
The program is intended to provide temporary services for up to three years until
LEP students can develop adequate English language skills. In school year
2001-02, the majority (55.4%) had been in the program two years or less.
However, 28 percent of the LEP students had been in the program for more than
three years (see Appendix D for district-level information). This percentage is
slightly more than in the previous year. Nearly 11 percent had been served for
more than five years.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
31
Section 5  Length of Stay
Table 5-3 and Figure 5-1 show the proportions served by length of time in the
program in school year 2001–02. Tables 5-4 and 5-5 provide information on the
length of stay over the past five years.
Table 5-3: Number and Percent of Students Served in the Program
by Time in Program (School Year 2001–02)
Time in Program
Less than 1 year
1–2 years
2–3 years
3–4 years
4–5 years
More than 5 years
Total
Number
Served
23,785
16,221
11,969
7,633
5,006
7,601
72,215
Percent in
Program
32.9%
22.5%
16.6%
10.6%
6.9%
10.5%
100.0%
Figure 5-1: Number of LEP Students Served in the Program
by Time in Program (School Year 2001–02)
Number of LEP Students
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Less than 1
year
1–2 years
2–3 years
3–4 years
4–5 years
More than 5
years
Number of Years in Program
Table 5-4: Trend in the Number of Students Served in the Program
Time in
Program
< 1 year
1–2 years
2–3 years
3–4 years
4–5 years
> 5 years
Total
1997–98
19,228
13,589
9,190
6,240
3,417
5,275
56,939
1998–99
21,862
13,869
9,331
6,386
4,246
6,438
62,132
1999–00
22,359
15,805
9,640
6,904
4,646
6,927
66,281
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
2000–01
23,523
16,271
11,539
6,861
4,887
7,350
70,431
2001–02
23,785
16,221
11,969
7,633
5,006
7,601
72,215
32
Section 5  Length of Stay
Table 5-5: Trends in Percentage of Students Served More Than Three Years
Enrolled more than 3 years
Enrolled 3-4 years
Enrolled 4-5 years
Enrolled > 5 years
1997–98 1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02
26.2%
27.5%
27.9%
27.0%
28.0%
11.0%
6.0%
9.3%
10.3%
6.8%
10.4%
10.4%
7.0%
10.5%
9.7%
6.9%
10.4%
10.6%
6.9%
10.5%
Research has found that achievement of “academic” English, the kind needed to
participate in unaided instruction, takes from 5 to 7 years. While experts may
disagree about the best method to use for teaching LEP students, nearly all experts
agree that process of learning academic English normally exceeds three years.
According to a comprehensive study that tracked the academic achievement of
LEP students over time based on the type of program they were in, it takes a
minimum of 4 years of instruction in a student’s second language in order to reach
grade-level performance levels in assessments using that language.19 The length
of time needed depends on several factors, including the level of achievement
prior to exposure to the new language and the type of program used to provide the
instruction. Section 6 has more information about test results for LEP students in
Washington.
19
See A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students' Long-Term
Academic Achievement, Wayne P. Thomas and Virginia P. Collier, George Mason University,
for the Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, 2002.
http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
33
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
AND WASL TEST RESULTS
SECTION 6
The state tests used to measure English language proficiency were first
administered in 2002 and are designed to measure proficiency in reading and
writing. Initial results of these tests reveal that reading proficiency is much lower
than writing proficiency in the early grades but not in the middle and high school
grades. The vast majority of the students in Grades 9–12 are in the two lowest
levels (Levels I and II) and represent a sizable proportion of students in those
grades. Due to changes in federal law, thousands of students who have very
limited or no English proficiency must now take the WASL. Students in the
program meet the WASL standard far less frequently than their English-speaking
peers.
The Washington Language Proficiency Test (WLPT), the assessment tool used to
measure English language proficiency, was first given to students in the state
bilingual program in the March 2002. Specifically, the test is designed to assess
English language reading and writing skills among students who qualify for the
state program.20 The test allows all students, no matter their level of English
proficiency, to complete successfully some items while still challenging those
students who have acquired a greater level of proficiency. The test allows students
at the beginning levels to go as far as they are able without forcing them to
attempt and fail items clearly outside their capacity to perform.
All LEP students take the WLPT, which assesses reading and writing and are
given statewide in March. These tests have scores categorized in one of four
levels of language proficiency. Level I indicates minimal or no English language
proficiency, while Level IV indicates a level of English language proficiency
sufficient to benefit from a mainstream, English-only instructional program. The
time required to administer the writing tests ranges from 25 minutes (K-2) to 60
minutes (grades 3-12). The reading tests take 35-40 minutes, regardless of a
student’s grade level.
Eligibility for program participation ends when a student scores at Level IV on
the Reading portion and at Level III on the Writing portion of the WLPT.
Students who meet the reading WASL standard and score at a level slightly below
meeting standard on the writing WASL (7 of 12 points in grades 4 and 7 and 13
Districts must also assess LEP students’ listening and speaking skills but can choose the
assessment instrument used for this purpose
20
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
34
Section 6  Language Proficiency and WASL Test Results
of 24 points in grade 10), as well as students who reach the 35th percentile on a
nationally normed test of reading and language arts, must also exit the program.
The tables and figures on the following pages show the results of the reading and
writing WLPT that were first given in the spring of 2002. The following trends
are worth noting.21



In both subjects, the largest number and percentage of students who are at exit
level (Level IV) are in Grade 2.
The level of reading proficiency is much lower than writing proficiency in the
early grades, but the large difference between the two subjects does not occur
beginning in the middle grades.
The vast majority of the students in Grades 9–12 are in the two lowest levels
(Levels I and II), and represent a sizable number of students in those grades.
Beginning in 2003, all these students are expected to take the WASL due to
requirements in the federal No Child Left Behind legislation. Thus, several
thousand students in the tested grades (4,7, and 10) will take the reading and
writing WASL in spring 2003 despite the fact that they may not be able to
understand the reading texts or test questions or have the ability to respond in
English. Previously, LEP students were exempt from taking the WASL in their
first year of enrollment. Test results for these students should not be considered
valid, although the federal No Child Left Behind law will count the results when
determining if schools and districts make adequate yearly progress.
Far fewer LEP students meet the standard on the WASL than students who are
fluent in English, regardless of the grade or subject. Table 6-3 shows how LEP
students and all students performed on the WASL. These results reflect the
exclusion of LEP students who were not tested in their first year of enrollment.
When all LEP students take the WASL in 2003, fewer LEP students are likely to
meet standard. OSPI’s Web site provides more information on WASL results
statewide and for each district and school whenever there are at least 10 students
in the tested grade and subject (see http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/).
21
The total number of students taking the WLPT is different from the number of LEP students in
the program because LEP students in grades K–1 were not assessed due to funding limitations.
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
35
Section 6  Language Proficiency and WASL Test Results
Table 6-1: WLPT English Reading Results, by Grade and Proficiency Level
Grade
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
No
English
1,942
3,326
2,290
1,815
1,529
1,391
1,417
2,257
1,926
1,643
1,136
20,672
READING LEVEL
Very Intermediate/
Limited
Advanced
2,621
1,653
1,837
831
1,487
1,049
1,393
900
1,324
764
1,111
641
974
524
1,066
272
860
167
641
77
397
47
13,711
6,925
Exit
Level
1,253
608
606
633
291
292
152
42
27
11
4
3,919
No Test
Given
18
29
30
18
35
35
32
41
47
24
35
344
Total
7,487
6,631
5,462
4,759
3,943
3,470
3,099
3,678
3,027
2,396
1,619
45,571
Figure 6-1: WLPT English Reading Results, by Grade and Proficiency Level
12
11
10
Grade
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Number of Students
No English
Very limited
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Intermed/Adv
Exit level
36
Section 6  Language Proficiency and WASL Test Results
Table 6-2: WLPT English Writing Results, by Grade and Proficiency Level
WRITING LEVEL
Grade
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
Level I
900
610
389
416
975
1,247
1,318
2,366
2,113
1,916
1,368
13,618
Level II
479
602
740
831
1,071
928
905
889
557
255
127
7,384
Level III
3,243
3,507
2,956
2,786
1,555
1,005
611
305
304
192
87
16,551
No Test
Given
10
14
19
12
20
22
13
24
30
15
19
198
Level IV
2,855
1,898
1,358
714
322
268
252
94
23
18
18
7,820
Total
7,487
6,631
5,462
4,759
3,943
3,470
3,099
3,678
3,027
2,396
1,619
45,571
Figure 6-2: WLPT English Writing Results, by Grade and Proficiency Level
12
11
10
Grade
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Number of Students
Level I
Level II
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Level III
Level IV
37
Section 6  Language Proficiency and WASL Test Results
Table 6-3: WASL Trends for LEP and All Students
School Year
GRADE 4
LEP Students
Math
Reading
Writing
Listening
All Students
Math
Reading
Writing
Listening
GRADE 7
LEP Students
Math
Reading
Writing
Listening
All Students
Math
Reading
Writing
Listening
GRADE 10
LEP Students
Math
Reading
Writing
Listening
All Students
Math
Reading
Writing
Listening
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
8.1%
14.8%
10.0%
33.5%
10.9%
20.9%
10.5%
30.0%
11.6%
24.0%
15.4%
36.5%
18.2%
24.8%
19.4%
35.4%
37.3%
59.1%
32.6%
71.2%
41.8%
65.8%
39.4%
65.3%
43.4%
66.1%
43.3%
72.4%
51.8%
65.6%
49.5%
66.6%
3.7%
5.0%
8.4%
61.3%
4.1%
5.4%
9.5%
36.7%
3.8%
3.8%
10.9%
44.7%
6.8%
6.7%
16.0%
48.7%
24.2%
40.8%
37.1%
87.2%
28.2%
41.5%
42.6%
79.6%
27.4%
39.8%
48.5%
82.5%
30.4%
44.5%
53.0%
83.6%
7.8%
6.8%
7.3%
23.8%
7.3%
12.2%
3.1%
34.0%
12.0%
17.8%
7.6%
48.1%
8.7%
13.0%
9.1%
44.1%
33.0%
51.4%
41.1%
72.7%
35.0%
59.8%
31.7%
77.8%
38.9%
62.4%
46.9%
84.0%
37.3%
59.2%
54.3%
81.8%
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
38
APPENDIX A
LANGUAGES SPOKEN
Table A-1: Languages Spoken by LEP Students, by Language
Students
5
39
3
5
70
277
496
18
1
2
2
8
3
456
1
102
18
16
26
1,004
4
27
2
26
45
4
1
1
191
831
7
425
84
4
11
1
14
10
19
13
6
18
1
15
1
1
10
19
224
32
7
76
Language
Acholi
Afrikaans
Aguacateco
Akan
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Athabascan
Azerbaijani
Bemba
Bengali
Bisaya
Bosnian
Bukusu
Bulgarian
Burmese
Byelorussian
Cakchiquel
Cambodian
Carolinina
Cebuano
Chagatai
Cham
Chamorro
Chao
Chechen
Chewa
Chinese - Unspecified
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Fukienese
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese-Taiwanese
Chuckese
Chuuk
Columbia River Sahaptin
Creole
Croation
Czech
Danish
Dari
Dinka
Dire
Dutch
Egyptian-Arabic
Eritai
Estonian
Ethiopic
Farsi
Fijian
Finnish
French
Students
4
1
4
78
1
14
1
3
14
19
1
6
42
1
1
172
1
237
7
10
8
2
2
146
80
2
25
3
442
3
4
4
32
7
2
2
8
129
1,878
2
9
3
118
374
3
2
3
10
1
2
189
3
Language
Fula
Ga
Georgian
German
Golo
Greek, Modern
Gua
Guarani
Gujarati
Haitian Creole
Hausa
Hawaiian
Hebrew, Modern
Herero
Hiligaynon
Hindi
Hindi-Urdu
Hmong
Hoh
Hungarian
Ibo
Icelandic (Old)
Igbo
Ilokano
Indonesian
Irula
Italian
Jamaican
Japanese
Kakwa
Kanjobal
Kazakh
Khmer
Kikuyu
Kinyarwanda
Kirgiz
Kmhmu
Kongo
Korean
Kosraean
Krio
Kru
Kurdish
Lao
Latvian
Liberian
Lingala
Lithuanian
Luganda
Macedonian
Makah
Malay
Students
3
14
6
2
4
1
87
125
148
8
122
2
2
3
3
3
12
6
1
2
167
7
3
36
1
4
27
21
6
1
43
108
4
712
1
1
30
37
4
337
7,028
370
390
1
110
1
1
4
3
1
25
1,097
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Language
Malayalam
Manchu
Mandingo
Mano
Marathi
Marquesan
Marshallese
Mien
Mixteco
Mlabri
Moldavian
Mongolian
Muckleshoot
Navajo
Nepali
Nigerian
Norwegian
Nuer
Nyanja
Oriya
Oromo
Palau
Papago
Pashto
Pele-Ata
Pere
Persian
Philippine
Pilipino
Pima
Polish
Portuguese
Pulau
Punjabi
Puyallup
Quechua
Quileute
Quinault
Romansch
Rumanian
Russian
Sahaptian
Samoan
Sanskrit
Serbo-Croatian
Shona
Sindhi
Sinhalese
Slovak
Slovenian
Sogdian
Somali
Students
1
44,018
1
34
2
12
43
12
1,054
7
11
1
18
149
19
253
82
39
5
6
23
6
3,542
141
2
1
2,751
5
4
2
11
2
1
2
23
Language
Soninke
Spanish
Squaxine
Sudanese-Arabic
Suri
Susu
Swahili
Swedish
Tagalog
Taishan
Tamil
Tarasco
Telugu
Thai
Tibetan
Tigrinya
Toishanese
Tongan
Triqui
Trukese
Turkish
Twi
Ukrainian
Urdu
Urian
Uzbek
Vietnamese
Wolof
Yakima
Yao
Yap
Yis
Yoruba
Zapoteco
Unknown
72,215 students
190 languages
39
Appendix A  Languages Spoken
Table A-2: Languages Spoken by LEP Students, by Number of Students
Students
44,018
7,028
3,542
2,751
1,878
1,097
1,054
1,004
831
712
496
456
442
425
390
374
370
337
277
253
237
224
191
189
172
167
149
148
146
141
129
125
122
118
110
108
102
87
84
82
80
78
76
70
45
43
43
42
39
39
37
36
Language
Spanish
Russian
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Korean
Somali
Tagalog
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Punjabi
Arabic
Bosnian
Japanese
Chinese-Mandarin
Samoan
Lao
Sahaptian
Rumanian
Amharic
Tigrinya
Hmong
Farsi
Chinese - Unspecified
Makah
Hindi
Oromo
Thai
Mixteco
Ilokano
Urdu
Kongo
Mien
Moldavian
Kurdish
Serbo-Croatian
Portuguese
Bulgarian
Marshallese
Chinese-Taiwanese
Toishanese
Indonesian
German
French
Albanian
Chamorro
Polish
Swahili
Hebrew, Modern
Afrikaans
Tongan
Quinault
Pashto
Students
34
32
32
30
27
27
26
26
25
25
23
23
21
19
19
19
19
18
18
18
18
16
15
14
14
14
14
13
12
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
Language
Sudanese-Arabic
Fijian
Khmer
Quileute
Cebuano
Persian
Cakchiquel
Cham
Italian
Sogdian
Turkish
Unknown
Philippine
Czech
Ethiopic
Haitian Creole
Tibetan
Armenian
Burmese
Dinka
Telugu
Byelorussian
Dutch
Creole
Greek, Modern
Gujarati
Manchu
Danish
Norwegian
Susu
Swedish
Chuuk
Tamil
Yap
Croation
Estonian
Hungarian
Lithuanian
Krio
Bengali
Ibo
Kmhmu
Mlabri
Chinese-Fukienese
Finnish
Hoh
Kikuyu
Palau
Taishan
Dari
Hawaiian
Mandingo
Students
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Language
Nuer
Pilipino
Trukese
Twi
Acholi
Akan
Triqui
Wolof
Carolinina
Chao
Chuckese
Fula
Georgian
Kanjobal
Kazakh
Marathi
Pere
Pulau
Romansch
Sinhalese
Yakima
Aguacateco
Bisaya
Guarani
Jamaican
Kakwa
Kru
Latvian
Lingala
Malay
Malayalam
Navajo
Nepali
Nigerian
Papago
Slovak
Azerbaijani
Bemba
Chagatai
Icelandic (Old)
Igbo
Irula
Kinyarwanda
Kirgiz
Kosraean
Liberian
Macedonian
Mano
Mongolian
Muckleshoot
Oriya
Suri
Students
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Language
Urian
Yao
Yis
Zapoteco
Athabascan
Bukusu
Chechen
Chewa
Columbia River Sahaptin
Dire
Egyptian-Arabic
Eritai
Ga
Golo
Gua
Hausa
Herero
Hiligaynon
Hindi-Urdu
Luganda
Marquesan
Nyanja
Pele-Ata
Pima
Puyallup
Quechua
Sanskrit
Shona
Sindhi
Slovenian
Soninke
Squaxine
Tarasco
Uzbek
Yoruba
72,215 students
190 languages
40
APPENDIX B
DISTRICT LANGUAGE TOTALS
District
Languages
Served
Aberdeen
District Total (9)
Cambodian
Cebuano
Chinese - Unspecified
Khmer
Korean
Spanish
Tagalog
Urdu
Yoruba
Anacortes
District Total (6)
Chinese-Cantonese
Korean
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Vietnamese
31
4
2
1
19
4
1
Arlington
District Total (8)
Chinese-Cantonese
Pulau
Russian
Spanish
Suri
Tagalog
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
112
1
1
8
88
2
2
9
1
Asotin-Anatone
Auburn
200
11
1
1
1
4
177
3
1
1
District Total (3)
Hungarian
Norwegian
Romansch
District Total (31)
Amharic
Arabic
Burmese
Byelorussian
Cambodian
Chinese - Unspecified
Auburn (cont.)
Bainbridge Island
4
1
2
1
932
2
8
4
1
12
5
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Battle Ground
Chinese-Mandarin
Dinka
French
German
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Indonesian
Khmer
Korean
Kurdish
Lao
Latvian
Marshallese
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
Somali
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
3
2
2
2
7
3
1
1
2
13
1
18
1
27
1
20
2
115
3
6
399
25
10
214
22
District Total (10)
Arabic
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese-Taiwanese
Ilokano
Japanese
Korean
Polish
Russian
Spanish
Thai
20
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
6
1
District Total (16)
Bosnian
Cambodian
Chinese - Unspecified
Finnish
41
260
2
4
2
1
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Battle Ground
(contd.)
Bellevue
Hmong
Japanese
Lao
Lithuanian
Moldavian
Norwegian
Rumanian
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
District Total (54)
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Bengali
Bosnian
Bulgarian
Burmese
Cambodian
Chao
Chewa
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese-Taiwanese
Croation
Danish
Dutch
Estonian
Ethiopic
Farsi
French
Georgian
German
Hebrew, Modern
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Indonesian
Italian
Japanese
Kanjobal
Korean
Kurdish
Lao
Norwegian
Polish
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
Sinhalese
Somali
2
1
1
2
1
1
16
95
56
3
64
9
Bellevue (contd.)
1,835
6
23
7
1
31
20
4
19
4
1
68
67
20
1
2
3
2
3
38
11
1
9
18
7
23
2
3
6
122
1
123
1
22
1
1
14
5
49
97
2
1
2
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Spanish
Swahili
Tagalog
Tamil
Telugu
Thai
Tigrinya
Turkish
Ukrainian
Unknown
Urdu
Vietnamese
816
13
13
3
10
9
3
5
11
1
23
87
Bellingham
District Total (25)
Arabic
Cambodian
Cebuano
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Farsi
French
German
Greek, Modern
Hindi
Japanese
Khmer
Korean
Pashto
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Spanish
Swahili
Tagalog
Tamil
Thai
Ukrainian
Urdu
Vietnamese
459
1
7
1
11
20
7
2
1
2
2
2
1
11
5
38
1
80
187
1
1
1
3
39
3
32
Bethel
District Total (15)
Albanian
Bulgarian
Cambodian
German
Italian
Korean
Lingala
Moldavian
Russian
Samoan
Spanish
Swahili
Tagalog
Ukrainian
Urdu
168
3
2
6
3
1
13
2
20
26
7
65
1
8
9
2
42
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Blaine
Bremerton
District Total (10)
Cebuano
Chinese-Mandarin
Hindi
Kanjobal
Korean
Punjabi
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
Urdu
District Total (14)
Cambodian
Chinese - Unspecified
Creole
Gua
Indonesian
Irula
Korean
Kurdish
Samoan
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Vietnamese
Yis
114
2
3
4
1
1
6
56
32
6
3
50
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
12
15
1
8
2
Brewster
District Total (1)
Spanish
482
482
Bridgeport
District Total (1)
Spanish
360
360
District Total (12)
Chinese-Cantonese
Dinka
German
Japanese
Mixteco
Punjabi
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Triqui
Vietnamese
Zapoteco
449
2
2
1
1
17
1
1
414
1
5
2
2
District Total (12)
Amharic
Arabic
Chinese-Mandarin
Dutch
Japanese
Lithuanian
Russian
65
1
1
3
2
1
1
27
Burlington-Edison
Camas
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Camas (contd.)
Somali
Spanish
Ukrainian
Urdu
Vietnamese
2
13
8
3
3
Cape Flattery
District Total (1)
Makah
185
185
Cascade
District Total (3)
Czech
Russian
Spanish
174
2
1
171
Cashmere
District Total (1)
Spanish
154
154
Central Kitsap
District Total (18)
Arabic
Chamorro
Chinese-Taiwanese
German
Gujarati
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Kurdish
Navajo
Russian
Samoan
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Vietnamese
Yap
256
2
10
10
1
1
1
1
17
5
6
1
1
8
46
140
2
3
1
Central Valley
District Total (14)
Albanian
Arabic
Bosnian
Bulgarian
Farsi
Japanese
Korean
Lithuanian
Polish
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
Urdu
Vietnamese
130
3
4
3
1
1
1
4
1
1
68
23
12
2
6
43
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Centralia
District Total (6)
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Punjabi
Spanish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
198
1
1
1
188
6
1
Chehalis
District Total (5)
Chinese-Cantonese
Korean
Russian
Spanish
Sudanese-Arabic
80
1
4
2
65
8
District Total (6)
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese-Taiwanese
Korean
Punjabi
Russian
Spanish
16
1
2
2
1
3
7
District Total (3)
Chinese-Mandarin
Russian
Spanish
10
1
1
8
District Total (35)
Armenian
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Chamorro
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Taiwanese
Chuuk
Creole
Egyptian-Arabic
French
German
Greek, Modern
Haitian Creole
Hawaiian
Hindi
Hmong
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Kosraean
Mongolian
Philippine
Polish
Portuguese
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
908
2
2
11
14
2
1
1
5
1
2
5
2
4
2
1
1
1
4
149
2
1
1
2
2
17
19
43
Cheney
Clarkston
Clover Park
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Clover Park
(contd.)
Colfax
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Tongan
Ukrainian
Urdu
Vietnamese
Yao
530
39
1
3
8
4
24
2
District Total (1)
Chinese-Cantonese
3
3
College Place
District Total (3)
Marquesan
Russian
Spanish
203
1
2
200
Columbia
(Walla Walla)
District Total (3)
Russian
Spanish
Vietnamese
50
6
43
1
Colville
District Total (3)
Ethiopic
Russian
Ukrainian
35
1
28
6
Concrete
District Total (1)
Spanish
2
2
Conway
District Total (2)
Mixteco
Spanish
37
6
31
Coupeville
District Total (4)
Ethiopic
German
Spanish
Tagalog
21
1
1
18
1
Dayton
District Total (1)
Spanish
49
49
East Valley
(Spokane)
District Total (8)
Cebuano
Hmong
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
72
1
14
1
35
4
2
3
1
East Valley
(Yakima)
District Total (1)
Spanish
127
127
44
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Eastmont
District Total (3)
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
586
39
540
7
Eatonville
District Total (5)
Columbia River Sahaptin
Japanese
Rumanian
Spanish
Tagalog
151
1
1
4
8
1
Edmonds
District Total (63)
Akan
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Chamorro
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese-Taiwanese
Czech
Danish
Ethiopic
Farsi
Fijian
Finnish
French
Georgian
German
Greek, Modern
Gujarati
Hindi
Hindi-Urdu
Hungarian
Ilokano
Indonesian
Japanese
Korean
Kurdish
Lao
Lithuanian
Malay
Malayalam
Mandingo
Norwegian
Oromo
Persian
Pilipino
Polish
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
1,572
3
1
14
51
1
19
18
4
37
22
1
1
1
2
12
19
1
2
1
5
3
1
22
1
2
2
1
11
213
2
6
1
1
1
1
3
1
6
3
2
5
28
13
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Edmonds (contd.)
Russian
Serbo-Croatian
Sinhalese
Somali
Spanish
Sudanese-Arabic
Susu
Swahili
Tagalog
Tamil
Telugu
Thai
Tibetan
Tigrinya
Turkish
Twi
Ukrainian
Urdu
Vietnamese
Wolof
95
48
1
12
491
2
1
3
31
1
1
9
2
25
4
3
140
26
130
3
Ellensburg
District Total (7)
Cambodian
Chinese-Mandarin
Hindi
Japanese
Punjabi
Russian
Spanish
130
1
2
1
1
1
2
122
Elma
District Total (3)
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Spanish
63
7
1
40
Entiat
District Total (1)
Spanish
45
45
Enumclaw
District Total (2)
Spanish
Vietnamese
57
54
3
Ephrata
District Total (5)
German
Marathi
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
172
1
1
4
157
9
Everett
District Total (38)
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Bengali
Bosnian
Bulgarian
1,157
2
86
2
1
16
3
45
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Everett
(contd.)
Evergreen (Clark)
Cambodian
Chinese - Unspecified
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Farsi
Fijian
French
German
Greek, Modern
Hindi
Hmong
Indonesian
Japanese
Korean
Kurdish
Lao
Mano
Marshallese
Polish
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Serbo-Croatian
Spanish
Sudanese-Arabic
Swedish
Tagalog
Ukrainian
Urdu
Vietnamese
Yap
17
2
10
2
5
1
1
1
1
5
2
4
10
59
2
4
2
23
1
1
15
10
195
1
340
1
2
5
221
4
96
4
District Total (34)
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Bosnian
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Cebuano
Chinese - Unspecified
Chinese-Taiwanese
Ethiopic
Farsi
Guarani
Hindi
Hmong
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Kru
Lao
Lithuanian
Moldavian
Nepali
1,419
1
11
1
41
5
15
1
24
12
1
5
1
5
8
1
21
41
1
13
1
6
1
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Evergreen (Clark)
(contd.)
Federal Way
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
Spanish
Sudanese-Arabic
Thai
Tibetan
Ukrainian
Urdu
Vietnamese
District Total (52)
Albanian
Amharic
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Chamorro
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese-Taiwanese
Creole
Croation
Danish
Fijian
French
Gujarati
Hindi
Hmong
Ibo
Ilokano
Italian
Japanese
Kanjobal
Khmer
Kikuyu
Korean
Krio
Kurdish
Lao
Luganda
Marshallese
Oromo
Palau
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
Sinhalese
Sogdian
Spanish
Susu
1
4
34
611
6
190
9
4
1
283
2
58
2,155
1
21
1
21
2
12
9
3
1
3
1
2
2
4
12
6
1
7
1
3
1
1
3
288
2
24
6
1
6
7
1
1
6
2
52
11
388
50
1
25
695
10
46
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Federal Way (cont.)
Ferndale
Fife
Finley
Franklin Pierce
Goldendale
Tagalog
Telugu
Thai
Tigrinya
Tongan
Ukrainian
Unknown
Urdu
Vietnamese
Albanian
13
1
8
2
5
341
1
1
53
1
District Total (8)
Bisaya
Cambodian
Farsi
Polish
Punjabi
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
189
1
2
2
1
5
84
66
28
District Total (8)
Cambodian
Chinese - Unspecified
Korean
Punjabi
Spanish
Swedish
Thai
Ukrainian
108
2
1
10
5
69
1
2
18
District Total (1)
Spanish
District Total (14)
Arabic
Cambodian
Chinese - Unspecified
Fijian
German
Korean
Moldavian
Russian
Samoan
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
District Total (3)
Chinese-Cantonese
Spanish
Yakima
57
57
254
5
10
2
1
1
36
12
40
8
131
1
1
4
2
42
1
39
2
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Grandview
District Total (2)
Chinese-Cantonese
Spanish
551
2
549
Granger
District Total (1)
Spanish
335
335
Granite Falls
District Total (4)
Korean
Spanish
Tagalog
Ukrainian
9
2
2
3
2
Green Mountain
District Total (4)
Liberian
Russian
Spanish
Vietnamese
6
1
2
1
2
Highland
District Total (1)
Spanish
193
193
Highline
District Total (57)
Akan
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Bosnian
Cambodian
Cebuano
Cham
Chamorro
Chinese - Unspecified
Chinese-Mandarin
Chuuk
Croation
Czech
Dari
Farsi
French
Fula
Ga
Golo
Haitian Creole
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Ilokano
Indonesian
Japanese
Khmer
Korean
Kurdish
Lao
Marshallese
Mien
2,068
1
6
27
32
38
68
1
5
1
10
6
9
1
3
4
26
2
2
1
1
10
8
21
1
6
3
2
1
24
10
14
3
1
47
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Highline (contd.)
Oromo
Papago
Pashto
Persian
Polish
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
Somali
Soninke
Spanish
Sudanese-Arabic
Swahili
Tagalog
Tarasco
Thai
Tigrinya
Tongan
Ukrainian
Unknown
Urdu
Vietnamese
Wolof
19
2
11
3
4
43
6
34
41
209
1
1,066
2
5
35
1
12
13
4
43
1
15
148
2
Hockinson
District Total (1)
Spanish
7
7
Hoquiam
District Total (3)
Czech
Korean
Spanish
74
1
6
67
Issaquah
District Total (28)
Arabic
Cambodian
Chinese - Unspecified
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Danish
Ethiopic
Farsi
French
German
Hindi
Hmong
Japanese
Kanjobal
Korean
Marshallese
Mien
Polish
Portuguese
Rumanian
Russian
Spanish
251
1
1
9
9
26
1
1
3
3
6
3
13
16
1
35
2
1
1
3
2
3
95
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Issaquah (contd.)
Tagalog
Tamil
Telugu
Thai
Urdu
Vietnamese
4
1
1
2
3
5
Kelso
District Total (10)
Amharic
Arabic
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Lao
Russian
Somali
Spanish
Tagalog
Ukrainian
149
1
3
5
2
2
22
2
100
5
7
Kennewick
District Total (21)
Amharic
Arabic
Bosnian
Burmese
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Farsi
French
German
Indonesian
Italian
Kakwa
Korean
Kurdish
Lao
Mandingo
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Yap
1,448
2
14
75
1
5
6
17
3
2
2
1
1
3
5
3
3
55
1,206
21
21
2
Kent
District Total (77)
Acholi
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Bengali
Bisaya
Bosnian
Bulgarian
Burmese
Cambodian
Carolinina
Chamorro
3,281
5
9
4
47
1
2
1
19
4
1
51
1
3
48
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Kent (cont.)
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese-Taiwanese
Creole
Croation
Czech
Dari
Dinka
Eritai
Farsi
Fijian
French
German
Gujarati
Hiligaynon
Hindi
Hmong
Ibo
Ilokano
Indonesian
Italian
Japanese
Kakwa
Khmer
Kmhmu
Korean
Kurdish
Lao
Lithuanian
Malayalam
Mien
Navajo
Nepali
Nuer
Nyanja
Oromo
Palau
Pashto
Pele-Ata
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Pulau
Punjabi
Quechua
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
Serbo-Croatian
Slovak
Somali
Spanish
Sudanese-Arabic
Swahili
Tagalog
Taishan
44
33
1
1
3
5
1
2
1
23
2
7
6
1
1
31
8
6
4
3
2
20
2
9
2
94
38
29
2
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
2
1
298
1
34
291
18
1
2
202
856
2
4
64
2
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Kent (cont.)
Thai
Tigrinya
Tongan
Turkish
Ukrainian
Unknown
Urdu
Vietnamese
1
4
3
3
712
1
4
213
Kiona-Benton City
District Total (3)
Russian
Spanish
Vietnamese
138
2
135
1
Kittitas
District Total (1)
Spanish
49
49
La Center
District Total (5)
Korean
Portuguese
Pulau
Russian
Spanish
11
1
1
1
1
7
La Conner
District Total (1)
Spanish
31
31
Lake Chelan
District Total (2)
Arabic
Spanish
275
2
273
Lake Stevens
District Total (13)
Cambodian
Chinese - Unspecified
Farsi
Japanese
Korean
Lao
Marshallese
Rumanian
Russian
Spanish
Thai
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
110
3
1
6
2
2
6
4
1
17
43
1
21
3
Lake Washington
District Total (54)
Afrikaans
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Bemba
Bengali
Bosnian
Bulgarian
1,208
2
1
1
19
1
2
1
4
4
49
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Lake Washington
(contd.)
Burmese
Cambodian
Chinese - Unspecified
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese-Taiwanese
Danish
Dutch
Farsi
Finnish
French
German
Gujarati
Hawaiian
Hebrew, Modern
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Indonesian
Italian
Japanese
Khmer
Korean
Kurdish
Lao
Liberian
Marathi
Persian
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
Serbo-Croatian
Spanish
Swedish
Tagalog
Tamil
Telugu
Thai
Turkish
Ukrainian
Urdu
Vietnamese
Afrikaans
2
31
71
10
17
4
4
2
18
1
5
5
3
1
13
8
47
1
11
2
68
1
45
2
19
1
1
5
36
6
20
69
1
1
529
4
15
4
2
9
2
19
3
41
2
Lakewood
District Total (4)
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Vietnamese
30
10
16
3
1
Lind
District Total (1)
Spanish
38
38
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Longview
District Total (16)
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Ethiopic
Finnish
Japanese
Korean
Kru
Mixteco
Rumanian
Russian
Spanish
Thai
Tongan
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
336
9
9
2
1
1
4
1
1
6
3
20
263
2
1
3
10
Lopez
District Total (2)
Ethiopic
Mixteco
3
2
1
Lyle
District Total (1)
Spanish
7
7
Lynden
District Total (8)
Albanian
Cambodian
Khmer
Korean
Punjabi
Russian
Spanish
Vietnamese
255
1
1
1
2
26
5
217
2
Mabton
District Total (1)
Spanish
235
235
Manson
District Total (1)
Spanish
293
293
District Total (23)
Arabic
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Czech
German
Haitian Creole
Japanese
Korean
Kurdish
Lao
Polish
Punjabi
Romansch
Russian
311
7
8
2
3
1
1
4
11
11
5
1
10
1
39
Marysville
50
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Marysville (cont.)
Mead
Mercer Island
Samoan
Serbo-Croatian
Spanish
Tagalog
Taishan
Thai
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Yap
1
2
130
22
5
1
25
20
1
District Total (13)
Amharic
Bulgarian
Chinese - Unspecified
Japanese
Kinyarwanda
Korean
Marshallese
Oriya
Punjabi
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
75
1
6
4
1
1
2
1
1
2
37
10
8
1
District Total (16)
Albanian
Bulgarian
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese-Taiwanese
Danish
Dutch
Farsi
German
Hebrew, Modern
Japanese
Korean
Kurdish
Norwegian
Russian
Vietnamese
80
2
1
5
14
2
1
2
1
2
8
9
27
1
1
2
2
Meridian
District Total (5)
Punjabi
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Ukrainian
141
21
36
48
1
35
Methow Valley
District Total (1)
Spanish
7
7
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Monroe
District Total (6)
Chinese - Unspecified
Rumanian
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
197
1
2
1
185
7
1
Montesano
District Total (1)
Spanish
2
2
Moses Lake
District Total (10)
Chinese-Cantonese
Japanese
Norwegian
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Ukrainian
Mossyrock
District Total (1)
Spanish
8
8
Mount Adams
District Total (1)
Spanish
103
103
Mount Baker
District Total (8)
German
Korean
Portuguese
Punjabi
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Yap
186
2
2
2
2
156
19
1
2
599
4
10
1
1
4
32
439
2
1
105
Mount Vernon
District Total (13)
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Fukienese
Farsi
Hawaiian
Japanese
Korean
Mixteco
Punjabi
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Telugu
Ukrainian
1,651
4
2
1
1
2
4
77
4
74
1,449
1
1
31
Mukilteo
District Total (34)
Amharic
1,304
1
51
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Mukilteo (contd.)
Arabic
Azerbaijani
Bosnian
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Farsi
Fijian
French
German
Hindi
Hmong
Indonesian
Italian
Japanese
Kazakh
Khmer
Kongo
Lao
Latvian
Polish
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Sinhalese
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Ukrainian
Urdu
Vietnamese
24
1
7
2
16
2
4
8
2
2
4
2
5
35
4
7
1
5
129
3
1
2
2
11
9
255
1
563
19
3
135
5
34
Naches Valley
District Total (15)
Arabic
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Guarani
Hindi
Korean
Manchu
Punjabi
Russian
Serbo-Croatian
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Urian
Vietnamese
102
9
2
6
1
1
3
7
3
3
1
57
2
1
1
5
Naselle-Grays
River Valley
District Total (1)
Spanish
7
7
Nine Mile Falls
District Total (1)
Russian
8
8
Nooksack Valley
District Total (6)
Aguacateco
Dutch
Mixteco
Punjabi
Russian
Spanish
128
3
1
6
9
2
107
North Franklin
District Total (3)
Lao
Spanish
Thai
636
3
631
2
North Kitsap
District Total (14)
Dinka
Estonian
French
Hindi
Japanese
Korean
Navajo
Russian
Slovak
Spanish
Swedish
Tagalog
Thai
Vietnamese
109
2
3
2
1
1
7
1
8
1
68
1
7
1
6
North Mason
District Total (2)
Cakchiquel
Tagolog
27
26
1
North Thurston
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
District Total (20)
Cambodian
Chamorro
Chinese - Unspecified
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Dinka
Dire
German
Japanese
Korean
Lao
Papago
Russian
Samoan
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Trukese
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
216
18
4
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
53
2
1
3
6
82
4
1
1
2
28
52
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Northshore
Oak Harbor
Ocean Beach
District Total (34)
Afrikaans
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Bosnian
Carolinina
Chagatai
Chinese - Unspecified
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese-Taiwanese
Dinka
Farsi
Fijian
Gujarati
Hebrew, Modern
Hindi
Indonesian
Japanese
Korean
Lao
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Serbo-Croatian
Somali
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Tongan
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
575
1
2
6
1
1
3
2
6
10
2
1
4
1
2
3
1
2
6
42
3
2
1
4
4
14
33
1
2
369
1
2
1
26
16
District Total (13)
Chamorro
Chinese-Cantonese
French
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Punjabi
Rumanian
Samoan
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Vietnamese
175
1
1
3
2
7
4
1
2
6
28
116
3
1
District Total (2)
Chinese-Cantonese
Spanish
62
2
60
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Ocosta
Okanogan
District Total (2)
Chinese - Unspecified
Spanish
7
1
6
District Total (1)
Spanish
158
158
Olympia
District Total (15)
Arabic
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese-Taiwanese
Japanese
Korean
Portuguese
Russian
Samoan
Spanish
Telugu
Thai
Vietnamese
150
2
1
11
1
6
5
7
15
1
5
4
35
2
2
53
Omak
District Total (3)
Chinese-Cantonese
Spanish
Ukrainian
61
1
59
1
Onalaska
District Total (2)
Russian
Spanish
17
1
16
Orcas
District Total (1)
Spanish
4
4
Orondo
District Total (1)
Spanish
90
90
Oroville
District Total (2)
Mandingo
Spanish
140
1
139
Orting
District Total (3)
Russian
Samoan
Spanish
17
7
2
8
Othello
District Total (6)
Arabic
Korean
Mixteco
Spanish
Swedish
Tongan
979
5
1
35
936
1
1
53
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Palisades
Pasco
District Total (1)
Spanish
District Total (14)
Afrikaans
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Ethiopic
Hindi
Korean
Lao
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Sudanese-Arabic
Tagalog
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
43
43
Prescott
District Total (1)
Spanish
116
116
4,205
3
2
4
1
1
2
14
1
83
4,056
2
4
21
11
Prosser
District Total (3)
Korean
Spanish
Vietnamese
589
1
587
1
Pullman
District Total (14)
Arabic
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Farsi
Herero
Japanese
Kinyarwanda
Korean
Macedonian
Nepali
Portuguese
Russian
Serbo-Croatian
Spanish
89
7
5
22
3
1
5
1
30
2
1
4
1
1
6
Puyallup
District Total (17)
Albanian
Arabic
Cambodian
Chinese-Mandarin
Haitian Creole
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
203
1
1
2
3
1
6
27
1
16
1
20
1
109
2
2
4
6
District Total (8)
Athabascan
Hoh
Makah
Muckleshoot
Puyallup
Quileute
Spanish
Squaxine
144
1
7
4
2
1
30
98
1
Pateros
District Total (1)
Spanish
34
34
Paterson
District Total (1)
Spanish
36
36
Peninsula
District Total (6)
Arabic
Chinese-Mandarin
Korean
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
26
1
2
1
11
10
1
Pomeroy
District Total (3)
German
Russian
Spanish
4
1
1
2
Port Angeles
Port Townsend
District Total (9)
Bosnian
Bukusu
Chinese - Unspecified
Hindi
Rumanian
Russian
Spanish
Trukese
Vietnamese
23
1
1
6
1
2
2
4
4
2
District Total (5)
Amharic
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Taiwanese
Russian
Spanish
18
7
1
2
1
7
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Quillayute Valley
54
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Quinault Lake
Quincy
Raymond
Renton
District Total (3)
Korean
Quinault
Spanish
77
1
37
39
District Total (2)
Chinese-Taiwanese
Spanish
749
1
748
District Total (6)
Chinese-Mandarin
Jamaican
Khmer
Lao
Russian
Spanish
72
1
2
7
22
2
38
District Total (47)
Akan
Amharic
Arabic
Bisaya
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Chamorro
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Fukienese
Chinese-Mandarin
Danish
Dari
Farsi
Fijian
Hindi
Hmong
Ilokano
Indonesian
Japanese
Kazakh
Korean
Lao
Marathi
Mien
Moldavian
Norwegian
Oromo
Palau
Pashto
Pima
Polish
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
Serbo-Croatian
Somali
1,279
1
8
2
1
4
15
1
45
1
5
1
1
3
1
15
7
2
4
2
1
21
21
2
5
2
2
5
1
2
1
1
5
19
28
123
10
3
91
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Renton (contd.)
Spanish
Swahili
Tagalog
Thai
Tigrinya
Tongan
Ukrainian
Urdu
Vietnamese
529
1
37
6
1
5
110
1
127
Republic
District Total (1)
Spanish
2
2
Richland
District Total (21)
Albanian
Arabic
Bosnian
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Farsi
French
Gujarati
Japanese
Korean
Lao
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Serbo-Croatian
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
322
12
14
12
3
8
4
3
2
2
11
6
1
1
2
23
7
70
5
1
117
18
Ridgefield
District Total (3)
Russian
Spanish
Vietnamese
17
1
13
3
Riverview
District Total (7)
Dinka
Dutch
German
Hmong
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
65
1
2
1
8
2
50
1
Rochester
District Total (4)
Amharic
Korean
Spanish
Thai
68
4
1
62
1
55
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Roosevelt
District Total (1)
Spanish
16
16
Royal
District Total (2)
Punjabi
Spanish
593
1
592
Seattle
District Total (65)
Afrikaans
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Bengali
Bulgarian
Burmese
Cambodian
Cebuano
Cham
Chamorro
Chinese - Unspecified
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Fukienese
Chinese-Mandarin
Chinese-Taiwanese
Creole
Farsi
Fijian
Finnish
French
German
Greek, Modern
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Ibo
Icelandic (Old)
Ilokano
Indonesian
Italian
Japanese
Kikuyu
Kmhmu
Korean
Lao
Malay
Mien
Mongolian
Oriya
Oromo
Palau
Pashto
Philippine
Polish
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
5,792
28
7
158
28
3
6
4
297
16
21
1
21
443
1
89
6
5
13
1
1
15
4
5
10
22
1
1
1
101
8
1
40
4
6
41
114
2
115
1
1
132
2
9
20
1
7
9
6
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Seattle (contd.)
Russian
Samoan
Serbo-Croatian
Somali
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Tagalog
Thai
Tibetan
Tigrinya
Toishanese
Tongan
Turkish
Unknown
Urdu
Vietnamese
Sedro Woolley
District Total (13)
Amharic
Arabic
Bosnian
Chinese - Unspecified
Korean
Marshallese
Russian
Somali
Spanish
Tagalog
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Yap
154
2
1
6
2
1
2
19
1
113
2
3
1
1
Selah
District Total (3)
Chinese - Unspecified
Russian
Spanish
172
3
2
167
Sequim
District Total (3)
Chinese - Unspecified
Spanish
Vietnamese
46
5
37
4
Shelton
District Total (2)
Russian
Spanish
125
1
124
District Total (51)
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Bosnian
Bulgarian
Burmese
Cambodian
Cebuano
660
4
12
23
6
1
2
7
4
Shoreline
44
67
11
501
1,730
9
2
289
17
13
173
82
13
4
17
13
979
56
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Shoreline (contd.)
Snohomish
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Czech
Danish
Farsi
Fijian
French
German
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Igbo
Ilokano
Indonesian
Japanese
Khmer
Korean
Krio
Lao
Lingala
Mandingo
Norwegian
Nuer
Pashto
Portuguese
Punjabi
Russian
Shona
Sindhi
Somali
Spanish
Sudanese-Arabic
Susu
Tagalog
Thai
Tibetan
Tigrinya
Trukese
Turkish
Twi
Ukrainian
Urdu
Vietnamese
44
19
1
1
6
2
3
2
14
3
1
2
1
2
12
1
146
6
1
1
1
1
1
8
3
15
41
1
1
12
116
3
1
26
5
3
20
1
4
3
10
4
53
District Total (10)
Arabic
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
German
Kurdish
Russian
Spanish
Thai
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
70
1
1
1
1
5
7
50
1
2
1
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Snoqualmie Valley
District Total (5)
Danish
Lao
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
24
1
4
3
15
1
Soap Lake
District Total (3)
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
114
18
54
42
South Bend
District Total (4)
Cambodian
Korean
Lao
Spanish
78
1
1
2
74
District Total (11)
Arabic
Chamorro
Chinese - Unspecified
Ethiopic
Korean
Romansch
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
49
2
2
1
2
12
2
3
16
7
1
1
District Total (4)
Cambodian
Russian
Spanish
Thai
10
2
1
6
1
South Kitsap
South Whidbey
Spokane
District Total (31)
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Bosnian
Bulgarian
Byelorussian
Chechen
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Chuuk
Croation
Farsi
Hmong
Kazakh
Kirgiz
Korean
1,013
8
4
5
1
1
43
9
14
1
6
8
1
1
7
32
2
2
4
57
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Spokane (contd.)
Lao
Marshallese
Moldavian
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Serbo-Croatian
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Ukrainian
Uzbek
Vietnamese
3
16
14
4
4
595
26
57
3
1
100
1
40
Stanwood
District Total (3)
Russian
Spanish
Vietnamese
64
2
61
1
Steilacoom
District Total (11)
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Georgian
German
Korean
Moldavian
Russian
Samoan
Spanish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
47
1
1
1
1
13
1
2
11
8
2
6
Stevenson-Carson
District Total (2)
Dutch
Spanish
11
1
10
Sultan
District Total (7)
Byelorussian
Hindi
Jamaican
Lao
Spanish
Thai
Ukrainian
36
1
1
1
3
27
1
2
District Total (11)
Chinese-Mandarin
Farsi
Italian
Korean
Polish
Punjabi
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
120
2
2
1
3
1
2
5
98
2
1
Sumner
Vietnamese
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Sunnyside
District Total (4)
Arabic
Japanese
Russian
Tagalog
1,251
1
1
1,248
1
Tacoma
District Total (36)
Arabic
Bosnian
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Taiwanese
Croation
Czech
Farsi
French
German
Hausa
Hawaiian
Icelandic (Old)
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Kurdish
Lao
Lithuanian
Moldavian
Nigerian
Polish
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
Spanish
Sudanese-Arabic
Swahili
Tagalog
Thai
Ukrainian
Urdu
Vietnamese
2,242
8
1
5
226
2
9
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
85
6
15
2
46
3
2
5
1
15
467
82
789
2
3
10
7
213
1
222
Tahoma
District Total (10)
Cambodian
Chinese-Mandarin
Czech
Korean
Rumanian
Russian
Spanish
Swahili
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
48
1
1
1
6
1
7
16
1
9
5
3.
58
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Tenino
District Total (4)
Cambodian
Dutch
German
Spanish
38
6
2
1
29
Thorp
District Total (1)
Spanish
5
5
Toledo
District Total (1)
Spanish
2
2
Tonasket
District Total (1)
Spanish
86
86
Toppenish
District Total (4)
Chinese-Cantonese
Sahaptian
Spanish
Unknown
2,183
1
370
1,811
1
Touchet
District Total (1)
Spanish
42
42
Trout Lake
District Total (1)
Spanish
5
5
Tukwila
District Total (41)
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Bosnian
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Chinese - Unspecified
Creole
Dinka
Ethiopic
Farsi
French
Fula
German
Hindi
Ilokano
Khmer
Korean
Krio
Kurdish
Lao
Mien
Mlabri
Oromo
Palau
Pere
Polish
672
4
3
1
110
5
22
6
1
1
4
6
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
5
2
8
2
2
4
1
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Tukwila (contd.)
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
Serbo-Croatian
Somali
Spanish
Sudanese-Arabic
Tagalog
Thai
Tigrinya
Tongan
Turkish
Vietnamese
14
1
25
10
6
55
305
3
6
4
12
1
1
29
Tumwater
District Total (10)
Amharic
Cambodian
Farsi
Korean
Rumanian
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Tamil
Vietnamese
37
1
2
1
2
2
5
15
2
1
6
Union Gap
District Total (1)
Spanish
60
60
University Place
District Total (18)
Afrikaans
Arabic
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Taiwanese
Greek, Modern
Japanese
Korean
Marshallese
Moldavian
Polish
Russian
Slovenian
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
154
5
2
1
2
1
1
2
67
3
14
3
19
1
10
1
1
16
5
Vancouver
District Total (37)
Amharic
Arabic
Bosnian
2,225
2
13
39
59
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Vancouver (contd.)
Vashon Island
Wahluke
Walla Walla
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Chamorro
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Taiwanese
Chuckese
Estonian
Farsi
Finnish
French
Georgian
German
Haitian Creole
Hindi
Hmong
Japanese
Korean
Kru
Lao
Moldavian
Pilipino
Portuguese
Punjabi
Rumanian
Russian
Samoan
Spanish
Tagalog
Thai
Tongan
Ukrainian
Unknown
Urdu
Vietnamese
1
25
2
4
1
4
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
7
4
17
1
4
6
3
4
4
21
812
2
933
3
1
2
236
1
2
52
District Total (6)
Japanese
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
18
1
1
10
4
1
1
District Total (1)
Spanish
1,033
1,033
District Total (8)
Chinese-Cantonese
Chinese-Mandarin
Russian
Sanskrit
Spanish
Thai
Urdu
Vietnamese
641
5
1
16
1
611
1
2
4
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Wapato
District Total (3)
Ilokano
Spanish
Yakima
1,042
21
1,019
2
Warden
District Total (2)
Korean
Spanish
353
1
352
Washougal
District Total (2)
Russian
Spanish
36
21
15
Waterville
District Total (1)
Spanish
18
18
Wenatchee
District Total (7)
Arabic
Cambodian
Chinese - Unspecified
Russian
Spanish
Thai
Vietnamese
1,477
11
2
2
8
1,447
2
5
West Valley
(Spokane)
District Total (9)
Bosnian
Cambodian
Chinese-Mandarin
Hmong
Lao
Russian
Spanish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
55
1
1
1
4
1
17
26
1
3
West Valley
(Yakima)
District Total (2)
Korean
Spanish
77
9
68
White River
District Total (2)
Korean
Spanish
7
1
6
White Salmon
Valley
District Total (3)
Russian
Spanish
Tagalog
252
2
249
1
Winlock
District Total (2)
Estonian
Spanish
60
2
58
60
Appendix B  District Language Totals
Woodland
Yakima
District Total (3)
Latvian
Spanish
Tagalog
District Total (15)
Arabic
Cambodian
Chinese-Cantonese
Guarani
Hindi
Hmong
Korean
Manchu
Punjabi
Russian
Serbo-Croatian
Spanish
Thai
Urian
Vietnamese
60
1
58
1
4,566
9
2
6
1
1
1
3
7
3
3
1
4,522
1
1
5
Yelm
District Total (5)
Dinka
German
Pulau
Spanish
Thai
22
5
2
1
13
1
Zillah
District Total (1)
Spanish
86
86
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
61
APPENDIX C
DISTRICT PARTICIPATION RATES
The two tables in this appendix provide information for school year 2001–02 on
the percentage of LEP students in the 187 districts that have an authorized state
bilingual program. Each table provides the districts’ total enrollment (monthly
FTE average) and the students served (monthly FTE average) by the bilingual
program.
Table C-1 provides this information by district name, while table C-2 provides the
information by the district percentage of LEP students. Of the districts that had a
program, the average LEP enrollment was 6.5 percent. The totals listed are based
on the latest available data from Form P-223.
Table C-1: Enrollment Data, by District
District
Aberdeen
Anacortes
Arlington
Asotin-Anatone
Auburn
Bainbridge
Battle Ground
Bellevue
Bellingham
Bethel
Blaine
Bremerton
Brewster
Bridgeport
Burlington Edison
Camas
Cape Flattery
Cascade
Cashmere
Central Kitsap
Central Valley
Centralia
Chehalis
Cheney
Total FTE
3,968
3,081
5,034
545
13,234
4,036
11,481
15,405
10,107
16,061
2,035
6,262
982
638
3,466
4,097
523
1,456
1,455
13,124
11,009
3,257
2,730
3,423
LEP FTE
% LEP
193
25
94
4
868
18
209
1,469
383
134
90
59
442
344
356
44
149
160
128
222
113
166
74
11
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
4.9%
0.8%
1.9%
0.7%
6.6%
0.4%
1.8%
9.5%
3.8%
0.8%
4.4%
0.9%
45.0%
53.9%
10.3%
1.1%
28.6%
11.0%
8.8%
1.7%
1.0%
5.1%
2.7%
0.3%
62
Appendix C  District Participation Rates
District
Clarkston
Clover Park
Colfax
College Place
Columbia (Walla Walla)
Colville
Concrete
Conway
Coupeville
Dayton
East Valley
East Valley (Yakima)
Eastmont
Eatonville
Edmonds
Ellensburg
Elma
Entiat
Enumclaw
Ephrata
Everett
Evergreen (Clark)
Federal Way
Ferndale
Fife
Finley
Franklin Pierce
Goldendale
Grandview
Granger
Granite Falls
Green Mountain
Highland
Highline
Hockinson
Hoquiam
Issaquah
Kelso
Kennewick
Kent
Kiona Benton
Kittitas
La Conner
Lacenter
Lake Chelan
Lake Stevens
Total FTE
2,811
13,034
759
827
922
2,238
847
453
1,085
614
4,660
2,400
5,208
2,063
21,588
2,839
1,997
390
5,104
2,247
18,186
22,848
22,321
5,184
3,051
1,109
7,854
1,287
3,021
1,307
2,262
126
1,152
18,055
1,438
2,107
14,151
5,168
14,093
26,230
1,654
535
651
1,400
1,308
6,899
LEP FTE
10
739
3
170
43
30
1
15
18
20
50
143
510
10
1,282
86
54
40
47
150
956
1,153
1,837
149
95
47
200
35
483
278
8
6
164
1,740
7
56
185
107
1,227
2,859
112
39
18
10
209
76
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
% LEP
0.4%
5.7%
0.4%
20.6%
4.7%
1.4%
0.1%
3.2%
1.7%
3.2%
1.1%
5.9%
9.8%
0.5%
5.9%
3.0%
2.7%
10.1%
0.9%
6.7%
5.3%
5.0%
8.2%
2.9%
3.1%
4.2%
2.5%
2.7%
16.0%
21.3%
0.4%
4.8%
14.3%
9.6%
0.5%
2.7%
1.3%
2.1%
8.7%
10.9%
6.8%
7.2%
2.8%
0.7%
15.9%
1.1%
63
Appendix C  District Participation Rates
District
Lake Washington
Lakewood
Lind
Longview
Lopez
Lyle
Lynden
Mabton
Manson
Marysville
Mead
Mercer Island
Meridian
Methow Valley
Monroe
Montesano
Moses Lake
Mossyrock
Mount Adams
Mount Baker
Mt Vernon
Mukilteo
Naches Valley
Naselle Grays River
Nine Mile Falls
Nooksack Valley
North Franklin
North Kitsap
North Mason
North Thurston
Northshore
Oak Harbor
Ocean Beach
Ocosta
Okanogan
Olympia
Omak
Onalaska
Orcas
Orondo
Oroville
Orting
Othello
Palisades
Pasco
Pateros
Total FTE
23,536
2,401
218
7,406
267
401
2,492
802
657
11,841
8,375
4,176
1,546
678
6,043
1,342
6,459
610
1,068
2,373
5,616
14,311
1,568
328
1,596
1,828
1,891
6,941
2,376
12,733
19,983
6,227
1,204
725
986
9,121
1,981
884
563
181
784
1,803
2,979
51
9,120
299
LEP FTE
1,001
24
32
278
4
9
202
223
259
262
67
73
117
5
177
0
540
7
108
169
1,382
987
82
7
7
108
569
98
27
153
459
175
51
3
128
111
49
19
4
81
131
13
1,099
40
3,574
28
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
% LEP
4.3%
1.0%
14.6%
3.8%
1.3%
2.2%
8.1%
27.8%
39.3%
2.2%
0.8%
1.7%
7.6%
0.8%
2.9%
0.0%
8.4%
1.1%
10.1%
7.1%
24.6%
6.9%
5.2%
2.0%
0.4%
5.9%
30.1%
1.4%
1.1%
1.2%
2.3%
2.8%
4.2%
0.5%
13.0%
1.2%
2.5%
2.2%
0.7%
44.8%
16.7%
0.7%
36.9%
78.5%
39.2%
9.3%
64
Appendix C  District Participation Rates
District
Paterson
Peninsula
Pomeroy
Port Angeles
Port Townsend
Prescott
Prosser
Pullman
Puyallup
Quillayute Valley
Quinault
Quincy
Raymond
Renton
Republic
Richland
Ridgefield
Riverview
Rochester
Roosevelt
Royal
Seattle
Sedro Woolley
Selah
Sequim
Shelton
Shoreline
Snohomish
Snoqualmie Valley
Soap Lake
South Bend
South Kitsap
South Whidbey
Spokane
Stanwood-Camano
Steilacoom Historical
Stevenson-Carson
Sultan
Sumner
Sunnyside
Tacoma
Tahoma
Tenino
Thorp
Toledo
Tonasket
Total FTE
92
9,237
429
4,778
1,721
255
2,782
2,240
19,891
1,302
271
2,227
582
12,572
511
9,613
1,801
2,912
1,897
15
1,314
46,488
4,299
3,481
2,818
3,988
10,099
8,704
4,461
533
569
11,021
2,261
31,465
5,403
2,043
1,077
2,211
7,798
5,357
32,296
5,984
1,455
196
981
1,093
LEP FTE
30
18
3
21
17
103
530
60
161
127
48
631
67
969
2
271
17
61
54
11
485
5,614
133
126
42
111
531
56
16
115
67
41
10
881
52
42
10
27
100
1,225
2,013
32
36
4
3
72
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
% LEP
32.9%
0.2%
0.7%
0.4%
1.0%
40.3%
19.0%
2.7%
0.8%
9.8%
17.7%
28.4%
11.4%
7.7%
0.4%
2.8%
0.9%
2.1%
2.9%
70.7%
36.9%
12.1%
3.1%
3.6%
1.5%
2.8%
5.3%
0.6%
0.4%
21.5%
11.8%
0.4%
0.4%
2.8%
1.0%
2.1%
0.9%
1.2%
1.3%
22.9%
6.2%
0.5%
2.5%
2.0%
0.3%
6.6%
65
Appendix C  District Participation Rates
District
Toppenish
Touchet
Trout Lake
Tukwila
Tumwater
Union Gap
University Place
Vancouver
Vashon Island
Wahluke
Walla Walla
Wapato
Warden
Washougal
Waterville
Wenatchee
West Valley (Spokane)
West Valley (Yakima)
White River
White Salmon
Winlock
Woodland
Yakima
Yelm Community
Zillah
Total
Total FTE
LEP FTE
3,327
325
164
2,532
6,489
587
5,229
21,727
1,579
1,533
5,940
3,309
951
2,595
315
7,152
3,641
4,564
4,304
1,261
821
1,912
14,353
4,481
1,250
954,526
1,894
37
3
657
27
66
96
1,872
11
880
555
934
297
33
17
1,305
50
54
6
225
58
48
4,080
19
77
62,522
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
% LEP
56.9%
11.3%
2.0%
25.9%
0.4%
11.3%
1.8%
8.6%
0.7%
57.4%
9.3%
28.2%
31.2%
1.3%
5.4%
18.2%
1.4%
1.2%
0.1%
17.8%
7.1%
2.5%
28.4%
0.4%
6.2%
6.5%
66
Appendix C  District Participation Rates
Table C-2: Enrollment Data, by Percent LEP Students
District
Palisades
Roosevelt
Wahluke
Toppenish
Bridgeport
Brewster
Orondo
Prescott
Manson
Pasco
Royal
Othello
Paterson
Warden
North Franklin
Cape Flattery
Yakima
Quincy
Wapato
Mabton
Tukwila
Mt Vernon
Sunnyside
Soap Lake
Granger
College Place
Prosser
Wenatchee
White Salmon
Quinault
Oroville
Grandview
Lake Chelan
Lind
Highland
Okanogan
Seattle
South Bend
Raymond
Touchet
Union Gap
Cascade
Kent
Burlington Edison
Total FTE
51
15
1,533
3,327
638
982
181
255
657
9,120
1,314
2,979
92
951
1,891
523
14,353
2,227
3,309
802
2,532
5,616
5,357
533
1,307
827
2,782
7,152
1,261
271
784
3,021
1,308
218
1,152
986
46,488
569
582
325
587
1,456
26,230
3,466
LEP FTE
40
11
880
1,894
344
442
81
103
259
3,574
485
1,099
30
297
569
149
4,080
631
934
223
657
1,382
1,225
115
278
170
530
1,305
225
48
131
483
209
32
164
128
5,614
67
67
37
66
160
2,859
356
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
% LEP
78.5%
70.7%
57.4%
56.9%
53.9%
45.0%
44.8%
40.3%
39.3%
39.2%
36.9%
36.9%
32.9%
31.2%
30.1%
28.6%
28.4%
28.4%
28.2%
27.8%
25.9%
24.6%
22.9%
21.5%
21.3%
20.6%
19.0%
18.2%
17.8%
17.7%
16.7%
16.0%
15.9%
14.6%
14.3%
13.0%
12.1%
11.8%
11.4%
11.3%
11.3%
11.0%
10.9%
10.3%
67
Appendix C  District Participation Rates
District
Entiat
Mount Adams
Eastmont
Quillayute Valley
Highline
Bellevue
Walla Walla
Pateros
Cashmere
Kennewick
Vancouver
Moses Lake
Federal Way
Lynden
Renton
Meridian
Kittitas
Mount Baker
Winlock
Mukilteo
Kiona Benton
Ephrata
Tonasket
Auburn
Tacoma
Zillah
Edmonds
East Valley (Yakima)
Nooksack Valley
Clover Park
Waterville
Shoreline
Everett
Naches Valley
Centralia
Evergreen (Clark)
Aberdeen
Green Mountain
Columbia (Walla Walla)
Blaine
Lake Washington
Finley
Ocean Beach
Bellingham
Longview
Selah
Total FTE
390
1,068
5,208
1,302
18,055
15,405
5,940
299
1,455
14,093
21,727
6,459
22,321
2,492
12,572
1,546
535
2,373
821
14,311
1,654
2,247
1,093
13,234
32,296
1,250
21,588
2,400
1,828
13,034
315
10,099
18,186
1,568
3,257
22,848
3,968
126
922
2,035
23,536
1,109
1,204
10,107
7,406
3,481
LEP FTE
40
108
510
127
1,740
1,469
555
28
128
1,227
1,872
540
1,837
202
969
117
39
169
58
987
112
150
72
868
2,013
77
1,282
143
108
739
17
531
956
82
166
1,153
193
6
43
90
1,001
47
51
383
278
126
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
% LEP
10.1%
10.1%
9.8%
9.8%
9.6%
9.5%
9.3%
9.3%
8.8%
8.7%
8.6%
8.4%
8.2%
8.1%
7.7%
7.6%
7.2%
7.1%
7.1%
6.9%
6.8%
6.7%
6.6%
6.6%
6.2%
6.2%
5.9%
5.9%
5.9%
5.7%
5.4%
5.3%
5.3%
5.2%
5.1%
5.0%
4.9%
4.8%
4.7%
4.4%
4.3%
4.2%
4.2%
3.8%
3.8%
3.6%
68
Appendix C  District Participation Rates
District
Dayton
Conway
Fife
Sedro Woolley
Ellensburg
Monroe
Ferndale
Rochester
La Conner
Richland
Oak Harbor
Spokane
Shelton
Goldendale
Elma
Chehalis
Hoquiam
Pullman
Franklin Pierce
Woodland
Tenino
Omak
Northshore
Marysville
Lyle
Onalaska
Riverview
Kelso
Steilacoom Historical
Thorp
Trout Lake
Naselle Grays River
Arlington
University Place
Battle Ground
Mercer Island
Central Kitsap
Coupeville
Sequim
North Kitsap
West Valley (Spokane)
Colville
Lopez
Issaquah
Sumner
Washougal
Total FTE
614
453
3,051
4,299
2,839
6,043
5,184
1,897
651
9,613
6,227
31,465
3,988
1,287
1,997
2,730
2,107
2,240
7,854
1,912
1,455
1,981
19,983
11,841
401
884
2,912
5,168
2,043
196
164
328
5,034
5,229
11,481
4,176
13,124
1,085
2,818
6,941
3,641
2,238
267
14,151
7,798
2,595
LEP FTE
20
15
95
133
86
177
149
54
18
271
175
881
111
35
54
74
56
60
200
48
36
49
459
262
9
19
61
107
42
4
3
7
94
96
209
73
222
18
42
98
50
30
4
185
100
33
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
% LEP
3.2%
3.2%
3.1%
3.1%
3.0%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.8%
2.8%
2.8%
2.8%
2.8%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.3%
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
69
Appendix C  District Participation Rates
District
Olympia
North Thurston
Sultan
West Valley (Yakima)
North Mason
Mossyrock
Lake Stevens
Camas
East Valley
Central Valley
Port Townsend
Lakewood
Stanwood-Camano
Bremerton
Enumclaw
Ridgefield
Stevenson-Carson
Bethel
Puyallup
Mead
Anacortes
Methow Valley
Asotin-Anatone
Lacenter
Orting
Pomeroy
Orcas
Vashon Island
Snohomish
Tahoma
Eatonville
Hockinson
Ocosta
Bainbridge
Port Angeles
Nine Mile Falls
Yelm Community
South Whidbey
Tumwater
Colfax
Republic
South Kitsap
Granite Falls
Snoqualmie Valley
Clarkston
Cheney
Total FTE
9,121
12,733
2,211
4,564
2,376
610
6,899
4,097
4,660
11,009
1,721
2,401
5,403
6,262
5,104
1,801
1,077
16,061
19,891
8,375
3,081
678
545
1,400
1,803
429
563
1,579
8,704
5,984
2,063
1,438
725
4,036
4,778
1,596
4,481
2,261
6,489
759
511
11,021
2,262
4,461
2,811
3,423
LEP FTE
111
153
27
54
27
7
76
44
50
113
17
24
52
59
47
17
10
134
161
67
25
5
4
10
13
3
4
11
56
32
10
7
3
18
21
7
19
10
27
3
2
41
8
16
10
11
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
% LEP
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
70
Appendix C  District Participation Rates
District
Toledo
Peninsula
White River
Concrete
Montesano
Total
Total FTE
981
9,237
4,304
847
1,342
954,526
LEP FTE
3
18
6
1
0
62,522
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
% LEP
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
6.5%
71
APPENDIX D
LENGTH OF STAY DATA
This appendix contains data related to the length of stay in the program.
 Table D-1 provides the number and percentage of students transitioned or
graduated from the program during school year 2001–02.
 Table D-2 provides the number and percentage of students enrolled more than
three years in the program during school year 2001–02.
Table D-1:
Number and Percent of Students Transitioned or Graduated
District
Aberdeen
Anacortes
Arlington
Asotin-Anatone
Auburn
Bainbridge
Battle Ground
Bellevue
Bellingham
Bethel
Blaine
Bremerton
Brewster
Bridgeport
Burlington Edison
Camas
Cape Flattery
Cascade
Cashmere
Central Kitsap
Central Valley
Centralia
Chehalis
Cheney
Clarkston
Clover Park
Colfax
College Place
Total LEP Number graduated
students served
or transitioned
200
4
31
3
112
19
4
3
932
60
20
6
260
33
1,835
336
459
69
168
23
114
6
50
3
482
33
360
8
449
36
65
8
185
36
174
11
154
18
256
25
130
12
198
7
80
11
16
4
10
1
908
23
3
0
203
14
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Percent
of total
2.0%
9.7%
17.0%
75.0%
6.4%
30.0%
12.7%
18.3%
15.0%
13.7%
5.3%
6.0%
6.8%
2.2%
8.0%
12.3%
19.5%
6.3%
11.7%
9.8%
9.2%
3.5%
13.8%
25.0%
10.0%
2.5%
0.0%
6.9%
72
Appendix D  Length of Stay Data
District
Columbia (Walla Walla)
Colville
Concrete
Conway
Coupeville
Dayton
East Valley
East Valley (Yakima)
Eastmont
Eatonville
Edmonds
Ellensburg
Elma
Entiat
Enumclaw
Ephrata
Everett
Evergreen (Clark)
Federal Way
Ferndale
Fife
Finley
Franklin Pierce
Goldendale
Grandview
Granger
Granite Falls
Green Mountain
Highland
Highline
Hockinson
Hoquiam
Issaquah
Kelso
Kennewick
Kent
Kiona Benton
Kittitas
La Conner
Lacenter
Lake Chelan
Lake Stevens
Lake Washington
Lakewood
Lind
Longview
Lopez
Lyle
Total LEP Number graduated
students served
or transitioned
50
8
35
7
2
0
37
4
21
2
49
4
61
1
127
43
586
28
15
0
1,572
413
130
1
63
8
45
9
57
12
172
14
1,157
79
1,419
83
2,155
363
189
16
108
9
57
3
254
10
42
5
551
4
335
35
9
1
6
3
193
14
2,068
252
7
0
74
9
251
41
149
22
1,448
77
3,281
300
138
3
49
4
11
1
31
3
275
24
110
16
1,208
169
30
6
38
4
336
36
3
0
10
0
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Percent
of total
16.0%
20.0%
0.0%
10.8%
9.5%
8.2%
1.6%
33.9%
4.8%
0.0%
26.3%
0.8%
12.7%
20.0%
21.1%
8.1%
6.8%
5.8%
16.8%
8.5%
8.3%
5.3%
3.9%
11.9%
0.7%
10.4%
11.1%
50.0%
7.3%
12.2%
0.0%
12.2%
16.3%
14.8%
5.3%
9.1%
2.2%
8.2%
9.1%
9.7%
8.7%
14.5%
14.0%
20.0%
10.5%
10.7%
0.0%
0.0%
73
Appendix D  Length of Stay Data
District
Lynden
Mabton
Manson
Marysville
Mead
Mercer Island
Meridian
Methow Valley
Monroe
Montesano
Moses Lake
Mossyrock
Mount Adams
Mount Baker
Mt Vernon
Mukilteo
Naches Valley
Naselle Grays River
Nine Mile Falls
Nooksack Valley
North Franklin
North Kitsap
North Mason
North Thurston
Northshore
Oak Harbor
Ocean Beach
Ocosta
Okanogan
Olympia
Omak
Onalaska
Orcas
Orondo
Oroville
Orting
Othello
Palisades
Pasco
Pateros
Paterson
Peninsula
Pomeroy
Port Angeles
Port Townsend
Prescott
Prosser
Pullman
Total LEP Number graduated
students served
or transitioned
255
13
235
8
293
34
311
12
75
4
80
18
141
13
7
2
197
5
2
0
599
48
8
1
103
3
186
18
1,651
90
1,304
118
102
17
7
0
8
3
128
8
636
34
109
11
27
0
216
23
575
63
175
22
62
13
7
0
158
9
150
21
61
1
17
5
4
1
90
7
140
3
17
0
979
87
43
5
4,205
322
34
5
36
1
26
6
4
0
23
5
18
0
116
22
589
41
89
13
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Percent
of total
5.1%
3.4%
11.6%
3.9%
5.3%
22.5%
9.2%
28.6%
2.5%
0.0%
8.0%
12.5%
2.9%
9.7%
5.5%
9.0%
16.7%
0.0%
37.5%
6.3%
5.3%
10.1%
0.0%
10.6%
11.0%
12.6%
21.0%
0.0%
5.7%
14.0%
1.6%
29.4%
25.0%
7.8%
2.1%
0.0%
8.9%
11.6%
7.7%
14.7%
2.8%
23.1%
0.0%
21.7%
0.0%
19.0%
7.0%
14.6%
74
Appendix D  Length of Stay Data
District
Puyallup
Quillayute Valley
Quinault
Quincy
Raymond
Renton
Republic
Richland
Ridgefield
Riverview
Rochester
Roosevelt
Royal
Seattle
Sedro Woolley
Selah
Sequim
Shelton
Shoreline
Snohomish
Snoqualmie Valley
Soap Lake
South Bend
South Kitsap
South Whidbey
Spokane
Stanwood-Camano
Steilacoom Historical
Stevenson-Carson
Sultan
Sumner
Sunnyside
Tacoma
Tahoma
Tenino
Thorp
Toledo
Tonasket
Toppenish
Touchet
Trout Lake
Tukwila
Tumwater
Union Gap
University Place
Vancouver
Vashon Island
Wahluke
Total LEP Number graduated
students served
or transitioned
203
7
144
16
77
14
749
44
72
8
1,279
105
2
0
322
29
17
2
65
3
68
12
16
0
593
62
5,792
453
154
9
172
4
46
7
125
7
660
53
70
12
24
4
114
46
78
2
49
3
10
0
1,013
148
64
8
47
3
11
0
36
2
120
13
1,251
94
2,242
361
48
6
38
11
5
0
2
0
86
1
2,183
206
42
7
5
0
672
62
37
0
60
2
154
52
2,225
123
18
4
1,033
115
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
Percent
of total
3.4%
11.1%
18.2%
5.9%
11.1%
8.2%
0.0%
9.0%
11.8%
4.6%
17.6%
0.0%
10.5%
7.8%
5.8%
2.3%
15.2%
5.6%
8.0%
17.1%
16.7%
40.4%
2.6%
6.1%
0.0%
14.6%
12.5%
6.4%
0.0%
5.6%
10.8%
7.5%
16.1%
12.5%
28.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
9.4%
16.7%
0.0%
9.2%
0.0%
3.3%
33.8%
5.5%
22.2%
11.1%
75
Appendix D  Length of Stay Data
District
Walla Walla
Wapato
Warden
Washougal
Waterville
Wenatchee
West Valley (Spokane)
West Valley (Yakima)
White River
White Salmon
Winlock
Woodland
Yakima
Yelm Community
Zillah
State
Total LEP Number graduated
students served
or transitioned
641
45
1,042
48
353
57
36
4
18
2
1,477
77
55
6
77
4
7
1
252
33
60
5
60
4
4,566
194
22
2
86
10
72,215
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
6,705
Percent
of total
7.0%
4.6%
16.1%
11.1%
11.1%
5.2%
10.9%
5.2%
14.3%
13.1%
8.3%
6.7%
4.2%
9.1%
11.6%
9.3%
76
Appendix D  Length of Stay Data
Table D-2: Number and Percent of Students Enrolled
More Than Three Years
District
Aberdeen
Anacortes
Arlington
Asotin-Anatone
Auburn
Bainbridge
Battle Ground
Bellevue
Bellingham
Bethel
Blaine
Bremerton
Brewster
Bridgeport
Burlington Edison
Camas
Cape Flattery
Cascade
Cashmere
Central Kitsap
Central Valley
Centralia
Chehalis
Cheney
Clarkston
Clover Park
Colfax
College Place
Columbia (Walla Walla)
Colville
Concrete
Conway
Coupeville
Dayton
East Valley
East Valley (Yakima)
Eastmont
Eatonville
Edmonds
Ellensburg
Elma
Entiat
Enumclaw
Ephrata
Everett
Evergreen (Clark)
Total LEP Number enrolled
students served more than 3 years
200
31
112
4
932
20
260
1,835
459
168
114
50
482
360
449
65
185
174
154
256
130
198
80
16
10
908
3
203
50
35
2
37
21
49
61
127
586
15
1,572
130
63
45
57
172
1,157
1,419
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
62
9
7
1
150
11
70
330
112
21
26
24
239
200
97
11
123
58
35
73
17
48
26
1
0
132
0
57
21
1
0
0
8
11
6
15
170
0
258
16
28
12
14
76
160
367
Percent
of total
31.0%
29.0%
6.3%
25.0%
16.1%
55.0%
26.9%
18.0%
24.4%
12.5%
22.8%
48.0%
49.6%
55.6%
21.6%
16.9%
66.5%
33.3%
22.7%
28.5%
13.1%
24.2%
32.5%
6.3%
0.0%
14.5%
0.0%
28.1%
42.0%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
38.1%
22.4%
9.8%
11.8%
29.0%
0.0%
16.4%
12.3%
44.4%
26.7%
24.6%
44.2%
13.8%
25.9%
77
Appendix D  Length of Stay Data
District
Federal Way
Ferndale
Fife
Finley
Franklin Pierce
Goldendale
Grandview
Granger
Granite Falls
Green Mountain
Highland
Highline
Hockinson
Hoquiam
Issaquah
Kelso
Kennewick
Kent
Kiona Benton
Kittitas
La Conner
Lacenter
Lake Chelan
Lake Stevens
Lake Washington
Lakewood
Lind
Longview
Lopez
Lyle
Lynden
Mabton
Manson
Marysville
Mead
Mercer Island
Meridian
Methow Valley
Monroe
Montesano
Moses Lake
Mossyrock
Mount Adams
Mount Baker
Mt Vernon
Mukilteo
Naches Valley
Naselle Grays River
Nine Mile Falls
Nooksack Valley
Total LEP Number enrolled
students served more than 3 years
2,155
189
108
57
254
42
551
335
9
6
193
2,068
7
74
251
149
1,448
3,281
138
49
11
31
275
110
1,208
30
38
336
3
10
255
235
293
311
75
80
141
7
197
2
599
8
103
186
1,651
1,304
102
7
8
128
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
354
32
10
9
5
21
2
73
0
3
25
359
0
15
55
17
430
1,018
43
10
0
4
57
4
282
3
14
71
0
4
108
107
110
96
11
9
51
0
31
0
239
0
34
50
602
335
49
3
0
26
Percent
of total
16.4%
16.9%
9.3%
15.8%
2.0%
50.0%
0.4%
21.8%
0.0%
50.0%
13.0%
17.4%
0.0%
20.3%
21.9%
11.4%
29.7%
31.0%
31.2%
20.4%
0.0%
12.9%
20.7%
3.6%
23.3%
10.0%
36.8%
21.1%
0.0%
40.0%
42.4%
45.5%
37.5%
30.9%
14.7%
11.3%
36.2%
0.0%
15.7%
0.0%
39.9%
0.0%
33.0%
26.9%
36.5%
25.7%
48.0%
42.9%
0.0%
20.3%
78
Appendix D  Length of Stay Data
District
North Franklin
North Kitsap
North Mason
North Thurston
Northshore
Oak Harbor
Ocean Beach
Ocosta
Okanogan
Olympia
Omak
Onalaska
Orcas
Orondo
Oroville
Orting
Othello
Palisades
Pasco
Pateros
Paterson
Peninsula
Pomeroy
Port Angeles
Port Townsend
Prescott
Prosser
Pullman
Puyallup
Quillayute Valley
Quinault
Quincy
Raymond
Renton
Republic
Richland
Ridgefield
Riverview
Rochester
Roosevelt
Royal
Seattle
Sedro Woolley
Selah
Sequim
Shelton
Shoreline
Snohomish
Snoqualmie Valley
Soap Lake
Total LEP Number enrolled
students served more than 3 years
636
109
27
216
575
175
62
7
158
150
61
17
4
90
140
17
979
43
4,205
34
36
26
4
23
18
116
589
89
203
144
77
749
72
1,279
2
322
17
65
68
16
593
5,792
154
172
46
125
660
70
24
114
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
79
29
6
21
87
5
23
0
63
22
33
7
0
20
56
0
312
13
1,920
3
0
0
0
5
4
60
184
1
33
40
0
235
30
244
0
63
5
9
9
4
195
2,170
26
47
9
33
85
15
0
43
Percent
of total
12.4%
26.6%
22.2%
9.7%
15.1%
2.9%
37.1%
0.0%
39.9%
14.7%
54.1%
41.2%
0.0%
22.2%
40.0%
0.0%
31.9%
30.2%
45.7%
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
21.7%
22.2%
51.7%
31.2%
1.1%
16.3%
27.8%
0.0%
31.4%
41.7%
19.1%
0.0%
19.6%
29.4%
13.8%
13.2%
25.0%
32.9%
37.5%
16.9%
27.3%
19.6%
26.4%
12.9%
21.4%
0.0%
37.7%
79
Appendix D  Length of Stay Data
District
South Bend
South Kitsap
South Whidbey
Spokane
Stanwood-Camano
Steilacoom Historical
Stevenson-Carson
Sultan
Sumner
Sunnyside
Tacoma
Tahoma
Tenino
Thorp
Toledo
Tonasket
Toppenish
Touchet
Trout Lake
Tukwila
Tumwater
Union Gap
University Place
Vancouver
Vashon Island
Wahluke
Walla Walla
Wapato
Warden
Washougal
Waterville
Wenatchee
West Valley (Spokane)
West Valley (Yakima)
White River
White Salmon
Winlock
Woodland
Yakima
Yelm Community
Zillah
State
Total LEP Number enrolled
students served more than 3 years
Percent
of total
78
49
10
1,013
64
47
11
36
120
1,251
2,242
48
38
5
2
86
2,183
42
5
672
37
60
154
2,225
18
1,033
641
1,042
353
36
18
1,477
55
77
7
252
60
60
4,566
22
86
14
12
2
262
23
5
2
11
14
127
469
10
8
0
0
15
895
13
1
289
2
4
8
529
5
343
63
511
116
2
11
717
12
7
0
143
29
4
1,391
2
37
17.9%
24.5%
20.0%
25.9%
35.9%
10.6%
18.2%
30.6%
11.7%
10.2%
20.9%
20.8%
21.1%
0.0%
0.0%
17.4%
41.0%
31.0%
20.0%
43.0%
5.4%
6.7%
5.2%
23.8%
27.8%
33.2%
9.8%
49.0%
32.9%
5.6%
61.1%
48.5%
21.8%
9.1%
0.0%
56.7%
48.3%
6.7%
30.5%
9.1%
43.0%
72,215
20,240
28.0%
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
80
Educating English Language Learners in Washington State
81