Demographic overview of the LEP and FLEP population in ... · * 76,955 LEPs were identified for funding and service purposes in 2012-13 (the record of 2 students were not located

0

Demographic overview of the LEP and FLEP population in Michigan

(2011-2012)

September 2013

Sylvia Oh

Key questions – LEP population

• Who were identified as LEP students in 2011-2012 and what were their characteristics?

– How many students were identified as LEP? – What was their socioeconomic status? – What were their languages spoken? – How many of them received immigrant services? – What were their countries of birth? – How many students were identified as students with disabilities?

• As a subgroup, how many of them were identified as having speech/language impairment as their primary disability code?

• How did each characteristic specified above differ? – By ISDs and districts? – By the size of ISDs and districts? – By languages spoken?

1

76,953* were identified as LEP in 2011-12, majority of them came from large regions

Number of LEPs by the size** of ISDs and districts

(2011-12)

Characteristics of ISDs and districts by size

76,953 76,953 100%

80%

60% Large

Medium

Small 40%

20%

0% ISD District

Small Medium Large

ISDs Average # of students

5,823 11,441 63,256

Total # of students

110,649 217,378 1,201,8 60

# of ISDs 19 19 19

Distri cts

Average # of students

191 853 4,195

Total # of students

56,058 248,973 1,224,8 56

# of districts

293 292 292

* 76,955 LEPs were identified for funding and service purposes in 2012-13 (the record of 2 students were not located in MSDS 2011-12). ** The largest 1/3 of ISDs and districts based on the number of students enrolled were determined as large, the next largest 1/3 as medium, and the smallest 1/3 as small. Source: MSDS 2011-2012 (As data for EOY 2013 was not available, MSDS 2011-12 was referred to obtain demographic information of LEPs identified for 2012-13.); CEPI headcount data

2

Approximately 80% of the LEP population was concentrated in the top 4 ISDs

The top 17 ISDs by the number of LEPs enrolled (2011-12)

Number of LEPs enrolled

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

Way

ne

Oak

land

Ken

t

Mac

om

b

Ott

awa

Ingham

Was

hte

naw

Van

Bure

n

Kal

amaz

oo

Ber

rien

Oce

ana

Gen

esee

St.

Jose

ph

Cal

houn

Bra

nch

Musk

egon

Sag

inaw

Percent (%): 38 16 13 10 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3Note: Rest of ISDs had less than 1% of the total LEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012

The top 12 districts where LEP students were enrolled in

Districts by the number of LEPs enrolled (2011-12)

Number of LEPs enrolled

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Dea

rborn

City

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Det

roit C

ity

Sch

ool

Dis

tric

t

Gra

nd R

apid

sPu

blic

Sch

ools

War

ren

Conso

lidat

ed

Sch

ools

Wal

led L

ake

Conso

lidat

ed

Sch

ools

Lansi

ng P

ublic

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Utica

Com

munity

Sch

ools

Tro

y Sch

ool

Dis

tric

t

Ces

ar C

hav

ezAca

dem

y

Wes

t O

ttaw

aPu

blic

Sch

ool

Dis

tric

t

Farm

ingto

n P

ublic

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Ken

twood P

ublic

Sch

ools

Percent (%): 11 10 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

4Note: Rest of districts had less than 2% of the total LEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Number of LEPs who were eligible for free lunch

(2011-12)

Geographical distribution of economically disadvantaged LEPs

(2011-12)

74% of LEPs were economically disadvantaged and most of them came from large regions

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

76,953 100%

80%

60% Non-eligible

Eligible 40%

20%

0%

56,995 56,995

Large

Medium

Small

ISD District

5 Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Among 56,995 economically disadvantaged LEPs, ~80% spoke Spanish and Arabic

Top 10 native/home languages spoken by economically disadvantaged LEPs

(2011-12) Number of LEPs

30000

20000

10000

0

Percent (%): 52 29 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1


But, other languages also had higher percentage of economically disadvantaged LEPs

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Top 10 native/home languages* in terms of the percentage of economically disadvantaged LEPs

(2011-12)# of economically disadvantaged

LEPs / # of LEPs by language

7* Languages spoken by more than 100 LEPs Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Of all native/home languages spoken by LEPs,~70% of them were Spanish and Arabic

Top 10 native/home languages spoken by LEPs (2011-12)

Number of LEPs

30000

20000

10000

0

Percent (%): 46 25 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

8Note: Rest of languages were spoken by 1% or less of the total LEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Large ISDs had more diversity in language, but the overall ranking was similar

Small ISDs Medium ISDs Large ISDs

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

100% 100%

80% 80% Others**

Arabic Russian 60%

Others*

60%

VietnameseTagalog 40% 40%

ChineseChinese

German 20%Arabic 20%

SpanishSpanish 0% 0%

Others***

Hmong

Urdu

Japanese

Chinese

Syriac

Vietnamese

Albanian

Bengali

Arabic

Spanish

* Other languages in small ISDs included German, Korean, Gujarati, German, Punjabi, Vietnamese, Japanese, Telugu, Thai, Oromo, etc. ** Other languages in medium ISDs included Korean, Punjabi, Japanese, Portuguese, Urdu, Russian, Telugu, Hindi, Hmong, French, etc.

9*** Other languages in large ISDs included Korean, Romanian, Aramaic, Burmese, Bosnian, Telugu, French, Somali, Russian, etc. Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Likewise, large districts had more diversity, but the overall ranking was similar

Small districts Medium districts Large districts

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Others**

Albanian

Vietnamese

Chinese

Somali

Urdu

German

Syriac

Bengali

Arabic

Spanish

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Others***

Urdu

Korean

Hmong

Japanese

Syriac

Chinese

Vietnamese

Bengali

Albanian

Arabic

Spanish

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Others*

Armenian

Urdu

French

Ukrainian

German

Bengali

Arabic

Spanish

* Other languages in small districts included Somali, Mandingo, Gujarati, Vietnamese, Amharic, Tagalog, etc. ** Other languages in medium districts included Romanian, Punjabi, Gujarati, Aramaic, Telugu, Bosnian, Tagalog, etc. *** Other languages in large districts included Urdu, Romanian, Aramaic, Burmese, Bosnian, Telugu, French, Russian, Hindi, Somali, etc. Source: MSDS 2011-2012

10

Immigrant services receivers by the

size of ISDs (2011-12)

Immigrant services receivers by the size of districts

(2011-12)

100% 100%

80% 80%

60% 60%

40% 40%

20%

0%

Not received

Not received

20% Received Received

0%

10% of LEPs received immigrant services, most of them came from large regions

Number of Immigrant services

receivers (2011-12)

100%

80%

60%

40% Not received

20% Received

0%

smal

l

Med

ium

Larg

e

smal

l

Med

ium

Larg

e


Among 7,862 LEPs who received no immigrantservices, ~73% speak Spanish and Arabic

Top 10 native/home languages spoken by those who did not receive immigrant services


40000

30000

20000

10000

0

Percent (%): 50 23 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1


Arabic-speaking immigrants received much immigrant services due to their significant increase in number recently

Top 10 native/home languages spoken by those who received immigrant services


4000

3000

2000

1000

0

Percent (%): 44 8 7 4 3 3 3 2 2 2


Nearly 60% of the LEP population was born in the US

Top 10 countries of birth of LEP population (2011-12)

Number of LEPs

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

Percent (%): 61 6 6 5 2 2 1 1 1 1


More than 70% of LEPs who were born in the US spoke Spanish and Arabic

The top 10 native/home languages spoken by LEPs who were born in the US


10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Percent (%): 40 37 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1


Large ISDs had more diversity in birthplaces, but the overall ranking was similar


100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

100% 100%

Others*** 80% 80% JapanOthers**

Others* Brazil India 60% 60%China Lebanon

MexicoMexico Bangladesh

40% USA 40% Mexico

Yemen Yemen

20% 20% Iraq

USA USA

0% 0%

* Other countries in small ISDs included Philippines, China, Thailand, Ethiopia, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, etc. ** Other countries in medium ISDs included Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Ethiopia, Thailand, India, Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Haiti, etc.

16*** Other languages in large ISDs included Myanmar, China, Korea, Vietnam, Syria, Puerto Rico, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Nepal, etc. Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Likewise, large districts had more diversity, but the overall ranking was similar


100% 100% 100%

Others** Others*** 80% 80% 80%Others* Lebanon India

Mexico Saudi Arabia Lebanon 60% 60% 60%

Bangladesh BangladeshIraq

Iraq 40% Mexico40% 40% Bangladesh

YemenMexico Yemen20% 20% 20% IraqYemen

USA USAUSA 0% 0% 0%

* Other countries in small districts included Pakistan, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Honduras, Puerto Rico, El Salvador, etc. ** Other countries in medium districts included Jordan, India, Canada, Liberia, Puerto Rico, Kenya, Philippines, etc.

17*** Other languages in large districts included Japan, Albania, Canada, Myanmar, Korea, Vietnam, Syria, etc. Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Speech and language impairment

11% of LEPs had disabilities, 3% with speech and language impairment

Number of LEPs who were identified with primary disability

(2011-12)

76,953 100%

80%

Other disabilities*

60%

40%

None 20%

0%

Geographical distribution of LEPs with disabilities

(2011-12)

8,510 8,510 100%

80%

60% Large

Medium 40%

Small

20%

0% ISD District

* Other disabilities included cognitive, emotional, hearing, visual, and physical impairments, early childhood developmental delay, specific learning disability, severe multiple impairment, autism spectrum disorder, traumatic brain injury, deaf-blindness, and other health

18impairment Source: MSDS 2011-2012


Speech andlanguage impairment

40%

No distinct pattern in geographical distribution of speech and language impairment

ISDs by the size (2011-12)

Districts by the size (2011-12)

100% 100%

80% 80%

Other disabilities

Other disabilities 60% 60%

40%

20% 20%

0% 0% Small Medium Large Small Medium Large


Key questions – FLEP population

• Who were identified as FLEP students in 2011-2012 and what were their characteristics?

– How many students were identified as FLEP? – What was their socioeconomic status? – What were their languages spoken? – How many of them received immigrant services? – What were their countries of birth? – How many students were identified as students with disabilities?

• As a subgroup, how many of them were identified as having speech/language impairment as their primary disability code?

– How many FLEP students were re-classified as LEP students within 2 years of monitoring after their exit?

• How did each characteristic specified above differ? – By ISDs and districts? – By the size of regions? – By languages spoken?

20

6,213* LEPs achieved English proficiency; higher percentage in mid-sized regions

Number of FLEPs by the size of ISDs and districts

(2011-12)

% of LEPs who became FLEPs by the size of ISDs and districts

(2011-12)

6,213 6,213 100% 14%

12% 80%

10%

60% Large 8% Small

Medium Medium6%40% Small Large

4% 20%

2%

0% 0% ISD District ISD District

* Total 9,801 students exited the LEP program in 2011-12; those who exited for reasons other than proficiency in English (graduation, parent request, and others) were not counted as FLEP in this analysis. 21Source: MSDS 2011-2012

~65% of FLEP population was concentrated in the top 3 ISDs

The top 10 ISDs by the number of FLEPs enrolled (2011-12)

Number of FLEPs enrolled

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Oak

land

Way

ne

Ken

t

Mac

om

b

Was

hte

naw

Ott

awa

Ingham

St.

Jose

ph

Ber

rien

Oce

ana

Percent (%):

27 26 12 6 6 3 3 2 1 1

22Note: Rest of ISDs had 1% or less than 1% of the total FLEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012

However, the list for the percentage of LEPs who exited the program was quite different

The top 10 ISDs by the percentage of LEPs who exited the LEP program

(2011-12) # of FLEPs / # of LEPs

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Mar

quet

te A

lger

Lenaw

ee

Coor

Mid

land

Bay

Are

nac

Cla

re G

ladw

in

St.

Jose

ph

Jack

son

Eat

on

Was

hte

naw


The top 10 districts where FLEP students were enrolled in

The top 10 districts by the number of FLEPs enrolled (2011-12)

Number of FLEPs enrolled

800

600

400

200

0

Tro

y Sch

ool

Dis

tric

t

Dea

rborn

City

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Ann A

rbor

Public

Sch

ools

Pontiac

City

Sch

ool

Dis

tric

t

Farm

ingto

n P

ublic

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Plym

outh

-Can

ton

Com

munity

Sch

ools

Cre

stw

ood S

chool

Dis

tric

t

Novi

Com

munity

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Lansi

ng P

ublic

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Stu

rgis

Public

Sch

ools

Percent (%):

10 6 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2

24Note: Rest of districts had 2% or less than 2% of the total FLEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012

The top 10 districts by the percentage of LEPs who exited the LEP program

(2011-12)

The top 10 districts by the percentage of LEPs who exited the LEP program

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

# of FLEPs / # of LEPs

Ree

se P

ublic

Sch

ools

Legac

y Char

ter

Aca

dem

y

Conco

rd

Com

munity

Sch

ools

Nort

h S

agin

aw

Char

ter

Aca

dem

y

South

Arb

or

Char

ter

Aca

dem

y

Para

gon C

har

ter

Aca

dem

y

Ques

t Char

ter

Aca

dem

y

Burt

on G

len

Char

ter

Aca

dem

y

Chan

dle

r W

oods

Char

ter

Aca

dem

y

Mat

taw

an

Conso

lidat

ed

Sch

ool


56% of FLEPs were economically disadvantaged and most of them came from populous regions

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

100%

Non-eligible

Eligible

6,213

Number of FLEPs who were eligible for free lunch

(2011-12)

Geographical distribution of economically disadvantaged FLEPs

(2011-12)

3,455 3,455 100%

80%

60% 5.8*

11.0 6.7

5.5

10.1 3.7

Large

Medium 40%

Small

20%

0% ISD District

26* Percentages in the bar indicate the percentage of FLEP in each size category of ISDs or districts Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Out of 3,455 FLEPs who were economically disadvantaged, 73% spoke Spanish and Arabic

Top 10 native/home languages spoken by economically disadvantaged FLEPs

(2011-12) Number of FLEPs

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Percent (%): 54 19 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1


The percentage of disadvantaged, but proficiency-achieved LEPs was higher for other languages

Top 10 native/home languages* in terms of the percentage of disadvantaged LEPs who achieved proficiency


25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%


Of all native/home languages spoken by FLEPs,53% of them were Spanish and Arabic

Top 10 native/home languages spoken by FLEPs (2011-12)

Number of FLEPs

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Percent (%): 38 15 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2


However, the percentage of LEPs who achieved proficiency was higher for other languages

Top 10 native/home languages* in terms of the percentage of LEPs who achieved proficiency


40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


Large ISDs had more diversity in languages spoken by FLEPs


100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

100% 100%

Others* 80% 80% Gujarati

French60% 60%

Creoles Tagalog Vietnamese Russian 40% 40%Japanese Chinese Arabic Telugu Chinese20% 20% Arabic German Spanish Spanish

0% 0%

Others**

Japanese

Urdu

Bengali

Albanian

Vietnamese

Telugu

Korean

Chinese

Arabic

Spanish

* Other languages in medium ISDs included Hmong, Korean, Macedonian, Mandar, Tamil, Telugu, Armenian, Bengali, etc. 31** Other languages in medium ISDs included Hmong, Hindi, Syriac, Tamil, Romanian, Gujarati, German, Bosnian, Telugu, etc.

Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Likewise, large districts had more diversity in languages spoken by FLEPs

Small districts

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Panjabi

Flemish

Vietnamese

Gujarati

Spanish

Arabic

German

Medium districts

100% Others* Hindi Albanian

80% Korean Romanian Telugu60% Panjabi Gujarati

40% Urdu Chinese Vietnamese

20% Bengali Arabic Spanish0%

Large districts

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Others**

Hmong

Urdu

Japanese

Albanian

Vietnamese

Telugu

Korean

Chinese

Arabic

Spanish

* Other languages in medium districts included Bosnian, Polish, Tagalog, Lao, Tamil, Somali, French, Oromo, etc. 32** Other languages in large districts included Hindi, Syriac, Tamil, Bengali, Romanian, Gujarati, German, Bosnian, etc.


Immigrant services receivers by the

size of ISDs (2011-12)

Immigrant services receivers by the size of districts

(2011-12)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Not received

Not received

Received Received

ll um

Med

i

eLa

rg

ll um

Med

i

e La

rg

6% of FLEPs received immigrant services, but there was no distinct geographical pattern

Number of immigrant services

receivers (2011-12)

100%

80%

60%

40% Not received

20% Received

0%

sma

sma


Among FLEPs who did not receive immigrant services, 55% spoke Spanish and Arabic

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Percent

Top 10 native/home languages spoken by FLEPs who did not receive immigrant services


(%): 40 15 5 3 3 2 2 2 2 2


FLEP students who came from districts where there has been a significant increase in the number of immigrants recently received immigrant services

Top 10 native/home languages spoken by FLEPs who received immigrant services


70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percent (%): 18 12 9 8 5 4 4 3 3 3


35

Nearly 70% of the FLEP population was born in the US

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Percent

Top 10 countries of birth of the FLEP population (2011-12)

Number of FLEPs

(%): 69 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1


However, higher percentage of those who were born in other countries achieved English proficiency

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Top 10 countries* in terms of the percentage of LEPs who achieved English proficiency

(2011-12)# of FLEPs / # of LEPs

37* Countries where more than 100 LEPs were born Source: MSDS 2011-2012

The top 10 native/home languages spoken by FLEPs who were born in the US

The top 10 native/home languages spoken by FLEPs who were born in the US

Number of FLEPs

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Percent (%): 38 22 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 2


Large ISDs had more diversity in birthplace


100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

100% 100%

Others***

Bangladesh80% 80% Others* Others** Yemen Yemen S. Korea Albania

60% 60%Mexico Germany Japan USA Canada Canada

Spain 40%40% Iraq China S. Korea Mexico Mexico20% 20% USA India

USA0% 0%

* Other countries in small ISDs included Philippines, United Arab Emirates, China, Honduras, India, Italy, Vietnam, etc. ** Other countries in medium ISDs included Philippines, India, Brazil, Japan, Niger, Netherlands, etc.

39*** Other languages in large ISDs included Germany, China, Philippines, Pakistan, Vietnam, Lebanon, Romania, etc. Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Likewise, large districts had more diversity


100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

100% 100%

Others* Others**

80% 80% Germany

China

Romania

S. Korea Canada60% Canada 60% Albania

Philippines Japan

El Salvador 40% India 40% Iraq

YemenMexico S. Korea

Mexico Bangalesh 20%20%

Mexico Canada

India USA

USAUSA0% 0%

* Other countries in medium districts included Honduras, Puerto Rico, Albania, Cuba, Iraq, Liberia, Ukraine, etc. ** Other countries in large districts included Yemen, Pakistan, Vietnam, Philippines, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Romania, Sri Lanka, etc. Source: MSDS 2011-2012

40

Number of FLEPs who were identified with primary disability

(2011-12)

Geographical distribution of FLEPs with disabilities

(2011-12)

6,213 206 206

3% of FLEPs had disabilities, 1% with speech and language impairment

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%


Other disabilities*

None

100%

80%

60% Large

Medium 40%

Small

20%

0% ISD District

* Other disabilities included cognitive, emotional, hearing, visual, and physical impairments, early childhood developmental delay, specific learning disability, severe multiple impairment, autism spectrum disorder, traumatic brain injury, deaf-blindness, and other health

41impairment Source: MSDS 2011-2012

No distinct pattern in geographical distribution of speech and language impairment

ISDs by the size Districts by the size (2011-12) (2011-12)

100% 100%

80% 80%

Other disabilities

Other disabilities 60% 60%


Speech andlanguage impairment

40% 40%

20% 20%

0% 0% Small Medium Large Small Medium Large


Number of FLEPs who were re-classified as LEP

(2011-12)

Geographical distribution of those who re-entered the LEP

(2011-12)

5% of the FLEP population re-entered the LEP program in 2011-2012

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

6,213

Re-entered

FLEP

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

206 206

Large

Medium

Small

ISD District


The percentage of re-entered FLEP was greater in large ISDs and districts

The percentage of re-entered The percentage of re-entered FLEP by the size of districts

(2011-12)

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

FLEP by the size of ISDs (2011-12)

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0% Small Medium Large Small Medium Large

44 Source: MSDSSource: MSDS 2011-20122011-2012

Top 10 ISDs where there were FLEP students who re-entered the LEP program

Top 10 ISDs where there were FLEP students who re-entered the LEP program

Number of re- (2011-12) classified LEPs

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percent (%): 39 20 14 5 3 3 2 2 2 1

45 Source: MSDSSource: MSDS 2011-20122011-2012

Top 10 ISDs in terms of the percentage of re-entered FLEP students

Top 10 ISDs*in terms of the percentage of re-entered FLEP students

(2011-12)# of re-classified LEPs / # of FLEPs

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Ingham

Monro

e

Kal

amaz

oo

Musk

egon

Bay

Are

nac

Tra

vers

e Bay

Gen

esee

Alle

gan

Are

aEduca

tional

Ser

vice

Agen

cy

Sag

inaw

Ken

t

46* ISDs with 10 or more FLEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Top 10 districts where there were FLEP students who re-entered the LEP program

(2011-12) Number of re-classified LEPs

140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Top 10 districts where there were FLEP students who re-entered the LEP program

0

Lansi

ng P

ublic

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Tro

y Sch

ool

Dis

tric

t

Kel

loggsv

ille

Public

Sch

ools

Pontiac

Aca

dem

y fo

rExc

elle

nce

Fore

st H

ills

Public

Sch

ools

Kal

amaz

oo

Public

Sch

ools

Bay

City

Sch

ool

Dis

tric

t

Bed

ford

Public

Sch

ools

Wal

led L

ake

Conso

lidat

ed

Sch

ools

Musk

egon,

Public

Sch

ools

of

the

City

of

Percent (%): 39 9 8 6 5 5 3 3 2 2

47 Source: MSDSSource: MSDSSource: MSDS 2011-20122011-20122011-2012

Top 10 districts* in terms of the percentage of re-entered FLEP students

(2011-12)

Top 10 districts in terms of the percentage of re-entered FLEP students

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

# of re-classified LEPs / # of FLEPs

Pontiac

Aca

dem

y fo

rExc

elle

nce

Fore

st H

ills

Public

Sch

ools

Lansi

ng P

ublic

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Bed

ford

Public

Sch

ools

Kel

loggsv

ille

Public

Sch

ools

Van

der

bilt

Char

ter

Aca

dem

y

Linco

ln

Conso

lidat

ed

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Kal

amaz

oo

Public

Sch

ools

Flin

t, S

chool

Dis

tric

t of

the

City

of

Bay

City

Sch

ool

Dis

tric

t

48* Districts with 10 or more FLEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Nearly half of those who re-entered the LEP program spoke Spanish

Top 10 native/home languages spoken by those who re-entered the LEP program

(2011-12)Number of re-classified LEPs

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Percent (%): 53 9 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1


Spanish also ranked high in terms of the percentage of re-entered FLEP students

Top 10 native/home languages* in terms of the percentage of re-entered FLEP students

(2011-12)# of re-classified LEPs / # of FLEPs

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

50* Languages spoken by 100 or more FLEP population Source: MSDS 2011-2012

Documents

Demographic overview of the LEP and FLEP population in ... · * 76,955 LEPs were identified for funding and service purposes in 2012-13 (the record of 2 students were not located