# data[].attributes.headline
Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States

# data[].attributes.subject
Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The year 2020 was a momentous one for U.S. immigration, marking the last year of an administration that had a nearly unprecedented focus on reducing immigration, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, which drastically chilled travel and migration to the United States and around the world.

Even prior to 2020, the immigrant population in the United States already had been growing at much slower rates than a decade ago. And origins for recent arrivals were shifting, with more new immigrants coming from Asia than other regions. The year had other notable developments: The most recent estimates revealed illegal immigration was on the decline, the United States resettled the smallest number of refugees in the history of the refugee resettlement program, and nearly half of recently arrived immigrants had a bachelor's degree or more.

To offer more context on the immigrants often at the center of political discussions, who numbered 44.9 million in 2019, this Spotlight offers information about some of the most frequently requested immigration-related issues by compiling the most authoritative and current data available. It answers questions such as: What are the historic immigration trends in the United States? Who is immigrating, and through which channels? In what occupations do immigrants work? How many immigrants become naturalized citizens? What immigration enforcement actions were taken during the year? What are income and poverty metrics, as well as health insurance coverage, for immigrants and the U.S. born alike?

This article draws on the most recent resources and data from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI); the U.S. Census Bureau (using its 2019 American Community Survey [ACS], 2020 Current Population Survey [CPS], and 2000 decennial census); and the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and State. (Note: DHS and State Department data refer to fiscal years that begin on October 1 and end on September 30; ACS and CPS data refer to calendar years). For more detailed information on U.S. and global immigration data sources and one-click access to these datasets, see the MPI report Immigration Data Matters. And all of the data tools and maps linked to in this article also can be accessed through MPI's Migration Data Hub.

Click on the bullet points for more information on each topic:

Immigrants Now and Historically
How many immigrants reside in the United States?
More than 44.9 million immigrants lived in the United States in 2019, the historical numeric high since census records have been kept. Immigrants' share of the overall U.S. population has increased significantly from the record low of 4.7 percent in 1970. In 2019, immigrants comprised 13.7 percent of the total U.S. population, a figure that remains short of the record high of 14.8 percent in 1890.

The foreign-born population remained largely flat between 2018 and 2019, with an increase of 204,000 people, or growth of less than 0.5 percent. This is consistent with the 203,000 increase from 2017 to 2018 and much lower than the approximately 787,000 increase-or 2 percent growth-seen between 2016 and 2017. The slowing growth of the immigrant population over the past few years is mirrored by the slowing growth of the total U.S. population since 2015.
How have the number and share of immigrants changed over time?
In 1850, the first year the United States began collecting nativity data through the census, the country had 2.2 million immigrants, representing nearly 10 percent of the total population.

Between 1860 and 1920, the immigrant share of the population fluctuated between 13 percent and almost 15 percent, peaking at 14.8 percent in 1890, largely due to high levels of immigration from Europe. Restrictive immigration laws in 1921 and 1924 kept permanent immigration open almost exclusively to northern and western Europeans. Combined with the Great Depression and World War II, this led to a sharp drop in new arrivals from the Eastern Hemisphere. The foreign-born share steadily declined, hitting a record low of 4.7 percent (or 9.6 million immigrants) in 1970 (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Size and Share of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 1850-2019
Source: Migration Policy Institute (MPI) tabulation of data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-19 American Community Surveys (ACS), and 1970, 1990, and 2000 decennial census. All other data are from Campbell J. Gibson and Emily Lennon, "Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850 to 1990" (Working Paper no. 29, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 1999).

Since 1970, the share and number of immigrants have increased rapidly, mainly because of large-scale immigration from Latin America and Asia. The vast diversification of immigration flows was ushered in by important shifts in U.S. immigration law (including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which abolished national-origin admission quotas; the creation of a formal refugee resettlement program with the Refugee Act of 1980; and the Cold War-era grant of preferential treatment to Cuban immigrants); the United States' growing economic and military presence in Asia and Latin America; economic ties, social linkages, and deep migration history between the United States and its southern neighbors; and major economic transformations and political instability in countries around the world.
How do today's top countries of origin compare to those 50 years ago?
In 2019, Mexicans comprised 24 percent of all immigrants in the United States a decline from 30 percent in 2000. Immigrants from India and China (including those born in Hong Kong and Macao but not Taiwan) were the next two largest immigrant groups, each making up about 6 percent of the foreign-born population. Other top countries of origin include the Philippines (5 percent); El Salvador, Vietnam, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic (each accounting for 3 percent); and Guatemala and Korea (each 2 percent). Together, these ten countries accounted for 57 percent of all immigrants in the United States in 2019.

The predominance of immigration from Latin America and Asia in the late 20th and early 21st centuries starkly contrasts with the trend in the mid-1900s, when immigrants were largely European. In the 1960s no single country accounted for more than 15 percent of the U.S. immigrant population. Italians were the top origin group, making up 13 percent of the foreign born in 1960, followed by Germans and Canadians (about 10 percent each).
How long have immigrants lived in the United States, and what are the leading sending countries?
Fifty percent of all immigrants in the United States in 2019 had entered the country prior to 2000 (29 percent entered before 1990 and 21 percent between 1990 and 1999), while 25 percent entered between 2000 and 2009 and the remaining 25 percent in 2010 or later.

While immigrants from Mexico have dominated the flows post-1970, the composition of new arrivals has changed since 2010. Recently arrived immigrants are more likely to come from Asia, with India and China leading the way. In fact, in 2013, India and China overtook Mexico as the top origin countries for new arrivals, displacing its longstanding position.

The number of immigrants from the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, Cuba, Venezuela, Guatemala, and El Salvador also increased between 2010 and 2019. By contrast, the number of Mexican immigrants in the United States declined by more than 779,000 during the same period, representing the biggest absolute decline of all immigrant groups.

Among the origin countries with at least 100,000 immigrants in the United States in 2019, the top five that experienced the fastest growth between 2010 and 2019 were Venezuela (an increase of 153 percent), Afghanistan (143 percent), Nepal (140 percent), Myanmar (also known as Burma; 84 percent), and Nigeria (79 percent).

Read more about Immigrants from New Origin Countries in the United States.

Check out Largest U.S. Immigrant Groups over Time, 1960-Present, an interactive tool showing the top ten source countries by decade.

To learn more about key immigrant populations, check out the Migration Information Source's Spotlights archive, which includes data profiles of individual immigrant groups in the United States, including Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, South and Central Americans, Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, and those from the Middle East-North Africa region.

How many U.S. residents are of immigrant origin?
Immigrants and their U.S.-born children number approximately 85.7 million people, or 26 percent of the U.S. population, according to the 2020 Current Population Survey (CPS), a slight decline from 2019. The Pew Research Center has projected that the immigrant-origin share of the population will rise to about 36 percent by 2065.

Demographic, Educational, and Linguistic Characteristics
What is the median age for immigrants?
The immigrant population's median age in 2019 was 45.7 years, making it older than the U.S.-born population, which had a median age of 36.5 years. Children of immigrants who are born in the United States contribute to the younger median age of the U.S.-born population compared to the immigrant population, which is comprised of people who immigrate largely as adults.

Fewer than 1 percent of immigrants were under age 5 in 2019, compared to 7 percent of the U.S.-born population in this age group. Children and youth ages 5 to 17 years accounted for 5 percent of immigrants and 18 percent of the U.S.-born population. People of working age (18 to 64 years) comprised 78 percent of the immigrant population, a much higher figure than the 59 percent of U.S. born in this category. Approximately 17 percent of immigrants were 65 years and older, similar to the 16 percent of the U.S. born in this age group.
What is the female share of the immigrant population?
In 2019, about 52 percent of all U.S. immigrants were female. The share has fluctuated slightly over the past four decades: 53 percent in 1980, 51 percent in 1990, 50 percent in 2000, and 51 percent in 2010.
What is the racial makeup of immigrants?
In 2019, 45 percent of immigrants reported their race as single-race White, 27 percent as Asian, 10 percent as Black, and 15 percent as some other race. About 2 percent reported having two or more races.
How many immigrants are Hispanic or Latino?
In 2019, 44 percent of U.S. immigrants (19.8 million people) reported having Hispanic or Latino origins.

Note: The Census Bureau classifies Hispanic and Latino as ethnic categories, separate from the racial categories listed above (see Definitions box for more information).
How many Hispanics in the United States are immigrants?
The majority of U.S. Hispanics are U.S.-born. Of the 60.5 million people in 2019 who self-identified as Hispanic or Latino, 33 percent (19.8 million) were immigrants and 67 percent (40.6 million) were U.S.-born.

Use the MPI Data Hub's State Immigration Data Profiles to learn more about the demographic characteristics of immigrants and the U.S. born (including race and ethnicity) in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the United States.
Which languages are most frequently spoken at home?
In 2019, approximately 78 percent (241 million) of all 308.8 million people ages 5 and older regardless of nativity reported speaking only English at home. The remaining 22 percent (67.8 million) reported speaking a language other than English at home.

Among those who reported speaking a language other than English at home, 62 percent were Spanish speakers. Other top languages were Chinese (5 percent, including Mandarin and Cantonese); Tagalog (almost 3 percent); and Vietnamese, Arabic, French (including Cajun), and Korean (about 2 percent each) (see Table 1).
Table 1. Languages Spoken at Home Other than English (ages 5 and older), 2019
Source: MPI tabulation of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2019 ACS.

Spanish was the most common language after English in all but four states: Alaska (where the Eskimo-Aleut languages dominated), Hawaii (Ilocano, Samoan, Hawaiian, Marshallese, or other Austronesian languages), and Maine and Vermont (French) (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Map of Most Commonly Spoken Languages other than English and Spanish, by State, 2019
Notes: Chinese includes Mandarin and Cantonese; Dakota+ includes Dakota, Lakota, Nakota, and Sioux; French includes Cajun; Ilocano+ includes Ilocano, Samoan, Hawaiian, Marshallese, or other Austronesian languages; Pennsylvania Dutch+ includes Pennsylvania German, Yiddish, or other West Germanic languages; and Tagalog includes Filipino.

Source: MPI analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2019 ACS for the United States and all states except Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming, as well as the District of Columbia. Data for these 15 jurisdictions are from the U.S. Census Bureau pooled 2015-19 ACS.
How many immigrants are Limited English Proficient (LEP)?
In 2019, approximately 46 percent (20.7 million) of the 44.6 million immigrants ages 5 and older were Limited English Proficient (LEP). Immigrants accounted for 81 percent of the country's 25.5 million LEP individuals.

Note: The term "Limited English Proficient" refers to persons ages 5 and older who reported speaking English "not at all," "not well," or "well" on their survey questionnaire. Individuals who reported speaking "only English" or speaking English "very well" are considered proficient in English.
What share of the immigrant population has a college education?
In 2019, 33 percent (12.9 million) of the 39.5 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, similar to U.S.-born adults (see Figure 3). Notably, 48 percent of immigrants who entered the country between 2014 and 2019 held bachelor's degrees or higher, compared to 33 percent of the U.S.-born and overall immigrant populations.
Figure 3. Educational Attainment of U.S.-Born, Immigrant, and Recently Arrived Immigrant Residents, 2019
Note: Recently arrived immigrants are those who entered the United States between 2014 and 2019.

Source: MPI tabulation of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2019 ACS.

Educational attainment varies by country of origin. In 2019, almost 80 percent of Indian immigrant adults in the United States had a bachelor's degree or more. Other top countries were Zimbabwe (74 percent), Taiwan (73 percent), United Arab Emirates and Belarus (70 percent each), and Singapore (69 percent).

Immigrant Destinations
Which states have the largest number of immigrants and which ones have experienced the fastest growth of their immigrant populations?
In 2019, the top five U.S. states by number of immigrants were California (10.6 million), Texas (5 million), Florida (4.5 million), New York (4.4 million), and New Jersey (2.1 million).

When classified by immigrants' share of total population, the top five states in 2019 were California (27 percent), New Jersey (23 percent), New York (22 percent), Florida (21 percent), and Nevada (20 percent).

Interested in the top U.S. destinations for immigrants by country or region of origin? Use our interactive maps to see top immigrant concentrations at state and county or metropolitan-area levels.

While traditional immigrant destinations have the largest absolute number of new immigrants, other states have seen much larger relative growth in their immigrant populations. In some cases this is because the states' initial foreign-born populations were quite small, so a relatively small absolute increase has translated into high-percent growth (see Table 2).
Table 2. Top Five States by Absolute and Percent Growth in Immigrant Population, 2000-10 and 2010-19 Absolute Growth Percent Change
Source: MPI tabulation of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2019 ACS and 2000 decennial census.

Immigrants in the Labor Force
How many immigrants are in the U.S. civilian labor force?
Immigrants constituted 17 percent (28.6 million) of the civilian labor force (166.3 million) in 2019. Immigrant participation in the labor force has more than tripled since 1970, when immigrants accounted for approximately 5 percent of the civilian labor force.
What types of jobs do immigrants perform?
Of the 27.6 million employed foreign-born workers ages 16 and older in 2019, the largest share (35 percent) worked in management, professional, and related occupations (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Employed Workers in the U.S. Civilian Labor Force (ages 16 and older), by Nativity and Occupation, 2019
Note: Numbers may not add up to 100 as they are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: MPI tabulation of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2019 ACS.

Income and Poverty

In 2019, immigrant households had a median income of $63,550, compared to $66,040 for native-born households.

Fourteen percent of immigrants were poor (that is, with family incomes below the official poverty threshold), compared to 12 percent of the U.S. born.

Health Insurance Coverage
What share of immigrants have health insurance?
In 2019, approximately 58 percent of U.S. immigrants had private health insurance (compared to 69 percent of the U.S. born), and 30 percent had public health insurance coverage (compared to 36 percent of the U.S. born).

Since implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2014, health insurance coverage rates improved for both the U.S. born and immigrants. From 2013 to 2017, the rate of uninsured immigrants fell from 32 percent to 20 percent, and the rate for the native born fell from 12 percent to 7 percent. In 2017, the Trump administration made a number of changes to policies initiated by the ACA, including removing the individual coverage mandate, ending cost-sharing subsidies to insurers, and cutting funding for navigator programs. In 2019, the share of uninsured among the immigrant population remained at about 20 percent.

Note: Health insurance coverage is calculated only for the civilian, noninstitutionalized population. Since some people may simultaneously hold both private and public health insurance coverage, estimates of those with public health insurance and those with public coverage may overlap. Their sum therefore may be greater than the total number of people with health insurance.

Children of Immigrants
How many U.S. children live with immigrant parents?
In 2019, approximately 17.8 million U.S. children under age 18 lived with at least one immigrant parent. They accounted for 26 percent of the 68.9 million children under age 18 in the United States, up from 19 percent in 2000 and 13 percent in 1990.

Second-generation children, who were born in the United States to at least one foreign-born parent, accounted for 88 percent (15.6 million) of all children under age 18 with immigrant parents. The remaining 12 percent (2.2 million) were born outside the United States.
How has the number of children in immigrant families changed over time?
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of children ages 17 and under with immigrant parents grew 30 percent, from 13.1 million to 17 million. Between 2010 and 2019, the number grew by another 5 percent, reaching 17.8 million.

The population of first-generation children, who were born outside the United States, declined by 12 percent between 2000 and 2010, from 2.7 million to 2.4 million. It then declined further by another 9 percent between 2010 and 2019, to 2.2 million.

In contrast, the number of second-generation children has grown steadily since 2000. Between 2000 and 2010, the number increased by 40 percent, from 10.4 million to 14.6 million, followed by a 7 percent increase between 2010 and 2019, reaching 15.6 million.
How many children living with immigrant parents are in low-income families?
In 2019, there were 25.6 million children under age 18 living in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold. Of them, nearly 8 million (or 31 percent) were children of immigrants.

Children of immigrants were more likely to be in low-income families (45 percent of the 17.8 million) compared to children of U.S.-born parents (35 percent of the 51.1 million).
Which states have the largest number of children in immigrant families and which ones have experienced the fastest growth of this population?
In 2019, the top five states by the total number of children under age 18 living with immigrant parents were California (4 million), Texas (2.4 million), New York (1.4 million), Florida (1.4 million), and New Jersey (769,000). These states accounted for 56 percent of the 17.8 million U.S. children with immigrant parents.

The five states with the largest share of children with immigrant parents in 2019 were California (47 percent of all children in the state), New Jersey (41 percent), Nevada (38 percent), New York (36 percent), and Texas (35 percent).

While traditional immigrant destinations experienced the largest absolute growth in children with immigrant parents over time, other states have seen much larger relative growth (see Table 3). In some states, this is because the initial number of children with immigrant parents was quite small. Thus, relatively small absolute increases in the immigrant population in these states have translated into high percent growth.
Table 3. Top Five States by Absolute and Percent Growth in Children with Immigrant Parents, 2000-10 and 2010-19 Absolute Growth Percent Growth
Source: MPI tabulation of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2019 ACS and 2000 decennial census.

Permanent Immigration
How many immigrants obtain lawful permanent residence (also known as getting a green card)?
In fiscal year (FY) 2019, 1 million immigrants became lawful permanent residents (LPRs, also known as green-card holders). The number of new LPRs in FY 2019 decreased by 64,800 from the prior year (a 6 percent drop). In the past decade, the annual number of new green-card recipients has ranged from 991,000 (FY 2013) to 1.2 million (FY 2016).

In recent years, immigrants obtaining LPR status have been, on average, about evenly divided between those already living in the United States who are adjusting their status and those applying from outside the country. More than 55 percent (or 573,000) of the 1 million new LPRs in FY 2019 received green cards from within the United States. Many of these new permanent residents are spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens, or persons who arrived as refugees or as temporary workers.

About 459,000 of the new LPRs (nearly 45 percent) were granted this status from abroad in FY 2019, a slight dip from previous years when the share of new arrivals was higher (48 percent in FY 2018 and 51 percent the prior year). Most new arrivals are immediate family members of U.S. citizens and LPRs.
Under which categories are permanent immigrants admitted?
There are four main pathways to obtain a green card: through a family relationship, employment sponsorship, humanitarian protection (for refugees and asylees), and the Diversity Visa (DV) lottery (also known as the green-card lottery).

Overall, of the 1 million immigrants who received green cards in FY 2019, 49 percent were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (an uncapped visa category), followed by another 20 percent of family-related immigrants (whose admission is limited by visa and country caps).

Ten percent of new green-card holders adjusted from refugee or asylee status. About 14 percent of new LPRs were either sponsored by their employers or self-petitioned, including investors who create jobs. Approximately 4 percent were diversity lottery winners.
What are the top five countries of birth for new permanent immigrants?
The top five countries of birth in FY 2019 were Mexico (15 percent), mainland China (6 percent), India (5 percent), the Dominican Republic (5 percent), and the Philippines (4 percent). These countries represented about 36 percent of everyone who received a green card in FY 2019.
How many people are selected in the Diversity Visa lottery and where do they come from?
In FY 2019, 43,000 people from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States received a green card as diversity immigrants, representing approximately 4 percent of the 1 million new LPRs.

The leading countries of birth of DV immigrants were Egypt and Nepal, together accounting for about 14 percent of DV entrants adjusting to LPR status. Other top countries of origin were the Democratic Republic of the Congo (6 percent), Russia (5 percent), Albania (5 percent), Ukraine (4 percent), and Ethiopia, Cameroon, Turkey, and Algeria (3 percent each).

For some countries, the Diversity Visa lottery represents a major share of all new LPRs. For example, out of all nationals of Tajikistan adjusting to LPR status in FY 2019, 72 percent were DV immigrants. Shares were also high for nationals of Algeria (58 percent) and Azerbaijan (55 percent). DV lottery winners represented between 40 percent and 50 percent of new LPRs originally from Turkmenistan, Sudan, Benin, and Albania.

Created in 1990, the lottery sets aside 55,000 green cards annually, of which 5,000 must be used for applicants under the Nicaraguan and Central America Relief Act of 1997. Interest in the lottery is significantly higher than the amount of available visas; about 6.7 million qualified applications were registered for the DV-2021, covering 11.8 million applicants and their spouses and minor children. This number was down from 14.7 million in DV-2020 and 14.4 million in DV-2019. (The application number varies each year in part because of which countries are eligible.) Before receiving permission to immigrate, lottery winners must provide proof of a high school education or its equivalent or show two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience. They also must pass a medical exam and a background check.

Read the most recent State Department Visa Bulletin for more on the DV lottery.

Temporary Visas
How many people have temporary visas?
According to the most recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates available at this writing, 2.3 million foreign nationals on various temporary visas resided in the United States during FY 2016, up from about 2 million in FY 2015. Almost half (1.1 million) were temporary workers and their families, followed by 40 percent who were foreign students and their families (870,000).

Sixty-one percent were from Asia. Nationals of countries in Europe and North America accounted for 15 percent each. The top five countries of origin-India, China, Mexico, Canada, and South Korea-accounted for 57 percent of all residents on temporary visas.

Note: This estimate of temporary visa holders includes temporary workers, international students, exchange visitors, diplomats, and representatives of foreign governments and international organizations. It excludes tourists and other short-term visitors. North America includes Canada, Bermuda, Central America, and the Caribbean.
How many people entered the United States on nonimmigrant visas?
According to the most recently available data from DHS, 42.7 million individuals entered in FY 2016 as I-94 nonimmigrants on various temporary visas. On average, each I-94 nonimmigrant was admitted 1.8 times. This is the first time, and to date the only time, the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) has estimated the number of unique individuals who came temporarily, as opposed to the number of nonimmigrant admissions or entries.

Most of these nonimmigrants-34.2 million-entered as tourists, followed by 3.7 million as business visitors. Of these, 15 million tourists and 1.7 million business travelers were from Visa Waiver Program countries, meaning they did not need a visa to enter the United States. Further, approximately 1 million international students entered on F-1 visas. OIS additionally estimated that about 290,300 individuals were admitted on high-skilled worker H-1B visas (mostly from India, China, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Mexico) and 81,600 on nonagricultural temporary or seasonal worker H-2B visas (mostly from Mexico, Jamaica, Guatemala, South Africa, and Canada).
How many nonimmigrant visas does the State Department issue?
In FY 2020, the annual number of nonimmigrant visas issued by the State Department decreased for the fourth time since 2015, to 4 million-a 54 percent decline from the 8.7 million issued in FY 2019.

Seventy-one percent of the 4 million nonimmigrant visas issued in FY 2020 were temporary business and tourist visas (B and BCC visas). The next largest visa class was for temporary workers and trainees and their family members (H visa categories), who comprised 12 percent of nonimmigrant visas issued in FY 2020. The third largest group was for academic students and exchange visitors and their family members (F and J visa categories), who comprised 6 percent of nonimmigrant visas.

In addition to the Trump administration's travel ban, which was extended to six other countries in early 2020, the sharp decline in nonimmigrant visa issuances in FY 2020 can be attributed to the worldwide slowdown in mobility amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the administration's accompanying immigration restrictions. On June 22, 2020, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation suspending the issuance of certain nonimmigrant visas. This proclamation applied to H-1B visas (for temporary workers in specialty occupations), H-2B visas (for nonagricultural workers), certain J visas (for exchange visitors), and L visas (for intracompany transferees), as well as visas issued to the dependents of these nonimmigrants.

Note: The number of visas issued does not necessarily match the number of foreign nationals who entered the United States in the same year because some nonimmigrant visas may not be used.
How many nonimmigrant admissions does DHS grant in a year?
DHS granted 186 million nonimmigrant admissions in FY 2019, of which 105 million were admissions of Canadians and Mexicans traveling for business or pleasure. These travelers are exempt from completing the I-94 arrival/departure form at the port of entry, thus DHS does not provide characteristics for this group.

In FY 2019, there were 81.6 million total temporary admissions of I-94 nonimmigrants, similar to the 81.3 million a year earlier (see Table 4).
Table 4. Nonimmigrant Admissions by Category, FY 2019 (I-94 only)
Note: Nonimmigrant admissions represent the number of entries. Individuals may have multiple entries within the year. The DHS Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) reports characteristics of nonimmigrants who must complete an I-94 arrival/departure form at entry.

Source: DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2019.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers
How many refugees entered the United States, and where were they from?
Every year, the president in consultation with Congress sets the annual refugee admissions ceiling and allocations by region of origin. The Trump administration set the annual ceiling at 18,000 in FY 2020 and 15,000 in FY 2021, down from the 30,000 ceiling of FY 2019 and the lowest since the resettlement program was formally created in 1980. The Biden administration has pledged to reverse the cuts, including by raising the FY 2022 ceiling to 125,000 refugees.

In FY 2020, more than 11,800 refugees were resettled in the United States, amounting to 66 percent of the admission ceiling allocated for the year. This represents a 61 decrease from the 30,000 admissions in FY 2019.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Myanmar (also known as Burma), Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Iraq were the primary countries of nationality, accounting for 68 percent (8,100) of all refugees resettled in FY 2020. Rounding out the top ten were Syria, Eritrea, El Salvador, Moldova, and Sudan. Together, nationals of the top ten countries comprised 85 percent (10,000) of all refugee arrivals in FY 2020 (see Table 5).
Table 5. Top Ten Countries of Refugee Admissions by Nationality, FY 2020
Source: MPI tabulation of Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System (WRAPS) data from the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.
What is the female share of the resettled refugee population?
In FY 2020, about 48 percent of all resettled refugees in the United States were female.
What are the most common religions of refugees?
Refugees who identified as Christian (including Pentecostalists, Catholics, and Baptists) made up 74 percent of all admitted refugees in FY 2020. Muslim refugees (including Sunni and Shiite) comprised 22 percent of resettled refugees. The remainder included Buddhists (1 percent) and Hindu (under 1 percent). About 1 percent of refugees reported not being affiliated with any religion or being atheists.

Overall, the United States admitted more Christian refugees in the past decade than Muslim ones. Between FY 2010 and FY 2020, Christians represented 48 percent (286,100) of the 601,000 refugees with known religion data. In comparison, 33 percent (201,000) of refugees admitted during the same period were Muslim.

FY 2016 marked the only time since 2010 when the United States resettled more Muslim refugees (38,900 individuals, or 46 percent of the total 85,000 refugees in FY 2016) than Christians (44 percent, 37,500 individuals). Since the Trump administration implemented restrictions on admissions of nationals of particular countries, additional vetting procedures, and historically low admissions ceilings, the proportion of resettled Muslim and Christian refugees has changed substantially in the last five years.
Note: Refugee demographic data is based on self-identification, so religious breakdowns include major religions as well as denominations. What are the most common languages spoken among refugees?
In FY 2020, the top languages spoken by resettled refugees were Ukrainian, Russian, Arabic, and Kiswahili. Rounding the top ten were Spanish, Kinyarwanda, Sgaw Karen, Kibembe, Tigrinya, and Dari. Speakers of the top ten languages made up 71 percent of all refugees resettled that year.
How many asylum applications were filed and where are asylum seekers from?
Approximately 92,800 affirmative asylum applications were received by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in FY 2020, the lowest number in five years. This marked the third year of declining applications after eight years of growth, and is at least partly due to the pandemic-related closure of USCIS offices for nearly three months. Applicants for affirmative asylum must be present in the United States, and do not include those seeking asylum through the defensive asylum process while in removal proceedings.

Meanwhile, 151,800 defensive asylum applications were filed with the Department of Justice's immigration court system, known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), in FY 2020-a similar number as FY 2019 and a 31 percent increase from the 116,000 applications filed in FY 2018.
What is the asylum approval rate?
According to USCIS data, 31 percent of affirmative asylum petitions adjudicated in FY 2019 were approved, a slight increase from the 30 percent in FY 2018 but a decline from the 37 percent in FY 2017 and 43 percent in FY 2016. (USCIS data for FY 2020 were not available at the time of writing.)

Asylum petitions handled by immigration courts have undergone a steadier downward trend. In FY 2020, 26 percent of such petitions were approved, versus 29 percent in FY 2019, 33 percent in FY 2018, 37 percent in FY 2017, and 43 percent in FY 2016.
How many people receive asylum status?
In FY 2019, 46,500 individuals, including principal applicants and their spouses and/or unmarried children under age 21, were granted asylum after seeking protection upon or after arrival in the United States-a 24 percent increase from 37,600 in FY 2018. An additional 3,300 individuals received derivative asylum status in the United States as immediate family members of principal applicants and 6,300 were approved for derivative status outside the United States. (Note that this number reflects travel documents issued to these family members, not their arrival in the United States.)

Nearly 60 percent of asylum grants came through USCIS (rather than in the immigration courts), of which there were 27,600 in FY 2019, up 13 percent from 24,400 in FY 2018 and up 77 percent from 15,600 in FY 2017. This increase is partly a result of a January 2018 policy change by USCIS to begin adjudicating asylum applications on a last-in, first-out basis, which the agency has said discourages non-meritorious cases.

China was the top country of origin for those receiving asylum in FY 2019, with 7,500 people (or 16 percent of total asylum grants), followed closely by Venezuela, with 6,800 individuals (accounting for 15 percent). Other top countries of origin were El Salvador (with 3,200), Guatemala (2,600), and India (2,300). Together, nationals of these five countries made up 48 percent of those receiving asylum in FY 2019.
What is the current asylum application backlog?
Due to the large application volume and limited resources, both the affirmative and defensive asylum systems have extensive backlogs. As of December 2020, according to USCIS, there were 350,000 affirmative cases pending; EOIR reported over 570,000 pending asylum cases.

Unauthorized Immigrants
How many unauthorized immigrants are in the United States?
The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) has estimated there were about 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States in 2018. Almost half resided in three states: California (24 percent), Texas (16 percent), and New York (8 percent). The vast majority (81 percent) lived in 178 counties with 10,000 or more unauthorized immigrants each, of which the top five-Los Angeles County, CA; Harris County, TX; Dallas County, TX; Cook County, IL; and Orange County, CA-accounted for 19 percent of all unauthorized immigrants.
Where are unauthorized immigrants from?
Mexicans and Central Americans accounted for roughly two-thirds (68 percent, or 7.4 million) of U.S. unauthorized immigrants as of 2014-18, MPI estimates. About 1.5 million (14 percent) were from Asia; 783,000 (7 percent) from South America; 648,000 (6 percent) from Europe, Canada, or Oceania; 406,000 (4 percent) from the Caribbean; and 230,000 (2 percent) from Africa.

The top five countries of birth for unauthorized immigrants were Mexico (51 percent), El Salvador (7 percent), Guatemala (5 percent), and India and Honduras (4 percent each).
How many unauthorized immigrants live with children under age 18?
About 4.4 million unauthorized immigrants (42 percent of all unauthorized immigrants ages 15 and older) lived with one or more children under age 18 as of 2014-18, MPI estimates. Of this group, about 84 percent (3.7 million) resided with at least one U.S.-citizen child under age 18 and 16 percent (704,000) lived with only non-U.S.-citizen children.
How many children under age 18 live with at least one unauthorized immigrant parent?
Approximately 5.2 million children under age 18 lived with an unauthorized immigrant parent during the 2014-18 period, representing 7 percent of the U.S. child population. About 85 percent (4.4 million) of these children were U.S. citizens, another 14 percent (728,000) were themselves unauthorized, and 1 percent (63,000) were legally present, including LPRs and those with temporary visas.
How many people are eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program under original rules and how many applications have been received since its launch in 2012?
The DACA program, announced on June 15, 2012, offers a two-year grant of deportation relief and work authorization to eligible young unauthorized immigrants. Requirements for eligibility include:

being at least 15 years old;

having entered the United States before the age of 16;

having continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007;

being enrolled in school, having earned a high school diploma or its equivalent, or being an honorably discharged veteran; and

having not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors; or otherwise posing a threat to public safety or national security.

On September 5, 2017, the Trump administration announced the termination of DACA, with a six-month wind-down. Multiple court challenges over the decision led to preliminary injunctions that allowed DACA recipients to renew their protections starting January 2018, but only for current holders or those who held DACA in the past. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2020 that the DACA recission violated federal law.

After additional federal district court rulings, including one in November 2020 invalidating a DHS policy memo seeking to bar new DACA applicants and shorten work authorization periods, USCIS has been accepting new DACA applications. On his first day in office, President Joe Biden announced his intent to preserve the DACA program.

MPI estimates that 1.7 million individuals were DACA-eligible as of December 2020, 1.3 million of whom were immediately eligible under the program's age and educational requirements.

Between August 15, 2012 (when the government began accepting applications) and September 30, 2020, a total of 827,100 applicants were approved, suggesting this is the maximum number of people who have ever held DACA status at one point or another during the life of the program. The agency granted 90 percent of the 914,600 initial applications; 9 percent (82,400) were denied, and 4,000 remained pending.

The top five states of residence for accepted initial applications since the program's inception are California (28 percent), Texas (16 percent), Illinois and New York (5 percent each), and Florida (4 percent). The top five countries of origin of accepted applicants are Mexico (78 percent), El Salvador (4 percent), Guatemala (3 percent), Honduras (2 percent), and South Korea (1 percent).
How many people still have DACA status?
USCIS reports as of September 30, 2020, 640,700 individuals had active DACA status.

The top states of residence for DACA active participants were California (29 percent), Texas (16 percent), and Illinois (5 percent), followed by New York, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona (about 4 percent each).

The top countries of origin of active DACA program participants were Mexico (81 percent), El Salvador (4 percent), Guatemala (3 percent), Honduras (2 percent), and Peru, South Korea, Brazil, and Ecuador (about 1 percent each).
How many people are covered by Temporary Protected Status?
Since the Immigration Act of 1990, the United States has occasionally granted a form of humanitarian relief called Temporary Protected Status (TPS) when the origin countries of foreign nationals in the United States experience natural disasters, armed conflicts, or other circumstances making return unsafe. TPS offers work authorization and protection from deportation for six- to 18-month periods. El Salvador was the first country to be designated for TPS, in 1990, to protect Salvadorans who had fled its civil war.

Since 1990, 22 countries have been designated for TPS. Ten countries currently are designated: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. In 2020, an estimated 319,000 people from these ten countries had maintained active status under TPS, with the largest groups being Salvadorans (195,000), Hondurans (57,000), and Haitians (46,000).

The Trump administration attempted to halt extension of TPS for immigrants from El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan; court cases challenged the effort and TPS protections have been extended for those countries through October 4, 2021.
How many unaccompanied children and families have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border?
Enforcement encounters at the Southwest border decreased significantly in FY 2020, dropping sharply during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic and increasing slightly in the last couple months of the fiscal year. (The term "enforcement encounters," used by DHS, covers both apprehensions and the expulsions of most Southwest border arrivals since a pandemic-related public-health order took effect in March 2020.) The U.S. Border Patrol made 52,200 encounters of children and adults travelling as families (known as "family units") and about 30,600 unaccompanied children along the Southwest border in FY 2020. This represents an 85 percent decrease from the 474,000 family units and 76,000 unaccompanied minors apprehended in FY 2019.

The apprehensions in FY 2019 were the highest recorded since recordkeeping began in FY 2008 for unaccompanied children and in FY 2012 for family units. But the FY 2020 encounters were also much lower than the 107,200 family units and 50,000 unaccompanied children apprehended in FY 2018, pointing to the impact of COVID-19 on activity at the border. In April, shortly after adopting new restrictions in response to the pandemic, only slightly more than 700 family units were intercepted at the Southwest border, a 79 percent decrease from the previous month. These children and families were primarily from Mexico, with smaller numbers from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala

Note: The term "family unit" refers to individuals-either a child under 18 years old, parent, or legal guardian-apprehended with a family member by the U.S. Border Patrol.

Immigration Enforcement

Note: The government fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30. All figures for immigration control and enforcement given here are for the fiscal year. The data presented here are the most recent offered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
How many apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants occur at the border annually?
CBP reported 405,000 enforcement encounters at both the southern and northern borders in FY 2020, a significant decrease from 859,500 a year earlier.

Note: Apprehensions and expulsions are events, not individuals. In other words, the same individual can be apprehended more than once, with each apprehension counted separately. The recidivism rate has increased sharply since the expulsions policy began, given intercepted migrants are not being put into formal removal proceedings that could trigger criminal sanctions upon a future re-entry.
How many people are arrested by ICE within the United States yearly?
ICE made 103,600 administrative arrests in FY 2020, down 28 percent from a year earlier. ICE has attributed the drop to a change in focus during COVID-19. An administrative arrest is the arrest of an individual for a civil violation of U.S. immigration law, which is subsequently adjudicated by an immigration judge or through other administrative processes.
How many people are deported per year?
Removals and returns, which are carried out both by ICE and CBP, result in the confirmed movement of inadmissible or deportable aliens out of the United States. DHS reported a total of 531,300 removals and returns during FY 2019. CBP carried out 264,100 removals and returns in FY 2019, up 39 percent from 190,300 a year earlier. ICE carried out 267,300 removals and returns in FY 2019, a 4 percent increase from the prior year.

CBP data on FY 2020 returns and removals were not available at the time of writing, but ICE effectuated 185,900 removals and returns, a 30 percent decrease from FY 2019.
How many immigrants are naturalized citizens?
In FY 2019, 23.2 million immigrants were naturalized U.S. citizens, accounting for approximately 52 percent of the total foreign-born population (44.9 million) and 7 percent of the U.S. population (328.2 million), according to ACS estimates.

Of the 23.2 million naturalized citizens, 32 percent were naturalized between FY 2010 and 2019, 28 percent between FY 2000 and 2009, and 39 percent prior to FY 2000.
How many immigrants become U.S. citizens annually?
USCIS naturalized about 844,000 green-card holders in FY 2019, an 11 percent increase from the 762,000 in FY 2018. The number of petitions for naturalization filed in FY 2019 (831,000) fell by 1 percent from a year earlier (837,000). At the same time, the number of denied petitions increased by 6 percent, from 93,000 in FY 2018 to 98,000 the following year. USCIS is taking longer to process naturalization applications, with average processing time increasing from 5.6 months in FY 2016 to 9.9 months in FY 2019.

From a historical perspective, naturalizations have increased dramatically in recent decades. On average, fewer than 120,000 LPRs became citizens each year between 1950 and 1969, 210,000 in the 1980s, 500,000 in the 1990s, and 680,000 during the 2000s. Naturalizations reached an all-time high in FY 2008, increasing 59 percent from 660,000 the prior year to 1,047,000. This came as a result of impending application fee increases and the promotion of U.S. citizenship in advance of the 2008 presidential election. Between 2010 and 2019, an average 730,000 immigrants received U.S. citizenship annually.
How many foreign nationals become U.S. citizens through military naturalization?
In FY 2019, 3,800 foreign-born military personnel became U.S. citizens, a 16 percent drop from the prior year (4,500) and the lowest number since FY 2002.
Where are newly naturalized citizens from?
Of the new U.S. citizens in FY 2019, 14 percent were born in Mexico, 8 percent in India, and 5 percent each in the Philippines and China (see Table 6). Immigrants from these four countries, together with those from Cuba, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Iraq, El Salvador, and Jamaica comprised the top ten countries of birth for newly naturalized citizens in FY 2019. These countries accounted for 48 percent of the 844,000 new U.S. citizens that fiscal year.
Table 6. Top Ten Countries of Origin of Newly Naturalized Citizens, FY 2019
Source: DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2019.
Where do newly naturalized citizens live?
In FY 2019, 55 percent of the newly naturalized lived in one of five states: California, with 18 percent (148,800); followed by 12 percent in Texas (97,700); 11 percent in Florida (96,100); 10 percent in New York (85,400); and 4 percent in New Jersey (36,700).

The top five metropolitan areas with the largest number of naturalizations were New York-Newark-Jersey City (108,000), Miami-Ft Lauderdale-Pompano Beach (60,600), Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim (56,900), Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land (33,800), and Washington-Arlington-Alexandria (30,800). These five metro areas accounted for 34 percent of all naturalizations in FY 2019.
How many green-card holders are eligible to naturalize?
According to the latest available DHS estimates, about 9.1 million of the 13.6 million green-card holders residing in the United States on January 1, 2019 were eligible to naturalize.
How long does it take on average for green-card holders to naturalize?
On average, immigrants held green cards for eight years before becoming U.S. citizens in 2019, unchanged from the year before. The time varied by country of origin: African-born immigrants spent an average six years in LPR status before naturalization, followed by those born in Asia (seven years), South America (eight years), Europe (nine years), and Oceania and North America (including Central America, ten years each).

In general, naturalization requires being at least 18 years of age, passing English and civic exams, and for most, residing in the United States with LPR status continuously for at least five years (three years for those married to a U.S. citizen).

Visa Backlogs
How many visa applications for permanent immigration (green cards) are backlogged?
Because of limits on certain visa categories and per-country caps, the U.S. government in some cases is still processing applications that are more than two decades old. In February 2021, the State Department was processing some family-sponsored visa applications dating to September 1996, and employment-related visa applications from April 2009.

According to data on petitions submitted to the State Department, there were almost 4 million applicants (including spouses and minor children) who were on the waiting list as of November 1, 2020, a 10 percent increase from the same point in 2019 (when there were 3.6 million applicants).

The overwhelming majority of backlogs were family-sponsored applicants (3.8 million, which includes the principal applicant and his or her immediate family members). About 216,000 were employment-sponsored applicants and their families.

Of the overall 4 million applicants, 1.2 million were citizens of Mexico, followed by those from the Philippines (318,000), India (310,000), mainland China (247,000), and Vietnam (218,000). Family- and employment-based prospective immigrants who are waiting to adjust their status to lawful permanent residence from within the United States are not included in the State Department estimates.

USCIS also publishes backlog statistics, but only for petitions approved in one of the five employment-based categories. As of November 2020, slightly more than 500,000 approved employment-based immigrant petitions were awaiting a priority date. The figure corresponds to the number of primary applicants covered by these petitions but excludes their dependents. To MPI's knowledge, USCIS has not published backlog statistics on other types of green-card applications the agency adjudicates.

In other words, the overall number of people waiting for a green card-within and outside of the United States-is likely to be larger than the 4 million reported by the State Department and 500,000 reported by USCIS (as of November 2020).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Jeanne Batalova Jeanne Batalova, Mary Hanna, and Christopher Levesque

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have a question about U.S. immigration trends and the country's immigrant population? This article collects in one place the most sought-after information about the world's largest immigrant population and how it has changed over time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Montsaye Academy (nd) Theories of First Language Acquisition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Activity 5_ Krashen (2013) Five Hypotheses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stages of Second Language Acquisition: ESL, ELL, LEP & Bilingual

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Top Things to Keep in Mind

Keep the following in mind when using the information in the report.

Proficiency levels are domain specific

For example, a sixth grader who earns a scale score of 370 in Listening is at proficiency level 4.3. If that same student earns a scale score of 370 in Reading, they will have a Reading proficiency level of 3.8.

Proficiency level scores should not be compared across grades

A second grader with a 4.0 in Listening and an eighth grader with a 4.0 in Listening are exposed to very different, grade-level appropriate content as they test. While their score reports reflect the same proficiency level, the eighth grader is demonstrating more skill by responding to more challenging content.

Scale scores precisely track student growth over time and across grades

Because scale scores consider differences in item difficulty, they place all students on a single continuum that stretches from kindergarten through grade 12. In addition, scale scores allow you to compare student performance across grades, within each domain, with more granularity than you'll see with proficiency levels. For example, using scale scores, you can track how much a student's listening ability increases from grade 6 to grade 7, or you might compare the speaking skills of your school's second graders to those of the fifth graders when evaluating curricula.
Note: 2025-2026 WIDA ACCESS scale scores have been reset as part of ensuring the assessments reflect the WIDA ELD Standards Framework, 2020 Edition. For this reason, treat this year's scale scores as a new baseline to measure growth against (you can't compare scale scores from previous years).

Scale scores are not raw scores

A raw score is simply a tally of correct responses. Raw scores are not reported for ACCESS because they do not provide a meaningful measure of student performance. For example, consider two students taking ACCESS Online. As the students move through the test, their performance determines which questions they see. The student at beginning proficiency sees easier items, and the higher-proficiency student sees more difficult items.

Confidence bands are included on the Individual Student Report

A scale score is reported as a single point within a confidence band that shows the Standard Error of Measurement. The Standard Error of Measurement is commonly included in score reports and can help test experts understand student performance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WIDA provides sample ACCESS score reports and additional resources to help students, families and educators understand ACCESS scores. Check out the following key resources:For FamiliesWIDA ACCESS: Understanding Your Child's Scores is a family-focused flyer, available in 18 languages, that explains the terms in the score report.WIDA ACCESS Parent Letters are family-focused letters, available in 49 languages including English, that may accompany score reports to help introduce the report to families.

# data[].attributes.headline
Scaffolding language scaffolding learning book

# data[].attributes.subject
Scaffolding language scaffolding learning book

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why cultural diversity matters | Michael Gavin | TEDxCSU

# data[].attributes.headline
Embracing Culture and Background When Teaching

# data[].attributes.subject
Embracing Culture and Background When Teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Embracing Culture and Background When Teaching | ETS Stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With an estimated 4.9 million children in U.S. public schools learning the English language, teachers may need additional support to effectively teach these students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Assess

Choosing an Assessment

ACCESS for ELLs

ACCESS Tests

ACCESS for ELLs Online

ACCESS for ELLs Paper

Kindergarten ACCESS for ELLs

Preparing for ACCESS Testing

ACCESS Test Practice and Sample Items

ACCESS for ELLs Scores and Reports

Alternate ACCESS for ELLs

Preparing to Administer Alternate ACCESS

Alternate ACCESS Scores and Reports

WIDA Screener

WIDA Screener Online

WIDA Screener Paper

WIDA Screener Paper Score Calculator

WIDA Screener for Kindergarten

WIDA Screener for Kindergarten Score Calculator

Kindergarten W-APT

WIDA MODEL

WIDA MODEL Online

WIDA MODEL Paper

WIDA MODEL for Kindergarten

WIDA MODEL Score Calculator

Accessibility and Accommodations

Technology

Building a WIDA Assessment

Using WIDA MODEL to support instructional planning for multilingual learners

Teach

Understanding Multilingual Learners

Family Engagement

Creating a Welcoming Classroom

Understanding What Students Can Do

Can Do Descriptors

Distance Teaching and Learning

Language for Learning

Early Language Development

Teaching in Spanish

Spanish Language Arts Framework (Marco ALE)

Spanish Language Development Standards

Teaching with Standards

ELD Standards Framework

The 2020 Edition

Standards in Action

Working with math by beginning with the end in mind

Grow

U.S.-Based Professional Learning

Assessment Training Workshops and Webinars

Scheduled Workshops and Webinars

Workshops for Schools and Districts

eLearning

ELD Standards Framework Professional Development

International Professional Learning

International Institutes

International Workshops

International Webinars

Global Community of Practice

Early Years Professional Learning

WIDA Español Professional Learning

Conferences

WIDA Annual Conference

WIDA @ Conferences

Research

Recent Projects

Research Publications

Wisconsin Center for Education Research

WIDA School Improvement System

About

Mission and History

Leadership

Teams and Programs

Staff Directory

Partners

News

Featured Educator Nominations

News Signup

Careers

Why Work at WIDA?

Dassler Internship

WIDA Summer Research Internship

Contact Us

Tim talks to Kenji Hakuta, an expert on multilingual learner education.

Memberships and Programs

WIDA Consortium

WIDA Consortium Membership Benefits

WIDA Fellows

International School Consortium

WIDA in Global Contexts

Become a Member

Member Schools

International Newsletter

WIDA Early Years

Early Years Member States

Early Years Membership Benefits

WIDA Español

Join WIDA

Resource Library

Recursos en español

WIDA Store

Sorry, there are no results for your query.

1. Resource Library

2. Fostering Active Comprehension: Asking and Answering Questions

WIDA Video Contest Winner

Shadia Salem encourages her first-grade students to engage in authentic inquiry before reading a text. By asking questions about the topic, students’ reading focus is linked to finding answers to their questions. Shadia’s students stay engaged by working in pairs.

Submitted by Shadia Salem, a first grade Transitional Arabic Bilingual Teacher at Dorn Elementary in Hickory Hills, IL.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fostering Active Comprehension: Asking and Answering Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Shadia Salem encourages her first-grade students to engage in authentic inquiry before reading a text. By asking questions about the topic, students' reading focus is linked to finding answers to their questions. Shadia's students stay engaged by working in pairs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Phonetics - Vowels: Crash Course Linguistics #9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stephen Krashen's 5 Hypotheses of Second Language Acquisition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The English Learner (EL) population in the United States has increased by 8.1 percent between 2000 and 2017, with an increase in percentage in all but seven states and the District of Columbia (U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2020). For the purposes of this summary, EL will be used because of it is the commonly accepted term of the U.S. Department of Education, while other terms such as emergent bilinguals or multilingual learners are emerging in the literature. In addition, this summary focuses on students learning English which may be a second language, or could be a fourth or even fifth language, but what they share is that they are currently learning English as a new language. Ten states have an EL population of 10% or higher. Approximately 8.6% of 6th grade students and 7% of 8th grade students in the United States were English Learners as of the fall of 2017, with a larger percentage being represented in urban than rural areas (NCES, 2020). With rapidly increasing numbers of ELs throughout the United States, it has never been more important to ensure that their needs are being met not just academically, but specifically their multiple and intersecting identities and their sense of belonging, especially in a time so pivotal as that of young adolescence when "students often seek to find their individuality, uniqueness, and autonomy" yet also crave peer acceptance and a sense of belonging (Bishop & Harrison, 2020, p. 63). Additionally, they may start to identify themselves in different ways based on context, but also begin to become more aware of their "social identities such as race, gender, social class, religion, sexuality, and immigration status" (Bishop & Harrison, 2020, p. 63). ELs have to navigate their developing intersecting identities along with their multiple and intersecting social identities necessitating additional social-emotional supports in order for them to be academically successful (Yoon & Uliassi, 2019). For the purposes of this discussion, we will conceptualize identity as not a simple construct, but rather one that is multifaceted and often contextual. Specifically, we will use Yoon's (2010a) definition of identity as follows: "the multiple and shifting presentations of self that are demonstrated through actions and emotions" (p. 20). The following sections of the article review describe research-based approaches to address the identity needs and supports to develop a sense of belonging for the growing population of ELs in connection to best practices identified in The Successful Middle School: This We Believe ([TWB], Bishop & Harrison, 2020).
Overview and Connections to The Successful Middle School: This We Believe
In order for the identity development and belonging needs of ELs to be met, many practices identified in the Association for Middle Level Education's position statement in TWB (Bishop & Harrison, 2020) need to be ensured including the following:
Educators respect and value young adolescents.

"Effective middle school educators engage in developmentally responsive practices that also respond to young adolescents' multiple identities. While age represents an important shared identity across middle schoolers, other social identities such as race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, gender, dis/ability, and religion equally contribute to who young adolescents are and to their experiences in and outside of school. Middle grades educators who value young adolescents acknowledge these multiple and intersecting identities and seek to cultivate relationships, design curriculum, and establish learning environments that support, affirm, and honor youth holistically...p. 19
The school environment is welcoming, inclusive, and affirming for all.

Middle school educators purposefully foster a culture that sustains the dignity of all members within the school community...Affirming classroom communities, whether physical or virtual, are formed when students' identities are valued and respected by their teachers and peers; students' experiences are honored; activities that students enjoy are incorporated into the curriculum; and social, emotional, and academic learning are supported." p. 20
Curriculum is challenging, exploratory, integrative, and diverse.

A middle grades curriculum invites students to learn about matters of personal, social, moral, and ethical significance. p.37...young adolescents reflect on and question how their own cultural and social identity groups relate to, are different from, and are in position to other groups....

Responsive middle school educators acknowledge that students have these important and evolving thoughts around their exploration of identity...

Such a curriculum requires educators to design learning that builds on and sustains students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds and experiences. pp. 40-41

Each is integral at least in some part to supporting the overall well-being of all young adolescent identity development and a sense of belonging but is even more true for ELs.

English Learners are varied in many ways that influence their participation in schooling, including identity formation and finding a sense of belonging within the school community, both of which are intertwined. In fact, Danzak (2011b) stated that membership in various groups not only constitutes a group identity but is a part of the personal identity. As a result, their identity development differs for these students based on their environment and circumstances (Beyer, 2017). These aspects of their development can be influenced by their immigration status, time living in the United States, their language development, their country of origin, and even their location within the United States, let alone other aspects of their identity development such as gender, social class, religion, and sexuality. Students who belong to non-dominant groups, with EL being one of those groups, often exhibit the following characteristics: social exclusion, lack of a sense of belonging, isolation, discrimination, acculturation, experiences of abuse, stratification of friendship depending on ethnicity and race which can have a negative impact on student social and emotional development (Beyer, 2017; Kumar, et al., 2011; Phinney, 2008). Therefore, the purpose of this research summary is to provide a review of the literature related to supporting ELs in middle grades environments specifically related to culturally responsive and sustaining practices, with a focus on those that support identity and social belonging in the schools.
Importance of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy
Culturally sustaining pedagogy is at the center of appropriate practices for English Learners (Danzak, 2011b) and the middle school philosophy (Bishop & Harrison, 2020). Without this foundation, other supports to social emotional learning may be less beneficial. Paris (2012) stated that "Culturally sustaining pedagogy seeks to perpetuate and foster - to sustain - linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic project of schooling" (p. 93). Rather than focusing on creating a monocultural and monolingual society, we need to support students in the development of their culturally plural identities both inside and outside of schooling. In doing so, teachers and schools demonstrate respect and value young adolescents as called for in TWB. Ajayi (2006) found that Spanish-speaking students of various levels of English proficiency had a desire to learn the English language and American culture while at the same time retain their culture, heritage, and language. The data on different aspects of learners' identities demonstrated that ELs desired for schools to be a place where the histories, cultures, languages, and needs of students are valued and incorporated into the curriculum. School policies and practices need to be inclusive of the ELs' cultures' shared knowledge and traditions because these are important parts of their identities and powerful tools for social interactions and learning. Almost all participants of this study (89.2%) stated that they would like their cultures and languages to be included in their schools' curricula. Many of the participants (61.6%) also indicated that supports provided in their native languages would be helpful for their academic success. Finally, students in this study perceived multilingualism and multiculturalism as important factors affecting social participation at schools and in the community. A similar conclusion regarding inclusive school practices was reached by other researchers as well (e.g. Cummins, et al., 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Moises Esteban-Guitart, 2019; Moll et al., 1992). Another study (Jia et al., 2014) also found that adolescents who immigrated from China would like to learn English and be assimilated enough to share the lifestyle and benefits of the dominant group, but simultaneously preserve their native culture, customs, traditions, and values. These studies found that it is important to support young adolescents with sustaining their culture and identity, while also allowing them to find connection and community with the dominant culture.

Culturally relevant or sustaining pedagogy can also increase participation in schooling which has positive outcomes for ELs. Yoon (2010b) and Yoon and Uliassi (2019) stated that although meeting the linguistic needs of the ELs is important, meeting their cultural and social needs is essential. Yoon (2010b) studied an approach of one successful EL teacher to increasing student participation in literacy learning which revealed that understanding and meeting ELs' cultural and social needs improved middle school ELs' levels of participation in literacy activities, which in turn improved their linguistic skills. Yoon (2010b) explained that the key to the success of the teacher was her implementation of culturally relevant pedagogy that included the following characteristics: (a) teacher's strong sense of responsibility for the middle schoolers' learning (b) teacher's awareness of the social and cultural needs of the ELs and meeting these needs in her class through creating a safe environment where students' culture and differences were valued and seen as assets. (c) teacher's consistent consideration of the learners' cultural and emotional needs before the learning goals (d) teacher's efforts in building personal connections with her students (see also Yoon, 2008). These characteristics were responsible for creating a sense of belonging in students as well as a sense of being equally important participants in the classroom that led to better overall student success. Therefore, culturally sustaining practices are foundational to support English Learners', as well as other non-dominant groups, identity development, sense of belonging, and overall growth. It helps acclimatization and integration of the ELs into the new societal context while helping them preserve their cultural identities, and fulfill students' needs of being valued and appreciated for their differences as well as develop meaningful social connections with peers and teachers. An appropriate mindset and correlating culturally sustaining practices are essential components of this work and are considered to be precursors and/or methods by which more specific work related to identity and belongingness can be achieved through some of the more specific methods discussed below.
Identity Development and Support for Young Adolescent ELs
Identity is an influential factor in young adolescent development (Bishop & Harrison, 2020; Phinney, 2008; Umaña-Taylor, et al., 2020). Young adolescents often construct their identity in a nonlinear, varied, and complex way that is influenced by multiple factors (Danzak, 2011a; Danzak, 2011b; Phinney, 2008; Walqui et al., 2010). Like their peers, ELs are in the process of determining their identity, but ELs navigate not only typical aspects of identity development such as gender identity but also have to navigate their language identity and possibly identity as that of an immigrant in ways that their non-EL peers do not. We also know that having healthy connections to their identities is "...important for their social and academic well-being" (Bishop & Harrison, 2020; Cummins et al., 2005). For newcomers, immigration's impact on ELs' identity is so profound as to be the experience that defines an ELs' identity before, during and even after the immigration experience (Danzak, 2011b). Therefore, schools must provide supports for students in these areas. The following sections will examine cultural and linguistic identity as well as immigration status as areas of identity development and discuss methods to help ELs navigate this process.
Cultural and Linguistic Identity
Cultural and linguistic identities cannot be easily disentangled (Danzak, 2011b; Rumberger & Larson, 1998). One challenge with the development of linguistic identity, especially in the process of learning English, is that it may imply a degree of assimilation that may threaten their cultural identity (Ajayi, 2006; Cone, et al., 2014). Additionally, EL identities are often marginalized by the dominant culture (Yoon & Uliassi, 2019). ELs often have competing identities forming through their language development and cultural interaction in and outside of the school setting. Therefore, there is a careful balance that needs to be maintained to avoid threatening the cultural identity while supporting integration and interaction within the dominant culture while learning English. This tension between wanting to fit in and learn English yet sustain one's cultural identity is challenging to address, but there are methods to support students navigating this tension.
I dentity as an Immigrant Supporting Identity Development in the School and Classroom
Immigration status is another complicating factor in the lives and identity development of ELs, even if an EL is not an immigrant, but rather was born in the United States. Zong and Batalova (2015) stated that based on U.S. Census Bureau report in 2013, there were 61.6 million individuals who spoke a language other than English in their homes. Of students in grades Pre-K through 5 th, 85% were native born and in grades 6 th through 12 th, 62 % of ELs were native born. Immigration status is considered so vastly influential as to be the major force shaping ELs' identities even if these ELs are not immigrants themselves and were born to parents who immigrated (Danzak, 2011b). Being a language learner, regardless of the immigration status, subjects these students to racism, stereotypes, and largely influences the perception of these students by other people on the level of policy and in daily life (Harman & Varga-Dobai, 2012; Hoffman et al., 2018; Hos, 2020; Rodriguez, 2017; Yee, 2015) which can impact their identity development and sense of belonging. This was affirmed by a survey where English Language teachers and administrators identified social emotional learning challenges as the "biggest hurdle" for ELs and that 65% identified that conversations about immigration impacted the school/classroom environment (McGraw-Hill, 2019).
Honoring and Leveraging Language and Culture in the School and Curriculum
Inclusion and appreciation of students' multicultural backgrounds are vital (Banks & Banks, 1995; Steen et al., 2018; Szpara & Ahmad, 2007; Harman & Varga-Dobai, 2012; Yoon, 2008; Yoon & Uliassi, 2019). To support young adolescent EL identity development, two interrelated practices will be discussed: honoring and leveraging native language and culture in the school and curriculum and storytelling. While storytelling is very much a part of honoring and leveraging native language and culture, the research base on this practice is particularly robust and deserves a more in-depth discussion.

One necessary component of appropriate practices for ELs is to ensure that first language(s) are honored and not excluded by a school, no matter the approach to educating ELs, whether this be in the lunchroom or the classroom to support both language learning and individual development (Cummins, et al., 2005; Genesee, n.d.). It requires curriculum to be diverse and serve the diverse students in the classroom (Bishop & Harrison, 2020). In the classroom, providing opportunities for bilingual learning or expression can be beneficial (Cummins et al., 2005), especially for those students who are struggling with their linguistic identity, as well as their sense of language competence. One such practice is creating a project like a bilingual autobiography as a way for students to express their identities and foster literacy development simultaneously and may be bolstered through multimodal approaches and arts integration (Cornett, 2015; Cummins, et al., 2005; Danzak, 2011a). The autobiography, which could take multiple forms such as a digital story, poster, or comic, would be written in both the native language and English and can include writings about personal experiences, family and friends, home country, etc. Danzak (2011b) highlighted the positive impact of creating graphic stories depicting the immigration experiences of the ELs on their identity formation, enhancement of group identities. She stressed another benefit of these stories for ELs that comes from the multiple modalities of expression that graphic novels provide. The artistic component involved in this project helps mitigate issues with language proficiency (Cornett, 2015). Danzak (2011b) also mentioned journaling and graphic novel read-alouds for young adolescent ELs' self-expression, self-acceptance and acceptance of their desire to assimilate while keeping their authentic cultural identity.
Storytelling - To Honor Native Languages and Integrate Culture
Another way to support ELs and their linguistic identity development is through implementing culture and identity-oriented units of instruction that help young adolescent ELs analyze their identities. Often linguistic identity can be related to feelings of competence in the language. A student typically identifies themself as competent or incompetent in literacy and identifies with a similar group of peers as a result (Danzak, 2011a; Lopez & Musanti, 2019). Therefore, it is important to examine their identities in this domain. Danzak's (2011a) study revealed that EL young adolescents identify themselves as either bilingual or monolingual, which meant that in the first case, the students felt competent at using both Spanish and English, and in the second case, they felt that they were lacking proficiency in English. Lopez and Musanti (2019) examined a unit that engaged students in discussing several texts focused on the issues related to identity and discovering one's own voice followed by activities that fostered the discovery of their voices, such as journaling and responding to writing prompts like "The real me". Lopez and Musanti (2019) stated that it is important to include opportunities for students to develop identities of "strong" learners by providing a curriculum that positions cultural and linguistic diversity as a value and an asset. In the unit, students acquired more positive identities as readers and writers as a result of this identity-oriented focus. Another outcome of this unit included ELs' realization that their teacher was sincerely interested in and cared for them. This in turn created a safe space for the ELs to share that they genuinely cared about their schoolwork and negotiate their identities as learners (Lopez & Musanti, 2019).

While still an important aspect of honoring and integrating culture and native languages, storytelling has been shown to be particularly powerful in elevating the voices of young adolescent ELs. Including ELs' personal stories in social studies lessons is beneficial for EL youth because it can help them see themselves as productive and important members of the school community (Lin, 2018). Personal storytelling can also contribute to ELs' identity development (Harman & Varga-Dobai, 2012; Lin, 2018). Like Yin (2018), Danzak (2015) found that sharing the stories created by ELs with a wider audience facilitated introduction of other groups such as students and teachers to ELs' experiences, which promoted interactions between the groups and resulted in creation of a more welcoming environment for the ELs. In another study, Enciso (2011) worked with middle school students in an ESL and a non-ESL course teaching curriculum related to literature and immigrant stories. She then brought a group of students from both classes together to meet for Story Club where she documented oral story telling among the students and where they co-created a group poem that addressed anti-immigrant fears and hatred. Enciso (2011) suggested the importance of teachers facilitating "dynamic spaces for critical textual production" both in formal and informal spaces to allow student voice to be heard which can support positive identity development. As part of a larger action-oriented project, Harman and Varga-Dobai (2012) worked with a group of middle school students on a series of co-constructed learning experiences over an extended period of time, with one of those focused on storytelling and sharing "cultural narratives that highlighted their complex social identities" (p. 6). Authors found that through student storytelling in a supportive context that students could share their contextualized stories and express their various identities.
Creating Community and Supporting Interaction
According to these studies, in order to support development of the cultural and linguistic identity development of EL middle schoolers, a special attention and place needs to be given to the native languages, cultures, and as a result, identities, in academic curriculum and school as an institution (e.g., Ajayi, 200 6; Cummins, et al., 2005; Danzak, 2011a; Harman & Varga-Dobai, 2012; Lopez & Musanti, 2019). Such approaches as autobiography, identity-oriented units of instruction and storytelling can help to integrate ELs' native languages and cultures as assets for the school as a community, and the world in general through school being a microcosm of the larger society.

Social interaction and a sense of belonging are essential for school success of all middle level students, and even more so for ELs (Bishop & Harrison, 2020; Johnson et al., 2020; Min Shim & Shur, 2018; Rudduck & Flutter, 2004; Shi & Watkinson, 2019; Markowitz, 2017; Wang & Holcombe, 2010; Yoon, 2008). Shi and Watkinson (2019) investigated ELs' perceptions of what it means to "belong" at a school as well as the views on ELs' experiences of the school personnel. The authors stated that the lack of a sense of belonging at school could negatively affect the academic success of ELs because they felt that their limited English proficiency caused them to be ostracized by peers at school and overlooked by teachers. ELs' voices at schools are often discarded because of the limited English proficiency and teachers' belief in ELs' lack of ability to make a meaningful contribution, yet the inclusion of this group in the school community and its empowerment is vital for ELs (Min Shim & Shur, 2018; Yee, 2015). Tong (2014) stated that attending school in the United States is a highly impactful component of EL adolescents' cultural adjustment and introduction to the new society as school represents a small-scale replica of the larger society with its values, cultures, ways of thinking and behaviors. Therefore, the fullest possible integration of the newcomers is essential to support their positive identity development and socialization keeping in mind the specific needs and challenges of the middle school age.

Beyond storytelling which was previously discussed as a method to support identity development, teacher's grouping practices and the creation of clubs or organizations can facilitate a sense of belonging. Johnson et al. (2020) studied the degree of teachers' influence on peer dynamics between ELs and non-ELs. They found that classroom organization, the grouping practices specifically, strongly affects peer dynamics and the creation of friendly relationships between ELs and non-ELs. Brinegar (2010) also found that grouping practices in the classroom such as having ELs in one section of the room can increase a sense of isolation or disconnectedness. This in turn can influence their language and academic development (Johnson et al., 2020). An increased (self-reported) engagement of teachers in bonding-focused activities with students helped ELs form friendships with other ELs. However, the teacher's self-reported engagement in activities focused on building friendships between ELs and non-ELs did not increase the frequency of forming the said relationships. Therefore, there are possibly limitations to this type of activity.
Middle School Structures to Support a Sense of Belonging
Another method of supporting belonging is through clubs that can also support navigating identity exploration. Rodriguez (2017) examined the development of a club for immigrant youth. She stressed the importance of school programs that provide undocumented youth with an opportunity to become a part of a community and gain a sense of belonging for positive identity formation. Immigration status played a role in low self-esteem, isolation, and anxiety for ELs. The study found that social spaces like the Dream Act Club allowed youth to combat the negative societal perception of their status and assert positive identities. This club was a safe space organized by a partnership of a school and the larger community to specifically allow undocumented youth to gain a sense of belonging and to discuss issues pertaining and relevant to them, and subsequently, develop a more positive sense of self. Although this club was conducted in high school, this could be done at the middle level as well. This is demonstrated given that Enciso (2011) did something similar by creating a club that used storytelling to help create belonging and navigate identity development.
Conclusion
Not only are classroom practices essential to support identity development and a sense of belonging for ELs, but larger scale supports would benefit these students, as well as their non-EL peers. Markowitz (2017) suggested that cultivating a sense of belonging at school can become a preventative measure for depression of even at-risk youth, including ELs and Chiu et al. (2012) found that school engagement was improved through a strong sense of belonging for Chinese immigrants. Specifically, structures that could potentially serve as supports include teaming, multiage grouping, and advisory programs. These can reinforce, when well implemented, the creation of community, peer supports, and provide an advocate for individual student needs. Brinegar (2010) found that teaming and multiage grouping created a sense of belonging for immigrant and refugee youth. However, effective implementation of these practices by administration and educators is essential, and the needs of all students should be considered in these practices. Some approaches to creating a community and supporting student sense of belonging in the classroom include a culturally responsive bibliography, purposeful grouping practices implemented by teachers, and use of storytelling during social studies lessons.

With the growing population of English Learners throughout the nation, it is essential for all schools and teachers, but specifically those serving young adolescents, to develop the supports and practices that will best meet their needs and support their academic and personal growth. These practices include an overall focus on culturally sustaining pedagogy, with more specific classroom and school-based practices that help to support identity development and a sense of belonging. Not only can these practices benefit English Learners, but they can also support the growth and development of their non-EL peers by developing an understanding of their identities and about those of others. This summary provides some guidance on supports for ELs, but one limitation of the literature on middle level ELs is its heavy reliance on the study of Spanish-speaking ELs (Cone, et al., 2014). Also, in general, there is limited research related to middle level ELs' identity formation and their need to belong with which to examine or identify best practices (Hurd, Harrison, Brinegar, & Kennedy, 2018). Implementing these practices helps to achieve and/or demonstrates a commitment to the practices of TWB including valuing and respecting young adolescents, creating a welcoming, inclusive and affirming environment, and providing for curriculum that is diverse.

Ksenia S. Zhbanova, Ed.D, is an assistant professor of elementary education at Mississippi State University. She earned her doctoral degree in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Northern Iowa. Her interests include teacher preparation with an emphasis on the needs of diverse students and arts integration.
References
Nicole C. Miller, Ph.D., is an associate professor of middle level education at Mississippi State University. She earned her Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from Mississippi State University. She prepares teachers in the elementary/middle level education program to teach young adolescents. She was certified in California in cross cultural, language and academic development for teaching English Language Learners, social studies, and instructional technology. Her specific interests are middle level pre-service teacher preparation, teaching with primary sources for both pre and in-service educators, and integrating technology into teaching and learning.

Ajayi, L. J. (2006). Multiple voices, multiple realities. Education, 126(3), 468-480.

Banks, C., & Banks, J. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education. Theory Into Practice, 34, 152-158.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.

Beyer, L. N. (2017). Social and emotional learning and traditionally underserved populations. American Youth Policy Forum. https://www.aypf.org/resource/sel-special-populations/

Bishop, P., & Harrison, L. (2020). The successful middle school: This we believe. Association for Middle Level Education.

Brinegar, K. (2010). I feel like I'm safe again: A discussion of middle grades organizational structures from the perspective of immigrant youth and their teachers. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 33(9), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2010.11462072

Chiu, M. M., Pong, S. L., Mori, L., & Chow, B. W. Y. (2012). Immigrant students' emotional and cognitive engagement at school: A multilevel analysis of students in 41 countries. J ournal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1409-1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9763-x

Cone, N., Buxton, C., Lee, O., & Mahotiere, M. (2014). Negotiating a sense of identity in a foreign land: Navigating public school structures and practices that often conflict with Haitian culture and values. Urban Education, 49(3), 263-296.

Cornett, C. E. (2015). Creating Meaning through Literature and the Arts. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Cummins, J., Bismilla, V., Chow, P., Cohen, S., Giampapa, F., Leoni, L., Sandhu, P., & Sastri, P. (2005). Affirming identity in multilingual classrooms. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 38-43.

Danzak, R. N. (2011a). The interface of language proficiency and identity: A profile analysis of bilingual adolescents and their writing. Language Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 506-519.

Danzak, R. N. (2011b). Defining identities through multiliteracies: EL teens narrate their immigration experiences as graphic Stories. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 55(3), 187-196.

Enciso, P. (2011). Storytelling in critical literacy pedagogy: Removing the walls between immigrant and non-immigrant youth. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(1), 21-40.

Gee, J. (2000). Identity as an analytical lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25(99), 99-125.

Genesee, F. (n.d.). The home language: An English language learner's most valuable resource. Colorín Colorado. https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/home-language-english-language-learners-most-valuable-resource

Harman, R., & Varga-Dobai, K. (2012). Critical performative pedagogy: Emergent bilingual learners challenge local immigration issues. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 14(2), 1-17.

Hurd, E., Harrison, L., Brinegar, K., & Kennedy, B. L. (2018). Cultural responsiveness in the middle grades. In S. B. Mertens & M. M. Caskey (Eds.), Literature reviews in support of the middle level education research agenda (pp. 25-52). Information Age Publishing.

Hoffman, L., Podikunju-Hussain, S., & Fry, M. (2018). Seeing "RED" to serve students: An example of advocacy for counseling services for refugee and immigrant adolescents. Journal for Social Action in Counseling & Psychology, 10(1), 38-61.

Hos, R. (2020). The lives, aspirations, and needs of refugee and immigrant students with interrupted formal education (SIFE) in a secondary newcomer program. Urban Education, 55(7), 1021-1044.

Johnson, H. E., Molloy Elreda, L., Kibler, A. K., & Futch Ehrlich, V. A. (2020). Creating classroom communities in linguistically diverse settings: Teacher-directed, classroom-level factor effects on peer dynamics. Journal of Early Adolescence, 40(8), 1087-1120.

Jia, F., Gottardo, A., Koh, P., Chen, X., & Pasquarella, A. (2014). The role of acculturation in reading a second language: Its relation to English literacy skills in immigrant Chinese adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(2), 1087-1120.

Kumar, R., Seay, N., & Karabenick, S. (2011). Shades of white: Identity status, stereotypes, prejudice, and xenophobia. Educational Studies, 47, 347-378.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Lin, P. A. (2018). The thread that binds: Building on the stories of adolescent English language learners in mainstream social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 109(6), 324-336.

Lopez, C. G., & Musanti, S. I. (2019). Fostering identity negotiation in sixth-grade ELLS: Examining an instructional unit on identity in English Language Arts. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 9(2), 61-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/26390043.2019.1589290

Markowitz, A. J. (2017). Associations between school connection and depressive symptoms from adolescence through adulthood: Moderation by early adversity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27, 298-311.

McCaslin, M. (2009). Co-regulation of student motivation and emergent identity. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 137-146.

McGraw-Hill in conjunction with Morning Consult. (2019). 2019 English Learners Report. https://s3.amazonaws.com/ecommerce-prod.mheducation.com/unitas/school/explore/el-survey-results-2019.pdf

Min Shim, J., & Shur, A. M. (2018). Learning from ELLs' perspectives: Mismatch between ELL and teacher perspectives on ELL learning experiences. English Language Teaching, 11(1), 21-32.

Moises Esteban-Guitart, M., Lalueza, J. L, Zhang-Yu, C., & Llopart, M. (2019). Sustaining students' cultures and identities: A qualitative study based on the funds of knowledge and identity approaches. Sustainability, 11(12), 3400. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123400

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132-141.

Nagle, J., & Andrews, W. (2019). Creating a space for culturally sustaining pedagogy. In Brinegar, K., Harrison, L., Hurd E. (Eds.), Equity & Cultural Responsiveness in the Middle Grades, 159-181.

Phinney, J. S. (2008). Bridging Identities and disciplines: Advances and challenges in understanding multiple identities. In M. Azmitia, M. Syed, & Radmacher (Eds.), The intersections of personal and social identities. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 120, 97-109.

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. http://www.jsto.org/stable/41477769

Rance-Roney, J. (2009). Best Practices for Adolescent ELLs. Educational Leadership, 66(7). http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr09/vol66/num07/Best-Practices-for-Adolescent-ELLs.aspx

Rodriguez, S. (2017). "People hide, but I'm here. I count" Examining undocumented youth identity formation in an urban community-school. Educational Studies, 53(5), 468-491. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2017.1322970

Rowland, K. D., & Davis, T. (2014). Counseling immigrant students in the schools. Georgia School Counselors Association Journal, 21, 1-7. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1084440.pdf

Rudduck, J., & Flutter, J. (2004). How to improve your school: Giving pupils a voice. Continuum.

Rumberger, R. W., & Larson, K. A. (1998). Toward explaining differences in educational achievement among Mexican American language-minority students. Sociology of Education, 71(1), 68-92.

Shi, Q., & Watkinson, J. (2019). English Language Learners and school belonging: Implications for school counselor practice. Professional School Counseling, 22(1b), 1-9.

Steen, S., Liu, X., Shi, Q., Rose, J., & Merino, G. (2019). Promoting school adjustment for English-Language Learners through group work. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1-10.

Szpara, M., & Ahmad, I. (2007). Supporting English-language learners in social studies class: Results from a study of high school teachers. The Social Studies, 98(5), 189-196.

Tong, V. M. (2014). Understanding acculturation experience of Chinese adolescent students: Sociocultural adaptation strategies and positive bicultural and bilingual identity. Bilingual Research Journal, 37, 83-200.

Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Kornienko, O., McDermott, E. R., & Motti-Stefanidi, F. (2020). National identity development and friendship network dynamics among immigrant and non-Immigrant youth. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 49(3), 706-723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01181-1

U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES) (2002). Statistical analysis report: Higher education. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/97584.html

Walqui, A., Koelsch, N., Hamburger, L., Gaardner, D., Insaurralde, A., Schmida, M., & Weiss, S. (2010). What are we doing to middle school English learners? Findings and recommendations from a study on California EL programs. WestEd. https://www.wested.org/resources/what-are-we-doing-to-middle-school-english-learners-findings-and-recommendations-for-change-from-a-study-of-california-el-programs-narrative-summary/

Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents' perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 633-662.

Yee, M. (2015). What English language learners have to say about NCLB testing. National Society for the Study of Education, 114(1), 19-38.

Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers' roles and pedagogies on the positioning of English Language Learners in the regular classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 495 - 522.

Yoon, B. (2010a). The lived experiences of middle level English language learners: Shifting identities between classrooms. In K. F. Malu (Ed.), Voices from the middle: Narrative inquiry by, for, and about middle level community (pp. 19-36). Information Age.

Yoon, B. (2010b). Meeting the cultural and social needs of English language learners: A middle school ESL teacher's practice. Teacher Education and Practice, 23(1), 31-43.

Yoon, B. & Uliassi, C. (2019). Educators' practice for English Language Learners' critical consciousness: From marginalized identities to active agents. In K. Brinegar, L. Harrison, & E. Hurd (Eds.), Equity & Cultural Responsiveness in the Middle Grades (pp. 239-253). Information Age Publishing.
Annotations
Zong, J. & Batalova, J. (2015). The Limited English Proficient population in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/limited-english-proficient-population-united-states-2013

Ajayi, L. J. (2006). Multiple voices, multiple realities. Education, 126(3), 468-480.

This research study investigated how the construction of identities of middle school ELLs is affected by sociopolitical, cultural, and linguistic contexts. Data on various sides of student identities were collected using a Likert-type 5-point scale and essays with the topic "My life and my future". The data analysis yielded the following results: (a) ELLs would like to become more assimilated in the new American culture, yet keep the strong connection with their heritage, language, traditions, etc.; (b) ELLs want multiculturalism to be the core characteristic of schools. (c) ELLs see multiculturalism and multilingualism as advantageous characteristics; and (d) ELLs perceive multiculturalism and multilingualism as the main components needed for their active participation in the lives of school and community. Based on the results, authors advocated for middle schools to be more attentive to the students' identity construction and ways in which ELL's perceptions of themselves affect their learning.

Brinegar, K. (2010). I feel like I'm safe again: A discussion of middle grades organizational structures from the perspective of immigrant youth and their teachers. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 33(9), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2010.11462072

Brineagar's ethnographic research examined the role of middle school structures, specifically teaming and multiage grouping, for immigrant and refugee youth and their teachers, providing implications for both research and practice. This research was particularly important for understanding the role of middle school structures in the context of meeting the needs of immigrant and refugee youth, all classified as ELL, and how the implementation of such structures impacted these students and because research in this area is so limited. Brinegar concluded that the environment and a school dedicated to democratic principles are both necessary to support these students. Certain limitations to the structures were also identified. Specifically, the limitation of teaming possibly separating youth from their friends or other speakers of their native language on other teams was widely cited as a limitation of the teaming structure.

Yoon, B. (2010b). Meeting the cultural and social needs of English language learners: A middle school ESL teacher's practice. Teacher Education and Practice, 23(1), 31-43.
Recommended Resources
This research focused on effective teaching practices aimed at increasing ELL middle schoolers' participation in classroom activities. During this case study, the researcher investigated the teaching practices of an ESL teacher by determining their impact on six focal students. The researcher analyzed interviews with the teacher, interviews with students, classroom observations, and other data sources. Two major findings of this study included: (a) culturally responsive pedagogy is an effective approach to increase ELL's involvement in classroom activities (b) meeting the cultural and social needs of young adolescents influences ELL's level of participation more than meeting the linguistic needs of ELLs. This article included descriptions, excerpts from lessons, and an analysis of the teacher's approach to working with ELLs. These can serve as a model of culturally responsive pedagogy for practicing teachers. Suggestions for actions based on the study results are also provided.
https://www.colorincolorado.org/
Colorín Colorado! A bilingual site for educators and families of English Language Learners

This website provides extensive resources for teachers and families to support English Language Learners. In particular, the section on creating a welcoming classroom environment would be valuable as one examines how to create belonging to support student social interaction and identity development.

Useable Knowledge - Relevant Research for Today's Educators - Welcoming Newcomers https://www.gse.harvard.edu/uk/welcoming-newcomers

This section of the web site that is devoted to disseminating research-based information on pressing problems of today is another resource for teachers and parents of English Language Learners. It is focused on addressing the social-emotional needs of these students and best practices of creating a culturally responsive classroom.
https://www.learningforjustice.org/frameworks/critical-practices
Critical Practices - Learning for Justice

This site includes a framework for Critical Practices for Anti-bias Education. It also includes resources and practices related to each of the four areas of the framework including instruction, classroom culture, family and community engagement, and teacher leadership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supporting English Learners in the Middle: Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Practices to Support Student Identity Development and Sense of Belonging - AMLE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following sections of the article review describe research-based approaches to address the identity needs and supports to develop a sense of belonging for the growing population of ELs in connection to best practices identified in The Successful Middle School: This We Believe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Phonetics - Consonants: Crash Course Linguistics #8