What Factors Affect the Resiliencey of SLIFE?

A little while back, I mentioned the work of Christopher Browder and how I found his research on the education of SLIFE to be very significant.  Recently I have been re-reading his Phd Thesis, which focused on risk and resilience factors in the educational outcomes of SLIFE.  Some of the main findings of that study were that:

• On average, the SLIFE studied had lower achievement on the standardized tests than non-SLIFE English language learners.
• The lower standardized scores for SLIFE were largely due to their lower English proficiency at the time they took the test.
• Lower English proficiency at testing seems mainly to have resulted from having arrived with lower English proficiency and lower first language literacy.
• English acquisition, however, was also slower for SLIFE than other ELs.
• ESOL classes helped students to acquire English faster, and SLIFE generally took more ESOL classes than non-SLIFE English learners.
• Students with lower L1 literacy acquired English more slowly.
• Higher parental education was significantly associated with higher test scores for all ELs; this association was even stronger for SLIFE than for non-SLIFE.
• In general SLIFE reported lower academic self-concepts, pedagogical caring, and social integration than non-SLIFE. 
• After controlling for differences in English proficiency, students’ perceptions of social distance appeared to predict their academic achievement on standardized tests better than their academic self-concept and the other protective or risk factors.  
• Students who perceived a higher social distance had lower HSA scores, even though they had higher English proficiency.
• Low L1 literacy was not well correlated with beginner English and schooling gaps.

Each of these findings have important implications, but the real significance, it seems to me, comes from weaving them together.  In upcoming posts I will dig into those implications and flesh out the bigger picture that Browder's study paints for us.