ERROR LOADING HTML FROM SOURCE (http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu//design/skins/UFDC/html/header_item.html)

Habla Ingles

Permanent Link: http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu/NCFE004262/00001

Material Information

Title: Habla Ingles An Examination of Programs of ELL Education in the United States
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Guilfoil, Mary Lace
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2010
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: English Language Learner
Education
No Child Left Behind
California
Florida
Texas
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Due to school accountability legislation such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), students with limited proficiency in English have become an important part of the education system. Schools must provide these students with special accommodations and show improvement in test scores as a result. However, the federal government provides few guidelines for the types of accommodations that should be made, or the methods of education that should be followed. For this reason, a wide array of programs for English Language Learner (ELL) education are in place in the United States. This thesis aims to investigate some of these different methods of ELL education and their effectiveness in meeting the demands of NCLB. California, Florida, and Texas will act as case studies, providing the necessary qualitative information to begin initial observations on the effectiveness of the programs of ELL education currently in place in these states.
Statement of Responsibility: by Mary Lace Guilfoil
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2010
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO NCF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Alcock, Frank

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2010 G92
System ID: NCFE004262:00001

Permanent Link: http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu/NCFE004262/00001

Material Information

Title: Habla Ingles An Examination of Programs of ELL Education in the United States
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Guilfoil, Mary Lace
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2010
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: English Language Learner
Education
No Child Left Behind
California
Florida
Texas
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Due to school accountability legislation such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), students with limited proficiency in English have become an important part of the education system. Schools must provide these students with special accommodations and show improvement in test scores as a result. However, the federal government provides few guidelines for the types of accommodations that should be made, or the methods of education that should be followed. For this reason, a wide array of programs for English Language Learner (ELL) education are in place in the United States. This thesis aims to investigate some of these different methods of ELL education and their effectiveness in meeting the demands of NCLB. California, Florida, and Texas will act as case studies, providing the necessary qualitative information to begin initial observations on the effectiveness of the programs of ELL education currently in place in these states.
Statement of Responsibility: by Mary Lace Guilfoil
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2010
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO NCF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Alcock, Frank

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2010 G92
System ID: NCFE004262:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

HABLA INGLS?: AN EXAMINATION OF PROGRAMS OF ELL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES BY MARY LACE GUILFOIL A Thesis Submitted to the Division of Social Sciences New College of Florida In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree B achelor of the Arts Under the sponsorship of Dr. Frank Alcock Sarasota, Florida January, 2010

PAGE 2

ii. HABLA INGLES?: AN EXAMINATION OF PROGRAMS OF ELL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES Mary Guilfoil New College of Florida, 2010 ABSTRACT Due to school accountability legislation such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), students with limited proficiency in English have become an important part of the education system. Schools must provide these students with special accommodations and show improvement in test scores as a result. However, the federal government provides few guidelines for the types of accomm odations that should be made, or the methods of education that should be followed. For this reason, a wide array of programs for English Language Learner (ELL) education are in place in the United States. This thesis aims to investigate some of these diffe rent methods of ELL education and their effectiveness in meeting the demands of NCLB. California, Florida, and Texas will act as case studies, providing the necessary qualitative information to begin initial observations on the effectiveness of the program s of ELL education currently in place in these states. Dr. Frank Alcock Division of the Social Sciences

PAGE 3

iii. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Theories of Immersion and Bili Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 An Explanation of Standardized State Assessm A Brief History of ELL Education in t ...73 76 77 80 Concl usion: Texas Chapter 6 Comparative Bibliography

PAGE 4

1 Commencing in 1965, as a result of The Immigration and Nationality Act 1 remarkable population shifts both legal and illegal 2 from Latin American and Asian countries into the United States have occurred. At least 5.1 million 3 new, mainly Spanish speaking immigrants have arrived as well as immigrants speaking Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, Haitian Creole, Arabic, and Russian. 4 The pressure placed on American society by the enormous influx of people has engendered a number of legislative initiatives to serve t Perhaps the most important of these initiatives is No Child Left Behind (NCLB), a program designed to provide accountability in the sch ool system. The program gives schools a timeline for improvement and corresponding sa nctions for failing to meet the goals set forth by the timeline. Under NCLB, all schools in the country should operate at 100 % p roficiency by 2014. At this time, e very student in every school should be able to pass a standardized test in Reading/Language A rts and Mathematics in any given school year. Schools that cannot remain on track to meeting this goal are reprimanded with loss of administrative funding and potential takeover by the state or federal government. Students labeled as English Language Learn ers (ELL) are required to participate in the program, regardless of their language abilities. In fact, their scores on standardized tests 1 The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act repealed previous legislation stating only 2% of a population from any given country could immigrate to the United States. Instead, family reunification and immigration of those offering skills in demand in the United States were given an opportunity to immigrate. Restrictions included a maximum of 170,000 immigrants per year, as well as a maximum of 20,000 immigrants to any given county. 2 The specification of the legal and illegal immigration is used as a tool of protection by the Florida Department of Education. The distinction makes clear both groups receive equal opportunity and education in order to deter law suits or other legal action. 3 United States Census Bureau, Census 2000 Briefs and Special Repor ts 2000 US Census, http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/ 4 The Center for Public Education Practical Information and Analysis about Public Education http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org

PAGE 5

2 and progress toward the proficiency goals comprise a separate subgroup. This is done to ensure their success, and prot ect this population of students from becoming invisible members of the school system. 5 While a good deal of controversy surrounds the structure and implementation of NCLB, this piece of legislation remains the most important tool for measuring the ability of the public school system to provide adequate educations. More importantly, NCLB has forced public schools to address their minority populations and under achieving students, working toward improving their educations and remedying existing achievement ga ps. Because of NCLB, schools have begun to design programs of ELL education to address the needs of these students. In hopes of raising ELL student test scores and graduation rates, educators and school administrators have implemented programs which follo w the ideology of two separate linguistic theories: immersion and bilingual education. While there are arguments for and against both theories, neither has been definitively found to be more successful at raising ELL student performance. Instead, schools d esign programs of ELL education based on political, economic, and societal factors in their state. Topic of Study In this the sis, I examine programs of ELL education currently implemented in the United States. More specifically, I us e California, Florid a, and Texas as case studies to decide if a particular program of ELL education can be considered most successful under 5 U.S. Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 115 Stat. 1425, http: //www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107 110.pdf

PAGE 6

3 NCLB. While most of the programs I have identified are designed using either immersion or bilingual education ideology some are compose d of a mixture of the two philosophies It is possible one style of ELL education will be found most successful in preparing students for success under NCLB across all case studies but I do not think this will be the case. Instead, I posit programs of ELL education work best when they are designed with the intentions and limitations of the state in mind. Programs of ELL education are most capable when properly funded and executed by well trained teachers. When the design of these programs is swayed by poli tical or societal notions, they cease to be successful in improving the education of ELL students. In order to prove this point and provide valuable information to educators choosing to implement programs of ELL education, indicators of success must be ide ntified and ev aluated. Information from these indicators can allow educators to choose the programs that best fit their ELL population and abilities. Furthermore, the information can be used to determine which programs may help educators overcome obstacles in their schools to better meet the demands of NCLB. Case Selection, Methods, and Structure of Study This cross comparative study of three cases was designed to bette r understand the programs of ELL education in the Unites States. Each case was selected based on its extensive history and current use of ELL education States were chosen for case studies that had large ELL populations and well developed programs for educating these students. While it would have been interesting to include cases where very f ew ELL students are enrolled in public education for comparison, unfortunately many of these states do not provide the necessary information for analysis. Pertaining to the larger

PAGE 7

4 universe of cases, all 50 states currently operating their public education system under NCLB could be considered for this study. However, d ue to logistical constraints, such as data co llection amongst others, the three states with the most impact on the study were chosen. Each of the c a se studies is divided into five component parts in order to approximate e asily comparable data. The components include i) a brief history of ELL education in the state ; ii) ELL education under NCLB; iii ) an explanation of state standardized assessments; iv) a presentation of quantitative data from the state; and v) a brief conclusion. While special care was taken to ensure the case studies remained symmetrical, the unique cultural, political, and societal experiences of each of the three cases greatly a ffected the programs of ELL education in each state Because this information is important to consider, the studies must vary slightly. This study is limited in scope by only examining three of the fifty possible cases. In this way, it cannot account for the success or failure of programs of ELL edu cation not considered in this thesis. Furthermore, it cannot with any certainty make claims on the status of ELL education in the United States. Instead, it can use the case studies as a starting point in deciding if particular programs of ELL education ar e successful in prep aring students for success, as defined by the indicators in this thesis. The work presented here represents only the beginning of a very arduous process of discovering the best ways to educate the ELL population to ensure the necessary results.

PAGE 8

5 Structure of Thesis This thesi s is divided into six chapters, includin g this introduction. Chapter Two discusses the theories of immersion and bili ngual education as they pertain to ELL education. It is important to understand these two ideologi es in order to appreciate their roles in developing current programs of ELL education. Chapter Three presents a historical overview of ELL education in the Unit ed States. As the foundations of this country are based on immigration, it is not surprising the United States has struggled with the education of ELL students in the past. By understanding this history and the different factors that drove decisions on ELL education, it is possible to better appreciate the current climate surroun ding this topic. Chap ter Four provides a background to NCLB. It discusses the rationale behind implementation of the program, as well as its underpinnings and structure. It also introduces some of the shortcomings of NCLB as they pertain to ELL education. Chapter Five includes the presentation of case studies and data. The structure of these case studies, includin g California, Florida, and Texas, is desc ribed above. Chapter Six will be the comparative analysis of th e data presented in Chapter Five I will use the quantitative d ata presented, as well as information from each of the previous chapters to decide if a program of ELL education discussed in this thesis can be chosen as the most successful. If this is not possible, I will discuss the strong suits of each program, as wel l as problems with structure or implementation. This chapter will also operate a s the conclusion to the thesis.

PAGE 9

6 Chapter Two Theories of Immersion and Bilingual Education In order to understand programs of ELL education in the United States, it is importa nt to appreciate their foundation Each program of ELL education is developed using the th eory of immersion or bilingual education. While schools often rely solely on one or the other of these theories, there are instances where developers of programs of E LL educat ion will mix components of these two philosophies to create a hybrid. Regardless, however, of the hybrid programs that may exist, all programs of ELL education in the United States are supported by immersion and/or bilingual education. Similar to most debates of polarized positions there is a tendency to consider the middle ground as a less extreme, therefore wiser choice. Because the middle ground can just as easily be a blending of the worse features of each polar position, it helps to have an un derstanding of the two approaches in their purest forms in order to understand their component parts. Immersion The first approach, immersion is based on the historical success of immigrants in learning English, completing school, and leading productive lives. Because the United States has always been a cou ntry of immigrants speaking different languages, immersion theorists argue the best course is to allow the current generation of minority language

PAGE 10

7 students to assimilate both culturally and linguistical ly Immigrant groups in the past were able to assimilate so the current group should have no problem in imitating their success. 6 The argument for the use of immersion programs in ed ucating ELL students has advocates in the school system, Latin American community, and society as a whole. One of these advocates is the Center for Equal Opportunity, an important conservative think tank devoted to issues of race and ethnicity. Led by Linda Chavez, an author, commentator, radio host, and pol itician, this organization is working to promote immersion programs in the United States. According to their mission statement and numerous press releases, the CEO believes by keeping students who do not speak English 7 Chavez argues that b ilingual education programs do nothing but create new ghettos and new populations to inhabit these ghettos. Rosalie Pedalino Porter an educator and author specializing in ELL education, agrees with Linda Chavez and the CEO in her book, Forked Tongue: The Politics of Bilingual Education Ms. Porter asks if while minority language students may be able to live in parts of the United States where they do not need to know English to support themselves, should their dreams reach no further than their neighborhoods? Is that the same message we are sending to the white majority with college preparation classes and 6 Crawford, James, Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice (New Jersey: C rane Publishing Company, Inc., 1994) 115 124. 7 Center for Equal Opportunity, The Case Against Bilingual Educa tion, November 18, 2009, http://www.ceousa.org/content/blogcategory/86/119

PAGE 11

8 career planning in high school? 8 Ms. Porter a rgues a school system that does not support immersion is socially unjust, and essentially segregative, as it separates and isolates members of society based on linguistics. At a time, when the United States has invested so much energy and commitment on beh alf of racial integration and equality, the demand a detrimental roadblock to progress. 9 O n the other hand, o pponents to immersion feel it is the responsibility of the public school system to give every child the tools nec essary to succeed. When these tools are withheld from student s who cannot speak English, an injustice has occurred According to opponents of immersion, there is no justification for withholding academic su ccess from a student when he or she cannot underst and the language spoken in his or her classroom. 10 reversed as the child begins to learn English, opponents to immersion argue the damage is irreversible. Even students who learn E n glish quickly, and miss at most one year of instruction, will have difficulty catching up to their peers. It is challenging and time consu ming to catch up to grade level and in some cases impossible. This is an unfair task, and often leaves students disco uraged, lea ding to apathy among language minority students, and in many cases, high dropout rates. 11 8 Porter, Rosalie Pedalino, Forked Tongue: The Politics of Bilingual Education (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 199 0) 2 13. 9 Porter, 7 10 on Model in the North American TESOL Quarterly 10 (1976): 45 53. 11 Krashen, Stephen D., Condemned Without a Trial: Bogus Arguments Against Bilingual Ed ucation (New York: Heninemann, 1999) 6 17.

PAGE 12

9 Often students fall so far behind in their studies it takes at least one generation for their families to catch up to the standard level of education. Sc holars argue students that do not graduate high school may have children that do graduate, but are not likely to pursue higher forms of education. 12 While this may not have been as debilitating in the past when people could support themselves in industry an d labor without a formal education, this is no longer the case. When one generation falls behind in e ducation, its ability to make money is greatly reduced. This will, in turn, affect the lives of their child ren, and the opportunities those chil dren will h ave Opponents cite this cycle as a very important reason for abolishing immersion programs. It cr eates an underclass of immigrants which could take years to reverse. This retards assimilation, and constructs s ocial restraints with debilitating effects. 13 Bilingual Education An alternative approach Bilingual Education focuses on teaching students in both English and in their native language, fostering an ability to learn and remain on grade level, while allowing students ample time to learn English. Th e distinguishing feature of this type of education is the use of two languages in the classroom. There are numerous models for bilingual education, each adjusting the amount of time students spend learning in their native language each day and school year. 14 12 Hakuta, Kenji Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1986) 55. 13 Krashen, Stephen D., 13 14 National Association for Bilingual Education, What is Bilingual Education?, http://www.nabe.org/bilingualed.html

PAGE 13

10 The case for bilingual education has its strongest all ies in those authors and policy makers who believe cultural pluralism is the best route for mending an American society replete with ethnic and cultural differ ences and conflict. In a nation of immigr ants, differences between diverse ethnic and minority groups are unavoidable It is how a country chooses to deal with these different groups and how it chooses to create a culture with space for all identities that remains most relevant. 15 According to the National Coalition for Cultural Pluralism, cultural pluralism is best defined as: existence in a mutually supportive relationship within the boundaries or framework of one nation of people of diverse cultures with significantly differ ent patterns of belief, behavior, color, and in many cases, with different languages. To achieve cultural pluralism, there must be unity with diversity. Each person must be aware of and secure in his own identity, and willing to extend to others the same r espect and rights 16 Eduardo Seda Bonilla, an author and Professor of Puerto Rican studies uses this definition while discussing the necessity of bilingual education. He points out the melting pot the ory, also known as acc ulturation has proven to be ineffective. According to the melting pot theory, the longer an ethnic or cultural minority group remains in the United 15 National Association for Bilingual Education, Why Research Matters?, http://www.nabe.org/research.html 16 Hazar d, Wi Cultural Pluralism and Schooling: Some Preliminary Cultural Pluralism and Schooling: A Mandate for Change ed. Madelon D. Stent, (New Jersey: P rentice Hall, Inc., 1973 ), 14.

PAGE 14

11 identity, such as language, other aspects become important parts of American culture. 17 Bonilla gives examples of Italians and their affinity for spaghetti, and Irish and their love for beer. While these groups may, at first, be forced to live in shantytowns in large cities, they rapi dly become a part of society and move out and into mai nstream culture. Bonilla questions who s in shantytowns, and more importantly, the lower class. According to his argument, the answer is those ethnic groups with ver y different characteristics from the white majority already in place. Whether it is color of skin, speech patterns, or particular cultural practices, the ethnic groups with the most difficulty assimilating into the melting pot design are those most easily identified as institutionalized racism, as the white American majority often feels more comfortable conversing with a black man with an Islander accent than a black man that speaks like them. This is because they are not a threat; they are not trying to be similar to the white man, trying to assimilate. According to Bonilla, the argument that the melting pot takes ti me, and current ethnic groups should be patient, is flawed. He points to the American Indians as proof of problems with the melting pot theory. He cites the American Indians, who pre date all other American citizens, still remain margi nalized in American society. A sking the American Indians, or any other marginalized ethnic gro up to lose a piece of their culture in exchange for a place in American society is a part of the problem, not the solution. These groups, no matter how much they dedicate themselves to the proce ss, will never be more than partially successful in assimilati ng. They will become silent and 17 Isser, Natalie, and Schwartz, Lita Lenzer, The American School and the Melting Pot: Minority Self Esteem and Public Education (Pennsylvania: Wy ndham Hall Press,1985) 3 13.

PAGE 15

12 invisible parts of the majority, without ever having any ownership over American society. 18 Cultural pluralism, on the other hand, allows these people to contribute their differences, and be safeguarded from the rejection an d loss of culture they are at risk of losing under the melting pot theory. Bilingual education will help to create a pluralist culture, one that looks at differences amongst minority groups as a reason for celebration, rather than something that must be fi xed or changed. The melting pot will only allow the pattern of subjugation of differences to continue infinitely. 19 Those opposed to b ilingual education often cite its cost as a deterrent of this method of teaching. I t requires greater support personnel a nd specialized materials as well as more qualif ied teachers and smaller classes Furthermore, the level to which it is more successful is often in question. While it may provide a better opportunity for the success of enrolled students, many argue the amo unt of money for a minimal improvement could do far more for larger populations of students. If the scale of effectiveness cannot be proven, and an adequate justification given, the program should not be implemented. The effort and money going into ineffe ctive bilingual education programs could be used elsewhere, in places where the outcome could be better measured. 20 Even where the long term benefits might justify the short term means of this de facto segregation, critics are concerned with establishing time limits and determining at 18 in Cultural Pluralism and Schooling: A Mand ate for Change, (New Jerssey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1973), 115 122. 19 Bonilla, 121 20 Krashen, 17

PAGE 16

13 what limit the negative consequences of long term segregation exceed the benefits derived from keeping students progressing academically. Opponents to bilingual education often point to particular school systems, citing their inability to move stud ents out of ELL classrooms and into the mainstream. This, in large part, may be due to language they are not comfortable using, associate with new classmates, and accept that their cultural, ethnic, and linguistic identity is underrepresented. However, by allowing students to resist integration with American society as a whole, critics of bilingual education programs argue that they are relegating students to cultural and ethnic ghettos within the school, making it difficult for these students to break out of t heir cultural and ethnic cliques within society. 21 Another complaint against bilingual education is that to teach students in two separate l anguages is to teach them badly in both, by not adequately covering the academic material, thus failing at the essential purpose of education. Opponents of bilingual education point to the inability of students in these programs to perform on grade level i n either their native language or Engli sh as evidence the programs do more harm than good. Very seldom are bilingual e ducation programs able to develop fully both languages with enrolled students, meaning instead of fluency and literacy, these children lea rn an imprecise mixture of two languages. This further complicates their ability to receive an adequate education and remain successful in society. 22 21 Porter Rolsalie Pedalino, 67 22 Center for Equal Opportunity, http://www.ceousa.org/content/b logcategory/86/119

PAGE 17

14 Chapter T hree A Brief History of ELL Education in the United States As immigration becomes an increasingl y politicized issue in the United States, the fate of immigrant children and their ability to receive an adequate education also becomes an important concern. While recent immigration into the United States is a unique experience, it is important to rememb er it is not the first time America has dealt with large populations of immigrants, language deficiencies, and the necessity of educating children who do not understand the predominant language in their respective schools. The United States has encounte red language problems since its inception, as immigrants settling in the colonies fought to preserve their heritage. Many colonists believed it was a right, equivalent to that of religious freedom to protect language and fluency amongst their people. 23 As e arly as 1694, German immigrants began operating schools taught solely in their mother tongue in order to maintain a common culture amongst their children. While they often received pressure from other groups within their respective communities to close the ir schools in favor of English education, they prevailed until the early 20 th century. 24 The Germans thought of their schools not only as a mechanism of continuity, but also as a valuable political entity. Such politicians as the 23 Bilingual Research Journal 27 (2003) : 37 58. 24 Ibid, 39

PAGE 18

15 notable Ben Franklin were forced to consider the Germans as an important political force, worthy of adequate representation. Furthermore, as a single cohesive society, Germans were able to vote into office the candidate that best represented their interests. Politicians were forced to keep the plight of the German population in mind, or risk losing the support of their constituency. German immigrants realized the power of their support, and were aware it could be lost if they assimilated into American culture. They viewed language a s a common thread, able to tie their heritage into community in the United States. 25 In many ways, the preservation of German language and culture in the United States was supported by the newly formed United States government. While English was always co nsidered the predominant language amongst the framers of the Constitution, no official language or government sanctioned body to regulate speech was ever adopted. 26 It was considered an individual choice of the citizens to choose the language that best suit ed their society, heritage, and ability to communicate. The framers of the Constitution had no interest in diversity or a homogenous society, but placed a high premium on political liberty. Regions with high immigrant populations were expected to deal with language barriers as they saw fit. While 19 th century philosophy of bilingual education sought to assimilate students into a society of English speakers, coercive forces of doing so were considered a violation of rights. 27 25 Crawford, 8 27. 26 Ovando, 50 27 Crawford, 28 30

PAGE 19

16 Following a defensive stance on linguistic freedom and ELL education, the 20 th Century ushered in an era of r estrictive principles. English O nly education was reservations. 28 Many modern historians argue this was cultural genocide used as part of a military strategy. Furthermore, English only education was advocated by the Protestant church to halt the spread of Catholicism in the United States. As new immigrants were arriving from Southern, Eastern, and C entr al Europe, the Protestant community in the United States worried about preserving Protestantism in face of new, large populations of Catholics. The Federal Indian Office, American Protective Association, and Immigration Restriction League were the most imp ortant political players at this time concerning minority language education. All advocated English only, and all provided valuable resources to politicians willing to promote their political agenda. 29 Furthermore, because of new waves of immigration into the United States, fears of European nationalism began to materialize. As American citizens began to worry about the role new immigrants would play, and what this would mean for their culture, they called for all immigrants to be assimilated into one cult urally and linguistic mold. The Naturalization Act of 1906 was passed to stipulate all immigrants wishing to become American citizens must be able to speak English. 30 28 Ricento, Thomas, Official English? No! from National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, http://ww w.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/PolicyPDF/OfficialEnglishRicento.pdf 29 Ovando, Carlos J., 48 30 Schneider, Dorothee, Naturalization and United States Citizenship in Two Periods of Mass Migration: 1894 1930, 1965 2000 Journal of American Ethnic History 2 1 (2001), 50 82.

PAGE 20

17 Anti immigrant sentiment was fu rther strengthened by the United involvement in Wo rld War I. As Americans were forced to enter into war, ideology surrounded immigration and assimilation shifted dramatically. The new popular sentiment emphasized a mistrust of those that did not speak English, and the need to s quickly as possible. 31 Fearing a lack of loyalty amongst immigrant and non English speaki ng populations, 34 states enacted English Only language laws sponsored by the Bureau of Nationalization and Bureau of Education. They forbade the use of German on th e streets, in public meetings, at church, on the telephone, and most important, in the schools. 32 These laws highlighted the necessity for students to learn English quickly, assimilate into their English Only schools, and become y. Some states took English Only schooling to the extreme, outlawing the study of any language but English in schools, regardless if it was simply for enrichment. German language teachers found themselves reassigned, forced to itize German schoolbooks and learning materials were burnt or discarded, as even such establishments as the New York Times supported anti German sentiment in the schools. 33 The reasoning behind these strict language laws was two fold. Wh ile fear of the Germans during WWI was a major on religious and cultural bigotry. 34 Language legislation was considered a convenient and highly effective weapon against parochial schools and the spread of Catholicism and 31 Ibid, 55 32 Schneider, 59 33 Ibid, 55 34 Ovando, Carlos J., 27

PAGE 21

18 Lutheranism in the United States. The uncertainty of war provided the perfect opportunity for ensuring the Germans did not gain power, an d threaten the English speaking Protestant tradition. 35 While this anti minority sentiment did begin to subside as early as 1923, it set an important precedent in America. Public attitude toward language instruction had shifted dramatically. Lear ning in a language other than English was considered unpatriotic, regardless of heritage, and immigrant students felt strong pressures to assimilate. Within 36 Students did not want to spea Furthermore, because of a need to standardize and bureaucratize growing schools in urban areas, Americanization and English language classes were used to prepare ELL students for mainstream classes and culture. These classes often took an ethnocentric approach, teaching immigrant children American language and culture was superior to their own. students should t ake personal responsibility for learning English and assimilating, Meyer v Nebraska ensured Americanization classes continued. This Supreme Court case, tried in be a viol ation of the 14 th Amendment. 37 After World War II, the idea of bilingual education was further dismantled, with 35 Schneider, 52 58 36 Schneider, 52 58 37 Ovando, Carlos J., 22 29

PAGE 22

19 ed inadequate English language skills on the home, citing to train their children to speak English. This theory rejected historical explanations of genetic deficiencies for low performance amongst minority students, and instead focused on inability or indifference. These parents did not teach their children to do well in school and look forward to the future, thus the students did not do the necessary work to learn English. 38 To remedy this cultural problem, school s began t o strengthen classes which taught ELL students the importance of education and assimilation. English as a Second Language (ESL) classes were developed specifically for these students. They were taken out of regular classes and assigned to programs where th ey were taught English and little else. Because they were receiving intensive language instruction, they were expected to take IQ and standardized tests along with their English speaking counterparts. T hey scored well below the norm due to an inability to fully comprehend the language required, as well as cultural bias in the material. These students were then taken out of their ESOL classrooms and wrongfully placed in Exceptional Student Education (ESE) classrooms. Instead of either learning in a language they understood, or learning English well enough to perform in a regular classroom, they were relegated to an education they could not understand at a level well below their ability. 39 Bilingual education finally saw a rebirth in this country in the late Cuban immigrants in Miami, a relatively privileged minority. The first Cuban refugees 38 Ibid, 22 29 39 Schneider, pg. 60 66

PAGE 23

20 we re as a majority, of European lineage, and from professional families. 40 While these immigrants came with little ready cash, they did come with skill and e ducation. They expected an adequate education for their children, and thus demanded it in Miami. 41 In the spring of 1963, with the help of a Ford Foundation Project grant, Coral Way Elementary sought to meet the needs of Cuban immigrant students. It became the first public bilingual school in the United States. The school created two separate classes in each grade: the native English speakers and the native Cuban speakers. In the first grade, students in each class were taught in their respective native lang uage for half of the school day, and in the opposite language for the second half. They were also intermingled for a small amount of time each day, as to not create social divisions based on language. In grades second through fourth, the time students inte rmingled was increased, until eventually, in the fifth grade, English speaking and Spanish speaking students spent all day together and were expected to be fluent in both languages. The formula aimed to create a multicultural society rather than expect Cub an immigrants to assimilate too quickly and sacrifice their education. Not only were Cuban immigrants able to learn in their native language while slowly assimilating into American culture and linguistics, the English speaking students were given the chanc e to acquire a valuable skill few other Americans possessed. The school is still in operation today, and is often used as a model for districts dealing with difficult language divisions amongst their student populations. 42 40 TESOL Quarterly 8 (1967) 50 67. 41 Ibid, 54 42 Castro, Max J., The Politics of Language in Miami (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002) 8 218.

PAGE 24

21 Further fueling a movement toward bilingual education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the creation of the Office of Civil Rights brought further attention and resources to the plight of the immigrant population. The 1965 Immigration Act released many of the immigration restrictions, giv ing priority to people wishing to move to the United States to be with their families. This allowed immigrants to focus their attention on better lives for their families, as well as the development of advocacy and rights groups. 43 The culmination of these civil rights policies was an Act that ensured all immigrant and minority language students received an adequate education. T he Bilingual Education Act as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed by President Johnson on Jan uary 2, 1968. 44 This was the first piece of federal legislation regarding minority language speakers in the United States. The purpose was to provide federal funding for minority la nguage students in furtherance of a spate of civ il rights legislation passin g at the time of the initiative The Act required schools to teach English and the skills necessary to succeed in American society to those students without the resources or abilities to do so outside the classroom. The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 was reauthorized every four year s since its inception and it remained the most important piece of legislation guiding the education of English L anguage Learners until it was replaced by the English Acquisition Act under the No Child Left Behind initiative in 2 001. The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 mandated education for minority language speakers. The Act did not specify particular guidelines to the states or school districts 43 San Miguel Jr., Guadalupe, Contested Policy: The Rise and Fall of Bil ingual Education in the United States, (Denton: Universit y of North Carolina Press, 2004) 6 108. 44 Meyer, Michael M. and Feinberg, Stephen E., eds., Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies (Washington: National Academy Press, 1992), 1 128.

PAGE 25

22 regarding the education of English Language Learners, as the federal government did not feel it necessary to mandate a particular style of ELL education in a country with disparate immigrant populations. It did, however, guarantee funding for programs specifically designed to bolster ELL success. 45 While the Bilingual Education Act of 196 8 continued to supply funding from the federal government, it is important to remember t he original le gislation provided only for low/no income minority language spea kers. For example, the Act assisted Spanish speaking students immigrating to Texas for emp loyment opportunities in agri culture. It did not provide a remedy where there was no showing of poverty, disqualifying populations such as Cuban immigrants in Florida and the large Asian population moving to the West Coast. 46 As a result of continuing inequ ality between English speaking students and their minority language counterparts, Lau vs. Nichols became th e first Supreme Court Case decided on behalf of minority language speakers. Filed by the Chinese American community in California in 1974 the case h eld that the failure of the San Francisco school system to provide students with English language instruction or to provide them with other adequate instructional procedures, denied them a meaningful opportunity to participate in public education and thus violated §601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 47 A 1974 amendment to the Bil ingual Education Act of 1968 codified the ruling in Lau vs. Nichols and expanded it to include all language minority students, 45 Bon, Susan C. Encyclopedia of Education Law 1, (2008): 294 317. 46 Meyer and Feinberg, 74 47 National Archives and Records Administration, Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public Law No.78 stat. 252, 42 U.S.C., http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil rights act/

PAGE 26

23 regardless of cultural or economic background. 48 The L au case explicitly stayed away from the debate over the remedy for ensuring the success of English Language Learners. 49 Justice Douglas, responsible for the Supreme Court briefing stressed the decision was made to provide education, not determine which lan guage states should use to teach students. Thus, the federal government provided further autonomy to the states and school districts to determine the appropriate manner for educating minority language students. As a response to the Lau vs. Nichols decisi on, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) prepared a report on the state of education for minority language students. Officially entitled Task Force Findings Specifying Remedies Available for Eliminating Past Educational Practices Ruled Unlawful under Lau v. Ni chols the report recommended the native languages, at the elementary level for Elementary ELL students. English as a Second Language (ESL) was recommended for m iddle and high school ELL students. English as a Second Language is characterized as any program that teaches language minority students in English, but provides support personnel and special resources to accommodate a smooth transition from the native lan guage to English. Published in 1975, this report was never considered federal regulation, but did guide school systems toward choosing bilingual education programs over an immersion style of education. The report was widely cited as the most important piec e of current research for understanding ELL 48 Meyer and Feinberg, 57 49 Lau, id, at 56 ancestry w ho do not speak the language is one choi ce. Giving instructions to this group in Chinese is

PAGE 27

24 education. 50 States and school districts were still allowed to choose the models of education they found fit, but as a result of the report, the majority chose a combination of bilingual education and ESL progra ms. 51 A change in governmental administration from President Carter to President Reagan interrupted the positive attention for bilingual and ESL education Secretary of Education Terrel Bell, under President Reagan, withdrew proposed recommendations for b ilingual education programs in schools with a population of 25 or more English language in 52 stance against bilingual education programs ushered in an era of compromise in favor of immersion instruction. The original Bilingual Education Ac t of 1968 designated all funds be used for bilingual education and preservation of culture in the curriculum. When the Act came up for reauthorization in 1984, it was amended to include flexibility of 4 to 10 percent of the funds, which could be transferre d to finance other programs for ELL students. I n 1988, William Bennett, the new Secretary of Education under Reagan recommended up to 25 percent of the funds be flexible for alternative types of programs, a suggestion that was met with overwhelming approva l by future administrations due to the costly nature and lack of conclusive evidence of success surrounding bilingual education programs. 53 50 Meyer and Feinberg, 62 51 Porter, Rosalie Pedalino, 2 13. 52 Ibid, 2 13 53 Meyer and Feinberg, 63

PAGE 28

25 Chapter Four NCLB: Design, Issues, and Controversy In 2001, George W. Bush implemented large scale reforms to the Elementary and education in the United States by reducing bureaucracy and raising academic s tandards. The cost of publi c education had ballooned to 200 billion dollars at the federal level, yet student performance fell far below other, less developed countries in Mathematics and Reading. 54 Furthermore, economically disadvantaged and minority stude nts were found to perform far below their mainstream counterparts. While education was, and still is, primarily a responsibility of state and district governments, President Bush believed the federal government was partly at fault for the low academic stan dards, as it tolerated such poor results. To ensure the public education system improved, the federal government needed to hold states and school districts receiving federal funding for education accountable for the academic success of students. 55 NCLB was developed and implemented to provide the framework for this program of federal oversight. These revisions marked an important departure in educational philosophy in the United States. In the past, federal and state legislation tended to focus on equality of 54 U.S. Department of Education, Executive Summary: Archived Information, Jan uary, 2001, http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html 55 Ibid

PAGE 29

26 treatment or opportunity. 56 Equality of treatment in education is defined by an egalitarian view of parents, educators, and students. Individual choice and personal freedom in the educational system is stressed and all members are given the same space to succeed. Lau v Nichols is an example of this philosophy, as it upheld students should not be treated differently based on their linguistic background. Equality of opportunity, on the other hand, emphasizes special assistance and curriculum as tools for st andardizing educational experiences and fixing social problems. This style of education legislation can be seen in the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, in which schools were forced to ensure language minority students were given access to education and the tools needed to succeed. However, different from both these philosophies, NCLB focuses on equality of outcome, in which treatment and opportunity become unimportant, as long as outcome measures such as standardized test scores show equality exists. While many feel this shift in ideology is harsh, NCLB is meant to streamline the educational system and ensure accountability. Equality of outcome is far easier to measure and understand than the other philosophies, and thus the most appropriate for achieving th e goals of NCLB. 57 In order to achieve equality of outcome, the Act outlines four priorities of the federal government pertaining to education, including increased accountability for school increased flexibility for school districts, and empowering parents. These priorities are meant to be achieved through seven performance goals: improving the academic performance of disadvantaged students, boosting teacher quality, moving ELL students to fl uency, promoting informed 56 Stakes Testing, and Roles for Sociologis American Sociological Association (2005), 170 193. 57 Ibid, 174

PAGE 30

27 parental choice and innovative programs, encouraging safe schools in the 21 st Century, increasing funding for Impact Aid, and encouraging freedom and accountability for the school districts. 58 States are required to prove complianc e with these priorities and performance goals through the submission of an Adequate Yearly Progress Report (AYP). This report measures the proficiency of students on standardized assessments in Reading, Writing, Mathematics, and Science, as well as provide s goals and timelines for the upcoming year. States and school districts that are not able to prove they are upholding the goals of NCLB through their AYP reports at first receive additional funding. Upon failing to meet their AYP goals for three consecuti ve years, states and school districts risk a cut in their administrative budget. These funds are re directed to the Title I budget, allowing students in low performing schools to transfer to public or private schools in compliance with NCLB, or enroll in s upplemental education programs of their choice. While increased federal oversight and potential budget reductions may seem ominous, the NCLB framework stresses the importance of local and state flexibility and the reduction of federal bureaucracy. The fede ral government does not have an opinion on how the districts and states produce results, only that they must to protect administrative funding. Furthermore, under NCLB, 100% of students enrolled in public 59 While the Act requires raised standards for the success of all students, ELL education (referred to as Limited English Proficient or LEP in the NCLB report) is specifically targeted for improvement. As the purpose of the Act is to reverse the damage 58 U.S. Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Act, (2 1 USC § 1401a 2001 ) 59 Ibid

PAGE 31

28 must be able to close the gap between ELL and mainstream student performance. 60 Stressing ELL students must master English as quickly as possible, states and school districts are held accountable for making annual increases to English Proficiency for the ELL population. Furthermore, all measures of success used in AYP reporting, including assessment scores and graduation rates, must be rec orded for the ELL population separate from the student body as a whole. This is done to ensure ELL students specifically are standardized testing, and must be moved into mai nstream classrooms within three years of entering the public school system. 61 In order to ensure ELL students are able to perform on standardized tests and make the transition to mainstream classrooms, NCLB requires all teachers in ELL classrooms are design cannot pass their qualification exams and take appropriate enrichment classes to become 62 While these requirements on the states and school districts are stri ngent, the federal government does not put specific expectations or guidelines on the method of education for ELL students. In fact, the NCLB framework explicitly states mandating a specific approach to ELL education is prohibited. The federal government c annot withhold funds from the states, and the states cannot withhold funds from the districts based on the method of ELL education. 63 60 U.S. Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Act, (2 1 USC § 1401a 2001 ) 61 Abedi, Jamal, Educational Researcher, 33 (2004) 4 14. 62 Ibid, 6 63 No Child Left Behind Act, (2 1 USC § 1401a 2001 )

PAGE 32

29 However, if states and school districts do not meet their ELL AYP goals for three consecutive years, 10% of their administr ative budgets are cut. 64 NCLB has been an important piece of legislation regarding ELL education. It not only brought to light the plight of ELL students in the public school system, but set specific goals and timelines for remedying their poor educations. While NCLB has been successful in realizing the need for ELL education reform, opponents of the program have found it to be harsh, inflexible, and unable to realize the limitations of ELL learning. According to the Harv ard Civil Right Project, NCLB does no t and cannot meet its goal for closing gaps in academic achievement. Instead, it threatens to increase the growing drop out rate for minority and ELL students. The structure of NCLB awards schools for pushing out students that do not perform well on standa rdized tests. ELLs, with a minimal understanding of English are likely to bring down achievement scores, and therefore are not an asset to schools. Instead of focusing on drop out prevention, energy is misplaced into achieving high standardized testing sco res. Schools with a large ELL population are at a disadvantage, and unlikely to overcome poor AYP reports without reducing the number of ELLs enrolled. 65 Furthermore, because NCLB requires ELL scores be reported in a separate sub group, the t ask of achievin g the necessary p roficiency scores to achieve AYP is impossible. As students become proficient in English, they are moved out of the ELL sub group and put into mainstream classrooms. This creates a sub group in which none of 64 Ibid 65 Harvard Civil Rights Project, Testing the NCLB: Study shows that NCLB hasn't significantly impacted national achievement scores or narrowed the racial gaps June 14, 2006, http://www.civilrightsproject.uc la.edu/news/pressreleases/nclb_report06.php

PAGE 33

30 the students being tested have mastered English. As most standardized assessments are given in English, it is not possible for the ELL sub group to meet its proficiency goals. A school that does not meet its p roficiency goals in all sub groups fails its AYP report. 66 Schools with no mino rity or ELL students enrolled are given an advantage in this regard. administrative funding. 67 These technical problems with NCLB have forced schools with large ELL populations to cater teaching to standardized tests. Instead of providing a rich curriculum that allows students to dually focus on learning English and pursuing academic interests, schools a re forced to teach students only the skills necessary to pass the standardized assessments. This type of education contradicts the purpose of NCLB, as it is not closing gaps in education and knowledge, but placing a premium on skills necessary to pass test s. Opponents to NCLB believe the consequences of this educational design cannot be ignored. In 2007, one third of public schools failed their AYP, putting them at risk for losing necessary administrative funding. According to the National Assessment of Ed ucational Progress, this number is bound to worsen. 68 By 2014, the NCLB goal year, 80% of public schools are expected to fail their AYP, and 99% of California schools are projected to fail. This trend will not be temporary, as experts studying the prioritie s and 66 No Child Left Behind Act, (2 1 USC § 1401a 2001 ) 67 Cochran Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (2005) 16 29. 68 de las Alas, Nina, Williams, Andra, National Assessment of Educational Progress, http://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/conferences/statsdc2006/conference/session_IV.asp

PAGE 34

31 strict timelines of NCLB have estimated it would take more than 160 years to reach the Proficiency goals set forth by the Act. 69 This failure of NCLB is often blamed on the lack of two way accountability in the program. While students are responsible for high test scores, federal and state governments have done little to ensure adequate resources are being provided. The focus of NCLB remains with measuring test scores as indicators of success, but largely ignores the resources and costs of enabling sc hool quality. Opponents believe this is the major downfall of the program. 70 The Act is considered rash and ill advised, confusing measuring school accomplishment with fixing the underlying problems that affect performance. Until the framework of the progra m is revised to supplement instead of penalize schools in need, NCLB will remain largely unsuccessful in reforming ELL education. President Obama, guided by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, is expected to assuage many of the complaints with NCLB when i t comes up for reform in late 2009. The President has vocalized discontent with the current framework and its emphasis on sta ndardized assessments. Obama is expected to reform the framework to emphasize language enrichment for all students, and accountabil ity based on a better rounded concept of student performance and success. While no changes to NCLB have been confirmed, speculators have already begun to voice concern about these potential changes. Many argue changing the program in the middle of its cycl e not only does it 69 Darling Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10 (2007) 245 260. 70 I bid, 249

PAGE 35

32 injustice, but can push the school system into a confusing, unorganized time. Teachers and students would not know what is expected of them, nor would they be able to ensure all are making progress. Furthermore, the potential reforms are projected to be very expensive and inconceivable at this time. It is very unlikely NCLB will be abolished, but the form it takes in respect to current budgetary limitations is bound to be contentious. 71 71 The Washington Post June 23, 2009 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/23/politics/washi ngtonpost/main5105983.shtml

PAGE 36

33 Chapter Five Case Studies Introduction In the follo wing chapter, I will examine the implementation and structure of NCLB as it perta ins to ELL education across three states. The first case is California, a state with the largest percentage of ELL students enrolled in public education. The state provides an account of ELL education replete with shifting political, economic, and social considerations. Furthermore, because of a staunch stance against bilingual education, California provides a case study of immersion education in its purest form. Second, I will consider Florida. Third in the country for the number of ELL students enrolled, Florida provides a rich historical perspective to ELL education. Originally the birthplace of modern bilingual education, the state has shifted slowly towards immersion due to budgetary and administration concerns. However, while Florida does rely most heavily on immersion, bilingual education has not been erased from its programs of ELL education. Finally, I will consider Texas. The state is the birthplace of NCLB, and has rel ied heavily on structures of school accountability for many years. Programs of ELL education in Texas encompass both immersion and bilingual education, striving to provide classes that fit the needs of students. The state has been very successful in meetin g its AYP goals and remains an important success story for NCLB. The universe of cases for this thesis is comprised of all 50 states comprising the United States. Due to legislation such as the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 and Lau v Nichols all state s are required to provide adequate educations to ELL students.

PAGE 37

34 Furthermore, under NCLB, all states must be held accountable for the academic progress of ELL students. While it would be valuable to evaluate programs of ELL education in each of the 50 states time restraints and the ability to collect the necessary data from each state make this impossible at this time. Instead, three cases were chosen. California, Florida, and Texas each provide strong programs of ELL education and the necessary quantitative information to analyze these programs. While not exhaustive, an evaluation of programs of ELL education in these states can provide the beginning framework for understanding which programs work best toward ensuring the wanted outcome. Qualitative analy sis was used to illuminate the experiences of each state in regard to programs of ELL education. While the data presented for each case may not be with NCLB. The struc ture of the comparison is divided into five sections in order to organize the data of each case into comparable parts. These pa rts include i) a brief description of the history of ELL education in the state ; ii) an overview of ELL educatio n in each state u nder NCLB; iii) a brief d iscussion of the statewide assessments; iv) a presentation of quantitative information from the state; and v) a conclusion. Presentation of Cases California California currently has the largest number of minority language students enrolled in public education. During the 2008/2009 school year 1,515,082 students enrolled in the

PAGE 38

35 California public school system were labeled English Language Learners (ELL) 72 This represents approximately one sixth of the total population of students in the state. 73 These students are enrolled in 10,038 public schools, across 990 districts in the state. 74 Th e number of ELL students is expected to accelerate with new waves of immigration from Latin American countries. 75 For this reason, California has remaine d at the forefront of minority language speaker edu cation and politics. Originally praised for its dedication to bilingual education, California has rapidly come to rely on immersion models of ELL education. This fact is often attributed to the inability t o fund and organize more comprehensive bilingual education programs for a growing population and resulting restraints of NCLB. 76 A Brief History of ELL Education in the State California gained notoriety for its strong ELL education programs beginning in 1 967. Due to surmounting pressures from the Civil Rights Movement, as well as American population continued in school after the 8 th grade, Governor Ronald Reagan ended English Only instr uction in the state. He argued outlawing bilingual education was a 72 Sievert, Jessica, Evaluation of Structured English Immersion and Bilingual Education on Reading of Limited English Proficient Students in California and Texas (San Marcos: Texas State University: 2007) 9 56. 73 School Data Direct, California Public Schools and Districts, http://www.schooldatadirect.org/app/location/q/stid=5/llid=111/st llid=323/locid=5/stype=/catid= 1/secid= 1/compid= 1/site=pes 74 School Data Direct, California Public Schools and Districts 75 Cornelius, Wayne A., Martin, Philip L., Hollifield, James Frank, Con trolling Immigration: A Global Perspective (San Diego: Univ ersity of California, 1993) 7 78. 76 Journal 21 (1997).

PAGE 39

36 speaking peers. 77 At this time, bilingual education was allowed, but not required of school districts. Fo r those districts lacking community support, funding, or staff capable of the demands of bilingual education, immersion models of education were still acceptable. 78 The state further advanced bilingual education with the Chacon Mascone Bilingual Bicultura l Education Act of 1976. This piece of legislation mandated bilingual education be provided for all ELL students in the California public school system. 79 The Act was strengthened with the passing of The Bilingual Teacher Training Assistance Program of 1981 This program provided funding for any teacher in the state seeking bilingual education certificates or credentials. 80 Then, in 1984, The Impacted Languages Act mandated additional funding and assistance in California for any school district with significa nt refugee or ELL populations. 81 The Chacon Mascone Bilingual Bicultural Education Act expired in 1987, but funding continued to bilingual education programs until 1997. At this time, a state LL students remained in bilingual education programs for the entirety of their time in the public school system. They did not become fluent in English, and never transitioned into mainstream 77 Crawford, James and Lyons, James, Could Set Nat Rethinking Schools Online 12 (1998) http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/12_03/langmn.shtml 78 Ibid 79 Jepsen, Christopher, and de Alth, Shelley, English Lea rners in California Schools (San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California: 2005) 17. 80 Jepsen and de Alth, 18 81 Ibid

PAGE 40

37 classrooms. 82 Under these circumstances, the expense of mandated b ilingual education programs could no longer be justified. The Chacon Mascone Bilingual Bicultural Education Act was re interpreted to include immersion models of education in the California ELL classroom. 83 Without the mandate from the state government, bi lingual education was used in instances where educators felt students would benefit from the program, the funding was available, and a qualified teacher existed. During the 1997/1998 school year, 29% of ELL classrooms used this approach to education. That same year, 33% relied on English Only education, 22% used a hybrid of English Only instruction and primary language support, and 16% provided no special services to their students. 84 However, the 1997/1998 school year marked the end of bilingual education in the state. Proposition 227 emerged on the ballots on June 2, 1998. The initiative, conceived, financed, and directed by Ron Unz, and his organization English for Children, proposed sweeping changes to minority language speaker models of education in the state. Instead of allowing bilingual education, the state would require public schools to implement immersion models of ELL education. Students, no matter their level of proficienc y in English, would attend immersion classes unless their parents explicitl y rejected it and provided evidence to conclude their children would perform better in bilingual education classrooms. The proposition did, however, provide a one year intensive class for all students that were not proficient in English. This cl ass was mea nt to teach English 82 Jepsen and de Alth, pg. 20 83 Ibid 84 California Department of Education, Briefing Session: English Language Acquisition and Califo Proposition 227 Experience, http://www.wested.org/policy/pubs/prop227/main.htm

PAGE 41

38 rapidly, preparing students for classes conducted solely in English the following year. 85 The proposition passed with 61% of the votes, in essence abolishing bilingual education in the state. 86 Proponents of the initiative argue the propo sition passed because the California school system had proven the ineffectiveness of bilingual education programs, especially in view of their cost. With new ELL students entering California every day, it would rapidly become impossible to maintain bilingu al education programs when the majority of minority language speakers remained enrolled in these programs for between four to seven years. 87 Furthermore, it caused social stratification and increasing racial conflict in urban areas such as Los Angeles. Acco rding to public opinion polls conducted at the time of the election the majority of the population, including the Latino community, agreed bilingual education programs were ineffective for teaching ELL students English, the most important concern for these students. 88 ELL Education Under NCLB when NCLB passed in 2001. While Proposition 227 had required the use of immersion in ELL classrooms, the state did not provide specific models. U nder NCLB, this was unacceptable, and the state was forced to adapt its ELL programs. In order to ensure the state remained in compliance with NCLB, it created three models for ELL education. The first, Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English 85 English Language in Publ ic Schools Initiative Statute, Argument in Favor of Proposition 227, http://primary98.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/227yesarg.htm 86 Crawfo rd, James, Post Mortem 87 English Language in Public Schools Initiative Statute 88 Krashen, Stephen D., Under A ttack: The Case Against Bilingual Education (California: Language Education Associates: 1997) 7 108.

PAGE 42

39 ( grade level and advanced academic curriculum comprehensible to English learners with 89 Students attend mainstream classes, but use their elective class for intensive English language instruction. The second, Primary Language Students attend an English class, but are taught their other academic classes i n their primary language. This model is considered an example of bilingual education, as it does enrolled in this program with written consent from a parent or guardi an. Furthermore, with the exception of specialized, grant funded classrooms, Primary Language Instruction is used in classrooms for students with severe cognitive disabilities. 90 The final, English Language Development (ELD), is an approach that focuses on teaching students English while enabling access to other core subjects. Students are taught in English, but sequestered into ELL classrooms. 91 They do not attend class with their English speaking peers, and seldom participate in enrichment classes. Ideally, students would be assigned to one of these three methods of education based on level of fluency and academic progress. Each of these programs was designed to best help students at particular points in their English language education. Unfortunately, this is not currently the case in California. Because of an increasing ELL population, lack of funding, and lack of 89 Tracking and High School English Learners: Limiting Opportunities to Learn American Educational Research Journal 42 (2005) 30 5 328. 90 California Department of Education, English Language Development Standards for California Public Schools Grades K 12, http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/englangdevs tnd.pdf 91 Glass, Gene V., Educational Policy Analysis Archives 11 (2003), 1 54.

PAGE 43

40 organization, students are placed in the program with an available space at the time of their enrollment. 92 During the 2006/2007 school year, 1,53 4,487 ELL students participated in these three programs in California. The number of students participating only in ELD classrooms was 171,903, while 829,476 ELL students were enrolled in a combination of ELD and SDAIE classes. 87,700 students were schedul ed in a mixture of ELD, SDAIE, and bilingual classes, and 118,969 students were enrolled in some type of instruction any models of ELL education, and instead were plac ed in mainstream classrooms. 93 This 6% of ELL students in California participate in primary language instruction, and only in a combination with immersion models of education An Explanation of State Standardized Assessments In addition to these models of ELL education, the state initiated a set of state standardized tests to demonstrate compliance with NCLB. These tests, officially named California Standards Tests (CSTs) are administered in the spring to the entire student population, including ELL students. The table below lists the academic subjects of the CSTs and the grades the tests are administered to each year. 92 Ibid, 16 38 93 California Department of Education, School Fact Book, http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/documents/factbook2009.pdf

PAGE 44

41 CST Academic Subjects and Grades English/Language Arts Grades 2 11 Math Grades 2 7 Science 5, 8, 9 11 Life Science 10 History/Social Science 8 11 above is considered performing on grade level, while any student falling below this benchmark is considered in need of academic remediation. 94 For students with severe cognitive disabilities, an alternative test exists. The California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) is given in grades 2 11 and encompasses all subjects. ELL students do not qualify for this exam unless they have been diagnosed with a cognitive disability, and the paperwork is on file with the California Public School system. 95 Another a ssessment more specific to ELL students developed at this time was the California English Language Development Test (CELDT). This assessment is given to any student who does not speak English in their home within 30 days of enrolling in the California Publ 94 California Department of Education, CST Letter 2008: Standardized Testing and Reporting Program, http://www2.cde.ca.gov/scripts/texis.exe/webinator/search?pr=www&prox=page&rorder=750&rprox=750 &rdfreq=0&rwfreq=0&rl ead=500&sufs=1&order=r&rdepth=0&query=cst+parents&cq = 95 California Department of Education, CAPA Participation Eligibility, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/participcri teria.doc

PAGE 45

42 an ELL student, or Fluent English Speaker (FEP). If a student is identified as ELL, the student repeats this exam each year until his scores identify him as FEP. The scores are broke n into five categories. A score falling into one of the first two categories: participa In addition to passing their standardized assessments, ELL students must also pass the California High School Exit Exam (CHSEE) to qualify for graduation. This exam is given solely in English, and is a requirement for all graduating seniors. It is administered each spring to students in the 10 th grade. Those students that do not pass the exam have additional opportunities in the fall and spring of their 11 th and 12 th grade years. The exam measures student proficiency in La nguage Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. ELL students that have been enrolled for less than 12 months in California public schools can request accommodation on this exam, but are not exempt. 96 The scores from each of the exams discussed above are used to create the Academic Performance Index (API) for the State of California. The federal government developed to serve as a baseline score or starting performance indicator each year. This score ranges anywhere from 200 to 1000, with 1000 representing a state at 100% proficiency. If the state reaches its API growth objective in a year, it has met its AYP goals for the year. 96 California Department of Education, English Language Learners in California Frequently Asked Questions www.cde.ca.org

PAGE 46

43 Quantitative Information from the State T he data presented below has been collected from the California Department of Education. Five measures of the success of ELL programs of education in the state have been included. These measures were chosen to highlight the experience of ELL stud ents under NCLB, and gauge the success of ELL programs of education in the state The measures are as follows: AYP designations in English/Language Arts and Mathematics for each subgroup under NCLB have been included to measure where ELL students in the state fall compared to other subgroups in 2008. In addition, the percentage of the general student body and the percentage of ELL students meeting proficiency for the years 2005 2008 show the progress or failure of this subgroup over a period of time. API scores fo r the general student body and ELL subgroup have been included to illustrate the growth in these two groups for English/Language Arts and Math. proficiency on the CELDT for the years 20 05 2008 are shown as a measure of whether ELL programs of education in the state have been successful in transitioning ELL students to mainstream classrooms. demonstrate whether a group of students over a course of four years can improve their scores.

PAGE 47

44 this analysis to illustrate if ELL programs of education can close the achievement gap, strengthening E LL graduation rates to equal those of the general population. AYP Scores In 2008, the most recent year with available data, the state failed to meet its AYP goals. While many subgroups under NCLB were successful in both the English/Language Arts and Mathe matics proficiency goals, the state failed to raise proficiency enough to 97 In English/Language Arts, while California did meet its goals in seven of the ten subgroups measured under NCLB, three subgroups under NCLB, including ELL students did not meet their goals for 2008. 98 English/Language Arts Proficiency in 2008 Student subgroups that m et AYP in 2008. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian Pacific Islander Filipino American Indian Student subgroups that did not meet AYP in 2008 English Language Learner (ELL) Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities 97 California Department of Education, 2008 AYP Information Adequate Yearly Progress http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/ ayp2008 .asp 98 Ibid

PAGE 48

45 In Math, ELL students were able to meet their proficiency goals, an important success in California. However, Black students and Students with Disabilities w ere not able to score high enough to meet AYP for the state. 99 Math Proficiency in 2008 Student subgroups that meet AYP in 2008 White Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander Filipino American Indian English Language Learners (ELL) Economically Disadvantaged Stu dent subgroups that did not meet AYP in 2008 Black Students with Disabilities While California failed to meet AYP for the 2008 school year, scores did show progress from previous school years. This is true for both the student population as a whole, and for ELL students. The percentage of the general student population and ELL student subgroup reaching proficiency for both English/Language Arts and Math for the past four years is listed below. 100 Percentage of All Students meeting Proficiency English/Langu age Arts Math 99 California Department of Education, 2008 AYP Information 100 California Department of Education, 2008 AYP Information 2008 51.3% 2007 48.4% 2006 47.3% 2005 44.8% 2008 54.2% 2007 51.5% 2006 51.3% 2005 48.1%

PAGE 49

46 Percentage of ELL students meeting Proficiency English/Language Arts Math While both groups demonstrate progress in proficiency, these numbers also show a difference of approximately 30% between these two groups for each year. California programs of ELL education have had no success in closing ac hievement gaps for these two groups in the state. API Scores of public schools. These scores are used by the federal government to create AYP goals for the upcoming year. Ca lifornia Public Schools have seen improvement in their score each year considered in this analysis for both the general student body and ELL students. However, the growth scores for the general student body hover at about 80 points higher than those for EL L students. While both groups are making progress, there is no substantial change in the achievement gap. As this is a requirement of NCLB, California will have to address this problem before it can be in full compliance with the program. 101 101 California Department o f Education, API Reports, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apireports.asp 2008 21.8% 2007 19.1% 2006 18.5% 2005 15.4% 2008 33.8% 2007 30.9% 2006 30.3% 2005 27.9%

PAGE 50

47 All Students ELL Students CELDT Scores The CELDT assessment measures the level of English Proficiency of ELL students in California. Broken into five categories, students scoring in the top two classrooms. The scores listed below contain only annual assessments taken by ELL students, and do not include initial assessment scores. This distinction was mad e to measure growth in the ELL population, not muddled by new additions or migratory populations in the California school system. Over the course of this four year period, ish students testing into the top two categories was 12% below this same measure in 2005. 102 2008 CELDT Scores 2007 CELDT Scores 102 California Department of Education, California English Language Development Test, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CELDT/Celdt03_State.asp?cYear=2007 08&cChoice=Celdt1&RptNumber=01&cTestNumber=2 2008 742 2007 728 2006 720 2005 709 2008 662 2007 646 2006 641 2005 631 Advanced 8% Early Advanced 28% Intermediate 39% Early Intermediate 17% Beginnin g 9% Advanced 7% Early Advanced 25% Intermediate 39% Early Intermediate 18% Beginning 10%

PAGE 51

48 2006 CELDT Scores 2005 CELDT Scores CST Scores CST scores in California provide the necessary information for better understanding the success or failure of ELL programs in the state. These standardized scores are used by the federal government to determine whether students are performing at, below, or above grade level. The scores are useful to this paper, as they can also illustrate whether student education is improving, remaining stagnan t, or declining in the chosen time period. By comparing the scores of the general student body with those of the ELL subgroup, the success or failure of ELL programs in bolstering student performance and narrowing the achievement gap can be shown. In order to best organize this portion of analysis, two groups were chosen, and their scores on this assessment recorded over the four year time period. The first group consists of the general student body and the ELL subgroup enrolled in the second grade in 2005. Their scores were measured each year through the fifth grade in 2008. The second group also consists of the general student body and ELL population, but for students enrolled in the fifth grade in 2005. Their scores were recorded each year until through t he seventh grade. These groups were chosen to illustrate the scores of as many students in as many grades as possible. To provide symmetry, only grades in which students take both the English/Language Arts and Mathematics CST were considered. Furthermore, groups Advanced 14% Early Advanced 33% Intermediate 33% Early Intermediate 13% Beginning 6% Advanced 15% Early Advanced 33% Intermediate 33% Early Intermediate 13% Beginning 7%

PAGE 52

49 were chosen that could be followed for four years to gain as much insight into the CST scores as possible. In order for programs of ELL education in the state to be considered successful at meeting the demands of NCLB, ELL students in both groups of should show progress, with more profound gains in test scores from this subgrou p than the general student body. Group: 1 ( Grades 2 5/Years 2005 2008) Math CST Scores in Percentages Figure 1: from California Department of Education, California Standard ized Testing and Reporting, http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2009/ViewReport.asp?ps=true&lstTestYear=2009&lstTestType=C&ls County=&lstDistrict=&lstSchool=& lstGroup=1&lstSubGroup=1 This exercise shows ELL students in grades 2 5 between 2005 2008 fall below the general student body on their Math CST assessments. A larger percentage of ELL eir English speaking counterparts. Furthermore, the gap between the scores of ELL students and the general student body grows each year, rather than lessons.

PAGE 53

50 English/Language Arts Scores in Percentages Figure 2: from California Department of Education, C alifornia Standardized Testing and Reporting While this graph does show variation from year to year, there is no denying the ELL population remained below the general student body throughout the course of this time period. Each year, a larger percentage o f ELL students scored into failing categories, while a smaller percentage scored into passing categories than the general student body. However, more promising, larger percentages of ELL students did pass the exam in 2008 and 2007, than in 2006 and 2005.

PAGE 54

51 Group: 2 (Grades 5 8/Years 2005 2008) Math CST Percentages Figure 3: from California Department of Education, California Standardized Testing and Reporting The graph shows little to no success in scores for the ELL subgroup across the four year period. While ELL students do show progress in some categories in some years, they have not consistently improved. Interstingly, while the general student population consistentl shrinking achievement gap, the ELL subgroup makes no gains in the top two designations.

PAGE 55

52 English/Language Arts CST Percentages Figure 4: from California Department of Education, Califo rnia Standardized Testing and Reporting than the general population. Unfortunately, this moderate success is coupled with a fall in Furthermore, the percentage of students when the scores were first recorded in 2005. Graduation Rates The graduation rates for both the entire student population and th e ELL subgroup across four consecutive years are listed below. These rates are based on the NCLB definition, and account for dropout rates from each year. 103 According to NCLB, 103 Formula: Number of graduates from year 4 divided b y number o f graduates from year 4 + gr 9 dropouts from year 1 + gr. 10 dropouts from year 2 + gr. 11 dropouts from year 3 + gr. 12 dropouts from

PAGE 56

53 uccess or failure in preparing minority students to become equal members of society. 104 If ELL students can graduate at the same rate as the general student population, they can enter the workforce on equal footing. As the United States continues to become m ore technologically advanced, the necessity of a high school diploma for gainful employment becomes more apparent. 105 If ELL programs in the State of California have performed the necessary functions under NCLB, graduation rates for the subgroup should be in creasing more rapidly than in the student body as a whole. All Students ELL Students 005 and ELL education have not been successful in providing ELL students with the necessary skill set to graduate. 106 Conclusion : California Upon reviewing ELL educati on in the State of California, it can be decided the year 4 ( Swanson, Christopher B., NCLB Implementation Report, The Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org/Uplo adedPDF/410848_NCLB_Implementation.pdf ) 104 Orfield, Gary, Losen, Daniel, Wald, Johanna, and Swanson, Christopher, Losing Our Future: How Minority Students Are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410936_LosingOur Future.pdf 105 No Child Left Behind, Title III, Sec. 3102 (8)(A)(B) 2008 44% 2007 46% 2006 47.1% 2005 47.3% 2008 80.2% 2007 80.6% 2006 83.4% 2005 85.1%

PAGE 57

54 case study omits a number of necessary variables for finding, without a doubt, immersion unsuccessful in California, it does include the obligatory measures under NCLB. According to this piece of legislation, a program of ELL education is successful when it meets AYP, raises test scores and graduation rates, and teaches students English. Because this is the method by which the federal government is currently measuring the success of the education system, it is only logical to apply these same standards in this initial exploration of ELL education. ation is struggling to meet the demands of NCLB. In the time period reviewed, AYP was not made, CST scores were not raised, no improvement in CEDLT scores was shown, and graduation rates suffered. While there is little doubt sociological or economic factor s played a part in this failure, immersion programs of ELL education in the state were unable to counteract these problems. not a result of changing needs in the ELL populati on, but rather a political decision. In the success of bilingual education could jus tify its costs. Thanks to Ron Unz, who provided a potential solution to the economic costs and lack of academic payoffs, immersion replaced bilingual education as the predominant program for ELL education. While this paper cannot decide if the politically charged decision to abandon bilingual education in favor of immersion programs of EL L education was correct, it can conclude immersion has not been successful in providing students with the necessary

PAGE 58

55 academic skills to meet the NCLB requirements. While there is not guarantee bilingual education would have more success, there is no evidenc e California will be able to pass NCLB without modifying ELL education. Given the consequences of failing this accountability initiative, it would be wise for California to re evaluate its commitment to immersion programs of ELL education. Florida Florida provides an interesting case for analysis of ELL education. The Cuban Revolution in 1959 marked the beginning of modern immigration to the state. Since then, millions of i mmigrants, the majority of whom do not speak English, have entered Florid a for reasons ranging from political freedom, to job opportunities in agriculture and tourism. It is estimated between 1990 and 2000, more than one million (1,030,449) newcomers arrived to the state. Because of this large and growing immigrant population, one in five students (303,581) in the Florida State School System is designated as an English Language Learner (ELL). Florida ranks third, only behind California and Texas for the larges t population of ELL students. 107 A Brief History of ELL Education in the State The State of Florida was originally hailed as the birthplace of modern bilingual education in the United States. 108 In 1959, Coral Way Elementary in Miami, Florida began the first modern bilingual education program in a public school in th e country. 107 School Data Direct, Florida Public Schools and Districts, http://www.schooldatadirect.org/app/location/q/stid=5/llid=111/stllid=323/locid=5/stype=/catid= 1/secid= 1/compid= 1/site=pes 108 Castro, Max J., The Politics of Language in Miami (Gainesville : University Press of Florida, 2002) 16

PAGE 59

56 Using federal funds and private grant appropriations, the school developed a bilingual education program that utilized the experience of both English speaking American teachers and recently emigrated Cuban educators. All students, regardless of their background or ethnicity, were required to attend classes taught in both English and Spanish. In the first grade, students spent 80% of their day learning in English, and 20% of their day in Spanish. 109 These percentages shifted each year until, by the 5th grade, students spent 50% of their day learning in each language. Students were expected to be bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural by their graduation from the 5th grade. This social experiment proved to be successful, graduating bilingual students w ho excelled in academics each year. 110 However, while Coral Way Elementary was an important symbolic representation isolated. Instead of growing throughout the state as exp ected, it remained a commodity at South Florida schools that could afford the program costs. 111 Instead, beginning as early for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs, defined by a co mmitment to provide academic, cultural, and linguistic support to ELL students. 112 ESOL stresses the need for rapid English language acquisition, and is comprised of sequestered English language classes and mainstream academic classes for ELL students. 113 ESOL programs of education were 109 Ibid, 64 110 Ibid, 75 111 Castro, Max. J, 91 112 Florida Department of Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages: ESOL, http://www.fldoe.org/asp/ftce/pdf/47ESOL rev.pdf 113 Ibid

PAGE 60

57 used in counties and schools where the ELL population was not large to justify the cost, or where the budget did not allow for more expensive forms of ELL education. 114 e the growing population of ELL students. However, additional pressure from the Latin American population began to cause unrest in the school system as early as the mid Latin American immigration began to spread from the south of the state into Central students started to surface. 115 education advocacy groups approached the legal firm Multilingual Education, Training, and Advocacy (META), asking for assistance and representation to remedy these problems. The firm brought suit against the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE), claiming it had denied equal opportunities for education to the ELL population. The FLDOE conceded to the terms of the suit, and filed the Consent Decree on the same day in 1989. This piece of legislation mandated compliance in six areas: a) identification and assessment, b) equal access to appropriate programs, c) equal access to catego rical and other programs, d) school wide training of personnel, e) program monitoring, and f) student outcome measures. 116 Since the Consent Decree took effect in 1989, the FLDOE and META have debated various issues affecting the education of ELL students an d the protection of their 114 Platt, Elizab TESOL Quarterly 37 (2003) 105 133. 115 Ibid, 107 116 Platt, Harper, and Mendoza, 119 3 MacDonald, Victoria Maria, The Status of English Language Learners in Florida : Trends and Prospects, Education Policy Research Unit (2004) http://Edpolicylab.org

PAGE 61

58 rights. For example, while META continues to advocate sequestered classrooms for ELL students, the FLDOE tends to shy away from this style of education, often arguing it is an act of discrimination to separate students based on et hnic identity or language. Furthermore, META often advocates bilingual education programs, while the FLDOE stands by a commitment to immersion methods of ELL education beginning in 1995. 117 While the FLDOE and META often debate different aspects of ELL educa tion, compliance with the Consent Decree and its terms is mandatory. More than a decade before NCLB, Florida began reporting results of graduation rates and test scores with a specific subset for ELL students. 118 Furthermore, officials at the FLDOE were requ ired to pay attention to the achievement gap between the student population and ELL students and take steps to remedy it, or risk further legal action. These stipulations were added to the Consent Decree to ensure transparency in determining whether equal education and access to programs w as available to all students. 119 ELL Education under NCLB In order to dually comply with the Consent Decree and NCL B, the FLDOE has created five models of ELL education that can be implemented in public schools in the State of Florida. Each of these programs is meant to offer districts and schools a different approach to educating ELL students. Districts maintain a good deal of autonomy in deciding which programs to implement in face of their ELL population, reso urces, and budgetary concerns. As populations of ELL students can be unevenly distributed 117 Platt, Harper, and Mendoza, 122 118 Ibid, 122

PAGE 62

59 throughout a district, varying combinations of programs can be implemented in schools throughout the district. Schools must implement at least one of these programs, and cannot use a method of ELL education not outlined by the state. programs a d istrict will use in each school, as well as criteria for meeting the requirements of NCLB Even the seven school districts reporting zero ELL students enrolled between 2004 and 2007 were required to choose at least one model in case of acquiring a students in need of ELL education. 120 Ideally, schools would choose whichever programs work best for their population of ELLs. Students would be assessed to determine proficiency and assigned to programs appropriately. This is seldom the case, as many outside factor s influence the abilities of schools to place students in the appropriate classrooms, Scheduling and budgetary concerns often plague the process of properly placing students. 121 Furthermore, specialized teachers are needed to teach specific programs. If the teachers are not available in the time block necessary for a program, or simply not available for hire, students are placed into an ELL classroom 122 A brief description of each of the programs is provided below. 120 Florida Department of Education, D istrict Plan for English Language Learners, https://www.fldoe.org/aala/pdf/DistrictPlanServ.pdf 121 S outhern Legislative Conference of The Council of State Governments, http://www.slcatlanta.org/Publications/Education/LanguageDiversity.pdf 122 Ibid

PAGE 63

60 The first program of ELL education, Immersion Language Arts with a Sheltered Core is a model of education for ELLs that focuses on listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The Language Arts class is composed of students clas sified as ELL only, and all lessons are conducted in English. While assistance is provided through altered assessments and support personnel, students attend all other courses in mainstream classrooms. 123 Secondary Language Arts is a program in w hich students attend an immersion language arts class, working on listening, speaking, reading, and writing in mainstream classrooms. While teachers in these classrooms are certified in ELL education, they are not expected to speak any language other than English. Furthermore, this program offers no support for ELL students in their other subjects. 124 Secondary Basic Subjects Taught with a Sheltered Core is defined by the use of English in all subjects but Language Arts. While students speak Engl ish in Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and Computer Literacy, there is still some element of the native language used in Language Arts class. ELLs are not taught in mainstream classrooms, but instead taught in contained classrooms. 125 Secon dary Language Arts with Immersion in Basic Subjects is a program in which ELL students attend an immersion Language Arts class, working on listening, speaking, reading, and writing in mainstream classrooms. While teachers in these classrooms are certified in ELL education, they are not expected to speak any language 123 Hull, 25 124 Ibid, 2 5 125 Ibid, 25

PAGE 64

61 other than English. Students attend the rest of their courses in mainstream classrooms, but support personnel and accommodation is available. 126 The final and most rare model of ELL ed ucation, Secondary Basic Subjects with Dual Language is the only pure model for bilingual education in the State of Florida. Classes are composed only of students classified as ELL, but all subjects including English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, So cial Studies, and Computer Literacy are taught using both English as well as the native language of students. 127 An Explanation of State Standardized Assessments Beginning in 1998, the State of Florida has relied on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Tes t (FCAT) to map student performance. This exam uses criterion referenced testing to measure how students in the state compare to each other, and norm referenced testing to measure how Florida students compare nationwide. 128 Scores from the FCAT are used each year to create benchmarks for student performance named Sunshine State Standards, which measure what students should be able to achieve at each grade level. 129 FCAT scores are used each year to determine whether students should be promoted to the next grade level. While students can be promoted without passing the FCAT, it is not typical, and only for extenuating circumstances. No student is allowed to graduate high school until passing the 10 th grade FCAT. 130 126 Hull, 26 127 Florida Department of Education, About the FCAT, http://fcat.fldoe.org/aboutfcat/english/about.html 128 Florida Department of Education, About the FCAT 129 Ibid 130 I bid

PAGE 65

62 Under NCLB, the FCAT and its role in measuring st udent performance has expanded to meet NCLB requirements. Initially, the test was only given in grades 4, 5, 8, and 10. Under NCLB, the FCAT is given in grades 3 10, and relies more heavily on norm referenced testing to measure Florida students against the nation. 131 Scores on the FCAT are reported on a scale of one through five, with one being far below average, and five being above average. The chart below illustrates the subjects tested under NCLB, and the grades in which students take the FCAT for each sub ject. FCAT Academic Subjects and Grades Reading Grades 3 10 Writing Grades 4,8,10 Mathematics Grades 3 10 Science Grades 5,8,11 ELL students are expected to take the FCAT each year required. They are not exempt, no matter their level of English fluen cy. While their scores on this assessment do affect whether they advance to the next grade level and eventually graduate, all students designated as ELL do receive accommodations. The test is only given in English, but ELL students are given more time to c omplete the exam, and are given a test proctor that can explain the directions to them in their native language. 132 For students suffering from severe cognitive disabilities, the Florida Alternate Assessment exists to accommodate their needs. This test reli es on Access Points instead 131 Florida Department of Education, About the FCAT 132 Ibid

PAGE 66

63 of the Sunshine State Standards, which capture the essence of the standard but with less complexity. 133 ELL students with qualifying cognitive disabilities are given this exam instead of the FCAT. The final exam affecting ELL st udents in the State of Florida is the Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA). This exam is required under NCLB to show ELL students in Florida are making progress toward English proficiency. The CELLA is administered to each student sus pected of being ELL upon enrollment in the public school system. It is repeated each spring by all ELL students until they test as English proficient. 134 This assessment measures student achievement in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, with student subjects tested are removed from ELL programs and con sidered English proficient. 135 Quantitative Information from the State The data presented below was collected from the Florida Department of Education. Four measures of the success of ELL programs of education in the state have been included. The measures w ere chosen to highlight the performance of ELL students in comparison to the general student population. In each case, special attention was paid 133 Florida Department of Education, Assessment and School Performance: The Florida Alternate Assessment, www.fldoe.org/asp/assessment/asp 134 Florida Department of Education, Florida CELLA Information, http://www.fldoe.org/aala/pdf/2008CELLAInfoFlyerENG.pdf 135 Florida Department of Education, Florida CELLA Interpretive Guide, http://www.fldoe.org/aala/pdf/CELLA Interpretive Guide.pdf

PAGE 67

64 to include the most recent data available By using the most recent data, the information remains most accurat e in illuminating the current climate of ELL education in the state. Unfortunately, Florida has developed programs of ELL education which focus on immersion, but do provide some space for bilingual education. In order to determine if this approa ch to ELL education has been successful in the state, each of these measures was chosen to accentuate a different aspect of success for ELL students. These designations show wheth er the state was able to meet AYP, and if not, which groups performed below the AYP benchmark. 2007, as assigned by their CELLA scores is also included. These numbers can show if Florida h as been successful in reassigning students from ELL to mainstream classrooms. whether these groups of students can improve their scores over the course of four years. ion Rate for ELL students and the general student population education in the state have performed their function, the percentage of ELL students graduating high school should be growing at a rate higher than the general student population.

PAGE 68

65 AYP Scores In 2008, the year with most recent available data, Florida did not reach its AYP goals. 136 The state met 77% of the criteria necessary for AYP, showing no improvement from the year before. In Reading, four of the nine subgroups under NCLB met their AYP goal, set at 58% of students scoring at or above grade level. In Mathematics, five of the nine subgroups met their proficiency goal of 62% or more students testing at or above grade le vel. 137 While the total student body was able to meet its proficiency goals in Reading, the chart below shows five of the NCLB subgroups failed in Florida. ELL students are amongst the failing subgroups in Reading. 138 Reading Proficiency in 2008 Student sub groups that met AYP in 2008 White, Asian, American Indian Student subgroups that did not meet AYP in 2008 Black, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learners (ELL) Students with Disabilities ELL students did no better in Mathematics in 2008, failing to meet their proficiency goals as well. While Hispanic students were able to meet their goals along 136 Florida Department of Education, School Accountability Reports, http://www.fldoe.org/aala/pdf/0405ellstatus.pdf 137 Ibid 138 Ibid

PAGE 69

66 with White, Asian, and American Indian students, four NCLB subgroups did not fare as well. 139 Math Proficiency in 2008 Student subgroups that met AYP in 2008 White, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian Student subgroups that did not meet AYP in 2008 Black, Economically Disadvantaged English Language Learners (ELL) Students with Disabilities While Florida failed to meet its AYP goals in 200 8, the scores did show progress from previous years. This is true for both the total student body and for ELL students. 140 The percentage of students meeting proficiency goals in these two groups for the past four years is listed below. Percentage of All Stu dents Meeting Proficiency Reading Math 139 Florida Department of Education, School Accountability Reports 140 Ibid 2008 60% 2007 57% 2006 57% 2005 53% 2008 66% 2007 57% 2006 61% 2005 59%

PAGE 70

67 Percentage of ELL students meeting Proficiency Reading Math While the improvement in these percentages is promising, in order to meet the demands of NCLB, ELL students should be progressing at a more rapid rate than the total student body. One of the most pronounced goals of NCLB is to close t he achievement gap between subgroups. As shown above, Florida has had no success in closing this gap for ELL students. 141 The Number of ELL Students The State of Florida relies on the CELLA exam to determine whether students should continue with ELL educat ion or enter mainstream classrooms. NCLB requires states make progress toward English proficiency for all ELL students. If models of ELL education in Florida are successful, they should produce students who are able to pass the FCAT and leave ELL education Upon reviewing the numbers of ELL students enrolled in ELL education in the state, and the numbers of former ELL students enrolled in mainstream classrooms, it seems the state has made progress toward this goal. The number of former ELL students learning in mainstream classrooms has grown in each year considered. Interestingly, the number of ELL students enrolled in ELL education has also grown. This shows while looking at this information can be helpful, there are factors 141 Florida Department of Education, School Accountability Reports 2008 37% 2007 36% 2006 36% 2005 32% 2008 47% 2007 44% 2006 43% 2005 40%

PAGE 71

68 at play not considered in this p aper. These factors can include movements of ELL students into and out of the state, as well as dropout rates and disparate Kindergarten enrollment rates. The data, regardless of its flaws, is listed below : 142 Florida ELL Enrollment Year Current ELL Former E LL 2007 234,934 272,632 2006 230,257 265,131 2005 221,179 253,917 2004 213,096 241,445 FCAT Scores FCAT scores from Florida provide important information in determining the success or failure of ELL programs of education in the state. Florida has de veloped five programs for ELL education, with four of these programs containing major elements of immersion ideology. If these programs have been successful in meeting the demands of NCLB, FCAT scores for ELL students should improve each year. Furthermore scores for these students should be improving at a rate more rapid than the general student body to close the achievement gap between these two groups. The graphs shown below measure the percentage of students who passed the FCAT in Reading and Mathemati cs over a four year period. ELL students are shown as a separate subgroup to determine whether any success toward raising their scores and closing the achievement gap has been made. 142 Florida Department of Education, Education Inf ormation and Accountability Services Data Report https://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pdf/ell0809.pdf

PAGE 72

69 Reading FCAT Passing Percentages Figure 5: from Florida Department of E ducation, FCAT Results Interactive Search by School and District, http://fcat.fldoe.org/results/default.asp The graph above shows improvement in the percentage of students passing the Reading FC AT across the four year time span. While the gains are not extraordinary, 7% more students from the total student population passed the Reading FCAT in 2008 than in 2005, and 5% more ELL students were able to pass the exam in this same time period. While t his can be considered an improvement in the State of Florida, no progress was made toward closing the achievement gap in this time period. In order to be successful under NCLB, Florida will have to find a way to remedy this problem.

PAGE 73

70 Mathematics Passi ng Percentages Figure 6: from Florida Department of Education, FCAT Results Interactive Search by School and District, The percentage of students passing the Mathematics FCAT has improved across the four year time period observed. However, b oth the tota l student popul ation and ELL subgroup show Florida has not had had any success in closing the achievement gap between these two groups. The percentage of ELL students passing the FCAT needs to grow at a rate quicker than the total student population to mee t this demand of NCLB. Graduation Rates The final measure of success is graduation rates in the State of Florida. According to NCLB, the graduation rate of each subgroup should grow every year as a condition of raduation rate of each subgroup under NCLB should grow by 1% each year. 143 143 Florida Department of Education, School Accountability Reports

PAGE 74

71 Year All Students ELL Students 2008 73% 52% 2007 69.8% 48.2% 2006 68.3% 46.3% 2005 69% 47.2% Interestingly, for the first three years in question, Florida did not achieve the necessary improvement to its graduation rates. The rates for both the general student body and ELL population remained relatively stagnant, with no success in improving the achievement gap. However, in the fourth year (2008), Florida saw a jump of three p ercent in its graduation rate for both groups. While it is possible 2008 was a fluke, and the scores will fall or stay the same in upcoming years, this jump shows a promising gain in Florida. Conclusion :Florida Florida allows for an analysis of a state with a strong bilingual heritage. While the state currently relies on immersion education in most cases, bilingual education programs of ELL education do still exist. Furthermore, Florida has developed hybrid programs, aiming to retain the positive aspects of both immersion and bilingual education. Unfortunately, due to cuts in the administrative budget and lack of organization, Florida is not able to place ELL students in the program of education that best fits their educational need. 144 Instead, the state h aphazardly places students in programs that are available when it is time for assignments. Despite this lack of organization, programs of ELL education in Florida have experienced success under NCLB. While the state did not make AYP in 2008, it was able 144 de Cohen, Clem encia Cosentino, Murray, Julie, and Clewell, Beatriz Chu, Promise or Peril: NCLB and the Education of ELL Students, The Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org/publications/411469.html

PAGE 75

72 t o raise FCAT scores and graduation rates for both the general student population and ELL students. It was also able to successfully move ELL students to mainstream classrooms, proving their programs are able to teach students English. Using the NCLB goals seem to be able to meet the demands of the school accountability program. Texas Texas may be the most interesting state to study, as it not only has the largest Latino populat ion in the country, but i s also the birthplace of NCLB. Because of its close proximity to Latin America, many job opportunities in agriculture and construction, and a rich cultural connection with Mexico, Texas has been at the forefront of ELL education an d policy for many years. 145 At 58.1%, Texas has the largest percentage of language minorities outnumber the more typical definition of the majority. Because of this cul tural shift, Texas has been preparing its education system to stand up to the demands of the large minority population for many years. In order to ensure all students are receiving an adequate education, the state has become known for its high stakes testi ng initiatives and large, detailed programs for ELL education. 146 145 Slayde Annals of the American Academy on Political Science, (93) 121 126. 146 ity, Testing, Language, Place, Journal of Basic Writin g, 23 (2004) 4 25.

PAGE 76

73 A Brief History of ELL Education in the State Beginning in 1972, as a result of the Civil Rights Movement the State of Texas mandated bilingual education for all students who did not speak English fluently. ELL students were identified by teachers and school administrators as struggling with English language proficiency, and moved to bilingual education classrooms. In these classrooms, lessons were taught in a combination of English and the often Spanish). 147 Students were expected to spend between four and seven years in the ELL program, and upon graduating to mainstream classrooms, speak English as fluently as a native English speaker. 148 While this system was s uccessful in linguistically assimilating ELL students in the state, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) called for an end to the sole use of bilingual education in 1981. Arguing it was unjust to insist ELL students participated in bilingual education programs when their English speaking counterparts were not expected to attend, MALDEF called for a change in policy in the state. Their wishes were granted with little resistance, and bilingual education became a voluntary method of ELL education in Texas. 149 In order to offer necessary alternatives to bilingual education, the state developed two other categories for ELL education at this time: Limited English Proficient (LEP) and English as a Second Language (ESL) classes. While par ticipation in any and all of 147 Bernstein, 4 25 148 Texas Education Agency, Bilingual Education, www.tea.state.tx.us/programs/Englishlanguage acquisition/history/?pagename=bilingualeducation/history.ht ml. 149 Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, United States v State of Texas http://www.maldef.org/education/litigation/us_v_texas/

PAGE 77

74 these classes remained voluntary, the State of Texas began to use standardized assessments for ELL students to guide their placement decisions. LEP was populated by ELL students with the least understanding of English. They wer e sequestered into private classrooms and participated in intensive English language classes and specially designed academic courses to foster English language development. Ideally, students remained in LEP education for no longer than two years, at which time they should have mastered the skills necessary to move to the next level. ESL was for students with an understanding of English, but a necessity to improve vocabulary and written and oral communication. These students often participated in ELL English classes, but were not typically sequestered for all of their academic classes. Participation in this model of ELL education was expected to be between four and seven years as well. Finally, Bilingual Education was designed for those minority language stud ents that had mastered English. Ideally, these students were able to communicate fluently in both their native language and in English. Students participating in this form of education were most often placed in mainstream classrooms for their academic subj ects, but spent at least one elective class in a Spanish language, literature, or culture class where they were expected to speak solely in Spanish. ELL students enrolled in Bilingual Education were expected to remain enrolled until they graduated. 150 ELL ed ucation in the state was further affected when Governor George W. Bush took office in January, 1995. Upon entering office, Bush vowed to improve the educational system in the state at all levels, including ELL education. While little was accomplished towa rd this goal in his first term, the governor proposed sweeping changes 150 Bernstein, 4 25

PAGE 78

75 and vast improvement again during his re election campaign. 151 In order to fulfill this promise, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) was developed in 1998. This assessment was designed to measure student proficiency in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics and expose gaps in student education. Bush believed the standardized exam would end a long standing tradition of social promotion, in which students were graduated to the next lev el of education without mastering the necessary academic cornerstones. 152 were not able to pass the TAAS were to receive remediation. While districts could choose which type of remediation t o offer, participation by failing students was mandatory. The state budgeted $200 million towards these remediation programs in 1998. 153 In its first year, the test revealed 350,000 school children in the state were unable to pass the TAAS, based on expecte d minimum skills at each grade level. 154 The $200 million allotted to the program was not enough to provide remediation for each of these students. Governor Bush was forced to modify the initial expectations and consequences of the TAAS scores. Students with failing scores were able to participate in a petition process to discount their scores and be promoted to the next grade. Many ELL students participated in this exemption process the first year, arguing the exam did not address their special educational n eeds. 155 151 Hacsi, Timothy A., Children as Pawns: The Politics of Educational Reform, Harvard University Press, Boston (2002) 160 179. 152 Ibid, 165 153 Ibid, 169 154 Marquez, Heron, George W. Bush (New York: Lerner Publications, 2006) 68. 155 Hacsi, 169 172

PAGE 79

76 In order to remedy the remediation and funding problems with the TAAS, Governor Bush developed a system of school accountability Instead of promising funding for remediation programs for all failing students, Bush insisted schools take responsibili ty for low test scores. If schools were not able to raise scores and continue to challenge students, they like their students, would be considered failing. Students attending failing schools would be given permission to seek an education elsewhere, either at another public school in the district, or a state funded charter school. Furthermore, schools that were not able to meet the standards set forth by Governor Bush risked loss of funding, or in extreme cases, state takeover. 156 ELL Education Under NCLB The State of Texas has been at the forefront of NCLB policy since its inception in state was forced to make few changes to their ELL education programs. 157 However, in order to comply with all aspects of NCLB and continue to improve, minor modifications were necessary. While Bilingual Education, LEP, and ESL programs are still available in the state, students do not have as much choice in deciding which program best suits their needs. Instead, LEP is most often used for Elementary aged students, while ESL is reserved for middle and high school aged children. Bilingual Education still exists at all levels of education, but the academic and language requirements for participating i n this program 156 Bernstein, 23 157 Hacsi,180

PAGE 80

77 of ELL education have become more stringent. Students must excel in their ESL classes and in their academic classes to be considered for Bilingual Education. Furthermore, the program has been open to all mainstream students, acting as an ele ctive for any student who meets the criteria for enrollment, regardless of their language background and history. 158 An Explanation of State Standardized Assessments While Texas was already using standardized assessments to measure student proficiency well before the implementation of NCLB, changes were made to the TAAS to ensure it met all the requirements of NCLB and fostered improvement. The TAAS e xam became the Texas Assessment of Knowled ge and Skills (TAKS) beginning in 2001. 159 Scores from the TAKS are u sed to create the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards required under NCLB. The TEKS standards measure what students should be able to accomplish at each grade level. 160 TAKS exam is compared to the TEKS standard e ach year to determine whether the student should be promoted to the next grade. While it is possible to fail the TAKS and still be promoted, students in this position are required to participate in remediation classes. 161 Under NCLB, Texas has expanded its testing requirements to include more subjects and school grades. While the TAAS exam only measured student achievement in 158 Texas Education Agency, Curri culum, Programs, and Services, http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/ED/htm/ED.29.htm#29.053 159 Texas Education Agency, About t he Student Assessment Program, http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=3318&menu_id3=793 160 Ibid 161 Ibid

PAGE 81

78 Reading, Writing, and Mathematics in grades 3, 5, and 8 162 the TAKS encompasses six subjects in eight grades. 163 Scores on the TAKS quali fy students to fall into one of three 164 The chart below illustrates the subjects for which a TAKS exam exists, and the grades in which the exam is giv en. Reading Grades 3 9 Mathematics Grades 3 10 Writing Grades 4,7 English/Language Arts Grade 10 Science Grades 5,8,10 Social Studies Grades 8,10 In regards to testing and the TAKS assessment, ELL students in Texas are given considerable accommodati ons. For ELL students who have been fully mainstreamed or participate in Bilingual Education, additional time, instruction in the native language, and quiet classrooms are provided. 165 For students still participating in LEP and ESL classes, the test is give n in Spanish for some grades and subjects. This is a very important accommodation, as only Texas provides its standardized test for NCLB in a language other than English. 166 The grades and subjects with Spanish TAKS available are illustrates in the chart bel ow. Reading Grades 3 6 Mathematics Grades 3 6 Writing Grade 4 Science Grade 5 162 Hacsi, 165 163 Texas Education Agency, About the Student Assessment Program 164 Texas Education Agency, Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills Performanc e Level Descriptors, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/perlevel/PLD_math.pdf 165 Texas Education Agency, About the Student Assessment Program 166 Ibid

PAGE 82

79 ELL students who are diagnosed with learning disabilities may qualify to take the TAKS Mo dified (TAKS M). This exam measures student proficiency using the same TEKS benchmark s as the TAKS, but presents the information differently. This is done to 167 ELL students with severe cognitive disabilities qualify to take the TAKS Alternate (TAKS A). This exam ination is based on the Alternate Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills benchmarks, modified to measure the capacity of these students. The TAKS A is given each spring in grades 3 6 to all students with paperwork filed in the office showing a severe cogniti ve disability that would hinder them from performing on the TAKS exam. 168 The final examination concerning ELL students in the State of Texas is the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS). This test is given to students who are not nat ive English speakers upon enrolling in the school system. The Bilingual Education, ESL, or LEP education. 169 depending on proficiency. 170 The TELPAS examination measures Listening, Speaking, and Writing, and is given to students in second through twelfth grades. For students in kindergarten or first grade, an evaluation by trained professionals is used instead of a 167 Texas Education Agency, TELPAS Proficiency Level Descriptors 168 Texas Education Agency, About the Student Assessment Program 169 Texas Education Agency, TELPAS Proficiency Level Descriptors 170 Ibid

PAGE 83

80 written exam to determine proficiency. 171 All students enrolled in Texas ELL education are required to take the TELPAS ev ery spring to measure their growth throughout the past year, and determine which program of ELL education they should participate in the following year to further build English language development. 172 Quantitative Information from the State The data presen ted below was collected from the Texas Education Agency (TEA). Four measures were chosen to quantify the success of ELL programs of education in the state. For each measure, special consideration was given to ensure the data is the most recent available, a nd highlights the performance of ELL students compared to the general student population. Because Texas uses a combination of programs of ELL education, this information can show if this design is more successful under NCLB than use of a single program. Th e measures are as follows: met the requirements for NCLB in 2008, and how each subgroup performs compared to the others. l year show whether scores on this exam impr ove, stagnate, or fall during this time period If programs of ELL education in Texas are successful, a higher percentage of students should score into higher categories of proficiency each year. 171 Texas Education Agency, TELPAS Proficiency L evel Descriptors 172 Ibid

PAGE 84

81 e TAKS examination have been included to measure whether a group of s tudents can improve their results over the course of four years. If the same group of students take the exam each year, their scores should improve if they are receiving adequate educatio ns. Two groups of ELL students were followed to measure the success of ELL programs of education in the state. Two groups of students from the general population were also followed as a measure of the achievement gap in Texas. is the graduation rate in Texas. The graduation rate for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 was included, for both the general student population and ELL students. If the achievement gap is closing in Texas, the graduation rate for ELL students should be accelera ting at a rate more rapid than the general student population. AYP In 2008, the year with the most recent available data, Texas met each of its 29 AYP goals. 173 This success, while important, is slightly misleading, as many districts f ailed AYP for the fir 1,036 districts failed, representing an increase of 22% from the year before. 174 If Texas cannot remedy this problem before the 2009 AYP determinations are made, the state risks failing for the first time under NCLB. 175 173 Texas Education Agency, Summ ary of 2008 Final AYP Results, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2008/highlights2008.pdf 174 Ibid 175 Ibid

PAGE 85

82 Despite this potential problem, the percentages of proficient students in the state in each subgroup have been on the rise since 2005. 176 The charts below illustrate the percentage of proficiency in English/Language Arts and Mathematics for the general stude nt body and ELL population for the past four years. Percentage of Proficient Students for English/Language Arts Year Total Student Population ELL Students 2008 88% 76% 2007 87% 75% 2006 85% 71% 2005 80% 66% Texas has been successful in raising the pe rcentage of proficient students in English/Language Arts between 2005 a nd 2008. While this is an accomplishment for the state, ELL students are not improving at a rate higher than the total student population. In order to comply with NCLB, the percentage o f proficient ELL students sh ould be growing at a rate more rapid than the general student population to show a closing achievement gap. Percentage of Proficient Students in Mathematics Year Total Student Population ELL Students 2008 79% 72% 2007 79% 71% 2006 76% 68% 2005 71% 66% Texas has also been successful in raising the percentage of proficient students in Mathematics. However, the state once again is left with the problem of closing the achievement gap. While the success of raising proficiency sc ores should not be overshadowed, a major aspect of NCLB is the closing of the achievement gap by 2014.In 176 Texas Education Agency, Summary of 2008 Final AYP Results

PAGE 86

83 order for Texas to meet this goal, the state must find a way to raise the percentage of ELL students meeting proficiency standards. TELPAS Between 20 05 and 2008, Texas has seen a decrease in the percentage of students students to be considered English proficient by the school system, they must score into one of these two c ategories. While this could be an indicator programs of ELL education in the state have not been able to meet the needs of students, another factor may be causing this drop in the percentage of English proficient students. In each of the years included, Te xas saw an increase in the number of stu dents designated as ELL Between 2005 and 2008, an additional 42,553 students were added to ELL education in the state. 177 It is possible the pressure these additional students place on programs of ELL education in the state has caused the TELPAS scores to drop. However, if continuing immigration is to be expected in Texas, the programs of ELL education should be designed to withstand an influx of students. In order to better understand TELPAS scores in Texas, the chart s below show the percentage of ELL students scoring into each of the four categories of proficiency 178 177 Texas Education Agency, Texas Englis h Language Proficiency Ass essment System Summary Report, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/reporting/results/summar y/sum05/telpas/telpas_statewide05.p df 178 Ibid

PAGE 87

84 2008 TELPAS Scores 2007 TELPAS Scores 200 6 TELPAS Scores 2005 TELPAS Scores TAKS Student performance on the TAKS exam is potentially the most important indicator of the success of ELL programs of education in Texas. In order to use the data to illuminate the most information, four groups wer e created. Two groups represent ELL students in the State of Texas, while two groups represent the total student population. The first group is comprised of ELL students who were in the third grade in 2005, fourth grade in 2006, fifth grade in 2007, and si xth grade in 2008. The second group consists of students in these same grades in the same years, but includes all students in the state. The thir d group consists of ELL students in the 8 th grade in 2005, 9 th grade in 2006, 10 th grade in 2007, and 11 th grad e in 2008. The fourth group consists of the total student population in these same grades in the same years. These groups can show how effective programs of ELL education Texas are by measuring the progress ELL students make each year toward reaching profi ciency. If the programs in Texas are successful, the percentage of ELL students passing the TAKS exam should grow each year. Also, by including a No. of Students 373,622 Advanced High 45% Advanced 30% Intermediate 17% Beginning 8% No. of Students 348,048 Advanced High 39% Advanced 39% Int ermediate 14% Beginning 8% No. of Students 341,780 Advanced High 38% Advanced 41% Intermediate 16% Beginning 11% No. of Students 331,069 Advanced High 32% Advanced 41% Intermediate 16% Beginning 12%

PAGE 88

85 measure of the total student population, it is possible to see whether Texas has made progress toward closing the achievement gap. Group 1: ELL Students Grades 3 6/Years 2005 2008 Figure 7: from Texas Education Agency, Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System Summary Report Figure 8: from Texas Education Agency, Assessment Results

PAGE 89

86 Group 2: Tot al Student Population in Grades 3 6/ Years 2005 2008 Figure 9 : from Texas Education Agency, Assessment Results Figure 10 : from Texas Education Agency, Assessment Results The results of the TAKS exams for these t wo groups highlight some interesting p roblems in the state. Both groups show a drop in the percentage of proficient students in English/Language Arts in the first three years, but recover in the fourth year. While programs of ELL education may struggle to prepare ELL students for the TAKS

PAGE 90

87 Engl ish/Language Arts exam in the 4 th and 5 th grades, the problem seems to be remedied by the 6 th grade. As this same pattern also takes place in the total student population, it is possible this pattern can be explained by curriculum demands, student maturity or a number of other factors. The Mathematics scores show a slightly different problem for Texas schools. Both ELL students and the total student population saw a drop in the percentage of students passing the TAKS. While this could be explained by more challenging curriculum in later grades or a group of students who struggle with math, it may be indicative of a larger problem. Perhaps schools in Texas are lacking the necessary tools to properly prepare students for success on the TAKS exam. Furthermore in both English/Language Arts and Math, both groups show a continuing achievement gap. Between 2005 and 2008, the percentage of ELL students reaching proficiency remained about 20% lower than the total student population. In order to meet the demands of NCLB, Texas must show a stronger improvement for its ELL population.

PAGE 91

88 Group 3: ELL Students in Grades 8 11/Years 2005 2008 Figure 11: from Texas Education Agency, Assessment Results Figure 12 : from Texas Education Agency, Assessment Results

PAGE 92

89 Group 4: All Students in Grades 8 11/Years 2005 2008 Figure 13 : from Texas Education Agency, Assessment Results Figure 14 : from Texas Education Agency, Assessment Results The scores on the TAKS exam for these two groups show progress in Texas. While group Three, composed of ELL students in grades 8 11, struggled to continuously

PAGE 93

90 raise the percentage of proficient English/Language Arts ELL students each year, 2008 did show a good deal of improvement from 2005. Group Three was also successful in raising math scores. The state experienced a drop in the percentage of proficient students in Math in 2006, Texas was able to rebound by 2007 and raise its percentage by 2008. As a comparison, Group Four consisted of the total student population in grades 8 11. Simila r to its ELL counterparts, the total student population shows a good deal of variation in the percentage of students passing the English/Language Arts TAKS. However, while the scores did change between 2005 and 2008, Texas finished strong in 2008, raising student scores to almost 90% proficiency. In Math, Texas has also seen success in raising the percentage of proficient students in this group. In 2005, the percentage of proficient students in the 8 th grade hovered at about 50%, while in 2008 in the 11 th g rade, 75% of students were tested at a proficient level. It would seem, based on the progress of these four groups of students over the course of four years, Texas has been successful in preparing both the total student population and ELL students for th e TAKS exam. While the numbers do show growth in both groups, a few issues should still be considered. First, Texas has had no progress in closing the achievement gap for these groups of students. Each year, scores for the total student population in both English/Language Arts and Mathematics remain about 40% higher than the ELL population. This achievement gap is significant, and according to NCLB, needs to be addressed. Another difficulty with this data is the steep rise in the percentage of proficient st udents in the 11 th grade. It would be nave to assume students are far more capable of passing the TAKS in the 11 th grade. While a moderate rise in scores is possible, this data shows a leap in the percentage of proficient students. This is

PAGE 94

91 most likely due 179 Most at risk for dropping out of school are minority students such as ELL, and students struggling with their schoolwork. 180 Given this information, it is more likely the percentage of p roficient students was higher in the 11 th grade because a good deal of the students bringing down scores no longer attended school. Graduation Rate Between 2005 and 2008, Texas has seen a drop in its graduation rate for both the general student body and ELL students. The graduation rate for both groups of students should improve each year to meet the demands of NCLB. As Texas has not met this condition of NCLB, the state is in a precarious circumstance. While Texas was able to meet its AYP goals in 2008, this success cannot continue if graduation rates do not begin to rise. The chart below illustrates the dropping graduation rates in Texas. 181 Year All Students ELL Students 2008 79.1% 44.2% 2007 78% 39.3% 2006 80.4% 48.5% 2005 84% 61.2% These score s not only represent the inability of ELL programs of education in Texas to raise graduation rates, but also their failure at closing the achievement gap. While the graduation rate for the general student body only fell 5.1% between 2005 and 179 Texas Education Agency, Gene ral Inquiry Home: Student FAQ, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/gir/faq/studentquestions.html 180 Nationa l Center on Secondary Education and Transition, Part I: What Do We Know About Drop Out http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/dropout/part1.3.asp 181 Texas Education Agency, Assessment Results

PAGE 95

92 2008, ELL stud ents saw a drop of 17.1% in their graduation rate. This substantial difference between the two groups highlights a large achievement gap in need of a remedy. In order to remain successful under NCLB, Texas must close the achievement gap and reach 100% prof iciency by 2014. In just four years, Texas has a good deal of work left to accomplish. Conclusion : Texas Upon reviewing the data considered in this thesis, Texas has been the most perplexing case discussed. The state is the birthplace of NCLB, providing t he framework and accountability structure for the program. Texas has the most extensive standardized assessments, and has achieved the highest percentages of proficient students. By any account, these accomplishments qualify the state as successful under N CLB. However, under closer inspection, serious problems with ELL education in the state cannot be ignored. First, Texas managed to meet all requirements of NCLB in 2008, and raise the percentage of proficient students each year in both English/Language Ar ts and Mathematics. While this is a success, Texas has also seen an increase of 22% in the number of districts failing to meet AYP. 182 The only way to reconcile these two statistics is to determine students struggling to meet AYP and obtain proficiency are h ighly concentrated in certain districts in the state. While it is impossible to conclude why these students are not receiving equal educations in these failing districts, the data highlights a serious problem with the achievement gap in Texas. In order to remain successful under NCLB, Texas will need to determine the root of this problem. Why are certain districts 182 Texas Education Agency, 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2009/

PAGE 96

93 struggling, while others have continued to be very successful? What does this say about the distribution of resources and teaching talent through out the state? Furthermore, what can be done to begin closing the achievement gap in the state? Second, the state has seen a fall in the percentage of students testing as English proficient each year. If the goal of ELL education in the state is to teach students English and prepare them for mainstream classrooms, Texas is failing. If programs of ELL education exist for another purpose, Texas must find a way to reconcile this goal with those of NCLB. Under NCLB, English language acquisition should be an ob jective of all ELL programs. 183 Currently, Texas is not proving compliance with this goal. Third, graduation rates for both ELL students and the total student population have fallen each year studied in this thesis. Graduation rates are perhaps one of the m ost important measures of education, as they show students have mastered the necessary skills to graduate and are more likely to be successful in the job market. 184 Not only have ELL programs of education in Texas been unable to raise graduation rates, but t education system as a whole has failed. While the data given in this thesis is not exhaustive, one must wonder how Texas can be considered successful under NCLB given the problems listed above. How is the state able to raise the percentage of proficient students each year given these shortcomings? It would seem the most logical answer to these questions is the availability of TAKS exams in Spanish. Out of the four measure of success reviewed in this case study, Texas showed an improvement only in this category. Furthermore, as the majority 183 Learning Point Associates, Understanding the No Child L eft Be hind Act: English Proficiency, http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/qkey5.pdf 184 Callahan, 309

PAGE 97

94 of ELL students in the state are Spanish speaking, this accommodation affects most ELL students. Given this conclusion, it is most likely programs of ELL education are not preparing students in the state for s uccess to the same extent as language accommodation.

PAGE 98

95 Chapter Six Comparative Analysis and Conclusion Comparative Analysis The data in this paper has highlighted both successes and shortcomings for all three states considered as case studies. California, relying solely on an immersion approach to ELL education has not shown progress under NCLB. Instead, both ELL students and the total student population in the state have fallen below the expectations set forth by the program. ELL students in Florida have b enefitted from the models of education designed by the state. While immersion remains the most used method of ELL education in the state, bilingual education and its benefits have not been completely removed from the educational system. The results in the State of Florida have been slow, but relatively positive. Texas, on the other hand, has seen a good deal of success for its ELL students. The state uses both immersion and bilingual models of education for its ELL population, placing students in classes ba sed on their linguistic abilities. Unfortunately, it seems the state will not be able to sustain this success without modifying its approach to ELL education. In order to garner th e most information from the case studies, the four measure s common to each case study should be considered in relation to each state. These measures include AYP, progress toward language acquisition, results from state standardized assessments, and graduation rates. This will allow further analysis of the observations given above It will also better highlight the strengths and weaknesses of

PAGE 99

96 ELL programs in each state. While the chapter will use this information to draw conclusions on programs of ELL education, it should be stressed these are preliminary conclusions. Each measure discussed does provide invaluable data, but a number of factors are not considered in this thesis. These factors most likely play a large role in the outcome of ELL education, and should not be ignored by anyone wishing to make concrete recommendations on the creation or continuation of programs of ELL education. AYP The first measure is AYP, used to identify the progress of each minority group towards meeting proficiency goals. Many argue this measure is ineffective as it is far too stringent and unable to represent the needs of minority populations. 185 However, to date it does remain one of the most important aspects of NCLB. Until the program is amended or replaced, schools cannot igno re AYP when making decisions regarding the educations of ELL population s. The case studies discussed in this paper show Texas is far more successful in meeting AYP than Florida or California. Only ELL students in Texas were able to meet AYP for both English/Language Arts and Mathematics in 2008. While this could be a result immersion and bilingual education has allowed for this success. Students in Texas are placed into ELL programs based on their proficiency, perhaps this method better prepares ELL students to make AYP. 185 Raymond,Susan, writer, HARD TIMES AT DOUGLASS HIGH: A No Child Left Behind Report Card, Dir. Alan an d Susan Raymond, 2008. DVD. HBO Video, 2008.

PAGE 100

97 but did meet AYP in English/Language Arts. This would allow one to believe immersion models of ELL education can be more successful in preparing students for English /Language Arts exams, but cannot properly prepare students for Mathematics exams. This for both styles of ELL education saw success in both AYP subjects. Unfortunately, not able to meet AYP in either English/Language Arts or Mathematics. In order to meet AYP, the percentage of ELL students meeting proficiency each year must be e qual to or higher than the goal set forth by the federal government under NCLB. ELL programs in Florida, designed with a reliance on immersion, but room for bilingual education in certain circumstances, was not successful in raising proficiency goals to th e necessary level. While this does not mean an increase in proficiency was not achieved, it does mean programs of ELL education in the state must be reviewed to ensure they can meet the demands of AYP. While tentative, the information in this thesis can le ad to the conclusion programs of ELL education in Texas are superior to those in California or Florida for meeting AYP. A strong reliance on both immersion and bilingual education best prepares ELL students to meet AYP goals. Those states that do not provi de equal support for both styles of ELL education risk failing AYP.

PAGE 101

98 Language Acquisition Language acquisition was the second measure considered in this paper. Under NCLB, ELL students should be improving English language fluency with the goal of entering mainstream classrooms. 186 While some may argue a culturally pluralistic society in which many languages are spoken is desirable, the current climate of education under NCLB is focused on English language instruction. 187 Proponents of NCLB argue cultural plura lism and language preservation is costly, difficult, and dangerous. 188 According to this thinking, programs of ELL education in California should be most successful. The programs focus on rapid language acquisition and transition, preparing ELL students for mainstream classrooms as quickly as possible. However, the data discussed in this paper shows this i s not the case. California with immersion programs in place to foster rapid language assimilation, has seen a 12% drop in the number of ELL students testi ELL students must score into one of the two highest categories to qualify to leave ELL education. This data shows programs of ELL education in the state are not capable of teaching ELL students English, and should not be considered in states whose primary objective is rapid language assimilation. Texas, like California, has also been unable to effectively prepare ELL students to enter mainstream classrooms. Each year, more students are enrolled in programs o f ELL education, while less enter mainstream classrooms. 186 Raymond, Hard Times at Douglass High 187 Learning Point Associates, Understanding the No Child Left Behind Act: English Proficiency 188 Bonilla, 118

PAGE 102

99 Florida, on the other hand, has been able to move students out of ELL education. Over the four year period, the group of former ELL students continued to grow. This ing immersion education while still allowing some programs of bilingual education would be most successful in transitioning students to mainstream classrooms. This data can allow one to conclude states wishing to linguistically assimilate students quickly should focus on strengthening immersion programs of ELL education, while still allowing some room for bilingual education. It would seem, in this case, immersion strengthens English speaking ability, while properly implemented programs of bilingual educati on can provide important enrichment. In the previous chapter, the history of bilingual education in Florida was briefly discussed. One of the points made was bilingual education only became a viable option in districts where the funding and training allowe d for well executed programs to exist. Perhaps this is the key to language acquisition. States should rely on immersion in places where bilingual education would be too costly or difficult, but allow the latter to exist in places where it could benefit the students. Standardized Assessments Scores on state standardized assessments were included to determine proficiency across grade levels for both the total student population and ELL students. While standardized assessments across the country are not unifo rm, each assessment must meet the requirements of NCLB. Thus, each assessment couples national proficiency goals with state proficiency expectations. Furthermore, by including both ELL students and the

PAGE 103

100 total student population in this measure, a better und erstanding of the achievement gap is possible. population each year Furthermore, no sustained i mprovement in either group studied can be seen. During the four year time period, e ach group struggled to make progress toward proficiency goals, often doing worse in consecutive years. A reliance on immersion education in the state is not properly preparing ELL students to perform well on these assessments and prove proficiency. Instead it seems to be detrimental to the success of students in this state, keeping them from learning the necessary information. No improvement in the achievement gap can be seen, as ELL students fell further behind the total student population each year betwe en 2005 and 2008. The data from Texas shows similar problems to California, but to a lesser extent. While little to no progress in closing the achievement gap can be seen, students in Texas do score higher on their assessments than students in California. While ELL students in the state have been unable to sustain any progress across the four year time span, some bilingual education to be considered, progress needs to grow ea ch year rather than grow in some years, only to stagnate in others. Florida, on the other hand, has seen improve ment in FCAT scores in years studied. While growth is slow to moderate in ELL students and the total student population, both groups do boast a larger number of proficient students each year. Based on this data, a reliance on immersion coupled with a small allowance of bilingual

PAGE 104

101 education is able to raise test scores to proficient levels. However, this method of ELL education is not able to prepar e students for the demands of NCLB, which requires a much larger increase test scores and proficiency than this method demonstrates. This measure proves to be troubling. While only Florida shows a steady increase in scores, the state is not meeting the cri teria set forth by NCLB. Thus, none of the programs of ELL education studied in this thesis have been successful in meeting the demands of the federal government. However, given the three methods of discussed in this thesis, states should choose to model p rograms of ELL education after those in Florida. While the progress may be slow, it is at least steady. Graduation Rates Finally, graduation rates remain an important indicator of success. Both devotees and opponents of NCLB can agree ELL programs of educ ation should raise graduation rates. Graduation rates have been considered an important measure of school success for many years, as they represent a body of students who have mastered the demands of school, and predict the health of the future job market. 189 Unfortunately, In California graduation rates dropped between 2005 and 2008 for both ELL students and the total student population. Each year, a smaller percentage of students from both groups are able to meet the requirements for graduation. This could be, in part to the CHSEE, an assessment students must pass before they qualify to 189 Hall, Daria, Graduation Matters: Improving Accountability for High School Graduation, Education Trust, Washington, D.C. (2007), http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERIC ExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED497689&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED497689

PAGE 105

102 graduate. In the case of ELL students, it could also be due to the strong reliance on immersion programs of education. Given this information, it seems programs in the state are not adequately preparing ELL students with the skills necessary to graduate. This is a serious problem which must be remedied. However, because of the drop in the total student population as well, it is highly likely factors not discussed in this thes is are responsible for the drop. California would be wise to identify and resolve these problems before the number of students failing to graduate grow any larger. Texas has seen a similar problem, also reporting falling graduation rates for ELL students and the total student population between 2005 and 2008. This is troubling, as it preparing ELL students to graduate. Furthermore, factors not identified in this thesis are cau sing a drop in the total student population as well. Texas, which has been an important success story for NCLB proponents, must find a way to remedy poor graduation rates. Florida, again has seen success where the other cases struggled. Not only has the st ate seen a steady increase in the graduation rate for ELL students, but in 2008, the percentage of ELL students graduating surpassed that of the other cases. While the graduation percentage of the total student population continues to lag behind California on immersion with space for bilingual education in some instances is most successful for steadily raising graduation rates. An initial observation for this measure shows programs of ELL education in Florida are most successful for raising the graduation rate. However, one must be

PAGE 106

103 cautious in coming to this conclusion. Both California and Texas saw a drop in graduation for ELL students and the total student populatio n. This shows further political, social, or economic factors are affecting the outcome of this measure. While tentatively more research is necessary to make conclusions. Con clusion Speculatively, s tates wishing to prepare ELL students for success should model ELL education after Florida, in which immersion education is dominant, but room still exists for bilingual education. Upon reviewing the information presented in the thr ee case studies, Florida has not proven to be the most successful under NCLB. However, given the shortcomings of the accountability program, this should be overlooked in favor of other indicators of success. Given the four measures discussed in the previou s chapter programs of ELL education in Florida have been most able to prepare students for success. measures discussed in this paper for a variety of reasons. For example, com pared to the other cases, the number of immigrants entering a nd leaving the state each year is far smaller. 190 Perhaps a more permanent group of ELL students is more conducive to the success of a state. Perhaps, because of certain cultural norms or practices ELL students in the state are more likely to value education. Unfortunately, the answers to these 190 Florida Department of Education, School Accountability Reports

PAGE 107

104 questions are outside the realm of discussion in this paper. Instead, conclusions on programs of ELL education must be drawn from the information provided. successful because immersion remains the most widely used format, but bilingual education can be used in some instances. While immersion is far less expensive and easier executed, bilingual education can provide a better rounded approach to ELL education. However, proponents of bilingual education will argue the program can only be successful when properly funded and implemented with well trained professionals. 191 This is the key to s uccess in Florida. The state does not use the program in places where it may be counterproductive to the progress of ELL students. Instead, in instances where bilingual education cannot be properly executed, immersion education as the easier and more affor dable option is relied upon. Florida only reaps the benefits of bilingual education where the benefits are certain. All states, including California and Texas can learn from this approach to ELL education. Regardless of the program in place, no student ben efits from an unorganized or uninspired approach to education. Instead, those interested in improving ELL education across the country should do so through well developed, well tested programs, regardless of their dependence on immersion or bilingual educa tion. 191 Crawfo rd, Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice

PAGE 108

105 Bibliography Educational Researcher, 33 (2004) 4 14. National Assessment of Educational Progress, http://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/conferences/st atsdc2006/conference/session_IV.asp ity, Testing, Language, Place, Journal of Basic Writing, 23 (2004) 4 25. Encyclopedia of E ducation Law 1, (2008): 294 317. in Cultural Pluralism and Schooling: A Mandate for Change, (New Jerssey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1973), 115 122. California Department of Edu cation, API Reports, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apireports.asp California Department of Education, 2008 AYP Information Adequate Yearly Progress, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/ ayp2008 .asp California Department of Education, Briefing Session: English Languag e Acquisition and Proposition 227 Experience, http://www.wested.org/policy/pubs/prop227/main.htm California Department of Education, California English Language Development Test, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CELDT/Celdt03_State.asp?cYear=2007 08&cChoice=Celdt1&RptNumber=01&cTestNumber=2 California Department of Education, California Standardized Testing and Reporting, http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2009/ViewReport.asp?ps=true&lstTestYear=2009&lstT estType=C&lstCounty=&lstDistrict=&lstSchool=&lstGroup=1&lstSubGroup =1 California Department of Education, CAPA Participation Eligibility, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/participcriteria.doc California Department of Education, CST Letter 2008: Standardized Testing and Reporting Program, http://www2.c de.ca.gov/scripts/texis.exe/webinator/search?pr=www&prox=page &rorder=750&rprox=750&rdfreq=0&rwfreq=0&rlead=500&sufs=1&order=r&rd epth=0&query=cst+parents&cq =.

PAGE 109

California Department of Education, English Language Learners in California Frequently Asked Qu estions www.cde.ca.org California Department of Education, School Fact Book, http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/documents/factbook2009.pdf Calif ornia Department of Education, Statewide Graduation Rates, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CompletionRate/comprate1.asp?cChoice=StGradR a te&cYear=2007 08&level=State Opportunities to Learn American Educational Research Journal 42 (2005) 305 328. Castro, Max J., The Politics of Language in Miami (Gainesville : University Press of Florida, 2002) 8 218. Center for Equal Opportunity, The Case Against Bilingual Education, November 18, 2009, http://www.ceousa.org/content/blogcategory/86/119 The C enter for Public Education, Practical Information and Analysis about Public Education http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org Cochran Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (2005) 16 29. TESOL Quarterly 10 (1976): 45 53. Cornelius, Wayne A., Martin, Philip L., Hollifield, James F rank, Con trolling Immigration: A Global Perspective (San Diego: University of California, 1993) 7 78. Crawford, James, Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice (New Jersey: Crane Publishing Company, Inc. 1994 ) 115 124. Crawford, J Research Journal 21 (1997). Rethinking Schools Online 1 2 (1998) http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/12_03/langmn.shtml Darling of No Child Left Behin Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10 (2007) 245 260.

PAGE 110

Stakes Testing, American Sociological Association (2005), 170 193. English Language in Public School s Initiative Statute, Argument in Favor of Proposition 227, http://primary98.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/227yesarg.htm F lorida Department of Education, About the FCAT http://fcat.fldoe.org/aboutfcat/english/about.html Florida Department of Education, Assessment and School Perf ormance: The Florida Alternate Assessment, www.fldoe.org/asp/assessment/asp Florida Department of Education, District Plan for English Language Learners, https://www.fldoe.org/aala/pdf/DistrictPlanServ.pdf Florida Department of Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages: ESOL, http://www.fldoe.org/asp/ftce/pdf/47ESOL rev.pdf Florida Department of Education, Florida CELLA Informat ion, http://www.fldoe.org/aala/pdf/2008CELLAInfoFlyerENG.pdf Florida Department of Education, Florida CELLA Interpretive Guide, http://www.fldoe.org/aala/pdf/CELLA Interpretive Guide.pdf Florida Department of Education, School Accountability Reports, http://www.fldoe.org/aala/pdf/0405ellstatus.pdf hools: U equal Resources, Unequal Educational Policy Analysis Archives 11 (2003), 1 54. The Washington Post June 23, 2009 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/23/politics/washingtonpost/main510598 3.shtml Hacsi, Timothy A., Children as Pawns: The Politics of Educational Reform, Harvard University Press, Boston (2002) 160 179. Hakuta, Kenji Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1986) 55. Harvard Civil Rights Project, Testing the NCLB: Study shows that NCLB hasn't significantly impacted national achievement scores or narrowed the racial gaps, June 14, 2006, http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/news/pressreleases/nclb_report06.php ultural Pluralism and Schooling: Some Preliminary

PAGE 111

Cultural Pluralism and Schooling: A Mandate for Change ed. Madelon D. Stent, (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1973), 14. The Growing Southern Legislative Conference of The Council of State Governments, http://www.slcatlanta.org/Publications/Education/LanguageDiversity.pdf I sser, Natalie, and Schwartz, Lita Lenzer, The American School and the Melting Pot: Minority Self Esteem and Public Education (Pennsylvania: Wyndham Hall Press,1985) 3 13. Jepsen, Christopher, and de Alth, Shelley, English Learners in California Schools (San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California: 2005) 17. Krashen, Stephen D., Condemned Without a Trial: Bogus Arguments Against Bilingual Education (New York: Heninemann, 1999) 6 17. Krashen, Stephen D., Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingua l Education (California: Language Education Associates : 1997 ) 7 108. TESOL Quarterly 8 (1967) 50 67. MacDonald, Victoria Maria, The Status of English Language Learners in Florida: Trends and Prospects, Educa tion Policy Research Unit (2004) http://Edpolicylab.org Marquez, Heron, George W. Bush (New York: Lerner Publications, 2006) 68. Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, United States v State of Texas, http://www.maldef.org/education/litigation/us_v_texas/ Meyer, Michael M. and Feinberg, Stephen E., eds., Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilin gual Education Strategies (Wash ington: National Academy Press, 1992), 1 128. National Archives and Records Administration, Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public Law No.78 stat. 252, 42 U.S.C., http://www.archives.g ov/education/lessons/civil rights act/ National Association for Bilingual Education, What is Bilingual Education?, http://www.nabe.org/bilingualed.html National Association for Bilingual Education, Why Research Matters?, http://www.nabe.org/research.html

PAGE 112

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, Part I: What Do We Know About Dro p Out http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/dropout/part1.3. asp Orfield, Gary, Losen, Daniel, Wald, Johanna, and Swanson, Christopher, Losing Our Future: How Minority Students Are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410936_LosingOurFuture.pdf. Bilingual Research Journal 27 (2003) : 16 48 Platt, Eliza TESOL Quarterly 37 (2003) 17 29. Porter, Rosalie Pedalino, Forked Tongue: The Politics of Bilingual Education ( New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1990) 2 13. Official English? No! from National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/PolicyPDF/OfficialEnglishRicen to.pdf San Miguel Jr., Guadalupe, Contested Policy: The Rise and Fall of Bil ingual Education in the United States, (Denton: Universit y of North Carolina Press, 2004) 6 108. Schneider, Dorothee, Naturalization and United States Citizenship in Two Periods of Mass Migration: 1894 1930, 1965 2000 Journal of American Ethnic History 21 (2001), 50 82. School Data Direct, California Public Schools and Districts, http://www.schooldatadirect.org/app/location/q/stid=5/llid=111/stllid=323/locid= 5/st ype=/catid= 1/secid= 1/compid= 1/site=pes School Data Direct, Florida Public Schools and Districts, http://www. schooldatadirect.org/app/location/q/stid=5/llid=111/stllid=323/locid= 5/stype=/catid= 1/secid= 1/compid= 1/site=pes Sievert, Jessica, Evaluation of Structured English Immersion and Bilin gual Education on Reading of Limited English Proficient Students in California and Texas (San Marcos: Texas State University: 2007) 9 56. Ann als of the American Academy on Political Science, (93) 121 126

PAGE 113

Swanson, Christopher B., NCLB Implementation Report, The Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410848_NCLB_Implementation.pdf Texas Education Agency, About the Student Assessment Program, http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=3318&menu_id3=793 Texas Education Agency, Bilingual Education, www.tea.state.tx.us/programs/E nglishlanguage acquisition/history/?pagename=bili ngualeducation/history.html. Texas Education Agency, Curriculum, Programs, and Services, http://www.statutes.legis.stat e.tx.us/SOTWDocs/ED/htm/ED.29.htm#29.053 Texas Education Agency, General Inquiry Home: Student FAQ, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/gir/faq/studentquestions.html Texas Educati on Agency, Summary of 2008 Final AYP Results, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2008/highlights2008.pdf Texas Education Agency, Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills Performan ce Level Descriptors, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/perlevel/PLD _math.pdf Texas Education Agency, TELPAS Proficiency Level Descr iptors, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/ELL/TELPAS PLDs.pdf Texas Education Agency, Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment Sy stem Summary Repor t, http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/reporting/results/su mmary/sum05/telpas/telpas_statewide05.pdf United States Census Bureau, Census 2000 Briefs and Special Reports 000 US Census, http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/ U.S. Department of Education, Executive Summary: Archived Inf ormation, January, 2001, http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html U.S. Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 115 Stat. 1425, http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107 110.pdf


ERROR LOADING HTML FROM SOURCE (http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu//design/skins/UFDC/html/footer_item.html)