Educating Iowa’s
English Language
Learners
(ELLs)
A Handbook for Administrators and Teachers
2004
Iowa Department of Education
Grimes State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa
Educating Iowa’s
English Language
Learners
(ELLs)
A Handbook for Administrators and Teachers
2004
Iowa Department of Education
Grimes State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa
State of Iowa
Department of
Education
Grimes State Office
Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0146
State
Board of Education
Gene E. Vincent, President, Carroll
Sally Frudden, Vice President, Charles City
Jim Billings, Spirit Lake
Charles C. Edwards, Jr., Des Moines
Sister Jude Fitzpatrick, Davenport
Rosey Hussey, Mason City
Gregory D. McClain, Cedar Falls
Mary Jean Montgomery, Spencer
Megan Srinivas (Student Member), Fort Dodge
Wayne Kobberdahl, Council Bluffs
Administration
Judy Jeffrey, Interim Director and
Executive Officer of the State Board of Education
Gail Sullivan, Chief of Staff
Division
of Early Childhood, Elementary
and Secondary Education
Judy Jeffrey, Administrator
Jim Reese, Chief, Bureau of Instructional Services
Carmen P. Sosa, Ph.D., Consultant
It is the policy of the
Iowa Department of Education not to discriminate on the basis of
race, color, national
origin, gender, disability, religion, creed, age or marital status in its
programs or employment
practices. If you have questions or grievances related to this
policy please contact
the Legal Consultant, Department of Education,
Grimes State Office
Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0146, (515) 281-8661.
Iowa Department of Education
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................ iii
Chapter 1: Legal and Educational Rationale ....................................................... 1
Legal Rationale..................................................................................................... 1
Educational Rationale........................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2: Funding Sources .................................................................................. 8
Local .................................................................................................................. 8
State.................................................................................................................... 8
Federal ............................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 3: Procedures ......................................................................................... 11
Identification and Placement................................................................................ 12
Parent Notification Regarding Title III Testing and Placement.............................. 17
Exit and Transition.............................................................................................. 18
Monitoring Exited Students................................................................................. 19
Additional Assessment Considerations................................................................ 19
Chapter 4: Educational Programs ....................................................................... 23
General Guidelines.............................................................................................. 23
English as a Second Language (ESL).................................................................. 24
Bilingual Education............................................................................................. 34
Chapter 5: Involving Parents and Community ................................................... 38
Partners for Equity.............................................................................................. 39
Factors Affecting Parent Involvement.................................................................. 40
Parent-Involvement Activities.............................................................................. 41
Chapter 6: Program Evaluation .......................................................................... 45
English Language Proficiency.............................................................................. 45
Achievement Test Data....................................................................................... 46
Exit Criteria........................................................................................................ 47
Monitoring Exited Students................................................................................. 48
Additional Guidance........................................................................................... 48
Appendices:
A: Bibliography of Language Tests for ELLs..................................................... 49
B: Enrollment Status Descriptors........................................................................ 52
C: List of Resource Agencies, Centers, and Organizations............................... 54
D: Publishers of Bilingual/ESL/Multicultural/Multilingual Materials............... 61
E: Print and Online Resource List....................................................................... 65
F: Limited
English Proficiency Laws and Rules.................................................. 70
G: English
Language Learners (ELL) District/Building Self-Study Guide....... 74
Introduction
This handbook for Iowa school districts was first published many years ago. Since that time, several significant sociopolitical and educational changes have occurred. For example, we have seen an increase in the number of languages and cultures represented both in our state and in the political arenas of our nation. Immigrants and refugees from impoverished or war-torn homelands have come to us seeking the American Dream. Balances among minority group populations have shifted, and even greater shifts are likely in the future.
In both our society and our educational institutions, we have acquired a better understanding of the implications of the linguistic and cultural differences in learners who participate in available programs. We now know more than ever about language acquisition, cultural change, competencies, testing, affective states of the learner, individual assessments, and ourselves.
The changes in this handbook attempt to reflect these new understandings. We seek to give Iowa educators a picture of the unique needs of English language learners and to offer a guide for providing equal access to the quality education available in the state. The handbook will primarily benefit those responsible for designing and implementing programs in local school districts.
Carmen P. Sosa, Ph.D.
Bureau of Instructional Services
State Consultant for ESL/Bilingual/Foreign Languages/Title III
Chapter
1
Legal and Educational Rationale
This chapter describes the legal and educational rationale for educating English language learners (ELL)[1]/Limited English Proficient (LEP) students. It presents an overview of the federal and state legislation and guidelines, and discusses United States Supreme Court decisions that have had a direct impact on the education of these students. In addition, we have included related educational and pedagogical issues.
In order to familiarize school personnel with the school district’s obligations in the education of English language learners, the information is presented either in brief summaries or excerpts from the major documents.
Legal Rationale
Limited
English Proficient (LEP) is the term used by the United States Department of
Education (USDE) to describe students whose home-language background is other
than English
and whose English language skills are not sufficiently advanced for them to participate successfully in classrooms in which all academic instruction is provided in English. Numerous acts, laws, court decisions, and guidelines have been written with the needs of LEP students in mind. These documents combine to create and clarify the current legal responsibilities of all United States school districts for the education of English language learners.
Federal
Level
A number of documents detail the federal requirements for the education of LEP students. This section contains brief summaries or excerpts from key documents.
Title VI, Civil Rights Act, 1964
No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
May 25, 1970, Memorandum, Department of Health, Education and Welfare
This Memorandum interprets the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It concerns the responsibility of school districts to provide equal educational opportunity to national origin minority group students whose English language proficiency is limited. The following excerpts address specific major areas of concern with respect to compliance with Title VI and have the force of Law:
Where inability to speak and
understand the English language excludes national origin minority group
children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a
school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the
language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these
students.
School districts have the responsibility to adequately notify national origin minority group parents of school activities which are called to the attention of other parents. Such notice, in order to be adequate, may have to be provided in a language other than English.
School districts must not assign national origin minority group students to special education on the basis of criteria which essentially measure or evaluate English language skills; nor may school districts deny national origin minority group children access to college preparation courses on a basis directly related to the failure of the school system to inculcate English language skills.
Any ability grouping or tracking system employed by the school system to deal with the special language skill needs of national origin minority group children must be designed to meet such language skill needs as soon as possible and must not operate as an educational dead-end or permanent track.
The Bilingual Education Act, 1968 (Amended in 1974 and 1978)
In order to establish equal educational opportunity for all children, Congress declared that the policy of the United States would be as follows: (a) to encourage the establishment and operation, where appropriate, of educational programs that use Bilingual educational practices, techniques, and methods; and (b) for that purpose, to provide financial assistance to local education agencies, and to state education agencies for certain purposes.
Equal
Education Opportunities Act of 1974
This law requires that students not be
denied access to educational opportunities based on race, color, sex, or
national origin. The need for agencies
to address language barriers is discussed specifically.
Lau v. Nichols, 1974
A class action suit brought by parents of non-English-proficient Chinese students against the San Francisco Unified School District. The Supreme Court ruled that identical education does not constitute equal education under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that the district must take affirmative steps to overcome educational barriers faced by the non-English speaking students.
Castenada
v. Pickard, 1981
The major outcome of this case was a set of three guidelines to use evaluating programming for ELLs:
(1) Is the program theoretically sound or experimentally appropriate?
(2) Is the program set up in a way that allows this theory to be put into practice?
(3) Is the program regularly evaluated and adjusted to ensure that it is meeting the linguistic needs of the students it serves?
Plyler v. Doe, 1982
In Plyler v. Doe, the United States Supreme Court held as unconstitutional the Texas law that allowed local education agencies to deny enrollment to children of undocumented immigrants. The ruling was based on the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of particular concern to the Court was the fact that children were affected, rather than their parents. The Court believed that denying undocumented children access to education punished the children for their parents’ behavior. Such an action, the Court noted, did not square with basic ideas of justice.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)
Title I: Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged
This portion of NCLB mandates English language proficiency testing and academic achievement testing of ELLs, setting requirements for the establishment of achievement objectives and a number of other educational reforms.
Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students
This portion of NCLB mandates English language proficiency testing of ELLs, discusses a number of issues related to programming for ELLs, and outlines ELL- specific parent notifications, in addition to addressing a number of other related issues.
Other
An additional court case and a state law are also worth noting here: Diana v. State Board of Education, 1970 and Chapter 280.4, Uniform School Requirement, Iowa Code.
Diana v. State Board of Education, 1970
In this case, a class action suit was filed on behalf of nine Mexican-American public school children, ages 8–13. The lawsuit alleged that these children had been improperly placed in classes for the mentally retarded on the basis of biased individual intelligence tests.
The Diana case mandated future observance of several significant practices. For example, children whose primary language is not English must henceforth be tested in both their primary language and English. Also, such children must be assessed only with tests that do not depend upon vocabulary or other discriminatory and unfair verbal questions.
Iowa
Limited English Proficiency Legislation
Chapter 280.4, Uniform School Requirement, Iowa Code. When a student is limited English proficient, both public and nonpublic schools shall provide special instruction, which shall include, but need not be limited to, either instruction in English as a second language or transitional Bilingual instruction. Such instruction will continue until the student is fully English proficient or demonstrates a functional ability to speak, read, write, and understand the English language. The Department of Education has monitoring and technical assistance responsibilities. (See Appendix F.)
Educational Rationale
The
legal rationale stated previously in this chapter provides only part of the
reason that special instructional programs for English language learners (ELLs) are necessary. Equally important, if not more so, is the
fact that these types of programs are consistent with best educational
practices. Both research and experience have proven that such programs provide
the most valuable educational opportunities for ELLs.
General Considerations
Educators should keep in mind certain general considerations when planning an educational program for ELLs. These considerations are outlined below.
• ELLs need not give up their first language to learn a second language.
On the contrary, the development and maintenance of skills and
proficiency in the first language enhance acquisition of a second
language. Compared to students who are not proficient in their first language,
those who are first-language proficient will acquire English more easily and
quickly, and will learn to read faster and more easily.
It is, therefore, neither useful nor practical, and in many ways counterproductive, to encourage parents of ELLs to try to speak English with their children at home. Parents can provide much support in the first language and should be encouraged to speak and read to their children in any language that is comfortable for them to use. The school and parents together can plan for additional rich and pleasant experiences for ELLs in English, both in and out of school.
• Lack of English proficiency does not in itself qualify a student
for Special Education services.
A student who lacks English language skills is different from an individual with a language
disorder. A student from another culture may have learning styles and concepts
of appropriate school and classroom behavior that, while they may differ from
the American mainstream perception of the same, may be appropriate to that
student’s cultural background and experiences.
In the course of normal second language acquisition, a
student may not be able to perceive or pronounce certain sounds that do not
exist in his or her first language, or that are not used in the same position.
Normal sound patterns and interference from the first language may lead
students to fail to discriminate sounds in the second language. This is not a
learning, speech, or hearing disorder. In addition, a student may acquire oral
and written skills in English at different rates. Oral fluency in English may
not be an indication of the overall English language
skills necessary for academic achievement.
Therefore, before a student can be served in Special Education, he or she should be assessed in the first language to determine whether the suspected condition exists in the language and cultural context with which the student is most familiar and comfortable. A suspected speech disorder, for example, that does not appear in the first language can be assumed to be a natural characteristic of second-language acquisition. Consequently, the student should be referred for English as a Second Language instruction. For specific discussion of special education for ELLs, refer to resources listed in Appendix E.
• It may take a long time for a student to learn English well enough to participate fully in an all-English-language mainstream classroom.
Researchers have concluded that it may take from three to
ten years to master sophisticated English in the four skill areas (listening,
speaking, reading, writing) required for full participation and learning in an
academic setting (Cummins, 1991;
Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000; Thomas & Collier, 2002). The amount of time will vary with each student’s
background, age, experience, and first-language literacy, as well as with the
amount of support provided by school and parents.
It is important to note that the oral language needed for basic survival, while acquired relatively quickly (1 to 3 years), by itself is not sufficient for students to perform well in the classroom. Early acquisition of basic, predictable oral language—or even slang—may lead mainstream teachers to believe that an English language learner is reasonably proficient in English. Yet, the student actually may not know enough English to fully participate academically in an English-medium mainstream classroom.
The acquisition of these Basic Interpersonal
Communicative Skills (BICS) (Cummins, 1979, 1981) is an important first
step in learning English. BICS alone, however, are
not sufficient to enable English language learners to take advantage of the educational opportunities offered
in the all-English mainstream classroom. First-language content instruction, as
well as English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction, will provide both
academic and linguistic support for the English language learner until Cognitive
Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1979,
1981) can be reached and the student is able to actively and fully achieve
academic success.
|
Categories of
English Proficiency |
||
|
|
BICS – Basic
Interpersonal Communicative Skills |
CALP – Cognitive
Academic Language Proficiency |
|
Time to Master (Cummins, 1991; Hakuta,
Butler, & Witt, 2000; Thomas & Collier, 2002) |
1 to 3 years |
3 to 7 years |
|
Characteristics |
|
|
The above chart summarizes the
characteristics of these two categories of English-language proficiency, as
described by Dr. James Cummins, a prominent researcher. The information may
assist administrators and teachers to better identify the English-language
needs and performance levels in the classroom, as well as to understand the
need for comprehensive, and sometimes lengthy, English-language instruction.
References
Biagini, J., Díaz, M., & Phommasouvanh, B. (1991). Guidelines for serving students with limited English proficiency. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Education.
Castenada v. Pickard, 648 F. 2d 989 (5th Cir., 1981).
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-151.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework (pp. 3-50). Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center.
Cummins, J. (1991). The role of primary language development in promoting education success for language minority students. In Schooling for Language Minority Students (pp. 3-49). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
Diana v. State Board of Education, No. C-70 RFT (N. D. Cal. 1970).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. 89–10, 79 Stat. 27 (1965).
Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974, 20 U. S. C. §1203(f).
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English language
learners to attain proficiency? (The University of California Linguistic
Minority Research Institute Policy Report 2000-1). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University. Retrieved August 18, 2004,
from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Docs/HowLong.pdf
Iowa’s 75th General Assembly (1993 Session). Chapter 280, Section 280.4, as amended by House File 457, Code of Iowa. Des Moines: 75th General Assembly.
Iowa Department of Education Bureau of Compensatory and Equity Education (1988): Educating Iowa’s limited English proficient students. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Education.
Iowa Department of Education Division of Elementary and Secondary Education (1996): Educating Iowa’s limited English proficient students. Des Moines: Iowa Department of Education.
Lau v. Nichols, No. 72 – 6520, Supreme Court of The United States 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1990): History of language minority education in the United States. In M. Padilla, H. Fairchild, and C. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual Education. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 1001-1908, 115 Stat. 1439-1620; § 301-3304, 115 Stat. 1689-1734, (2002). Retrieved February 25, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/107-110.pdf
Plyler v. Doe, No. 80-1538, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
The Bilingual Education Act of 1968, 20 U. S. C. §3283.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term achievement final report: Project 1.1. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Revised, 1999), 34 CFR 100.1. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/34cfr100_99.html
United States Department of Education. (1970, May 25). Identification of discrimination and denial of services on the basis of national origin. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/may25.html
Chapter 2
Funding Sources
Inherent in a school district’s obligation to take “appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students” (Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, Point F) is the obligation to finance these programs. State funds are allocated to school districts on the basis of enrollment. Thus, a district is given the same funds for the education of an English language learner (ELL) as for a native speaker of English.
Local
The primary responsibility for meeting the needs of ELL students lies with the local school district. ELL students have urgent language and educational needs and appropriate services should be provided by the school district to meet these needs. ELL students should have the same access as other students to district programs that are considered beneficial to them.
In
order to comply with legal requirements (see Chapter 1), school districts must
first use local resources to provide these programs
to ELL students. Federal and state resources are intended to supplement, not
supplant, local resources in meeting the needs of ELL students. When other
sources of funding are unavailable or insufficient, the district must assume
responsibility for providing appropriate services to ELL students.
State
The Iowa legislature has approved funding (weighting) for “the excess costs of instruction of limited English proficient students” (Iowa Code Chapter 280-280.4). A school district may apply to the school budget review committee for funds to provide English as a second language instruction and/or a transitional Bilingual or other special-instruction program.
Federal
Federal funding is available in three major categories: Title I - Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies and Part B: Student Reading Skills Improvement Grants; Title I - Part C: Education of Migratory Children; and Title III - Part A: English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. Descriptions of these funding sources follow.
Title
I - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged - Part A: Improving
Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies
This states that limited English proficient (LEP/ELL) students are eligible for Title I services on the same basis as other children selected to receive them. In schools operating schoolwide programs in which the goal is to upgrade the instructional program in the entire school, all children—including ELL/LEP students—are intended to benefit from the program. Therefore, the needs of all students are to be taken into account in the program design.
In targeted-assistance schools (schools not operating school-wide programs), ELL/LEP students are to be selected for services on the same basis as other children. That is to say, on the basis of multiple, education-related, objective criteria for determining which children are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the state’s student performance standards. A local educa