The Condition of English Language Learners in Arizona: 2004. Pheonix: Educational Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University, 2005. Retrieved … (original) (raw)
Related papers
Is Arizona's Approach to Educating Its ELs Superior to Other Forms of Instruction
, the Court wrote that one basis for finding Arizona in compliance with federal law regarding the education of its English learners was that the state had adopted a "significantly more effective" than bilingual education instructional model for EL students-Structured English Immersion (SEI). Purpose: This paper reviews the extant research on SEI, its definitions, origins, and its effectiveness, particularly in contrast to other instructional strategies. This paper asks, Does the research bear out the Court's conclusion? What is the evidence that Arizona's program of SEI is really superior to other approaches, including bilingual or dual language education? How are Arizona's EL students faring under this "significantly more effective" instructional program? Research Design: Data on the relative effectiveness of SEI are drawn from a comprehensive review of the literature. Analysis of public documents, particularly records from the Arizona English Language Learners Task Force, which was charged with selecting a research-based instructional program for English learners. Drawing from a recent ethnographic study and student achievement data, we examine the impact of structured English immersion programs on English learners in Arizona thus far, beginning with achievement outcomes. Conclusions/Recommendations: There is no research basis for the Court's statement the SEI is "significantly more effective"; at best SEI is no better or no worse than other instructional strategies, particularly bilingual instruction, when they are both well implemented. However, SEI as implemented in Arizona carries serious negative consequences for EL students stemming from the excessive amount of time dedicated to a sole focus on English instruction, the de-emphasis on grade level academic curriculum, the discrete skills approach it employs, and the segregation of EL students from mainstream peers. Moreover, the paper Teachers College Record, 114, 090307 (2012) argues that there are, in fact, strategies that can ameliorate these problems as well as provide an additive, rather than a subtractive, educational experience for English learner and mainstream students alike. be the most "cost-efficient models that meet all state and federal laws" (Arizona Revised Statute § § 15-756.01). It did not specify that the model(s) had to be the most effective. The ELL Task Force consisted of three members appointed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, two members appointed by the governor, two members appointed by the President of the Senate, and two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each to serve four years. This group included one individual with extensive experience in language teaching and bilingual development, an expert on structured English immersion, four individuals with experience as educational administrators (though not necessarily directly related to English learners), two political advisors, and an education lobbyist. The ELL Task Force began meeting twice monthly in September 2006, and early on ELL Task Force Chair Alan Maguire invited consultant Kevin Clark to assist the task force in determining how to implement the four-hour SEI requirement. Clark served as the lead consultant to the task force as they endeavored to develop an SEI model for statewide implementation, and within a year the task force decided to adopt the four-hour SEI model Clark had developed. Reliable information about Clark is hard to come by. His business, Clark Consulting Group, Inc., based in Clovis, California maintains no website. One source indicates he has worked with more than 100 schools and districts in the design and implementation of English immersion programs, and taught in Arizona, California, and Mexico (Center for Equal Opportunity, 2000). However, little more is known about his educational and professional background or credentials and he has published no studies or evaluations of EL programs. In his February 23, 2007 presentation to the ELL Task Force, Clark indicated he had no ideological agenda, and cited a history of working with school districts with bilingual education programs, heritage maintenance programs, and dual immersion programs (Arizona Department of Education, 2007). However, Clark was evidently not involved in any of those programs; he previously served on the Board of Academic Advisors for the Research in English Acquisition and Development (READ) Institute (READ Institute, 2010) a conservative think tank advocating for the superiority of English-only programs (Massachusetts English Plus Coalition, 2010). On March 29, 2007, Clark presented the ELL Task Force with a handout outlining an SEI instructional program composed of five ELD components: phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon, and semantics (Arizona Department of Education, 2007). Task force members posed a number of questions about the research evidence for structured English 4
Overstated Optimism: Arizona's Structured English Immersion Program under "Horne v. Flores
Online Submission, 2010
This article is an analysis of the educational implications of the Supreme Court (USSC) decision in Horne v. Flores (2009). The USSC remanded the Arizona case to the lower court, requiring a rehearing of petitioners' request for relief from the court's oversight of AZ's "structured English immersion" (SEI) program mandated under HB2064. The article discusses flaws in the SEI program's theoretical and research base. The author refutes claims that SEI will be effective in teaching English language or in supporting ELLs' academic achievement to reach "parity of participation" with grade-level English proficient peers as required under federal court precedents. The article argues that ballot initiative P-203, which established the one-year SEI program model, is a violation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. Findings of the Commission on Civil Rights (1975) supported the effectiveness of bilingual bicultural education and cautioned against ESL pullout programs such as Arizona's SEI program.
This article provides an analysis of Arizona's policy response in educating English language learners by conducting a narrative review. A critical Latina/o theory approach was used to analyze the data. This study reveals 5 salient policy responses: (a) severely limit bilingual education, (b) develop controversial funding solutions, (c) implement a segregated 4-hr English language development block, (d) mandate structured English immersion-focused teacher preparation, and (e) develop disputed identification and classification instruments. The available data suggest that these policies have negatively impacted the educational experience and academic attainment of English language learners.
The Inequitable Treatment of English Learners in California's Public Schools - eScholarship
2002
UCLA/IDEA UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education, & Access www.ucla-idea.org Williams Watch Series-Gándara & Rumberger wws-rr005-1002 ____________________________________ UCLA/IDEA www.ucla-idea.org 1 English learners comprise one-fourth of the entire public school population in California, and one out of three students in the elementary grades (Rumberger & Gándara, 2000, Table 1). In total, they represent nearly 1.5 million students. Of these, the largest percentage-approximately 80 percent-speak Spanish and 88 percent of the students speak one of four major languages. There are very few California schools that report having no English learners among their student population. Today, the typical California school is composed of both English learners and English speakers, and in many schools more than one-quarter of the student body is not fluent in English. Although most English learners are found at the elementary school level, a larger proportion of English learners (hereafter also referred to as ELs or EL students) is found in secondary schools than commonly believed. One-third of elementary students are ELs, but more than 18 percent of secondary school students are also English learners (Rumberger & Gándara, 2000, Table 1). Proportionately, the number of English learners in secondary schools has been growing at a faster rate than the number in elementary schools (California Department of Education, Language Census 2001). The increase in the population of these secondary level English learners presents a particular challenge for both the students and the schools that serve them. This is principally because older children have less time to acquire both English and academic skills in order to get ready for high school graduation and to prepare for post-Williams Watch Series-Gándara & Rumberger wws-rr005-1002 Williams Watch Series-Gándara & Rumberger wws-rr005-1002 ____________________________________ UCLA/IDEA www.ucla-idea.org 4 60859). The need for improving the education provided by California's high schools is undeniable. Although accountability measures may be necessary to this effort, there is early evidence that the HSEE presents exceptionally high stakes for EL students. By the end of their sophomore year, students from the class of 2004 had been given two opportunities to pass the HSEE. Thus far, the majority of EL students have yet to pass the exam. Whereas 48 percent of all students had passed the exam by the end of their sophomore year, only 19 percent of English learners had passed the exam (California Department of Education, 2002, Attachment 1). Stanford 9 Between the years 1998 and 2001, the State used the SAT9-a norm-referenced, Englishonly achievement test-as the only metric by which to track the academic performance of all of its students, including English learners, who by definition, do not understand the test well enough to make it a valid form of assessment. 1 Given that the state has committed itself to the view that the SAT9 should be used across language groups, it ought to be concerned with cross-language group achievement comparisons. Therefore, in spite of the fact that we disagree with the State's judgment in this use of the test, we provide an analysis of the achievement of English learners vis-à-vis their English-speaking peers. A persistent gap in test scores is a major factor in the school experience of English learners. As a group they continue to perform more poorly than English-speaking students throughout their entire school careers. This is clearly illustrated by the SAT9 English reading scores across grade levels (see Figure 1). As expected, English learners who, by definition, are Williams Watch Series-Gándara & Rumberger wws-rr005-1002 ____________________________________ UCLA/IDEA www.ucla-idea.org 6 Even though the previous analysis shows a sizeable and growing achievement gap between English origin and non-English origin students across grade levels, there are some suggestions in the data that the gap has narrowed slightly. To investigate this issue, we examined SAT9 reading test scale scores between the years 1998 and 2001 compiled by Parrish et al. (2002) as part of their year two evaluation of Proposition 227. Scale scores show growth in achievement over time based on a common metric. Thus it provides a good indication of the amount of learning that has taken place over time. The evaluation team had access to individual student test scores for all the students in California for the years 1998 through 2001 by language classification. 2 The evaluation team examined changes in test scores between 1998 and 2001 for each grade level and for three synthetic cohorts of students: 3 (1) a cohort of students who were enrolled in grade 2 in 1998,
2005
This survey of third-grade teachers of English Language Learners (ELLs) in Arizona regarding school language and accountability policies-Proposition 203 (a voter-initiative that restricts the use of bilingual education programs in Arizona schools), the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), and Arizona LEARNS (the state's high-stakes testing and accountability program)-reveals that (a) these policies have mostly resulted in confusion in schools throughout the state, (b) that there is little evidence that such policies have led to improvements in the education of ELL students, and (c) that these policies may be causing more harm than good. The majority of teachers surveyed reported that Sheltered (or Structured) English Immersion (SEI)-the state's mandated method for teaching ELLs since the passing of Proposition 203-is too restrictive and that this approach, as it is being implemented in Arizona, is inadequate for meeting the language and academic needs of ELL students. Teachers provided evidence that SEI differs little from mainstream sink-or-swim education, which is not a legal placement for ELLs under state and federal law. Furthermore, teachers reported that English-only high-stakes testing is driving instruction for ELL students which fails to • At a minimum, the state should immediately make explicit to district-and school-level administrators and teachers which ELL students' tests scores will be excluded from federal and state accountability formulas. vii Introduction During the past five years, elementary schools in Arizona have faced the challenge of implementing a number of school reform efforts as mandated by state and federal policies. These policies include (a) the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), (b) Arizona LEARNS (Arizona's school accountability program), and (c)
English language learners: What's at stake for Arizona?
The report is both comprehensive and timely, with ELL-related discussions presently taking place in the Legislature that would remove ELL from the throes of political ideologies and return oversight to the State Board of Education. It notes the economic impact on all of Arizona if ELL programs and funding are not improved.