Presentation on theme: "BILINGUAL POLICY AND THE ESEA WAIVER: A CAUSE FOR HOPE? Drew Patrick Bedford Central School District (Bedford, NY)"— Presentation transcript:
BILINGUAL POLICY AND THE ESEA WAIVER: A CAUSE FOR HOPE? Drew Patrick Bedford Central School District (Bedford, NY)
Policy-Research Gap = Failure NCLB Research-Base L1 + L2 > L1 or L2 ESEA FLEXIBILITY Cummins, 2007; Krashen & McField, 2005; Menken, 2013; Potowski, 2004 Caldas, 2013; Menken, 2008; Menken, 2013 “to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility and choice, so that no child is left behind”
Timeline- Bilingual Policy
No Child Left Behind & English-Only A New Context for Bilingual Education Removed native language instruction as core tenet of bilingual education policy (Caldas; Menken) No mention of bilingualism as a goal Rapid English-acquisition trumps (Wiley & Wright) Arizona, California, Massachusetts “English-only” “The word bilingual completely vanished from the federal law” (Wiley & Wright, 2004)
Rossell (1993) not equal amounts…fair amounts ratio of inputs to outputs producing the intended result? realistically enacted
EQUITY ESEA pre-2002: Federal $$-English & native language learning Stated value of native language as asset NCLB: Assessment-based accountability (in English) Accountability paradox Data Stewner-Manzanares, 1988; NCLB, 2001; Wiley & Wright, 2004; Caldas, 2013; Rossell, 2005
EFFICIENCY Increased inputs ($$)- Title III targets “risk” in ways very similar to Title I (poverty) Attainment of English ASAP + Annual Testing in English + Restrictive Consequences ># proficient reading, writers, listeners, and speakers Caldas, 2013; Menken, 2008; Rossell, 2005
EFFECTIVENESS “to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility and choice, so that no child is left behind” (NCLB, 2002) ELLs NAEP improvement > pre-NCLB (Caldas, 2013) AZ, CA, MA ELLs NAEP scores don’t support effectiveness of English-only policy (Menken, 2013)
POLITICAL FEASIBILITY THEN… NCLB- broad coalition in 2001 No Child Left Behind- who wouldn’t support? NOW… Consequences visible (intended and unintended) Failure to reauthorize ESEA Flexibility Continues/Strengthens many aspects of NCLB Broader latitude for state-derived solutions
Policy Alternatives BASED ON CURRENT RESEARCH Active support of the development of L1 and L2 for language-minority students (August & Shanahan, 2006; Cummins, 2007; Krashen & McField, 2005; Menken, 2013; Potowski, 2004) 2-way dual language (Collier & Thomas, 2004 & 2012) Linguistically-responsive teaching and honoring heritage language (Scanlan & López, 2012) Avoid loss of language resources (Cummins, 2005)
Policy Alternatives ACTIVATING LOCAL POLICY Systems of support (Elfers & Stritikus, 2013) Role of teachers and local decision makers to shape policy (Varghese and Stritikus, 2005) Applied linguistics as experts to inform local decision making (Johnson, 2010)
ESEA Regulatory Flexibility “comprehensive State-developed plans designed to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction” (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
ESEA Regulatory Flexibility 1) adopt college- and career-ready learning standards; 2) develop and implement a differentiated accountability, recognition, and support system for schools and districts; 3) develop and implement much more rigorous teacher and principal evaluation systems; and 4) reduce duplicative and burdensome reporting requirements that do not impact student achievement outcomes. (U.S. Department of Education, 2012)
New York State ESEA WaiverNew York State ESEA Waiver++ Reduce the ELL accountability paradox 2 year exemption for newly arrived ELLs Establish a unique PI for based on NYSESLAT, and credit schools/districts. ++Propose new, allowable approaches Develop Spanish Language Arts tests for accountability Up to 5 years of Spanish-language testing for reading and language arts District flexibility
Recommendation 1 States should take advantage of the NCLB waiver process to steer accountability toward accommodating and supporting ELLs by linking accountability to literacy in the native language, while continuing to promote English proficiency through approaches such as dual language programs.
Recommendation 2 Technical assistance centers, like New York State’s BETAC (Bilingual Education Technical Assistance Center) model, should be established or expanded to help illuminate current research and educate district- and building-level leaders to design more effective programs for English learners that are grounded in the emerging research.
Recommendation 3 Districts and schools should look to examples of success outlined in the abundance of literature supporting the development of literacy in the native language and create language-friendly local policy contexts by identifying knowledgeable teachers and leaders within these settings, and adopting practices that honor home language skills and knowledge.
References August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Executive summary: Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language- Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved October 15, Caldas, S. (2013). Assessment of academic performance: The impact of no child left behind policies on bilingual education: A ten year retrospective. In V.C.M. Gathercole (Ed.), Issues in the Assessment of Bilinguals (pp ). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), de Jong, E. J. (2002). Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic achievement in a two-way bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), de Jong, E.J. & Howard, E. (2009). Integration in two-way immersion education: Equalising linguistic benefits for all students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(1),
Elfers, A. M., & Stritikus, T. (2013). How school and district leaders support classroom teachers’ work with English language learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, doi: / X Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners. American Educator, 37(2), Johnson, D. C. (2010). The relationship between applied linguistic research and language policy for bilingual Education. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), doi: /applin/amp011 Krashen, S., & McField, G. (2005). What works? Reviewing the Latest Evidence on Bilingual Education. Language Learner, 1(2), Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How no child left behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Menken, K. (2013). Restrictive language education policies and emergent bilingual youth: A perfect storm with imperfect outcomes. Theory into Practice, 52(3), New York State Education Department, Board of Regents. (2013). Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver Renewal Application. Retrieved from Palmer, D. K. (2009). Middle-class English speakers in a two-way immersion bilingual classroom: Everybody should be listening to Jonathan right now. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), doi: /j tb00164.x Potowski, K. (2004). Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion classroom: Implications for second language acquisition and heritage language maintenance. Modern Language Journal, 88(1), doi: /j x
Reyes, S. A., & Vallone, T. L. (2007). Toward an expanded understanding of two-way bilingual immersion education: Constructing identity through a critical, additive bilingual/bicultural pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives, 9(3), Rossell, C. H. (1993). Using multiple criteria to evaluate public policies the case of school desegregation. American Politics Research, 21(2), Rossell, C. H. (2005). The flawed requirements for limited English proficient children of the no child left behind act. Journal of Education, 186(3), Scanlan, M., & López, F. (2012). ¡Vamos! How school leaders promote equity and excellence for bilingual students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), doi: / X Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). The bilingual education act: Twenty years later. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education Occasional Papers, 6(1), 1-8. Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2012). Dual language education for a transformed world. Albuquerque, NM: Fuente Press. U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ESEA Flexibility. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Department of Education Budget Tables. Retrieved from Varghese, M. M., & Stritikus, T. (2005). “Nadie me dijó [nobody told me]”: Language policy negotiation and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), doi: / Wiley, T. G., & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the “age of accountability”. Educational Policy, 18(1),