1. Doctoral Seminar in Bilingual Education: Policy
No Child Left Untested
Crawford, Chapter 14
Maryam Salahshoor
EDUC 881
Doctoral Seminar in Bilingual Education: Policy
03/26/2012

2. Demanding Program Quality
Proposition 227
ELLs be placed in structured English immersion for a period "not normally to exceed one year”.
Gave parents the possibility to request alternative programs for their children.

3. Demanding Program Quality
AIR study:
A five-year evaluation of the effects of the proposition 227.
Results :
“No conclusive evidence favoring one instructional program over another."
Bilingual education students have similar academic growth trajectories compared with students who switched to English Immersion.
Kenji Hakuta “someone promised
bacon, but it’s not there”.

4. Brief History Increased demands for improving outcomes.
Late 1990 – deep skepticism toward public schools, tax payers demanding accountability.
Bilingual educators were blamed for achievement gap between LEP and non-LEP.
Increased demands for improving outcomes.

5. Brief History “A Nation at Risk” 1983
Public panic over Sputnik (U.S. high school scores lower than 26 years ago)
Republicans to pay more attention on educational issues.(connections between test scores and sex ed, whole language, new math) .
Promote “excellence” vaguely with no specific standards

6. “Manufactured Crisis”
NO actual evidence, no research cited.
The U.S sample included
ELLs vs. high-status schools in other countries. (Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol illustrates inequality of urban schools) Two-tier educational system
Instead the educational quality- not equality was blamed. ““dumbing-down” the curriculum, “raising “cultural illiterates”

7. Antidote To emphasize the basic facts of American culture.
To Establish academic standards or specifying facts that each child “needs to know”.

8. First Wave of Reforms

9. Change at the Federal Level
“School choice”
Promoted by Ragan and Gorge H.W. Bush “the Education President”
Allow “free market” through
vouchers or tax credits
Advocates of School Vouchers
Poor children receive the same opportunity as privileged children
Competition would create incentives for excellence.

10. Opponents of School Vouchers
Private school too expensive for vouchers.
private schools have no obligation
It would benefit wealthy families.
More harm to those who remain in public schools
choice would violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

11. Strategies for change State’s Level
1980s- Republicans and Democrats bipartisan deal with voters
Higher taxes for education in exchange for areas such as teacher certification, extracurricular activities and magnet schools (Southern schools benefited most)

12. second wave of School Reform
Lots of money and resources were spent ,however, not much
was changed.
THEREFORE, the second wave of reform more holistic than the first was motivated.

13. National Standards and oals
“ Rethinking the Process of Schooling” Criticized the fragmentation of educational policies at all levels “project mentality”.
Solution:
national standard and
goals.

14. Goals 2000 Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Public Law 103-227
Six broad unrealistic goals (90% high school graduation rate, USA first in the world in math and science achievement).
Overall goal: Reform that would enable all U.S. students to meet “world class” standards (aim high philosophy)
Provided federal funding to recipients to meet academic goals, however, opportunity-to-learn standards remained voluntarily.

15. Critics of Goal 2000
Goals 2000 included underachievers in the race with stronger students without accommodating their diverse needs.

16. A Blueprint for the Second Generation
To ensure the educators have voice in reforms:
Kenji Hakuta,1993 Stanford Working “ A Blueprint for the Second Generation” which criticized the (Compensatory model) that characterized most federal programs for ELLs.
Recommended: (On positive notes)
(+)Giving priority to Title VII programs for bilingualism
(-)Full inclusion of all students.

17. High stakes Testing
49 /50 states adopted academic content and performance standards.
Accountability = Heavy emphasis on educational outcomes not inputs .
“No Excuses” meant raising production without additional investments.
Instead a new system of rewards and punishments which relied on high-stakes testing was introduced.

18. Business Model
Corporate leaders regarded underachievement by students as a management problem. To maximize profitability not the interest of students.
Standardization Consequences:
Harmful to organize classroom instruction and adopt accountability measures on the basis of standards that are unrealistic.

19. ESL Standards
1997- TESOL detailed set of ESL standards using the latest research in second-language acquisition to help teachers in understanding student’s language needs and planning instruction accordingly.
“progress indicators or benchmarks” designed to indicate specific skills that children should master at various stages along with appropriate class-norm activities.
Few states such as New York have adopted these standards since they are difficult to measure with standardized tests.

20. California English Language Development Test
Standards adopted by California were designed to fit standardized measurements. Hundreds of discrete skills in five levels of proficiency.
California English Language Development Test which is a Criterion-referenced test (CELDT) 2001 designed to measure mastery of (ELD).
AYP in 5 levels, beginners, early intermediate, intermediate, early advanced, and advanced.
Critiques
“learning curve”
diverse levels of English proficiency makes if more complicated to measure annual gains.

21. High Stakes, High anxiety
Stanford 9 in grades 2-11 which is not designed or normed for ELLs
These tests are also very stressful for students who find them incomprehensive
California uses the results Academic Performance Index (API) and uses them for determining financial rewards for schools who meet them or punishments such as (reorganizing school with new staff, giving money to parents for charter school, or even closing the schools) for schools who fail to meet performance targets

22. Changes in the classroom
Teachers complain:
Instruction reduced to route exercises such as phonics.
Exclusion of free reading, art, recess, music, physical education etc..
Alfie Khon: Horizontal standards such as TESOL guidelines designed for education of ELLs and vertical standards designed to “raise the bar” a top-down approach.

23. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 2002”
“George W. Bush” using a “passionate conservatism” strategy made “school reform” his top priority.
Democrats wanted the reauthorization of ESEA and more funding for education.
Bipartisan cooperation led to:
Democrats would accept school accountability with higher standards and “no excuse “for failure if
Republicans would approve new resources.
Compromises:
Republicans: abandoned proposals for private- school vouchers and eliminate funding for bilingual education
Democrats: set aside concerns regarding resource inequities and high stakes testing and its consequences for poor children issues.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) January was passed easily in both houses of congress.

24. Key Principles of NCLB Increased Accountability
Scientifically Based Research and Proven Practices
Flexibility
Parent Knowledge, Choice, Involvement

25. Major Points Dollars to the Classroom Public Reporting
Highly Qualified Personnel
Accountability for All Schools
Assessment for All Students

26. Accountability
All states must develop plans to move all students to “proficient” levels of achievement in language arts, math and science by
The plan must include a “timeline” for adequate yearly progress” (AYP) for ALL students (LEP, special ed etc.)
States must meet performance targets for every subgroup of students and to publish annual “report cards”
Failing school labeled in need of improvement, parent's choice. 2003, 8,000 schools identified as needing improvement.

27. English Learners Provisions
Bilingual Education Act replaced by English Language Acquisition Act. Expunged the word “Bilingual” from federal education law.
All choices about language of instruction and how to spend federal funds was turned to states.
ALSO Renumbered the section governing English learner programs from title VII to Title III.
Republicans proposed Provisions that Banned development of bilingual education, parental consent for native- language instruction, ELL exit language assistance programs within 3 years.

28. All schools will have a “multiple hurdle” model in which they need to make AYP in all areas to be considered on schedule.
Must have 95% participation rate to meet AYP.
“Multiple Hurdles”

29. Title IV changed to Title III
Democrats agreed to repeal Title VII, if Republicans support additional resources under Title III (Traditional Bilingual Act would be resuscitated if funds fall below $650,000,000.
RESULTS for LEP
-Federal spending for LEP and immigrants increased 50% but spread thinly among sates.
Competitive grant system: Under Title VII funds were given according to program’s quality of instruction
Formula grant system: Under Title III federal money is distributed to the states on the basis of their LEP and immigrant enrollments so the Program quality would be eliminated.
This benefited states with large recently arrived population of immigrants.
LEP students are expected to meet the same AYP targets in language arts and mathematics as other students

30. Wide disparities
Missouri only 8% of 4th graders proficient in math verses 79% in Colorado
% in Florida failed AYP verses 45% in Virginia and 8% in Minnesota.
These inconsistencies shows the arbitrariness and unfairness of the tests. Many time the schools that had poor performances had large percentage of minority and poor students. .
THIS might not be an accident: The authors or NCLB made the tests strict made the focus more intense on achievement gap.

31. Rigorous Protocols for Scientifically Based Research
NCLB has set such rigorous protocols for scientifically based research that only a tiny handful of programs and practices could pass it.
Does that mean that NCLB itself was based on insignificant based research.
When it comes to educating ELLs the scientific claims are compounded by conflicts over immigration, ethnicity, class and culture.
Bush administration indicated that only phonic intensive programs will be eligible for funding under NCLB about $1 billion in 2003 since they are only scientifically based approach
While literacy researchers favor a balance of whole language and phonics reading
This debate will continue and it is up to researchers and practitioners who serve language-minority to take an active role in educating the public.

32. GROUPS DISTINGUISHED to Determine AYP
Hurdles
Hispanic
Students with Disabilities
Low-Income Students
ELL
All Students
Native American
Asian
Black
White
Each group must have 95% participation rate to meet AYP.
GROUPS DISTINGUISHED to Determine AYP