July 9, 2010

Researchers criticize Arizona school treatment of English Learners

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/07/08/36arizona.h29.html?tkn=USZF%2B33KLyBnvWBqCQXaJnq8852IbM5w2FXg&cmp=clp-edweek


Be sure to note Margaret Garcia Dugan's comment that the teachers they talk to "love the program" and that based on the state's reclassifcation rates, the program works, especially if it is adhered to "with fidelity." 

The program separates students for up to 4 hours per day of intensive instruction in English.
 

Labels: , ,

March 6, 2009

English Learners and NCLB

An Equity Agenda for English Language Learners
A Seven-Point Plan by the Institute for Language and Education Policy
P.O. Box 5960, Takoma Park, MD 20913; www.elladvocates.org

In recent years the educational needs of English language learners (ELLs) have been, at best, an afterthought
for policy-makers. As a result:

• Decisions affecting ELLs are often made on the basis of political expediency, not sound research.
• School programs for ELLs are under-resourced in every state and at the federal level.
• Most teachers with ELLs in their classrooms have limited training in effective ways to serve them.
• All-English teaching methods are on the increase, despite their generally inferior results for ELLs.
• The parents of ELLs are rarely kept informed about, or involved in, their education.
• The vast majority of academic assessments now provided to ELLs are inappropriate for second-
language learners.
• So are the one-size-fits-all provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which sets unreachable
targets for an ELL “subgroup” that is constantly changing.
• While the law imposes detailed sanctions for “failure” by ELLs, it offers no guidance whatsoever to help
improve instruction.

Thus it is hardly surprising that English language learners – the fastest-growing group of American students –
also have among the highest failure and dropout rates. These children deserve better.

Labels: , ,

June 9, 2008

NCLB and English Language Learners

School has 'tough dilemma'

Successful language program is a drag on campus' scores

By Kim Minugh - kminugh@sacbee.com

Last Updated 1:14 am PDT Monday, June 9, 2008
Nine buses lumber up to Will Rogers Middle School each morning, carrying sleepy-eyed children who have spent as much as an hour on the road.

They are the children of immigrant families from Argentina, South Korea, Mexico and Ukraine – enrolled at the Fair Oaks school for an opportunity to quickly learn the language of their new country.

Will Rogers is one of the San Juan Unified School District's language centers, offering specialized lessons to any seventh- or eighth-grader who isn't fluent in English.

This year, almost one-fourth of the school's English-language learners have become fluent enough to shift into mainstream classes – some after just a year.

But Will Rogers is failing under No Child Left Behind.

Because of its high concentration of non-English speakers, its scores on standardized English tests have come up short six years in a row, landing the school in the final stages of what the federal government calls "Program Improvement."

San Juan administrators find themselves in a quandary: Either continue a program they feel successfully serves English-language learners – and suffer the penalties of low test scores – or disband the program.

"It's a tough dilemma," said Vice Principal Karen Baum. "Technically, the district could get us out of Program Improvement by just not making us a (language) center. … Would that be the best thing for the kids? I don't know."

San Juan Unified officials will try to answer that question next year when they review the district's programs for English-language learners, including the language center model, said Tamra Taylor, the district's director of Program Improvement schools.

Taylor said the district will not "cower" from No Child Left Behind. The fate of the language center rests on what is best for English-language learners, she said, not pressure from the government.

"We pay attention to the law, we don't break the law, we try to make growth," she said. "But our impetus is not that there's a federal mandate called Program Improvement. Our impetus is there's an achievement gap, and we want to close it."

Schools are labeled Program Improvement when they fail to meet federal targets for two years in a row. Schools that continue to fall short of federal benchmarks for more than two years face additional sanctions and ultimately can be taken over by the state.

Culture of support

When Principal Monty Muller started at Will Rogers 18 years ago, the language center had only 40 students. Today, enrollment ranges from 160 to 280, and students speak 40 languages.

Grouping those students in language centers allows the district to save money on staffing, technology and other costs.

But perhaps the biggest advantage, administrators and teachers say, is a culture of support for students facing struggles in and out of the classroom.

Baum said many of her students are angry at their parents for bringing them to the United States against their will. Some act out.

Others have trouble focusing on school because their families are in turmoil while adjusting to a new country.

At the language center, teachers and administrators help students work through those emotional issues.

"I think it gives kids a feeling of comfort … and a feeling of safety," said teacher Michelle Bebout. "It gives them a million opportunities to relate to somebody."

Dariya Korzhuk, who came from Ukraine three years ago, appreciates being at a school full of other students like her – even if they don't share the same background.

"You already know how they feel because it's the same as you," the 13-year-old said.

Even after being in the United States two years, Korzhuk said she felt "shy to talk" when she came to Will Rogers.

"If I say something wrong, people would make fun," said the seventh-grader. "Now, I don't care. I know English."

Proper language required

During a recent lesson, Bebout asked her seventh-graders to write a letter to incoming students, giving them advice on how to succeed at Will Rogers and in her class.

She explained the instructions slowly, going over tough words and asking questions to make sure her students understood them.

Bebout paused when one student used the word "stuff" and talked to the class about the difference between slang and formal language.

"You are not employed by (Yo!) MTV Raps," she said, referring to the former hip-hop cable TV show. "What kind of language will you be avoiding?"

"Wazzup," the students shouted.

She wrote it on a whiteboard as students called out other forbidden words – "Cuz," "Shorty."

That language is OK for text-messaging, she told them. But Bebout wants her students to get in the habit of using proper language.

In a classroom across the hall, English teacher Laura Troppmann buzzed around the room in jeans and flats.

Her students were designing an imaginary camp for young children. The lesson was based on "The Acorn People," a book they'd read about physically disabled students who attended a camp without proper accommodations.

Troppmann has been at Will Rogers eight years, but this is her first year teaching English learners. She said there have been some unexpected challenges.

Her lesson about "The Acorn People" began with an explanation of what camp is; many of her students had never been.

When she asked them to design brochures for their imaginary camps, they stared back, blankly. No one knew what a brochure was.

"They're not dumb. They're brilliant," Troppmann said. "They just don't have the background."

Expectations unrealistic?

Critics of No Child Left Behind complain that the law's expectations for English learners are unrealistic and that punishing entire schools for those students' struggles is unfair.

The federal law holds schools accountable for their overall test scores as well as for the scores of groups of typically underperforming students – like non-English speakers or ethnic minorities. A whole school can be penalized if one group repeatedly falls short, like at Will Rogers.

As California's immigrant population grows, and the above scenario becomes more common, even No Child Left Behind advocates like Taylor question the law's deadline for all students to be proficient in math and English.

"Can all kids be proficient by 2014? Let's get real," she said. "Especially if someone just got to the country and doesn't speak the language."

Standardized test scores don't show everything, she said. Especially at schools like Will Rogers.

Since 2002, the school has grown according to the state's measures – its Academic Performance Index score jumped 77 points to 715 (the state's goal for schools is 800).

In California, non-English speakers are tested yearly, and their English fluency is scored on a scale of one to five. Some of Will Rogers' students are jumping as many as two or three levels in one year, Baum said.

"I don't consider them a school that is failing," Taylor said.

Eighth-grader Lucas Sugliano, who didn't know any English when his family arrived 3 1/2 years ago from Argentina, is now considered fluent.

He remembers greeting people by saying, "bye" instead of "hi."

"I mostly learned English here" at Will Rogers, he said. "Difficult English. Hard words and better phrases."

In the fall, Sugliano will enter high school as what one of his classmates calls a "regular student."

Labels: ,

August 25, 2007

State Exams and English Language Learners

State Exam Results Show that English Learners are
English Learners

We should not be alarmed to read that “only” 27%
of English learners in LAUSD passed the state English
exam (“English learners do worse on test,” August
24).

English learners are supposed to do worse on tests
given in English. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be
classified as limited in English. In fact, if 27%
passed, and if the test is valid, that means that 27%
are probably misclassified as limited in English.

The results tell us only that most students who have
not yet acquired English have not yet acquired
English.

Stephen Krashen


Misinformed about bilingual education
Contrary to what Esther Cepeda’s statements (“English
as a first priority,” August 23, bilingual educators
agree that English is a first priority, and scientific
research agrees. Study after study has shown that
children in bilingual programs typically outperform
similar children in all-English classes on tests of
English reading. In fact, four major reviews coming to
this conclusion were published in the last two years
in professional journals.
Properly organized bilingual programs use the child’s
first language as a means of accelerating English
development, not to delay it.
Stephen Krashen

The four major reviews:
1. Slavin, R. and Cheung, A. 2005. A synthesis of
research of reading instruction for English language
learners, Review of Educational Research 75(2):
247-284.
2. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. 2005. The big
picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness
research on English language learners. Educational
Policy 19(4): 572-594.
3. Genesse, F., Lindolm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., and
Christian, D. 2005. English Language Learners in U.S.
Schools: An Overview of Research. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–385.
4. Francis, D., Lesaux, N., & August, D. 2006.
Language of instruction, In D. August & T. Shanahan,
(Eds.) Developing literacy in second-language
learners, pp. 365-413. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Labels: , ,

April 18, 2007

California High School Exit Exam and ELL

English Learners and the State Exit Exam
Sent to the Ventura County Star, April 17, 2007

California State Superintendent of Instruction Jack
O’Connell is “deeply concerned” that students
classified as English Learners did not do as well as
other groups on the State High School Exit Exam (“More
seniors are passing state exit exam,” April 17).

Half of the test is English Language Arts. It has a
reading section and a writing section, which includes
an essay. According to the Department of Education
website, statewide, for all grades combined, 28% of
those considered to be English Learners passed the
English Language Arts part of the test in 2006.
Overall, 61% passed. Statistics for Ventura County are
similar, with 30% of English Learners passing, and 60%
overall.

This is no surprise. Students are classified as
English Learners because they have not yet acquired
enough English to succeed in school. If they are able
to pass an exam that demands a high level of
competence in English, they should not be considered
English Learners.

The low passing rate for this group simply confirms
that the classification system is accurate.

Stephen Krashen

Labels: ,

February 13, 2007

Republican incompetence: again

Would You Buy a Used Law from This Woman?

U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings made headlines last summer when she declared that the No Child Left Behind Act is "like Ivory Soap. It's 99.9 percent pure." That was just the beginning of her unabashed sales pitch.
Spellings has been touting NCLB as a rip-roaring success in boosting academic achievement. "According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP]," she says, "9-year-olds made greater reading gains in five years than in the previous 28 years combined." In fact, as Stephen Krashen has shown, virtually all of those gains occurred before the 2002-03 school year, when NCLB took effect.
Now Spellings has issued a misleading report about the progress of English language learners. In a letter to the Washington Post, she claims that ELLs' 4th grade reading scores "increased by 20 points from 2000 to 2005, more than three times better than their peers." And she credits NCLB for this accomplishment, which suggests remarkable progress toward overcoming the achievement gap.
If only it were true.
Technically speaking, the reported increase is accurate. But that's because ELLs' performance took a nosedive in 2000. Then their scores rebounded over the next three years – that is, before schools began to implement NCLB. The graph below, from the Education Department's own web site, provides a more instructive picture of what's going on. It's clear that no statistically significant gains have occurred for 4th grade ELLs in reading since 2003. (That's true for 8th graders as well.)
NAEP Scale Scores, 4th Grade Reading, 1998-2005

*Significantly different from 2005
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Nation's Report Card, 2005
Independent analyses of NAEP scores for all students, conducted by the Harvard Civil Rights Project and Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), have also shown virtually no progress in reading or math since 2003. Nor could they find any evidence that NCLB has reduced the achievement gap between racial and ethnic groups.
But the Saleswoman-in-Chief remains undaunted. She continues to "cherry pick" data designed to bamboozle Congress and the public into believing that this law is working for kids. Don't buy it.

From http://www.elladvocates.org/index.html#selling

Labels: ,