a comparison of english and spanish assessment measures of readin
DESCRIPTION
There is an increasing number of students for whom English is a second language.Achieving high levels of achievement at the same pace as native English speakers is unrealistic for ELs.TRANSCRIPT
-
University of IowaIowa Research Online
Theses and Dissertations
2014
A comparison of English and Spanish assessmentmeasures of reading and math development forHispanic dual language studentsLisa M. StevensonUniversity of Iowa
Copyright 2014 Lisa M Stevenson
This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4764
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd
Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons
Recommended CitationStevenson, Lisa M.. "A comparison of English and Spanish assessment measures of reading and math development for Hispanic duallanguage students." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2014.http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4764.
http://ir.uiowa.edu?utm_source=ir.uiowa.edu%2Fetd%2F4764&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://ir.uiowa.edu/etd?utm_source=ir.uiowa.edu%2Fetd%2F4764&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://ir.uiowa.edu/etd?utm_source=ir.uiowa.edu%2Fetd%2F4764&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/787?utm_source=ir.uiowa.edu%2Fetd%2F4764&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
-
A COMPARISON OF ENGLISH AND SPANISH ASSESSMENT MEASURES
OF READING AND MATH DEVELOPMENT
FOR HISPANIC DUAL LANGUAGE STUDENTS
by
Lisa M. Stevenson
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Doctor of
Philosophy degree in Educational Policy and Leadership Studies
(Educational Administration)
in the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
May 2014
Thesis Supervisor: Associate Professor Liz Hollingworth
-
Copyright by
LISA M. STEVENSON
2014
All Rights Reserved
-
Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
________________________
PH.D. THESIS
________________
This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of
Lisa M. Stevenson
has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Educational Policy and Leadership Studies (Educational Administration) at the May 2014 graduation.
Thesis Committee:
Liz Hollingworth, Thesis Supervisor
James Maxey
Lia Plakans
Pamela Wesely
Ernest Pascarella
Howard Smith
-
ii
To Maya, Malik, and Macy
-
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe my most abundant thanks to my patient advisor, Dr. Liz Hollingworth. She
believed in me through all of the revisions and my job changes. I also would like to
thank my committee members for their time, knowledge, and expertise: Drs. James
Maxey, Ernest Pascarella, Lia Plakans, Pam Wesely, and Howard Smith. Each of the
committee members shared their wealth of resources with me and encouraged me to
reflect and finish. I did not have many classes with most of the members as I had
transferred back to The University of Iowa, but all of the members listened to me and
understood my passion about the topics of bilingual education, language acquisition,
standardized testing, and No Child Left Behind. My courses, comprehensive
examinations, and dissertation spanned the course of five years which also gave me a
chance to learn from so many other great professors including Drs. Susan Lagos-Lavenz,
Marc Haack, and Alan Henkin.
I am also extremely grateful for the most patient husband in the entire world. He
never once told me to stop and for far too many years has been the constant stable in our
home for our three children. My oldest daughter Maya always encouraged me by telling
me that I had to finish since we were both not going to be in college at the same time.
My son Malik and my daughter Macy have never had a mom who wasnt a full-time
elementary principal and doctoral student. They are going to be so happy to have me
back after graduation.
I am thankful for my extended family and friends both old and new. My mother
Vicki Danner and father Joe Danner havent always understood why I am so driven to
write about bilingual education and standardized testing, but they never questioned me.
My sisters Jennifer Gorrell and Gretchen Steines have been waiting a long time for me to
get through school and I know they, their husbands, and my nieces and nephew will be
here to cheer me on and celebrate. My childhood friends from Dubuque and my friends
-
iv
from adulthood also deserve a big thank you from me as they have pitched in and helped
in so many ways whether it was an encouraging message online or driving one of my
children to an event. Their encouragement is priceless.
Lastly, I would like to thank my past and present colleagues and superintendents
who supported my efforts. It is extremely difficult to be a full-time public school
administrator and doctoral student at The University of Iowa. There were many times
when I had to step back from projects at work, but my fellow principals, my teachers, my
staff, and my superintendents all have waited patiently cheering me on. They are as
excited as I am that I have finished my study and can share my research with others.
Teaching and language acquisition have been my passion for almost 25 years. I
have always loved languages and studying other cultures. I have been so fortunate to be
able to learn, live, and grow as a student, teacher, and administrator in environments
surrounded by my passions. I hope that my work inspires others to advocate for those
that cannot always advocate for themselves.
-
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) ............................................................................... 5 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 6 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 8 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 10
Iowas NCLB Approach ................................................................................ 12 Impact of NCLB in Iowa ............................................................................... 14
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 15 Federal Policy Effects on ELs ....................................................................... 17
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 18 Organization .......................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................................................... 22
Program Models for Bilingual Education ............................................................. 22 Bilingual Program Type Overview ............................................................... 27 Program Approaches ..................................................................................... 27 Study Model .................................................................................................. 37
History of Two-Way Immersion Programs .......................................................... 38 The Models of Bilingualism: Separate Underlying Proficiency or Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) ............................................................................. 40
Benefits of Bilingualism ................................................................................ 42 Barriers Impacting Bilingual Education Programming ................................. 47
Achievement and Standardized Testing................................................................ 49 Native Language Standardized Testing ......................................................... 50 Monolingual Assessment Practices ............................................................... 51
Native Language Testing: Translation, Adaptation, or Parallel Development ..... 53 Validity .......................................................................................................... 54 Reliability, Consistency and Equity .............................................................. 55 Accountability ............................................................................................... 57 Standardized Testing Concerns ..................................................................... 58
Bilingual Program Student Testing Outcomes ..................................................... 60 Assessing the Assessments ................................................................................... 61
Case Studies in Dual Language and Related Fields ...................................... 65 Summary ............................................................................................................... 65
CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 66
Data Sources ......................................................................................................... 67 The Research Site .......................................................................................... 67 Regal Community School District Funding .................................................. 69
Participants ............................................................................................................ 70 Participant Selection ...................................................................................... 70 Testing Groups .............................................................................................. 71
-
vi
Test Instruments .................................................................................................... 74 Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) ................................................................. 74 Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) .......................................... 78 Logramos ....................................................................................................... 81 Assessment Summary .................................................................................... 85
Data Analysis Methods and Procedures ............................................................... 85 Consenting/Assenting Procedures ................................................................. 85 Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................... 86 Sampling Procedures and Sample Size ......................................................... 86 Data Sources .................................................................................................. 88
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 91 Summary ............................................................................................................... 91
CHAPTER IV - RESULTS ............................................................................................ 94
Results for Research Question One ...................................................................... 95 National Grade Level Equivalency Reading Comparisons ........................... 95 Percentage Proficient Reading Comparisons ................................................ 98 ITBS/ITED Reading and Logramos Percentage Proficiency Comparison by Graduating Cohorts .............................................................. 99 Results for Reading ..................................................................................... 100
Results for Research Question Two .................................................................... 101 National Grade Level Equivalency Math Comparisons .............................. 101 Percentage Proficient Math Comparisons ................................................... 103 ITBS/ITED Math and Logramos Math Percentage Proficiency Comparison by Graduating Cohorts ............................................................ 104 Study Results ............................................................................................... 104
Matched Pairs Comparison ................................................................................. 105 All Cohorts .......................................................................................................... 106 Summary ............................................................................................................. 108
CHAPTER V - DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS ..................... 111
Summary of the Study ........................................................................................ 111 Summary of the Findings and Implications ........................................................ 111
Research Question One ............................................................................... 112 Research Question Two ............................................................................... 114 Comparison of Research Question Results ................................................. 116
Limitations of the Study...................................................................................... 118 Implications for Education .................................................................................. 120
School Leadership Influence on ELs and Hispanics Development .......... 121 Language Acquisition and Dual Language Future Programs ..................... 124 Public Policies and Support of Bilingualism ............................................... 124 NCLB and Native Language Testing .......................................................... 125
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 125 Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................. 128
APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY of TERMS .................................................................... 130
APPENDIX B - SAMPLE TEST ITEMS .................................................................... 135
APPENDIX C - SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD APPROVAL .................................... 138
-
vii
APPENDIX D - UNIVERSITY OF IOWA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ....................................................... 146
APPENDIX E - PERCENTAGE PROFICIENT READING COMPARISONS ......... 148
APPENDIX F - PERCENTAGE PROFICIENT MATH COMPARISONS ................ 157
APPENDIX G - COMPARISONS OF MATCHED PAIRS RESULTS ..................... 165
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 173
-
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Critical Dates in Bilingual Education History ................................................. 2
Table 2. Non-English Primary Languages in Iowa ...................................................... 16
Table 3. English Language and Bilingual Program Models ........................................ 23
Table 4. Effects of Aging on Bilinguals and Non-Bilinguals ...................................... 45
Table 5. Student Class Cohort Size for English Reading and Math Assessment ........ 72
Table 6. Student Class Cohort Size Comparison for Spanish Reading and Math Assessment .................................................................................................... 73
Table 7. Levels of Testing for ITBS ............................................................................. 75
Table 8. ITBS/ITED/Logramos Testing Windows and Forms Used ............................ 85
Table 9. Demographics of Study Participants............................................................... 87
Table 10. Data Sources by Research Question .............................................................. 92
Table 11. Comparisons on Reading National Grade Level Equivalency (NGE) Between Logramos and ITBS/ITED for the Combined 2011-2018 Cohorts .......................................................................................................... 96
Table 12. Comparisons on Math National Grade Level Equivalency (NGE) Between Logramos and ITBS/ITED for the Combined 2011-2018 Cohorts ........................................................................................................ 101
Table 13. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (All Cohorts by Grade) ................................................................................ 106
Table 14. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (All Cohorts by Grade) ....................................................................................... 107
Table 15. Reading and Math Test Results Comparisons ............................................. 117
Table E1. Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2018 (3-6 Years in Dual Language Program) ...................................................... 148
Table E2. Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2017 (3-7 Years in Dual Language Program) ...................................................... 149
Table E3. Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2016 (4-8 Years in Dual Language Program) ...................................................... 150
-
ix
Table E4. Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2015 (5-8 Years in Dual Language Program) ...................................................... 151
Table E5. Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2014 (6-10 Years in Dual Language Program) .................................................... 152
Table E6. Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2013 (7-11 Years in Dual Language Program) .................................................... 153
Table E7. Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2012 (8-12 Years in Dual Language Program) .................................................... 154
Table E8. Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2011 (9-12 Years in Dual Language Program) .................................................... 155
Table F1. Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2018 (3-6 Years in Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 157
Table F2. Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2017 (3-7 Years in Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 158
Table F3. Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2016 (4-8 Years in Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 159
Table F4. Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2015 (5-8 Years in Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 160
Table F5. Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2014 (6-10 Years in Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 161
Table F6. Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2013 (7-11 Years in Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 162
Table F7. Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2012 (8-12 Years in Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 163
Table F8. Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2011 (9-12 Years in Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 164
-
x
Table G1. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2018) ............................................................................................ 165
Table G2. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2018) ............................................................................................ 165
Table G3. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2017) ............................................................................................ 166
Table G4. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2017) ............................................................................................ 166
Table G5. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2016) ............................................................................................ 167
Table G6. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2016) ............................................................................................ 167
Table G7. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2015) ............................................................................................ 168
Table G8. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2015) ............................................................................................ 168
Table G9. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2014) ............................................................................................ 169
Table G10. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2014) ............................................................................................ 169
Table G11. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2013) ............................................................................................ 170
Table G12. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2013) ............................................................................................ 170
Table G13. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2012) ............................................................................................ 171
Table G14. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2012) ............................................................................................ 171
Table G15. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2011) ............................................................................................ 172
Table G16. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2011) ............................................................................................ 172
-
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. English Achievement of ELs: Long-Term K-12 Standardized Tests in English Reading Across Seven Programs ....................................................... 36
Figure 2. Ethnic Breakdown of Regalville Population .................................................... 68
-
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, a former teacher who believed that equal
access to education was vital to a child's ability to lead a productive life, worked with
Congress to provide funding to improve the educational opportunities of economically
disadvantaged students (Weisbrod, 1965). The nation's largest federal elementary and
secondary education program, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and
the legislation that has come after it shape educational policy and practice in classrooms
throughout the United States.
The law initially consisted of six titles that result in the federal government
providing funding to 90% of the nation's public and parochial schools. As originally
conceived, Title I provided funding and guidelines; Title II funded the purchase of library
materials and audio/visual equipment; Title III provided funding for programs for
students "at risk" of school failure, including after-school, radio and television,
counseling, and foreign language programs; Title IV provided funding for college and
university research on education; Title V provided funding to individual state
departments of education; and Title VI laid out the law's general provisions (Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965).
Because educational conditions change over time, Congress reviews and revises
the law as necessary, reauthorizing ESEA several times since its initial passage in 1965.
Critical dates relative to ESEA and bilingualism are presented in Table 1. ESEA was
amended in 1968 to include Title VII, the Bilingual Education Act (BEA), to
educate limited English proficient children and youth to meet the same rigorous standards for academic performance expected of all children and youth, including meeting challenging State content standards and challenging State student performance standards in academic areas by developing systemic improvement and reform of educational programs serving limited English proficient students through the development and implementation of exemplary bilingual education programs and special alternative instruction programs(Bilingual Education Act, 1968).
-
2
Table 1. Critical Dates in Bilingual Education History
Event Public Law
Date Passed
Purpose
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
89-10 1965 ESEA originally provided legal authority for the U.S. governments financial support of K-12 education, setting funding limits and establishing legal requirements for state and local education agencies, universities, Native American tribes, and other entities receiving federal assistance through programs such as Title I.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1969
91-230 1969 These amendments to ESEA authorized comprehensive planning and evaluation grants to state education agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs) and established a National Commission on School Finance.
Bilingual Education Act (BEA)
90-247 93-380 95-561 98-511 100-297 103-382
1968 1974 1978 1984 1988 1994
Added Title VII, BEA, which provided discretionary, supplemental funding (federal aid) for school districts that established programs to meet the special educational needs of children with limited English speaking ability.
The 1978 amendment to the act (PL 95-561) provided a transition to English-speaking classes. BEA also was amended in 1974 (PL 93-380), 1984 (PL 98-511), 1988 (PL 100-297), 1994 (PL 103-382), and 2001 as part of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
Lau v. Nichols 414 U.S. 563
1974 Ruling on Limited English Proficient education, in Lau v. Nichols the Supreme Court ruled that school districts must provide remedies for non-English-speaking children for meaningful education. (Identical is not equal.)
Department of Education Organization Act
96-88 1979 Signed by President Carter, established the cabinet-level department known as the Department of Education.
Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA)
97-35 1981 ESEA consolidated and simplified the administration of Federal elementary and secondary education programs to eliminate unnecessary paperwork and undue Federal interference in our nation's schools.
-
3
Table 1. (cont.)
Event Public Law
Date Passed
Purpose
Goals 2000: Educate America Act (EAA)
103-227 1994 EAA added two goals to the National Educational Goalsincreased parental involvement and professional development for teachers. Also provided support to states to develop standards and assessments.
Improving Americas Schools Act (ISEA)
103-382 1994 Through ISEA, Title I was revised to require all students (including economically disadvantaged) be assessed against the same standards, which states were developing with support from Goals 2000; schools with low performance were to be identified and provided extra assistance as schools "in need of improvement."
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
107-110 2001 NCLB requires that all students be proficient (determined by individual state Department of Education) in reading, mathematics, and science by 2014, with Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measures to determine school success; annual standardized tests (developed by the states) in grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics; reports from all schools by disaggregated groups of students; sanctions on schools not meeting AYP requirements; plans to close achievement gaps.
English Language Acquisition Act (ELAA)
107-110 2001 Sections 3101 and 3102 of NCLB constitute the ELAA, which replaces the Bilingual Education Act and requires that LEP students be tested in English after three years in the U.S.
This act also changed the name of the US Department of Education Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs to Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English-Proficient Students (OELA).
Source: Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English-Proficient Students (OELA), retrieved from http:// http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html.
Note: Tables containing important terms and acronyms used in this document are provided in Appendix A.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html
-
4
Title VII focuses on language instruction for limited English-proficient (LEP) and
immigrant students, helping to ensure that LEP and immigrant children attain English
language proficiency and meet the same challenging academic content and achievement
standards that all children are expected to meet.
The 1971 Supreme Court case, Lau v. Nichols, raised public awareness of equal
education opportunities for K-12 English language learners. This class action suit was
brought when the San Francisco, California, school system was integrated with 2,800
Chinese students who did not speak English. A portion of these students received
additional courses in English, while more than half did not. According to the U.S.
Supreme Court, as stated in their 1974 decision, When children arrive in school with
little or no English-speaking ability, sink or swim instruction is a violation of their civil
rights (Lau v. Nichols, 1974).
During the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Education Consolidation
and Improvement Act (ECIA) in 1981 to reduce federal regulations of Title I, placing
resource control in the hands of states and local jurisdictions rather than at a federal level
and cutting federal aid to schools (Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act). An
attempt to remedy these alterations occurred in the 1994 Improving Americas Schools
Act (IASA), which significantly revised the original ESEA. The IASA attempted to
coordinate federal resources and policies with the pre-existing efforts at the state and
local levels in order to improve instruction for all students. This reform made three major
changes to Title I: (1) adding math and reading/language arts standards to be used to
assess student progress and provide accountability; (2) reducing the threshold for schools
to implement school wide programs from 75% poverty to 50%; and (3) increasing the
opportunity to use federal funding from multiple programs to dispense funds at a school
wide level (Improving Americas Schools Act of 1994).
The most recent and significant alteration to ESEA was made by President
George W. Bush in 2001 when Congress reauthorized the legislation as No Child Left
-
5
Behind (NCLB), including the English Language Acquisition Act (ELAA), which
changed the way that non-English speaking students are tested in the United States.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Prior to 2001, the ESEA recognized the unique educational disadvantages faced
by non-English speaking students. The BEA established a federal policy to assist
educational agencies serving students with limited English proficiency by authorizing
supporting funding (Bilingual Education Act of 1968), but the change from the BEA to
NCLB increased accountability for ELs on English language proficiency and content area
standards on the state and local level while removing federal financial support for
bilingual education programs. With the onset of NCLB, Crawford (2002) stated,
Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which transformed the way language minority children are taught in the United States - promoting equal access to the curriculum, training a generation of educators, and fostering achievement among students- expired quietly on Jan. 8, 2002. (p. 124)
Under ESEA, state and local educational agencies worked under the direction of
federal agencies, but were not held publicly accountable for the educational achievement
of ELs. Under NCLB, yearly standardized tests in reading, math, and science under the
direction and responsibility of state and local education agencies were mandated to
measure how schools were performing against the achievement bars set by Title I, but did
not provide the funding to perform this education and testing. Title III of NCLB included
EL students as Limited English Proficient (LEP) children, addressing the EL students
needs so that EL students attain English language proficiency, develop high levels of
academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging state-determined levels of
academic content (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001).
To accomplish these goals, each state was instructed to create an integrated
system of English language proficiency standards (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001).
NCLB also provides for accountability and measuring of progress. The shift in policy
was evident even in the change of the name of the office responsible for addressing the
-
6
needs of ELs from the Office of Bilingual Education and Language Minority Affairs to
the Office of English Language Acquisition (Crawford, 2002). .
Statement of the Problem
Since 2000, the federal government has built a case for the need for bilingual
education by focusing on the international and economic advantages of bilingualism for
American youth. Even though the international and economic advantages have been
noted, there appears to be a disconnect between the governments support of bilingual
education as it relates to national growth compared to the governments message in
NCLB which requires annual standardized testing for all students, including ELs, with
sanctions involved for those schools and districts that do not show adequate yearly
progress with all students including ELs. Richard W. Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education
from 1993 to 2001, addressed the nation on April 19, 2000 with his vision for bilingual
education for the country.
I am a strong supporter of high-quality dual-immersion schools that help children to learn English and another language. We currently have 260 of these types of schools in the United States. I believe we should raise that number to at least 1,000. Currently, we are requesting $310 million in bilingual education programs that could support these types of schools. This is a $54 million increase over last year. (Riley, 2000)
His support was crucial to ongoing funding for the development and research of best
practices in dual language education in the last decade. According to Jose Ruiz-
Escalante, president of the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE), Rileys
vision, along with other factors, has contributed to nearly 2,000 dual language programs,
while other bilingual education programs have decreased in number (Wilson, 2011).
The legislative and philosophical changes have caused issues revolving around
the methods, techniques, and strategies used to promote the reading and writing skills of
ELs in three major areas: teacher availability, teaching resources, and testing assessment.
Bilingual education in the United States does not always incorporate English-Spanish, but
the majority of programs use that combination (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2012).
-
7
The availability of native speakers of Spanish in the elementary school lends itself to the
choice of Spanish instead of other less spoken languages in the United States. According
to the Center for Applied Linguistics (2012b), 394 of the 427 dual language programs in
the United States use Spanish and English as their languages of instruction; other
languages include Chinese, French, Korean, Japanese, German, and Italian.
NCLB did not prohibit states from utilizing assessments that were written in
languages other than English. The lack of native language assessments in the federal
accountability workbooks may have been due more to fiscal and time constraints than of
intentional decisions by state-level administrators. However, the level of competence can
interfere with the test performance of students who are not yet proficient in the language.
The content test is also a language test for those students, which means that a reading test
or math test may be a test of both reading ability and English language skills, not just
reading ability, which is a problem for students who are not yet fluent English speakers
(Abedi, 2004).
The underlying hypothesis of this study is that academic skills may be more
appropriately assessed in the students first language. By definition, students who qualify
for EL services are non-English or limited-English speakers. Their second language
limitations have a direct impact on their ability to understand, speak, read, and write the
English language. The annual reading comprehension tests are much more a measure of
a students level of English language skills than of a students reading skills. Abedi and
Dietel (2004) supported this claim:
The test becomes a measure of two skills for the ELL student: subject and language. When ELL students are allowed to demonstrate their ability to apply reading comprehension skills in their dominant language, they generally have higher levels of performance as compared to their performance in English which is their second language. (p. 2)
Given this knowledgethat more accurate assessment occurs when testing in a students
native or dominant languagethen why do some states and districts continue to only test
-
8
ELs in English? This study concentrates on this dilemma, focusing on testing and
assessment in both English and the ELs native language.
Significance of the Study
There is an increasing number of students for whom English is a second language.
Achieving high levels of achievement at the same pace as native English speakers is
unrealistic for ELs. Fry (2009) reported that as a result of the rapid growth in minority
students and flat growth among white students, 287 of the nations 2,808 suburban school
districts have become majority-minority school districts since 1993-94. According to the
2000 U.S. Census, the number of Americans who speak a language other than English
increased by 47% between the years 1990 and 2000. School-aged children representing
heritage (language spoken in the home) languages other than English and who spoke the
English language with difficulty increased 114% between 1979 and 2004 (Planty et al.,
2009). The growing EL population presents large challenges for public education to meet
the federal requirements of NCLB for providing bilingual solutions in schools.
Various program models across the United States serve the English language
acquisition needs of K-12 students identified as in need of specific English language
instruction in addition to their general education curriculum. These program models
serve students who use English only at home and those who use a language other than
English at home, which is the framework used by De Jess (2008). All of the bilingual
program models, both transitional and dual language, are used throughout the United
States and have had empirical research conducted to gauge their effectiveness in relation
to increasing academic achievement for ELs. A review of that research is presented in
Chapter II. Basic characteristics of program models as characterized by De Jess (2008),
Baker (2011), Howard et al., (2007) and Rennie (1993) are explained in Chapter II.
This study focuses on testing results for Hispanic students in a dual language two-
way immersion (TWI) model program. TWI is the chosen program design for this school
district for a variety of reasons including student demographics, teacher qualifications,
-
9
community support, and financial feasibility. The community, including the school
board, administrators, parents, teachers, and community have voiced strong feelings that
TWI is the best model as it is how the ELs learn best in their community and that it is
best for non-ELs, too, to learn a language in addition to their native language. The TWI
model in the study includes a 50/50 Spanish/English model for K through 5 and then a
class period Spanish/English model approximately 65% English and 35% Spanish in
terms of language of the course for grades 6 through 12. Finally, this program includes
both native and non-native speakers of Spanish to represent the language majority and
language minority balance needed in a TWI program model. Features and empirical
research associated with TWI programs are detailed in Chapter II.
The premise of TWI programs is to provide academic success, to value the
heritage language and cultures represented in the classroom, as well as to erase the stigma
of students deemed as subordinates in other programs (Collier, 1992). This type of
additive bilingualism, in which all students are provided the opportunity to acquire a
second language at no cost to their home language (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000),
is the basis for a model in local schools that can be a benefit for ELs and language
majority students, but can still carry the pressures created by NCLB for accountability.
According to Abedi (2004), if ELs are taking only the assessments for reading and math
in English, they may not be accurately represented in terms of their proficiency with
grade level skills due to issues of English language acquisition levels, not due to issues
with reading and/or math skills. These lower levels of proficiency contribute in NCLB to
schools and school districts being labeled as failing and/or in need of assistance.
This is the challenge faced by the statesthey have flexibility in meeting English
language proficiency standards, but must make wise choices, since their funding is
dependent on their success. The main reported benefits of additive bilingualism focus on
academic achievement, English language acquisition, and engagement in the learning
process (Collier, 1995). School districts and states are willing to balance the pressure of
-
10
achieving high levels of academic achievement with the benefits of acquiring a second
language while learning English because research demonstrates that additive bilingualism
models like TWI or dual language produce results. Thomas and Collier (2002) found that
ELs who enroll in dual language programs achieve a greater academic level compared
with ELs enrolled in other bilingual program models.
The results of this research study are important because they may impact what
program models and methods that local school districts choose to use to help Hispanic
and/or EL students learn grade level content material and learn the English language. If
students in dual language programs like the one found in this school district show that,
when tested in reading and math in their native language of Spanish, students achieve at
significantly higher levels, then more school districts might consider dual language
programming as an option. Also, if the student achievement data show different levels of
achievement for reading as compared to math in English or Spanish, then the study may
lead to further conversations about how to close the gap between the two content areas of
reading and math for ELs.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which the language of
testing in reading and math had a positive effect on 50/50 dual language program
Hispanic students reading and math achievement level as measured by a standardized
achievement test. This chapter focuses on the history of educational policies, but
introduces the present and anticipated effects of educational testing practices related to
No Child Left Behind. This study examines a school district in Iowa serving students in
pre-kindergarten through 12th
grade that chose to offer dual language TWI
(Spanish/English) instruction to its students. Iowa, like other states, has experienced a
large increase in ELs since NCLB began in 2001. There were 20,000 EL students in
Iowa during the 2008-2009 school year, which was more than double the number
reported in 1998-1999 (Iowa Department of Education, 2009a, p. 55). Over 1,245
-
11
students were being educated in the district according to 2011-2012 student enrollment
data, with more than half of the enrolled students classified as Hispanic. The district in
this study uses the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), the Iowa Tests of Educational
Development (ITED), both presented in English, and the Spanish test Logramos to
evaluate student achievement. The reading and math results of Hispanic students are
compared in this study by content area and by language of the test to determine if the
Hispanic students, on average, achieve at higher levels as measured by national grade
equivalency (NGE) when testing in Spanish versus English.
According to Iowa state standards, English language assessments may include
utilizing state, local or nationally recognized tests, as well as teacher observations and
recommendations (Iowa Administrative Code, 2009). Additionally, the Iowa Title III -
Enrollment Status Descriptors provide specific guidance for placing students in
educational programs based on both English language proficiency and general
achievement levels and provides specific guidance for placing students in educational
programs based on both English language proficiency and general achievement levels.
English language use both in the classroom and outside of school is positively associated
with the development of English proficiency (CAL, 2011). The Hispanic students in this
study were tested for reading and math standardized achievement results in both the
English and Spanish versions of the grade level assessments. In Iowa, the reported
assessments are written in English.
This study is an examination of the academic progress of eight cohorts toward the
goal of math and reading proficiency in Spanish and in English over a five-year window
of collected testing data. According to the data collected in the Iowa Department of
Education (DOE) Annual Condition of Education (2009b) report, Spanish is the first
language of over 73.8% of the identified ELs in Iowa. The second and third most
reported primary language in Iowa after Spanish were Bosnian and Vietnamese, which
were the only other languages that had more than 500 speakers. Bosnian and Vietnamese
-
12
were each reported at 4.2% of the total EL student population in Iowa. In 2008-2009,
there were more than 15,000 ELL students and almost three of every four or 73.7% of
those EL students in Iowa reported that Spanish was their primary language (Iowa
Department of Education, 2009b, p. 55). The results of this study will be generalizable to
other states, as ELs are a rapidly growing subgroup in most of the United States and
according to the 2000 U.S. Census, the number of Americans who speak a language other
than English increased by 47% between the years 1990 and 2000.
The growing subgroup is required to attain proficiency in math and reading on
standardized assessments, even though students might not yet have reached proficiency in
the English language. When the Hispanic subgroup fails to achieve a high enough level
of proficiency in reading and math on state standardized assessments, local school
districts face sanctions by the state department of education and programming options for
Hispanic students who are learning English come under scrutiny by the public.
Iowas NCLB Approach
When NCLB was enacted, state departments of education were required to create
accountability workbooks that delineated which reading, math, and science assessments
would be used at particular grade levels, including the testing of ELs (No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001). The chosen assessments in Iowa received rigorous evaluation and
scrutiny in terms of their ability to demonstrate reliability and validity as technical
instruments. The results (Badgett, Buckendahl, & Rodeck, 2006) suggested that the Iowa
Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) for grades 2 through 8 and Iowa Tests of Educational
Development (ITED) for grades 9 through 11 were well aligned with Iowas content
standards. These results were used by the Iowa Department of Education (DOE) and
school districts to evaluate local curriculum and instruction. The Buros Center for
Testing, an independent organization, completed a report for the Iowa DOE that provided
another source which validated the alignment of the ITBS and ITED tests to state
standards for the state (Badgett, Buckendahl, & Rodeck, 2006). ELs were assessed in
-
13
reading, math, and science with the ITBS and/or ITED (Iowa Consolidated State
Application Accountability Workbook, 2011b, p.8). The only permissible modification
from the Iowa DOE was that ELs in the first year of schooling in Iowa were exempt from
the Reading test and instead were allowed to count as participants since they were
assessed with the state English language development assessment in reading (Iowa
Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2011b, p.8).
In 2012, local school districts in Iowa only report students English reading
comprehension scores per the Iowa Accountability Workbook. The Iowa Accountability
Workbook states that all limited English-proficient (LEP) students participate in
statewide assessments: general assessments with or without accommodations or a native
language version of the general assessment based on grade level standards (Iowa
Accountability Workbook, 2011b, p. 28). Further, according to the Iowa Accountability
Workbook, all ELs must participate in an English language proficiency assessment
annually, as per Title III guidelines. For ELs in their first year of enrollment in US
schools (defined as up to 180 school days of enrollment), English language proficiency
assessment constitutes their participation in reading for purposes of reporting Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) (participation rate calculation) only. Students participate in the
states accountability assessment in math, which constitutes their participation in
mathematics for AYP purposes (participation rate calculation); however, these students
will not be included in calculations for annual measurable objectives (AMO) for reading
or mathematics in any appropriate membership subgroups (as per US ED guidance).
(Iowa Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2011b, p.28).
In Iowa, the state accountability workbook application noted the need to use the
required assessments, ITBS and ITED, even though the increased number of Iowa
students with non-English primary language is clearly evident (Iowa Department of
Education, 2002, p. 24). The Buros Report further recognized the need for a more
-
14
delineated system of assessment for ELs and those resources available to districts seeking
additional measurements of ELs reading and mathematical skills.
Impact of NCLB in Iowa
Iowa education agencies are required to identify Schools in Need of Assistance
(SINA) and Districts in Need of Assistance (DINA). NCLB requires that SINAs and
DINAs develop a two-year plan to address deficiencies. A search of the schools and
districts in Iowa named as deficient shows disproportionality because schools with higher
than average numbers of ELs are identified more frequently as SINAs. For the 2009-
2010 school year, 24 school districts in Iowa were considered DINAs out of the 364 total
school districts. Of these 24 districts, eight comprise the Urban Education Network,
which refers to the eight largest school districts in Iowa in terms of student enrollment
and includes Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Des Moines, Dubuque, Council Bluffs, Waterloo,
Sioux City, and Davenport. Of the other DINA districts, seven contain some of the
highest concentrations of Hispanics and ELs, including Ottumwa, Muscatine, West
Liberty, Denison, South Tama, and Marshalltown (Iowa Department of Education, 2010).
The highest percentages of students in Iowa who speak a language other than English and
qualify for LEP status come from the ethnic subgroup of Hispanic.
The districts with the highest percentages of ELs are disproportionately
represented on the Iowa DINA list for not meeting AYP in reading or math as measured
by the ITBS or ITED. According to the Iowa DOE website, of the 16 public school
districts with the highest percentage of ELs (>10%) 8 of the 16 are on the Iowa DINA
list. This means that of the 24 school districts on the Iowa DINA list, about one-third are
in DINA status due to Hispanic and/or EL subgroup data. Though some groups may
reach proficiency in as little as two years, according to Collier (1992), it is projected that
EL students on average will take four to eight years of second language acquisition to
fully master social English language and academic English language as measured on
standardized tests. Given the observations noted from former and current EL consultants
-
15
at the state level, local school districts are faced with an assessment situation for ELs that
language acquisition research has shown will result in non-proficient status for the
students (Dr. Carmen Sosa, personal communication, 2008).
The number of ELs in Iowa, similar to the rest of the United States, has risen
considerably in recent years and reached 500,601 or 4.76% EL students in grades PK
through 12 in 2012 (Iowa Department of Education, 2013). Table 2 demonstrates the
growth and diversity of languages spoken in Iowa. For example, Iowas status as a
refugee home for the United Nations explains the sudden increase in population from
South Sudan. If the Iowa policy is set at a one-year exemption and then a student is fully
accountable, what other options exist for EL students who are learning English and
academic content simultaneously? One option permissible via the Iowa Federal
Accountability Workbook is to use native language math, reading and/or science tests in
place of or in addition to the ITBS and ITED.
Conceptual Framework
Historically, the United States excluded the participation of ELs from large scale
student assessment programs, which brought about concerns regarding the influences of
language proficiency and academic achievement. The Abedi et al. study (2004) frames
the problem for the Hispanic dual language students in this study because these students
take standardized assessments in their second language (English) and these results are
used for AYP decisions as an example of their academic achievement without regard for
language proficiency levels among the EL subgroup. Discussion on the validity and
reliability of instruments administered in the students second language (L2) has been
ongoing by experts in the field, administrators, and teachers in the classroom. Chapter II
will explore the literature on standardized testing issues for ELs more thoroughly.
-
16
Table 2. Non-English Primary Languages in Iowa
Language 2000-2001 2009-2010 2010-2011
Spanish; Castilian 7,014 15,552 15,886
Vietnamese 766 823 881
Bosnian 363 828 810
Serbian, Srpski 434 0 0
Serbo-Croatian 556 0 0
Tai Dam 142 0 0
Arabic 81 383 413
Lao 409 360 324
Chinese 80 288 311
Karen languages 0 130 217
Russian 65 202 195
Somali 0 150 159
Swahili 0 136 158
Rundi 0 100 146
German 153 123 142
Marshallese 0 121 136
Korean 76 122 125
Nilo-Saharan (Other) 0 115 112
Dinka 0 90 97
Creoles and pidgins, English
based (Other)
0 57 91
Cambodian 101 56 0
Nepali 0 55 80
Hmong 0 51 78
-
17
Table 2. Continued
Language 2000-2001 2009-2010 2010-2011
Burmese 0 0 76
Tagalog 0 55 67
French 0 0 65
Ukrainian 0 58 62
Urdu 0 61 62
Pohnpeian 0 0 59
Other 1024 1358 1352
Source: Iowa Department of Education, Bureau of Information and Analysis, Basic Educational Data Survey and EASIER, www.educateiowa.gov, 2011b.
Federal Policy Effects on ELs
As of February 2004, the U.S. DOE allowed states to not count the scores of
newly arrived ELs in their AYP for the first year, but still encouraged all ELs to be tested
(Echevarria et al., 2006). That allowance has had a negative result for ELs because most
tests now used were designed for native English speakers. As the acting director of the
National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) in 2004, Crawford summarized the
failure of NCLB to improve programming or academic results for ELs, noting that NABE
supported NCLB in 2001 initially, as the NABE hoped that NCLB would bring attention
to the lack of public accountability and limited sources of funding and attention that ELs
were receiving. Many ELs were not receiving an intellectually challenging educational
experience or sufficient material resources to promote English language acquisition
(Crawford, 2004). He further noted that NCLB failed to recognize what makes the EL
subgroup unique as how the EL subgroup itself is a problematic construct. The EL
subgroup needs benchmarks and valid assessments to measure growth, though according
-
18
to Crawford (2004), NCLB guidelines do not recognize the pressing issues of mobility,
diversity, socioeconomic status, level of prior education, type of instructional program
experience, and linguistic and cultural background.
Hursh (2005) observes that NCLB marks a change in the level of school control
as it moves from local educational agencies to state and federal agencies. By requiring
standardized achievement tests and state accountability systems, principals, teachers, and
students will be responsible for schools that fail, but many schools across the United
States are failing to meet the NCLB accountability requirements for AYP due to these
very testing constraints. According to Hursh (2005):
Even if the tests were well constructed and valid, the yardstick by which schools are measuredadequate yearly academic progress (AYP)often discriminates against schools serving students of colour and living in poverty. The determination of whether a school is making AYP tells us little about whether a school is improving. Not only can we question the validity of the tests but the determination of success or failure may have little to do with whether the school is improving (pp. 612-613).
NCLB, according to Hursh (2005), has transferred control from local and state
agencies to the federal level under the guise that standardized testing and accountability
would cause teachers to be more responsible and students to achieve at higher levels.
The push for competitiveness in a global economy, the lessening of inequality, and the
presence of more objective assessments were the driving forces behind the NCLB reform.
Although these goals were admirable, Hursh (2005) reflects that the NCLB reform has
not met its goals, as indicated by the fact that the achievement gap between advantaged
and disadvantaged students has increased.
Research Questions
This study examines the results on the reading and math achievement on
standardized English and Spanish assessments of Hispanic students who are enrolled in a
50/50 English-Spanish dual language program. The design features analysis of the
assessment results of Hispanic dual language students reading and math skills over a
five-year window in both English and Spanish which provided the researcher the
-
19
opportunity to examine the development and interrelationships among skills in the two
languages. The research questions guiding this study are:
1. Is there a statistical difference in reading achievement for Hispanic 50/50 English-
Spanish dual language program students when testing data is disaggregated
linguistically?
To resolve this question, the following null hypothesis was examined and tested:
Null Hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the
reading achievement of Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language
program students when testing data is disaggregated linguistically.
2. Is there a statistical difference in math achievement for Hispanic 50/50 English-
Spanish dual language program students when testing data is disaggregated
linguistically?
To resolve this question, the following null hypothesis was examined and tested:
Null Hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the math
achievement of Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language program
students when testing data is disaggregated linguistically.
If the Hispanic dual language students are assessed in reading and math in
Spanish in accordance with NCLB standards, the students will achieve at higher levels of
proficiency than when they are assessed in English. Those higher levels of achievement
are a result of participation in a dual language program, where the Hispanic students
benefit from math and reading content and instruction without the interference of lack of
proficiency in English.
The results of this study will potentially inform second language program design,
standardized testing practices, native language testing use, and policy modifications to
NCLB regarding AYP for ELs. In terms of second language program design, if the
results of this study demonstrate that Hispanic students and/or ELs achieve at higher
levels and/or at grade level in reading and math when measured by Spanish language
-
20
assessments, then more schools and districts may consider implementing additive
bilingual programs like dual language to replicate these results. Standardized testing
practices may change as a result of this study because ELs are a fluid group that
combines newcomers with little to no English with ELs who are ready to transition to
general education classes only. Their results as one subgroup are not representative of
EL achievement due to these vast differences in language proficiency; therefore, ELs
need more time before being accountable to AYP for math and reading. Native language
testing use might become more widespread for AYP purposes if schools, districts, or
states see that Hispanic and/or EL students are able to make AYP if tested at grade level
in reading and math, but on an assessment written in their native language. Finally, there
might be policy modification to NCLB to account for this research and prior research that
demonstrates that ELs are not able to demonstrate adequately their knowledge or
command of grade level reading and math skills on an assessment written in English
without more systemic modifications or accommodations. All of these implications will
inform the field of educational leadership as teachers, administrators, and politicians
work to best understand how to serve and teach ELs in such a way that produces the
greatest academic achievements for all.
Organization
This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter I is an introduction to this
research study and includes general introductory information, NCLB background, a
statement of the problem, significance and purpose of the study, NCLB in Iowa and its
impact, conceptual framework including discussion of programming, control,
accountability, and standardized testing concerns, and the studys research questions.
Chapter II includes a review of the related research and literature regarding theories of
bilingual education, models of bilingualism, achievement and standardized testing, native
language testing, and bilingual testing outcomes. Chapter III describes the research
methodology, which includes data sources, participants, test instruments, and data
-
21
analysis methods and procedures. Chapter IV presents results from data collected during
the study in relation to the research questions, an analysis of the matched pairs' results,
and a qualitative analysis of those results. Chapter V details a summary of the study,
findings, implications for further research, limitations of this research, and
recommendations for future research. Appendices A through G provide a glossary,
NCLB and Title I/III definitions, bilingual program model explanations, sample test
items from ITBS/ITED and Logramos, charts of percentage proficient comparisons for
reading and math, charts of matched pairs test results, and The University of Iowa
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to conduct the study.
-
22
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This review includes theories of bilingual education, bilingualism, achievement
and standardized testing, native language testing, and testing outcomes for bilingual
students. Because many factors impact the success or failure of educating bilingual
students, it is critical to examine the five factors as they relate to this study. The first
factor involves a review of program models for bilingual education, an overview of
bilingual program types and approaches, as well as the bilingual program used in this
research study. Secondly, the literature review includes a history of Two-Way
Immersion (TWI), theories of bilingualism, and barriers that impact bilingual education
programming. Then the review includes information about achievement and
standardized testing including information about native language testing and
accommodations for English Language Learners (ELs). The literature review ends with a
review of the research about testing outcomes for students in bilingual programs.
Program Models for Bilingual Education
Although standardized testing is the means used to assess the knowledge of ELs,
of equal importance is the program model selected by state and local administrators to
educate ELs. Various program models across the United States serve the English
language acquisition needs of K-12 students identified as in need of specific English
language instruction in addition to their general education curriculum. The models can
be divided into those that use English only and those that use a language other than
English, which is the framework used by De Jess (2008). Both transitional and dual
language models are used throughout the United States and have had empirical research
conducted to gauge their effectiveness in relation to increasing academic achievement for
ELs. The program models, along with each models research source, are provided in
Table 3.
-
23
Table 3. English Language and Bilingual Program Models
Program Model Source(s) Description
English Language Only
English-Only Pull-Out or Class Period or Resource Center
Rennie (1993) Students learn English as a stand-alone subject/class.
Common in elementary and middle schools
English-Only Sheltered English or Content-based Instruction
Rennie (1993) Baker (2011)
Students learn English while in other academic content classes such as science and math.
Common in high schools
Structured English Immersion (SEI)
Rennie (1993) Teacher has English as a Second Language (ESL) or bilingual credentials or training
ELs native language is only used for clarification
English is taught through the content areas
No explicit English instruction
Submersion Baker (2011) Students are completely immersed in mainstream language classroom with no specialized language services.
This has been referred to as the sink or swim approach.
Transitional Bilingual
Bilingual Early Exit
De Jess (2008)
Initial instruction in students first language to teach English, to teach reading in the second language, and/or clarify.
First language use is phased out over 1 to 2 years.
Bilingual Late Exit (maintenance or enrichment)
De Jess (2008)
Initial instruction in students first language to teach English and to clarify instruction.
First-language use is maintained at initial level of student in maintenance model
First language use is expanded for student in enrichment model
Dual-Language
Two-Way (TWI)
Baker (2011) De Jess (2008) Howard et. al (2007)
Instructional group includes language minority and language majority students.
Instruction is provided in both languages at a 50/50 ratio, but may be at a 90/10 ratio depending on program goals.
-
24
Table 3. Continued
Program Model Source(s) Description
One-Way Howard et al., (2007)
Instructional group includes language minority students who all speak a single language.
Instruction is provided in both languages at a 50/50 ratio, but may be at a 90/10 ratio depending on program goals.
Heritage Baker (2011)
Instructional group includes language minority students who all speak the same ethnic language
Goal is preservation of the ethnic language and culture
There are five models for English Language only including pull-out, class period,
resource center, sheltered English/content-based, and structured immersion. Empirical
research indicates that sheltered English/content-based programming is the most effective
in regards to increased student achievement for ELs.
The two bilingual program models (Bilingual Early Exit and Bilingual Late Exit)
use the students' home language, in addition to English, for instruction to enable students
to be transitioned into an English-only program. These programs are most easily
implemented in districts with a large number of students from the same language
background. Students in bilingual programs are grouped according to their first
language, with teachers proficient in both English and the students' home language.
The three dual language programs, which include both Two-Way and One-Way
bilingual program models, group language minority students from a single language
background in the same classroom with language majority (English-speaking) students.
Native English speakers and speakers of another language have the opportunity to acquire
proficiency in a second language while continuing to develop their native language skills.
Students serve as native-speaker role models for their peers.
-
25
Across the United States, English-only models are frequently used. Kindler
(2002) notes some of the non-English-only states include Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois,
Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and New Mexico. In English-only programs, students
are given a number of minutes or class periods of English language instruction by a
certified ESL teacher, but then are educated in a general education environment without
direct ESL services for the rest of the school day. This approach is ineffective for ELs
who have newly arrived in the United States because many may not have proficiency in
their native language or in English (Kindler, 2002). Many of these newly arrived ELs
enter the American school system with little to no formal education experiences from
their home country. In contrast, some newly arrived ELs have had adequate formal
education experiences prior to arriving in the United States and some have had English
language instruction as well. This heterogeneity in the EL population or classroom
challenges administrators and educators. It is a challenge to administrators and educators
as they try to design programs, curriculum, and interventions to meet the needs of such a
diverse group within the EL subgroup. ELs enroll in American schools with a broad
range of language proficiencies and content area knowledge, both in their native language
and in English (Short & Boyson, 2003).
States such as Massachusetts, California, and Arizona, have joined the English-
only movement in the last decade. Californias Proposition 227 was approved by 61% of
the California electorate in June 1998 and Proposition 227 has also been called the
English for the Children initiative (Garca and Curry-Rodriguez, 2000, p.4). The main
focus of this legislation was to mandate Structured English Immersion (SEI) and to
reduce bilingual or native language program options for ELs. In place of the bilingual
program options, students were placed in SEI classes, programs, or schools to learn
English as rapidly and effectively as possible and to enter general education, grade level
classrooms with age-appropriate peers (Garcia and Curry-Rodriguez, 2000).
-
26
In Arizona, similar legislation called Proposition 203 was passed in 2000 and
required pupils who are English learners to be taught in English immersion classes during
a temporary transition period not normally to exceed one year (Arizona State Legislature,
2000). When pupils have acquired a good working knowledge of English and are able to
do regular schoolwork in English, they are required to be transferred to classrooms in
which the students are native English language speakers or students who already have
acquired reasonable fluency in English. These classrooms are called English language
mainstream classrooms (Arizona State Legislature, 2000).
Arizonas Proposition 203 has caused similar programmatic changes for ELs in
the last 9 years. Research has indicated that one year of English language instruction,
even in a sheltered, intensive program model, is not comprehensive or long enough for
ELs to learn English (Zehr, 2008). According to Zehr (2008), cumulative and
comparative studies based on National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP)
scores suggest that statewide mandates limiting bilingual education in California,
Arizona, and Massachusetts have produced less-than-stellar results (p.10).
The growth, expansion, and success of TWI/Dual language programs have helped
to dispel many of the negative perceptions of the American public about bilingual
education and to counter the criticisms of English-only supporters (Collier & Thomas,
2004). Students learn academic content most effectively when given opportunities to
learn and test with material in their native language. Krashen (1997) notes this about
quality bilingual education programs:
The best bilingual education programs include all of these characteristics: ESL instruction, sheltered subject matter teaching, and instruction in the first language. Non-English-speaking children initially receive core instruction in the primary language along with ESL instruction. As children grow more proficient in English, they learn subjects using more contextualized language (e.g., math and science) in sheltered classes taught in English, and eventually in mainstream classes. In this way, the sheltered classes function as a bridge between instruction in the first language and in the mainstream.
-
27
Bilingual Program Type Overview
Villarreal (1999) identified two dimensions that he proposed are connected to the
success or failure of a bilingual programSupport of the program at all levels of the
school hierarchy and level of knowledge of bilingual education as evidenced through
curriculum and instructional activities implemented in the program (p.11). His purpose
was also to provide insights to school administrators on campuses with bilingual
education programs to encourage appropriate bilingual education practices and policies.
For example, to maximize program support and commitment to ELs, a positive learning
climate must be established (Villarreal, 1999). This can be assessed by observing
whether EL staff and bilingual education staff are included in school leadership teams
and on curricular alignment committees. If these staff members are not included in
curricular decisions, the outcomes for ELs may be less positive than for non-ELs.
Having a voice from the EL program promotes the knowledge that bilingual
education and EL programs are not remedial and that they play an important role in the
school. Additionally, programs can be evaluated by reports or anecdotes received from
students, teachers, parents, and administrators. Effective language acquisition programs
celebrate and validate language diversity from the first day of school (Villarreal, 1999).
Setting goals for ELs and the programs in which they participate is an effective way to
monitor program effectiveness over time within a school and across schools within a
district and to align with the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requiring yearly growth in
reading and math for all subgroups.
Program Approaches
There are three major approaches to language acquisition from which educational
programming decisions are derivedthe English Language Only Model, the Transitional
Bilingual Model, and the Maintenance Bilingual/Dual Language Model. Each of these
theories or models has advantages and disadvantages as well as supporters and critics.
These theories in second language acquisition impact how public school districts and
-
28
state departments of education identify ELs, determine programming for ELs, and assess
ELs. In addition, the research over time and political climate reflect swings in which
model or theory the federal government is supporting both publically and financially.
English Language Only Models
English-only is a program model that promotes the use of English exclusively as
the medium for teaching all content in English to students. There is no use of the
students native language, and in many cases use of the native language is discouraged or
illegal.
Pull Out and Class Period
The empirical research from Cornell (1995) for the ESL pull-out and class period
programs indicate that ESL pull-out model programs have been less than satisfying in
helping ELs acquire English language skills. Cornell (1995) performed an evaluation of
ESL programs for ELs by synthesizing other studies in the field and focusing on pull-out
programs and concluded that EL dropout rates have been disproportionately high and the
academic achievements of ELs in pull-out programs has been limited to a few ELs.
Cornell (1995) also reviewed studies and concluded that ESL pull-out programs resulted
in fewer than two hours of English instruction per day for secondary EL students in
particular. As a result, content area instruction and English language instruction became
the responsibility of general education teachers who may or may not have had formal
training in ESL methods. Also, Cornell (1995) noted that the content of the ESL pull-out
classes became homework completion from the general education classes in place of
direct instruction in the English language.
ESL Resource Center
Many school districts have established self-contained newcomer programs or sites
that concentrate on delivering intensified English acquisition courses, comprehensible
content-area courses, and courses to help students adjust to the cultural norms of the
United States (Short & Boyson, 2004). Resource Center or Newcomer programs are an
-
29
alternative to the traditional ESL pull-out programs in which many secondary-level ELs
are placed upon entering the U.S. public schools.
Matas (2012) conducted empirical research comparing an ESL Resource
Center/Newcomer Center model to an ESL pull-out model in the San Diego Unified
School District and compared traditional ESL program placement and newcomer
program placement results in both a qualitative and quantitative design. Variables
studied included: student self-concept scale, academic self-concept scale, interviews and
focus groups with stakeholders and students attitudes, classroom observations, and
quantitative data related to student redesignation rates. The quantitative results show that
the redesignation rates for the ESL program were at a slightly higher rate than the
newcomer program, suggesting more successful language acquisition among ELs within
the ESL program. Matas (2012) hypothesized that the self-contained newcomer program
would far exceed the ESL program in terms of language acquisition, the attainment of
academic skills, and a higher overall student academic self-concept level, as well as by
utilizing students home cultures and languages in students daily activities (p. 300).
The conclusion, though, was that the newcomer program produced results similar to the
traditional ESL program which, according to Matas, is evidence of a movement towards a
monolingual English-only educational environment for ELs.
Sheltered English/Content-Based Instruction
Stoller (2004) wrote that Content-Based Instruction (CBI), when compared to
other ESL models, is distinguished by its dual commitment to language and content-
learning objectives (p. 261). CBI, in the last decade, has presented in practice in myriad
ways to meet the needs of both ELs and foreign language learners. Stoller explored the
general characteristics of and challenges of CBI by reviewing case studies that document
outcomes of CBI programs at elementary, secondary, and higher education levels and
curricular models that have been implemented in first and second language contexts. The
findings indicate that the CBI framework is an umbrella term that covers Cognitive
-
30
Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), Concept-Oriented Reading
Instruction (CORI), and Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) to name a few variations.
One form of Sheltered English or CBI is Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR).
CSR has also been the subject of empirical research. Klingner and Vaughn (2000)
investigated the frequency and means by which 37 bilingual and EL students in a 5th
grade elementary classroom helped each other while implementing CSR with science
textbook reading. Results indicated that ELs used about half of their time iden