Collection of papers on english as a second language

Comprehensive Collection of Papers on English as a Second Language

Dr. Patricia A. Alvara

June, 2003

Table of Contents

QUESTION 1 3

Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research 5
Action Research 11
Case Studies 13
Experimental Designs 17
Surveys 20
The Crawford-slip Method 24
Cross-Impact Analysis 25
Scenario Planning 27
The Delphi Technique and Survey 29
Morphological Analysis 30
Trend Exploration 32
Conclusion 32
References 36

QUESTION 2 43

Funding Newcomers Programs 54
Federal Regulations 56
Additional Research 59
Exemplar Newcomers Programs 60
Kenosha Unified School District 66
Conclusion 71
References 74

QUESTION 3 80

The Bilingual Movement 80
Program Effectiveness 87
Conclusion 107
References 111

QUESTION 4 121

Standardized Assessments 122
Advantages and Limitations 124
Standardized Tests and LEP Students 126
LEP Students and Language Levels 133
Alternative/Authentic Assessments 138

Conclusion 143
Appendix A 146
References 147

QUESTION 5 152

Brain Research 153
The Brain and Language Acquisition 156
Classroom Instruction and Language Acquisition 161
SDAIE 177
CALLA 181
Conclusion 183
References 186

QUESTION 6 191

Technology-based Learning Inception 194
Internet/Intranet-based Training 196
Web/Computer-based Training 198
Technology-based Learning and Education 200
Technology-based Learning Effectiveness 202
Technology-based Learning Limitations 204
Conclusion 206
Model Course Rationale 209
Model Course Access 211
References 212

QUESTION 1

Compare action research, case studies, experimental designs, surveys, Crawford-slip method,
cross-impact analysis, scenario planning, Delphi techniques and surveys, morphological
analysis, and trend exploration, which have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of language
assistance programs during the last decade. What methodologies are most effective for
teachers’ usage? What methodologies might best be used for research in developing a
comparative analysis of effective Sheltered English programs?

Bilingual programs are currently being closely examined by many sectors of society, due

in large part to the criticisms being directed at them from the media and several influential

organizations. Effective bilingual programs require leadership to find answers to the calls for

greater accountability. Obtaining adequate research on bilingual and English as Second

language (ESL) educational programs has been a long, arduous process due to the vast

differences in these programs. Bilingual and ESL educational research is often skewed due to

the wide range of latitude among Federal requirements, which allow states to select the most

effective programs for their limited English proficient (LEP) student population. State officials,

educational agencies, and courts have further established mandated guidelines on educating,

governing, and managing LEP students. The actual programs being offered can vary from state

to state, district to district, school to school, and classroom to classroom (Amrein & Pena, 2000;

Hakuta, 2002).

While the efficacy of language programs remains a widely debated topic
in educational discourse, researchers agree that language programs do not
exist within a vacuum, and that the benefits accrued by participating in
these programs are likely to differ for individual students. (Amrein &
Pena, 2000, p.2)

Comprehensive Paper for (Patricia A. Alvara) 4

Educational researchers, linguists, and bilingual educators such as Cummins (1999), Freeman

(1996), and Hakuta (2002) have different perspectives on bilingual programs and their

effectiveness. Bilingual research is often tainted with program bias; this bias depends on the

program of preference and study (Amrein & Pena, 2000).

Limited English Proficient (LEP) is the legal term used to identify students who were not

born in the United States, or whose native language is not English, and those students who

cannot participate effectively in regular classrooms because they lack fluency in spoken and

written English (Department of Education-OCR, 1999). LEP is the term recognized by the

Office of Civil Rights (OCR), and the term used throughout this comprehensive paper to refer to

these students (Department of Education-OCR, 1999). Bilingual is a generalized term that refers

to all programs other than English as a Second Language (ESL). In this paper, the term

bilingual includes all Language Assistance Programs (LAP) offered within the Kenosha Unified

School District: Dual Immersion, Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE), English as a Second

Language (ESL), and Sheltered English Immersion (SEI). Although ESL and SEI are not

commonly referred to as bilingual programs, they are the most commonly used methods of

instruction for LEP students nationwide.

“Bilingual education was initially implemented to address political, social, economical,

and educational injustices; it instead remains a powerful instrument of mainstreaming minority-

language students” (Akkari, 1998, p.1). These programs were created to address various issues

and to help bridge the educational gap. The definition of “bridging the achievement gap” in this

comprehensive paper refers to increasing LEP students’ achievement in English language

proficiency-orally, in reading, and in writing, so that these abilities are shown to be more


comparable to those of mainstreamed native English speaking students. Today, in virtually all

grade levels in all subjects, African American, Latino, and American Indian students perform far

behind others. As the Hispanic and LEP student populations continue to increase rapidly, the

achievement gap continues to widen; this gap is due to the complexity of the issues surrounding

these students. “The gaps are so pronounced that in 1996, several national tests found African-

American and Hispanic 12th graders scoring at roughly the same levels in reading and math as

white 8th graders” (Johnston & Viadero, 2002, pp. 18-19).

To clearly understand the future of bilingual education, researchers should examine the

current research and methodologies pertaining to SEI. Sheltered English Immersion can be

broken down into four types of programs: Submersion, ESL, Sheltered Immersion, and

Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE). Today, available research on Sheltered English

Immersion (SEI) is minimal; however, it is now beginning to surface due to the passage of new

laws in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts and with the federal "No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001.” These laws call for an organized effort to educate all children, regardless of their

ability to speak and understand English. Limited data on SEI are due to the restrictions and

limitations placed on these programs by the federal government, which has made it rather

difficult to implement SEI programs (Gersten, Taylor, Woodward, & Wite, 1997). Despite the

challenges, SEIs programs have become increasingly common in the United States, and

particularly in Canada, where the federal restrictions are absent (Gersten et al., 1997).

Multiple research methodologies have been utilized in bilingual education as tools to

understand this overwhelming process and even to bring about changes within the bilingual

education arena. In this realm of education, the pendulum continues to swing and is continually


being inundated with seemingly endless changes. The focus of this paper is to provide a brief

overview of the various types of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies that can be

used in the development of a comparative analysis which will determine the effectiveness of

Kenosha Unified School District’s SEI and Transitional Bilingual Educational programs (K-5) in

meeting its LEP students’ English language needs. More specifically, this paper will examine

action research, case studies, experimental designs, surveys, Crawford-slip method, cross-impact

analysis, scenario planning, Delphi techniques and surveys, morphological analysis, and trend

exploration as methods of identifying the District’s Language Assistance Programs’(LAP)

strengths and weaknesses.

Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research

Qualitative research incorporates a variety of methodologies that are often combined and/

or overlapped, as in action research and case studies. Qualitative research is usually contrasted

with quantitative research. The focus of qualitative research is not on numbers but on words and

observations; stories, visual portrayals, meaningful characterizations, interpretations, and other

expressive descriptions (Zikmund, 2000). Alternately, the purpose of quantitative research is to

determine the quantity or extent of some phenomenon in the form of numbers (Burnaford,

Fischer, & Hobson, 2001; Gall, Borg, Walter, & Gall, 1996; Kerlin, 1999; Mc Bride & Schostak,

2000; Meloy, 2002; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis, 2003; The Qualitative Versus

Quantitative Debate, 2003).


Qualitative analysis is a process that is often the precursor to quantitative,
statistical work; a process to make the tacit underpinnings of an issue
explicit; a process you can use to deepen your understanding of complex
social and human factors that cannot be understood with numbers; a
process that helps you figure out what to count and what to measure.
(Kerlin, 1999 p. 1)

The focus of qualitative research is on words and observations, and may include

stories, visual portrayals, meaningful characterizations, interpretations, and other

expressive descriptions. Interviews are often used in qualitative research. Alternatively,

quantitative research is used to determine the extent of some phenomenon in the form of

numbers. Researchers Miles and Huberman, in Qualitative Data Analysis (2003), stated

the following:

Qualitative data involve words and quantitative data involve numbers;
there are some researchers who feel that one is better (or more scientific)
than the other. Another major difference between the two is that
qualitative research is inductive and quantitative research is deductive. In
qualitative research, a hypothesis is not needed to begin research.
However, all quantitative research requires a hypothesis before research
can begin. (p.1)

Qualitative research uses a combination of strategies to collect data: field observations,

focus groups, intensive interviews, and/or case studies. In a qualitative study, the researcher

conducts studies in the field, in natural surroundings, and tries to capture the normal flow of

events without trying to control extraneous variables. Theories emerge as part of the research

process, evolving from the data as they are collected (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall et al., 1996;

Hill, 2000; Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000; Meloy, 2002; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative

Debate, 2003; Wimmer & Dominick, 1994). The design of a study evolves during the research


and can often be adjusted or changed as it progresses, which is not a characteristic of quantitative

research. It may be an exploratory research study or a quantitative descriptive study. A

descriptive study seeks to answer those “what is?” or “what are?” questions, and data are

collected through numbers, words or both (Zikmund, 2000).

In quantitative research, researchers conduct experiments, classify data, and construct

more complex statistical analysis in an attempt to explain what was discovered; although, a

researcher may conduct non-controlled quantitative studies such as descriptive, correlational, ex

post facto, and evaluation. Findings are generalized to a larger population, and direct

comparisons are also made. This is one of the main disadvantages of using qualitative research;

the results are not often extended to wider populations with the same degree of certainty as in

quantitative analyses. The results of the research are not usually tested to determine if they are

statistically significant or due to chance (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall et al., 1996; Kerlin, 1999;

Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000; Meloy, 2002; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis, 2003;

The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate, 2003).

It could be argued that the quantitative researcher is more precise, but the
response would be that with people it is not possible to be so precise,
people change and the social situation is too complex for numerical
description…Quantitative research has a tendency to clarify where
clarification is not appropriate. (Mc Bride& Schostak, 2000, pp. 1-2)

Quantitative data can determine when students have achieved or failed a task, and they can

provide national ranking, percentiles, and allow researchers to conduct comparison analyses.

Nevertheless, they cannot provide the “total” picture of why a particular student has either

succeeded or failed (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall et al., 1996; Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000;


Meloy, 2002; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis, 2003; The Qualitative Versus

Quantitative Debate, 2003).

Qualitative research has a phenomenological focus that can provide an enriched and

detailed description of the participants’ actions and/or viewpoints (Veronesi, 1997). Qualitative

research tends to incorporate a more humanistic approach. When conducting qualitative

research, one is often interested in determining the ‘whole’ picture; he/she is in search of

answering the “why” questions (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall et al., 1996; Kerlin, 1999; Mc Bride

& Schostak, 2000; Meloy, 2002).

The role of the researcher is also different when comparing qualitative and quantitative

research. In quantitative research, the researcher neither participates in nor influences what is

being studied; thus, he/she examines the circumstances objectively. In some qualitative research,

the researcher may play a more subjective role and participate by being immersed in his/her

research. That is, the observer may be the teacher or the facilitator. This role is often the case

with when action research, case studies, and focus groups are used in educational research.

In qualitative research, we seek to minimize the impact of our
interventions, but also recognize that there are other ways in which we
intervene…. Yet, we can have a pretty good idea that these may be helpful
to us in certain situations. More importantly, we endeavor to ‘build
theory’ from the ground of experience or practice. For qualitative
researchers, the context in which practices takes place has important
bearing upon that practice and research should be rooted accordingly. (Mc
Bride & Schostak, 2000, p. 2)

Therefore, both qualitative and quantitative research studies are valuable in the field of

education. Both may be utilized to understand the effectiveness of the various programs in


place. In conducting a comparative analysis of Sheltered English Immersion programs,

researchers may select a multi-method or mixed methods methodology by collecting quantitative

and qualitative data to be better able to identify the “total” picture of the research problem. A

qualitative observation may be used to watch the teachers in action, while a quantitative survey

may be given to teachers to assess effectiveness. For the purpose of this comprehensive paper,

each type of assessment examined will be identified as qualitative, quantitative, or a combination

of both.

Action Research

Action research is a powerful qualitative research tool utilized in education. Educators

who use this method of research observe carefully and reflect systematically. Observational

techniques are used to improve their practice. Researchers then generate potential solutions to

original problems, implement a chosen intervention, assess the outcomes, and/or modify the

solution(s). Action implies the need for change and research implies a need to clarify or increase

understanding. Action research is an iterative research process in which the researcher develops

policy, brings about change, and/or promotes quality improvement within the educational realm.

This type of research is a cyclical process that allows educators to create projects within their

classrooms and modify them as needed (Burnaford et al., 2001; Knezevik, 2003; Mc Bride &

Schostak, 2000).

A group of English as Second Language (ESL) teachers may seek a collaborative change

and implement their research. The process may include a general plan of action needed for

implementation, the collection, and analysis of the data, and monitoring of these steps. The data


may be reported using a variety of methods including: direct observation, surveys, ethnographic

questionnaires, journals, or various other artifacts. Researchers must check for the validity of

their information, and determine whether the information gathered is transferable to the general

population, or if it is limited to the practices studied (its external reliability). In addition to

external reliability, researchers must examine the internal consistency of the methodology to

ensure that the research is free from bias and is ethical. In the area of data analysis, researchers

need to explain how data will be coded, will be identified, and/or determine how themes will be

tracked (Burnaford et al., 2001; Knezevik, 2003; Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000).

A team, comprised of eleven teachers within the New York School District PS24/District

15, collaborated with the Development and Dissemination Schools Initiative to conduct action

research. The team investigated how to improve instruction and other services for its LEP

students by integrating its low-proficiency second language students into Interactive Read Aloud

activities. During its initial meetings, the team created and identified several possible

adjustments and described how it would begin to implement these strategies in its ESL

classrooms. The PS24 Action Research Team arrived at a consensus to implement six

instructional strategies. Each teacher chose one new strategy to use in his/her classroom. The

principal then assigned a team liaison to observe and support the teachers during the

implementation. Additionally, the teachers were expected to keep a response journal. The

teachers met twice a month, after school, to report their progress; they discussed reading

selections and reflected upon what was working or not working. During these meetings, they

also determined how they would display the data. They agreed to use a written response in the

form of journals to document their findings as a performance assessment. The final outcome of


their action research left teachers still pondering how to improve instruction for their LEP

students. The team discovered the strategies implemented in the classroom worked, but did not

meet the students' immediate instructional needs. They felt their time would have been better

spent researching and investigating the following: How do classroom teachers get their LEP

students to pass the state and district exams (D&D School Initiative, PS24, 2000)?

Out of the eight action research projects generated through the Development and

Dissemination Schools Initiative website, not one project generated nor documented extensive

conclusions to warrant policy or strategic changes. In conducting a comparative analysis of

Sheltered English Immersion programs, action research may be utilized to understand teachers’

perceptions and attitudes towards their LAPs' strengths and weaknesses. By collaborating,

teachers may be able to identify the critical areas that need to be addressed, create a plan,

implement the plan, and monitor it. Most importantly, the current research further speculates

that for action research to be an effective and valid model of research for LAP improvement

there must be a critical analysis of the full results. Otherwise, a project's reliability and validity

cannot be guaranteed (Burnaford et al., 2001 D&D School Initiative, PS24, 2000; Knezevik,

2003; Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000). Careful planning and critical analysis of action research

may result in a practical application of policy and strategic changes. The research design must

be flexible enough to change directions or plan future research that addresses the needs of the

LEP student population.


Case Studies

Case studies are one of the most widely used forms of qualitative research in education.

“Researchers generally do case studies for one of three purposes: to produce detailed

descriptions of a phenomenon, to develop possible explanations of it, or to evaluate the

phenomenon” (Gall et al., 1996, p. 549). Robert Kirk and Jerome Miller define this type of

research as “watching people in their own territory and interacting” (cited in Gall et al., 1996, p.

547). Case studies often involve a scientific approach, in which a hypothesis is studied, as a

reaction to a perceived limitation of qualitative research.

Kimberly Hill (2000), author of Beyond the Numbers: A Case Study of the 1990 Census

Promotion Program and the Implications for Census 2000, stated that “Case studies are best

suited for ‘how’ and ‘why’ research questions, when the researcher has no control over

behavioral events and wants to focus on contemporary events” (p.1). These types of qualitative

studies can investigate any phenomenon that interests the researcher within the participant’s

natural setting; they are often conducted from the perspective of the participants. The

phenomenon under study can be identified as: a role, a process, an event, a concept, a person(s),

a program, and/or a curriculum (Gall et al., 1996; Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000).

“In conducting case studies, researchers collect intensive data about a particular instance

of a phenomenon, and they seek to understand each instance on its own terms and in its own

context” (Gall et al., 1996, p. 541). According to these authors, case studies have four

characteristics:

(1) the study of phenomena by focusing on specific instances, that is, cases;
(2) an in-depth study of each case;


(3) the study of a phenomenon in its natural context; and
(4) the study of emic [participant’s viewpoint] perspective of case study
participants (p. 545).

In a case study, data are collected and analyzed. The data collected can be in any form

gathered over a given period of time and may include words, images, physical objects,

quantitative data, narratives and/or interview transcripts. Kimberly Hill (2000) explained that a

case study may use “as many data sources as possible to systematically investigate individuals,

groups, organizations, or events, and is the best method when a researcher seeks to understand or

explain a phenomenon” (p.1). The methodology employed to examine the data vary according to

the needs of the researcher. “Case study researchers might begin a case study with one method

of data collection and gradually add or shift to other methods. Use of multiple methods to collect

data…can enhance the validity of case study findings through triangulation” (Gall et al., 1996, p.

557).

Researchers conducting case studies could use descriptions and explanations to attempt to

build, describe, and conceptualize the phenomenon. Researchers may conduct a single–site

phenomenological case study by examining the attitudes and perceptions of an ESL teacher, his/

her LEP students, colleagues, and principal towards an integrated curriculum or thematic

teaching in an ESL classroom as a method of building LEP students’ academic content

knowledge. This single-site case study might examine the experiences, perceptions, and

interactions between the ESL teacher and his/her LEP students. The study may contribute to the

understanding of why ESL teachers should use integrated curriculum to build academic content

knowledge and may provide an in-depth analysis of how an ESL teacher would implement and

perceive teaching thematically. Data may be produced from interview transcripts, observations,


journal entries, language assessments, and other documents to monitor and track the progress of

the LEP students. Based on the data presented, researchers would search for themes and/or

patterns, which could be used to determine significant characteristics featured throughout the

case (Gall et al., 1996; Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000; Veronesi, 1997).

A good depiction will provide a thick description…statements re-create a
situation and as much of its context as possible, accompanied by the
meanings and intentions inherent in that situation. The term thick
description originated in anthropology and is referenced as a complete,
literal description of a cultural phenomenon. (Gall et al., 1996, p. 541)

Peter Veronesi (1997) conducted a case study called A Case Study of Alternative

Assessment: Student, Teacher, and Observer perceptions in a Ninth Grade Biology Classroom.

In his qualitative descriptive case study, he examined the perceptions of a veteran biology

teacher and his ninth grade biology students towards alternative science assessments strategies.

The methodology used was from a phenomenological perspective that described the experiences

of the participants within their own “complex, cultural setting” (p. 3). The purpose of the study

was to contribute to the understanding of implementing alternative science assessments by

providing an in-depth analysis of how the teacher implemented and perceived alternative

assessments. Data were derived from various sources such as interview transcripts, observations

and other artifacts.

Analysis of the data was not intended to support or refute claims made in
the name of alternative assessment. Rather, this study was intended to
provide a vivid description of the situation studies and delineate potential
implications for using alternative science assessments. (p. 2)


Veronesi’s use of descriptions allowed him to be an “outside” observer; his descriptions mirrored

those of the participants rather than the researcher. The results described in this case study were

not conclusive, nor were they ever compared to those of other science teachers and/or classes.

Experimental Designs

Experimental designs are the most powerful quantitative research method used in

education. This type of design is used to establish cause-and-effect relationships among two or

more variables. In order to be classified as an effective experiment, the research must be

conducted in a rigorous manner in which the researcher tries to control confounding factors that

threaten its internal and external validity. Controlled experiments in bilingual education are

almost impossible to conduct and often produce undesirable results (Meyers & Feinberg, 1992;

Ramirez, Ramey, & Yuen, 1991). LEP students are seldom placed randomly in their language

programs; all too often, these students have various language and academic abilities.

The attrition rate contributes to the ineffectiveness of controlled experiments (Amselle &

Chavez, 1997; Garcia, 2002; Kerper Mora, 2002; Meyers & Feinberg, 1992; Ramirez et al.,

1991). “Attrition rates are high due to academic and behavioral difficulties. By sixth grade 43%

to 68% of students transfer from the regular L1 [primary language] program. About 75% of

students who transfer out will repeat a grade” (Kerper Mora, 2002, p. 1). LEP students tend to

be transient; their high mobility rate may be due to the mere fact that LEP students are often

placed in bilingual classrooms until they reach a level of fluency; they are then reclassified or re-

designated and placed into a mainstreamed classroom (Garcia, 2002). Once LEP students are


reclassified or re-designated as fluent English proficient (FEP), school districts tend to halt the

monitoring process of their FEP students (Amselle & Chavez, 1997).

In bilingual education, researchers using experimental design will often disseminate a pre

and post language assessment and/or have a controlled group. Most often, this design method is

used for used by the researcher to draw a specific causal conclusion. “If one concludes that

when a school follows approach X to bilingual education, the performance and achievement of

students will be Y…that X causes Y” (Meyers & Feinberg, 1992, p.19). Interventions may or

may not be controlled by the researcher. A critical problem encountered when implementing this

type of research is determining whether a change in the post-test is due to the treatment and not

to extraneous variables. Confounding variables thus weaken the experiment (Gall et al., 1996;

Meyers & Fienberg, 1992; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate, 2003).

Quasi-experiments are very much like the true experiment with the exception of subject

assignment; they are used when the effects of the secondary variables are not known but are

assumed, such as the lack of random sampling in education because of legal and ethical issues

presented when working with students. That is, subjects have been found to be in certain groups

and are then studied; they are not assigned to different groups. Quasi-experiments use theory to

determine which factor needs to be ruled out as a possible alternative explanation for the effects

observed. The design allows for more causal inferences than uncontrolled qualitative

observational studies. Control is a critical factor in experimental design; experimental control

determines the quality of the experiment, and can have a direct impact on the conclusions.

Random assignment of treatments is used to control the validity of the study. In experimental

studies (true vs. quasi-), the researcher attempts to tightly control the internal validity to the


extent that he/she attempts to tightly control the circumstances of an experiment, thus limiting

the conditions to which he/she can generalize the study’s findings (Gall et al.,1996; Meyers &

Fienberg, 1992; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate, 2003).

In 1990, the U.S. Department of Education commissioned the Governing Board of the

National Research Council to conduct a thorough investigative review of two major evaluation

studies of bilingual education. The project assignment was to review and assess the

methodologies of data collection and analysis of the study entitled, The National Longitudinal

Study of the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Services for Language Minority Limited-English

Proficient Students (nicknamed "The Longitudinal Study"). In 1983, researchers were asked to

study the effectiveness of instruction for LEP students and compare the effectiveness of three

different instructional strategies in bilingual education. The three programs evaluated under the

study were immersion, early exit, and late exit programs (Cummins & Genzuk, 1991; Meyer &

Feinberg, 1992; Ramirez et al., 1991).

The study revealed that LEP students’ services were not evenly distributed

geographically across states and districts. LEP students tended to be classified as “at-risk” and

were from lower social economical backgrounds than monolingual students were. The results

indicated that LEP students performed below grade level as early as the first grade, yet in

Mathematics, their skills were superior. Most of the instruction was conducted in English or in a

combination of the LEP student’s primary language (L1) and English. Program entrance and

exit procedures were inconsistent among various school districts within the same state; there

were relatively no time limits on the amount of time a student could participate in bilingual

programs. Lack of qualified instructional staff was a critical problem as well (Cummins &


Genzuk, 1991; Meyer & Feinberg, 1992; Ramirez et al., 1991). The most significant result from

this study supporting SEI was that when a LEP student is ready to learn in English and

instruction is provided in English language arts, he/she showed greater achievement. The results

of the study also affirmed that LEP students receiving ESL services exited their programs at a

faster rate than those in primary language programs (Cummins & Genzuk, 1991; Meyer &

Feinberg, 1992; Ramirez et al., 1991).

The second study was entitled the Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion

Strategy, Early Exit, Late-Exit and Transitional Bilingual Programs (nicknamed The Immersion

Study) and Ramirez, Ramey, and Yuen (1991) conducted it. The study compared the

effectiveness of two alternative programs- Structured English Immersion and late-exit

Transitional Bilingual Education programs. The programs’ ultimate goal was to teach LEP

students English. The panel reviewing this study suggested that the Immersion Study contained

many biases. The comparison groups were not from the same social economical groups,

numerous parents received AFDC, and a marginal number received some form of preschool

education. The results of the study determined that the programs and students studied were not

comparable (Meyer & Feinberg, 1992; Porter, 2000; Ramirez et al., 1991).

One of the negative attributes addressed in this study was the high attrition rate of LEP

students. The high attrition rate is not new in the educational realm. This is a critical area that

needs to be addressed and is a major challenge to consider when conducting any type of study in

bilingual education. A percentage of LEP students left the study once they were reclassified as

Fluent English Proficient or FEP; however, some students left not being fully proficient and

others transferred to other classes, schools, states, or even countries. Nearly one-half of the


students left the study; therefore, the attrition rate was relatively high (Ramirez et al., 1991). No

further research was conducted to monitor the achievement of those LEP students who left the

programs (Meyer & Feinberg, 1992). Experimental design can be very rigorous and does show

promise for use by the Kenosha Unified School District to assess its Language Assistance

Programs utilized now and those of the future. Any proposed research study must be feasible,

affordable, and ethical.

Surveys

Surveys are one of the most frequently used methods of gathering data for research in

education. When used appropriately, surveys have many advantages. Surveys can play a

significant part in an organization’s comprehensive needs assessment by identifying areas for

improvement and issues that need to be explored. Surveys can be complex, time consuming and

expensive; yet, they allow one to gather critical data rapidly (Witkin & Altschuld; 1995).

Schools utilize surveys because they are relatively easy to administer; they can easily be

disseminated in a variety of settings, and they offer additional opportunities for gathering

relevant data. Surveys can be distributed in the classroom or sent home with students; they can

be returned in the same manner. Often, administrators will disseminate surveys to teachers,

parents, and students as an alternative method of gathering information about the strengths and

weaknesses of the school and/or a specific program (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Meyers &

Feinberg, 1992; Gall et al., 1996).


“When the purpose of a study is to provide a systematic description of a large number of

programs, institutions, or an individual, a case-study approach will simply not do… one way to

reach the generalization is through sample surveys” (Meyers & Feinberg, 1992, p. 22). Surveys

are a form of observational study in that they capture a collection of many cases (Witkin &

Altschuld, 1995). “Observational studies are most naturally suited to drawing descriptive

conclusions or statements about how groups differ” (Meyers & Feinberg, 1992, p. 25). In

observational studies, the researcher does not attempt to control the treatments but rather

observes the treatments in a natural setting, and this can be true of surveys. Surveys are analyzed

in a quantitative manner.

When constructing a survey, researchers must carefully plan some critical aspects of the

design before it can be considered valid. Researchers must consider the following: target

population, sampling, and method of distribution, questionnaire design, item content, item

format, scales, and data analysis (Meyers & Feinberg, 1992). Based on the consensus of the data

collected from the survey, the researcher is able to identify themes, trends or patterns and set his/

her research agenda as needed. Feedback is measured through computation of the central

tendency of these themes or patterns (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Fienberg & Meyers, 1992; Gall

et al., 1996).

One major drawback of implementing surveys as a mechanism for gathering data is that

they have become so commonplace. Often people will discard them without responding which

leads to a high attrition rate (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Gall et al., 1996; Meyers & Feinberg,

1992). Because of the high cost of conducting surveys, Kenosha Unified School District began

using enGauge, a web-based survey program, as a more effective way to survey its community


(staff, parents, and students). EnGauge (2000) was designed to help school districts plan and

evaluate their systemwide use of educational technology. Kenosha Unified hired enGauge to

survey its community to determine if its technology integration is currently functioning well

within the District. Data gathered will help the District to formulate its technology goals in order

to improve student learning (Kenosha Unified School District, 2003).

An example of a research study in which a survey was utilized as a viable method of

gathering information about the strengths and weaknesses of a specific program was illustrated

by a study conducted in Massachusetts (2000). The survey was used to study the participation in

and performance of Massachusetts’ LEP student population on the Massachusetts

Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). This study was the first reliable study to be

conducted or published on LEP achievement in Massachusetts. In 1999, Massachusetts

mandated that all students educated in the United States for three years or more participate in the

MCAS assessment. This pioneer study compared LEP students’ achievement by district; it also

reported on LEP participation and achievement (Beals, Peladino & Porter, 2000).

The results of the survey concluded that the data collected by the Massachusetts

Department of Education were flawed, and the results were very difficult to interpret. The data

reported were said to be contradictory and inconsistent with the number of LEP students tested,

and further investigation was required in order to determine the accurate results. LEP students

who were in the United States less than three years were allowed to take their assessments in the

Spanish/English version in Mathematics and Science. Eligible LEP students did not participate

in the math and science portion of the assessments in more than half of the districts surveyed; in


other cases, no scores were recorded. The assessment forms were not even properly marked to

identify whether or not these students tested in English and/or in Spanish (Beals et al., 2000).

The results also indicated that Massachusetts’ schools must, in the future, analyze the

LEP student population in the area of participation and performance. The Massachusetts

Department of Education survey concluded that the department must do a better job at tracking

the progress of those school districts that have high academic performances and test

participation. The results also indicated a need to further conduct qualitative studies of

classrooms and observe those schools that have a higher participation in order to identify

effective instructional strategies. In this case, qualitative assessment preceded the quantitative

assessment (Beals et al., 2000). Surveys will continue to play an important role in educational

research. KUSD is expected to continue to use the software program enGauge to assess the

effectiveness of its educational programs.

The Crawford-slip Method

The Crawford-slip method is much like the nominal group technique (NGT) utilized in

education. It is a method utilized in strategic planning and is an effective way to establish

consensus on a specific topic or agenda from a group or committee desiring a way to gather

information on the future of educational institutions, educational programs, or policies

(Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Koalaty Kid, 2002). Educational institutions employ this type of

strategic planning in order to cope with a rapidly changing system. Due to the nature of changes

in bilingual education, the Crawford-slip method is a valid method of obtaining information.


This type of data collection is a group technique in that it is a highly structured method of

collecting data from a group or committee when the group has reached a consensus. The use of

groups to gather critical information is the most widely used method for gathering facts, opinions

and data needed for meeting an organization’s agenda. Groups are ideally comprised of six to

ten people such as key members of organizations, experts, members of the community and/or

parents. The purpose of these groups is to produce and prioritize a vast number of ideas

generated by the topic, allowing the researcher(s) to identify easily recurring trends. It can also

be used to brainstorm research ideas or as a tool in conducting a thorough needs assessment

(Altschuld & Witkin, 1995).

Utilizing the Crawford-slip method as a type of brainstorming process entails a group of

committee members responding to a question posed by the researcher(s). The questions are

usually determined by carefully examining internal and external features of the educational

organization. Rather than stating the groups’ ideas, members of a selected committee record

their thoughts on slips of paper or sticky notes. The slip of paper has neither a number nor a rank

recorded on it, and each idea is recorded on a separate piece of paper to facilitate analysis. The

final product reveals a common set of themes and/or patterns to further to be investigated

(Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Koalaty Kid, 2002).

The Kenosha Unified School District created a Five-Year Long Range Committee for its

Language Assistance Programs to explore the educational services offered to its LEP students.

Using the Crawford-Slip method, the committee brainstormed ideas on how the District can

begin to comply with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Compliance Action Plan, and how to

meet future needs of the District’s growing LEP student population. These processes led the


team members to explore further other research methods such as Cross-impact analysis and

scenario development in order to strategically plan for the future trends.

Cross –Impact Analysis

Cross-impact analysis attempts to reveal the conditional probability of an event, given

that various events have or have not occurred (Hackett, Morrison, & Teddlie, 1982). This

method allows researchers to build an understanding of the vast amounts of information gathered

and helps them analyze the trends and/or patterns that determine how they affect one another.

Using cross-impact analysis allows researchers to incorporate various trends or variables, both

qualitative, and quantitative in the analysis. This type of research relies on few assumptions and

is relatively easy to comprehend (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Cross Impact Matrix,

http:www.iit.edu; Hackett et al., 1982).

Cross-impact analysis may be conducted in four steps. First, the committee uses

brainstorming techniques to identify approximately twenty key concepts or themes that may

affect the future of an organization. Then the committee or facilitator places these trends or

themes in a matrix that is predetermined. Third, the matrix is then compared by each row entry

and column entry. Finally, the matrix is analyzed to determine new trends. When analyzing the

data, the committee and researchers investigate patterns or events that may affect areas positively

or negatively. This process should be conducted several times in order to assure its validity

(Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Cross Impact Matrix, http:www.iit.edu; Hackett et al., 1982).

Developing trends that will have a high probability of affecting the original concerns are singled


out. A cross-impact analysis may reveal future trends or themes. The limitation of using a

cross-impact analysis is that it may produce isolated themes or trends (Altschuld & Witkin,

1995; Cross Impact Matrix, 2002; Hackett et al., 1982).

In a study called Developing Public Education Policy through Policy Impact Analysis

(1982) the authors, Hackett, Morrison & Teddlie, attempted to illustrate how cross-impact

analyses can be developed to create or change policies to attain outcomes for the future of

education in Louisiana. This research was conducted with a four-step process: monitoring,

forecasting, goal setting and cross-impact (policy analysis) implementation. The created policies

were ranked to determine their impact. Those trends that were ranked as priorities were

implemented and evaluated. The process was repeated to further refine policies.

In the monitoring stage, the variables were determined and a database was created. In the

forecasting stage, exploratory techniques were used to analyze trends and themes. Qualitative

and quantitative techniques were used to gather information necessary during this stage. The

qualitative and quantitative data gathered were obtained from school enrollment forms and were

used to project enrollment trends. In the goal-setting stage, exploratory forecasting was

converted into desirable futures, which lead to the construction of new schools and

implementation of new programs. Matrices were created in the policy analysis and

implementation stage, thus allowing the local school boards to evaluate, implement new policies,

and/or change old policies (Hackett et al., 1982).


Scenario Planning

Scenario planning is both a qualitative and a quantitative approach that empowers

participants to break traditional barriers and stereotypes often found in research and creates an

organization’s vision in the future. Scenario planning originated nearly thirty years ago from

Royal Dutch Shell, a company that experienced tremendous success in foreseeing the Arab oil

embargo (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Katz, Genesee, Gottlieb, & Malone, 2001). Scenario

planning creates a vision that expresses a multifaceted perspective of complex events and

facilitates ongoing learning and strategic conversation, which supports effective growth and

change. “A good scenario planning project expands leaders; peripheral vision and forces them to

challenge their own assumptions” (College of Marian, 2002, p. 1). This methodology can be an

intellectually challenging exercise that promotes dialogue among colleagues who want to

collaborate to create a vision, an analysis, and/ or a plan of action that allows them to work more

effectively together (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Katz et al., 2001).

Scenario planning provides an opportunity for futuristic planning in and predicting

precisely how the future will play out. An excellent decision or strategy is one that plays out

well across several possible scenarios. These scenarios identify trends, which have an infinite

number of possibilities, or situations that may lead to attaining better decisions and/or outcomes.

“The careful analysis of a particular scenario often allows for a rich contextual picture of

surrounding of some activity or event of interest” (Meyers & Feinberg, 1992, p. 21). Once these

trends have been identified, quantitative data are analyzed to address various situations


portrayed, including social, economic, political and technological issues (Altschuld & Witkin,

1995; Katz et al., 2001).

Every field has its own pattern for these types of studies, and bilingual education is no

exception. Because the future of education is unpredictable, scenario planning provides an

alternative method to reach a qualitative research goal by providing a common vocabulary and

effective ways for communicating complex ideas and/or concepts. In education, it is utilized as a

way to define a vision statement, an instrument for instruction, and/or an assessment (Altschuld

& Witkin, 1995; Borjesson, 2002; College of Marin, 2002; Katz et al., 1997; Smith, 1996;

Wilkinson, 1998).

Kenosha Unified School District (2003) created its vision statement for its LAPs by

incorporating the Crawford-slip method and cross-impact analysis; this process led to scenario

planning. Themes or patterns that emerged from these sessions allowed the committee to

formulate a five-year action plan, and enabled the District to plan more effectively and adapt

more readily to what was actually happening within the District’s LAPs. The five-year plan

enabled the District to investigate areas needing improvement. The committee wanted to

anticipate what could happen in the future; as a result, it created proposals through scenarios to

test their resiliency. Members voted on the ranking of the scenarios and brainstormed tactics to

improve the programs. The committee suggested developing new programs to better serve its

LEP students as well as explore viable alternative program options (KUSD Five-Year Long

Range Committee, 2003).


The Delphi Technique and/or Survey

The Delphi technique and/or survey are common data collection tools suitable for

gathering pertinent data for a variety of dimensions in educational research. The Delphi

technique was developed in the 1950s by researchers from The Rand Corporation. “The Delphi

operates on the principle that several heads are better than one" (Ludwig, 1997, p. 1). The

Delphi technique and survey utilize a methodology that combines qualitative and quantitative

data to explore futuristic designs in order to make appropriate and reasonable changes within an

organization. The Delphi technique and survey are two different approaches to data collection.

In the 1980s, the Delphi technique continued to grow and was implemented in most

educational realms, particularly in the area of defining curriculum and instruction. The Delphi

technique is used repeatedly to seek answers to pertinent educational issues. The Delphi

technique is implemented within a group setting and the goal is to reach group consensus. The

researchers must determine the purpose of the Delphi Technique. They then identify the

participants or panel, which is typically comprised of fifteen to twenty participants but usually no

more than fifty. Then the researcher proceeds to contact participants. In this Delphi group

process, people provide written responses to questionnaires. Using the Delphi technique in

group settings requires many modifications and also requires the researcher to score and process

the results rapidly. It is not used as often as the mailed Delphi survey (Altschuld & Witkin,

1995; American Policy Organization, 2003; Ludwig, 1997; Rosenbaum, 1991).

The Delphi survey is a prediction tool that uses an iterative survey process over a

specific time frame (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; American Policy Organization, 2003; Ludwig,


1997). Like other data collection techniques, the Delphi survey has three steps: planning,

carrying out the survey, and following up with the data collected. In the planning stage of the

survey, the committee must repeatedly review and rate items; this is a unique feature of the

Delphi process, which makes it a complex design to implement. The survey is developed,

mailed, and the data are collected. After the data are collected, the researcher analyzes the data

or creates another survey based on the responses of the first survey; then a second survey is

mailed to participants. This cyclical process is repeated to determine the need for further data

collection. Based on the consensus of the data collected from the survey, the researcher is able

to identify themes, trends or patterns and set his/her research agenda as needed. Feedback is

measured through computation of the central tendency of these themes or patterns. In the

educational setting, a Delphi survey would be easy to administer (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995;

American Policy Organization, 2003; Ludwig, 1997; Rosenbbaum, 1991). The Kenosha Unified

School District’s KUSD Five-Year Long Range Committee (2003) is currently using the Delphi

survey process to request pertinent data from staff members to evaluate and improve its language

assistance programs.

Morphological Analysis

Morphological analysis is often used in conjunction with a relevance tree, which is an

analytic technique that allows one to subdivide trends into smaller topics. In education, it is used

to identify new program opportunities and involves the mapping of overall solutions and

constructing scenarios. This method is a systematic approach to seek structure out of current and


future states of a particular organization, creating new alternatives to bridge the gaps that are

present in the programs. By mapping the researcher’s perspective and future possibilities, a

formulation of the problem is created. The researcher defines and examines all the

characteristics of the problem. He/she proceeds to construct a multidimensional matrix that

combines patterns to illustrate the possible solutions. Based on the information gathered, an

evaluation of all possible outcomes is conducted and the researcher conducts an in-depth analysis

of the best possible solutions. The primary purpose of the morphological analysis is to organize

relevant information in an orderly way (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Gordon, & Raffensperger,

1973; Mind Tools, 2002).

Morphological analysis is also an identification process used in Applied Linguistics, in

which the researcher seeks to derive meaning of a word-stem from a full word; this is referred to

as the identification of syntactic of a stem of a word. To effectively utilize this form of analysis,

the researcher must be able to manipulate spelling rules for affixes. In the past fifteen years,

applied linguists have made further advances in the area of morphological analysis by bridging

the gap between real-life applications in natural language and processing through technology.

Because this is not a historical comparison analysis comparing various languages, there will be

no further inquiries into these types of methodologies (Gazdar, 1989).


Trend Exploration

Trend exploration is a method of determining alternative futuristic outcomes by graphing

extended data in relation to their influences on one another; it is often utilized in strategic

planning in conjunction with cross-impact analyses and scenario planning. The data gathered are

derived from existing historical documents readily available in which the researcher analyzes and

investigates historical trends or themes. He/she then proceeds to compare the historical data to

the organization’s concerns in order to interpret the information and draw conclusions. “In

education, there is a strong movement to use educational indicators and to link them in a way

that they show the complexity of schooling so that they can be used to form policy making”

(Altschuld & Witkin, 1995, p. 232). Trends are plotted and placed in a matrix where

assumptions can be illustrated to show underlying trends. If trends are evident, the researcher

then must evaluate the data to determine if there are enough historical data that may define this

trend. The researcher proceeds to plot the trend; this action is carried out with descriptive

statistics (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995).

Conclusion

Regardless of one’s opinion regarding bilingual education, clearly more research is

needed in this field. “Real studies are needed on the effectiveness of English language

instruction” (Porter, 1997, p.31). Linguistic experts contend that it is now time to begin to put


aside difference amongst LAPs (Amrein & Pena, 2000). Schools are continuously failing to

meet various LEP students’ academic needs. The previously discussed research methodologies

(qualitative and quantitative) provide school districts with sufficient ways to collect data in order

to determine the effectiveness of their language assistance programs. Districts are required to

take “appropriate action” to ensure their LEP students have equal access to the curriculum. The

programs must be based on “sound educational theory” and be adequately staffed. School

districts are mandated to evaluate their programs and to ensure that they are meeting the needs of

LEP students, while complying with federal mandates. However, the guidelines are minimal and

vague; districts are granted the freedom to adopt any evaluation approach.

Action research and case studies provide school districts and researchers a way to reflect

upon what is working within the schools and use data to implement changes that have been

proven effective in meeting the needs of LEP students. It can be a starting place to help

predetermine what changes need to take place immediately. School districts can use action

research and case studies as a way to examine effective teaching strategies and/or innovations in

bilingual education. Educators and researchers recognize the need to have an in-depth

understanding of the policies, programs, and practices that lead to successful innovations in

bilingual education. Further, they desire a greater understanding of how these innovations in

programs, policies, and practices are implemented in different school districts. Approaches to

reforming bilingual education in one school district may be very helpful to educators elsewhere

(Burnaford et al., 2001).

School districts and researchers must begin to conduct quantitative comparative

longitudinal studies within their schools. They need to conduct these studies by comparing the


language programs offered to its LEP students and evaluate the programs’ effectiveness.

Because the available research tends to compare school districts against school districts, and

programs against programs, it is often irrelevant due to the mere fact that each school district has

its own unique circumstances. One program is not the answer because every state and school

district has its own set of standards and benchmarks.

Language programs need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis as their
success is largely affected by the context in which the language program is
developed. Further, researchers indicate that micro-level and macro-level
issues related to planning and implementation must be examined to
understand how the sociopolitical context of schools may favor or
impede…language programs’ success…. (Amrein & Pena, 2000 p. 2)

The National Research Council concluded after reviewing programs of the past 25 years, “There

is little evidence to support which program is best. The key issues are not finding a program that

works for ALL children and localities, but finding a set program that works for the community of

interest” (Crawford, 1997, pp. 27-28). A one-size-fits-all curriculum does not take into account

the variations of the LEP student population within a community; stipulating set conditions on

what programs to teach and what to implement disregards the individual needs of LEP students

such as age, maturity, language skills, previous home-country schooling, learning styles, and

other issues unique to LEP students. Through observational studies and quantitative analysis,

school districts can monitor their LEP students who have left the program, those who have been

re-designated as fluent English proficient, and those students who are refused services. This

information may lead to a better understanding of the education life of LEP students after they

are mainstreamed into general education classes (Legge, 1998).


Today, researchers are in agreement that the decision to implement which of type of

bilingual programs should be left up to the community, the parents of the LEP students, the

school districts, and the states to decide. Districts can use surveys, the Crawford-slip method,

cross-impact analysis, scenario planning, Delphi technique and/or survey, morphological

analysis, and trend exploration as methods of identifying their district’s language assistance

programs’ needs and to determine their programs’ individual strengths and weaknesses. These

processes will allow the educational community to share practices and to seek ways to improve

LEP students’ opportunities.

The trends developed from these qualitative and quantitative techniques allow the

researcher to emphasize what needs to be changed, while building on the experiences, insights,

and sound educational practices. By incorporating these research techniques, the researcher is

able to reflect upon the immediate needs of the community. Despite the outside educational

sources that may be plaguing our schools, every school district, school, administrator, teacher,

student, and parent must be held accountable for their LEP students’ progress. Districts who do

not evaluate their LAP’s are in direct violation of limited English proficient students’ civil rights

(Crawford, 1997, pps. 27-28). Not only is it the ethical thing to do, but it is also illegal not to

evaluate the programs and make appropriate changes. Only through evaluations can appropriate

changes can be instituted; this process will lead to a better education for all LEP students.


References

Akkari, A. (1998, Fall). Bilingual education: beyond linguistic instrumentalization. Bilingual
Research Journal, 22(2-4). Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://brj.asu.edu/v22234/articles/ar2.html.

American Policy Organization. The "Delphi technique" and how it robs parents of control over
their child's education. American Policy Center. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from http://
www.americanpolicy.org/educ/thedelphi.htm.

Amrein, A. & Pena, R. (2000). Asymmetry in dual language practice: Assessing imbalance in a
program promoting equality. Retrieved April 4, 2003 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n8.html.

Amselle, J. & Chavez, L. (1997, February). Bilingual education theory: Its effectiveness and
parental opinions. NASSP Bulletin. 81(586).

Beals, R., & Pedalino Porter, R. (2000, August). Bilingual students and the MCAS: Some
bright spots in the gloom. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://www.ceousa.org/html/mcas.html.

Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (2001). Teachers doing research. A power of action
through inquiry. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Capella University (2002, July). Summer sessions handouts. July Colloquia Presentations.
Available on CD.

Center for Equal Opportunity. (1996, August). The importance of learning English: A national
opinion survey of Hispanic parents.

College of Marin. Scenario planning. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://marin.cc.ca.us/scenario/what_is.htm.

Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of Bilingual Education Act.
Retrieved October 25, 2002, from http://www.ncborgwu.edu.

Crawford, J. (1998, Winter). Rethinking schools-does bilingual education work? 13(2).
Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/Archieves/13-02/biside.htm.

Creating the future: What is scenario planning? Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://edie.cprost.sfu.ca/~idea/scenarios.html.


Cross impact matrix method of forecasting: Definition and historical background. (2002).
Retrieved October 25, 2003, from http://iit.edu/~it/cross.html.

Cummins, J., & Genzuk, M. (1991, March). Analysis of final report longitudinal study of
structured English immersion strategy, early exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual
education programs for language-minority children. The California Association for
Bilingual Education Newsletter.

Cummins, J. (1999, February 22). Research, ethics, and public discourse: The debate on
bilingual education. Paper presented at the National Conference of the American
Association of Higher Education.

Cummins, J. Educational research in bilingual education. Educational research thoughts.
Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://http:audiotap.addr.com/cummins/educatioanlresearch.html.

Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (1999). Retrieved October 22, 2002 from http://
www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/ELL/index.html.

Development & Dissemination Schools Initiative. Identifying effective practices for English
language learners (ELLs) in D&D schools. Effective practices for ELLs. Retrieved
October 23, 2002, from http://http:www.alliance.brown.edu/dnd/ep-for_ells.shtml.

enGauge (2000). Retrieved on April 4, 2003, from engaugewww@contact.ncrel.org.

Freeman, R.D. (1996). Dual-language planning at Oyster Bilingual School: It’s much more than
language. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), 557-582.

The Futures Group. (1994). Relevance tree and morphological analysis. AC/UNU Millennium
project. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from http://www.futurovenezuela.org/_curso/12-
tree.pdf.

Garcia, A., & Morgan, C. (2002). A 50 state survey of requirements for the education of
language minority children.

Garcia, D. (2002). Family English literacy program. Department of foundations and
professional studies, Florida International University. Retrieved November 2, 2002, from
http://www.cgcs.org/promise/whatworks/parental/part07.html.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R. & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research. An introduction. (6th ed.).
White Plains, NY: Longman.

GBN's Scenario Tools. GBN publications on the web. Retrieved October 24, 2002, from http://
www.gbn.org/public/gbnstory/scenarios/.


Gersten, R., Taylor, R., Woodward, J., & Wite, W. (1997, Summer). Structured English
immersion for Hispanic students in the U.S.: Findings from the fourteen-year evaluation
of the Uvalde Texas program. Retrieved October 10, 2002, from
http://www.adihome.org/esp/v16n3/struct_imm_tex.pdf.

Gonzalez, G., & Maez, L. F. (1995, Fall). Advances in research in bilingual education.
Directions in language & education, 1(5). Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/05.htm.

Hackett, R., Morrison, J. L., & Teddlie, C. E. (1982). Developing public education policy
through policy impact analysis: The role of the educational planner. Retrieved October
24, 2002, from http://horizon.unc.edu/bios/morrison/papers/2.html.

Hardin, V. (2001, Fall). Transfer and variation in cognitive reading strategies of Latino fourth-
grade students in a Late-Exit bilingual program. Bilingual research journal, 25(4).
Retrieved September 25, 2002, from http://brj.asu/edu/v254/articles/art7.html.

Hotwired. How to build scenarios: Planning for "long fuse, big bang" problems in an era of
uncertainty. Retrieved October 24, 2002, from
http://http:www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/build.html.

Hakuta, K. Improving education for all children: meeting the needs of language minority
children. Retrieved August 6, 2002, from http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Aspen.html.

Hakuta, K. (2002, August 22). Points on SAT-9 performance and Proposition 227. Retrieved
September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/.

Hakuta, K. (2002, August 29). What can we learn about the impact of Proposition 227 from
SAT-9 scores. Retrieved September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/.

Hakuta, K. (2001, April 13). The Education of language minority students. Paper presented at
United States Commission on Civil Rights. Retrieved September, 2002, from
http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Docs/CivilRightsCommision.htm

Hancock, Charles R. Alternative assessment and second language study: What and why? Eric
Digest. Retrieved October 23, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/.

Hill, Kimberly (2000). Beyond the numbers: A case study of the 1990 census promotion
program and the implications for census 2000. Retrieved April 2, 2003, from
http://www.asu.edu/cronkite/thesis/kimhill/index.html.

Johnston, R. C. & Viadero, D. (2002, March, 15). Unmet promise: Raising minority
achievement. Education Week, 19 (27), 1-19.


Katz, A., Genesee, F., Gottlieb, M., & Malone, M. (2001). Scenarios for ESL standards-based
assessment. Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Kerlin, B. (1999). Qualitative research. Analysis without numbers. Retrieved April 2, 2003
from http://kerlins.net/bobbi/research/myresearch/chifoo/.

Kerper Mora, Jill. (2002). Sheltered Immersion contrast and controversy. Retrieved July 30,
2002, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Pages/SEIvCanadian.htm.

Knezevik, B. (2003). Teacher as classroom action researcher. TESOL Program Presentations.
TESOL 37- Annual Convention and Exhibit. Baltimore, MD.

Koalaty Kid. Nominal group technique. Retrieved October 24, 2002, from
http://homepage.risd41.org/koalatykid/stories/story.

Krashen, S. (1999). Structured immersion falls short of expectations: An analysis of Clark
[Special issue]. NABE.

Krashen, S. (1985). Insights and inquires. Hayward: Alemany Press.

Krashen, S. Why bilingual education? Eric Digest. Retrieved October 23, 2002, from
http://gophewracl.org/eric/digests/edorc968.html.

Kenosha Unified School District, (2003). En gauge survey. Phase II. Retrieved on April 3,
2003, from http://www.kusd.edu/.

KUSD Five-Year Long Range Committee (2003). Kenosha Unified School District No. 1,
Kenosha, WI.

Legge, C. (2000, June). Federal Court Decision. In Decision by Judge Charles Legge:
Refusing to delay the effective date of Proposition 227 by U.S. District Judge Charles A.
Legge. San Francisco: Federal Court Decision. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID-7776.

Littlejohn, J. (1998, November). Federal control out of control" The Office for Civil Rights'
hidden policies on bilingual education. Retrieved October 12, 2002, from
http://www.ceousa.org/READ/ocr3.html.

Ludwig, B. (1997). Predicting the future: Have you considered using the Delphi methodology?
Journal of Extension, 35(5). Retrieved October 24, 2002, from
http://http:www.joe/1997october/tt2.html.


MALDEF. (1997, September). Preliminary section-by-section of analysis of Unz Initiative. In
MALDEF. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from One Nation:
http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=5112.

MALDEF. (1997, November). MALDEF Questions and answers on the Unz Initiative. In
MALDEF. Retrieved September 6, 2003, from http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?
ID=511155

Marcos, K., & Rennie, J. (2001). The effectiveness of bilingual education. ERIC/CLL Resource
Guides Online. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/faqs/rgos/bi.html.

Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Gandara, P. Report review. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://bjr.asu.edu/archives/23v21/articles/gandara.html.

Meloy, Judith M. (2002). Writing the qualitative dissertation. Understanding by doing.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Meyer, M. M., & Feinberg, S. E. (1992). The case for bilingual education strategies.
Retrieved October, 2003, from
http://www.ulib.org/webRoot/Books/National_Academy_Press_Books/bilingual_educati
on/bilingual.htm.

MindTools. Attribute listing, morphological analysis & matrix analysis-Tools for creating new
products & services. In MindTools Bookstore. Retrieved October 27, 2002, from http://
www.mindtools.com/pages/articles/newCT_03.htm.

Morphological Analysis. What is morphological analysis? Morphological Analysis. Retrieved
October 27, 2002, from http://comp.leeds.ac.uk/nti-kbs/ai5/Misc/morphemes.html.

Morphological analysis. Sub-Sentential Processing. Retrieved October 27, 2002, from
http://cslu.cse.ogi.edu/HLTsurvey/ch3node4.html.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Title I sec. 1111(b)(3)(C)(x).

Porter, R. (1997, September-October). The politics of bilingual education. Pedalino Society.

Porter, R. (1998, May). The case against bilingual education: Why even Latino parents are
rejecting a program designed for their children's benefit. READ Institute. Retrieved
October 18, 2002, from READ Institute:
http://lmri.ucsb.edu/resdiss/2/researchreports.htm.


Porter, R., & Rossell, C., & Tamayo, L. (2002, June). An initiative petition for a law: An act
relative to the teaching of English in public schools. English for the Children of
Massachusetts. English for the Children of Massachusetts. Retrieved September 6,
2002, from http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=4257.

The qualitative versus quantitative analysis (2003). Retrieved April 5, 2003, from
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/monkey/ihe/linguistics/corpus3/3qual.htm.

The qualitative versus quantitative debate ( 2003). Retrieved March 20, 2003, from
http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/gentrans/pop2f.cfm.

Ramirez, J., Ramey, D. R., & Yuen, S. D. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of
structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual
education programs for language-minority children. [Executive Summary] Retrieved
October 21, 2002, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ramirez/.

Reese, D. (1997, March). The controversy over bilingual education. Parent News. Retrieved
October 25, 2002, from http://npin.org/pnews/1997/pnew397/pnew397h.html.

Rieley, J. (1997, March). Understanding scenario planning in higher education. In The Center
for Continuous Quality Improvement: Milwaukee Area Technical College. Retrieved
October 25, 2002, from http:///www.boardrush/jbrieley/6d1.htm.

Rosenbaum J. (1991, July). The pedagogic Delphi. The Pedagogic Delphi. Retrieved October
21, 2002, from http://ithaca.edu/johnrosenbaum/writing/dephi.htm.

Rossell, C. H. Mystery on the bilingual express: A critique of the Thomas and Collier study.
The READ Institute. Retrieved October 12, 2002, from

Rossell, C. H., Ph.D. (2000, June). Different questions, different answers: A critique of the
Hakuta, Butler, and Witt report, "How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency?" The READ Institute. Retrieved October 19, 2002, from

Scenario Planning Resources. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://www.crt.se/~mb/scenario/Scenario-planning-resources-9htm.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. Effects of success for all on the achievement of English language
learners. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://www.successforall.net/resource/research/englanlearn.htm.


Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness for language
minority students' long-term academic achievement. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
CREDE: http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research.

Tucker, G. (1999, August). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education.
ERIC Digest. Retrieved October 18, 2002, from
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed435168.html.

Veronesi, Peter. (1997). A case study of alternative assessment: Student, teacher and observer
perceptions in a ninth grade biology classroom. Retrieved April 3, 2003, from
http://www.ed.psu.edu/ci/Journals/97pap39.htm.

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002). Legal responsibilities when serving
limited-English -proficient (LEP) students in K-12 public schools. Retrieved September
5, 2002, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/equity/biling.html.

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2002). Best practices considerations when
serving limited-English Proficient (LEP) students in K-12 public schools. Retrieved
September 5, 2002, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/equity/biling.html.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Alternative assessment. Retrieved September 5,
2002, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/html.

Zikmund, W. G. (2000). Business Research Method. (6th ed.). New York City: Harcourt.


QUESTION 2

Analyze how Newcomers programs are funded and supported (local, state and/or federal). What
theoretic constructs can be drawn from these funded programs in developing a Newcomer
Center Program for the Kenosha Unified School District?

Currently the United States population is estimated to be 287 million people, and foreign-

born immigrants represent over 10 % of the entire population (Krashen, 2001; World Population

Data Sheet, 2003). Forty percent of new immigrants are children; one out of five children in the

United States is either an immigrant or a child of immigrants (Viadero, 2000).

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, since the founding of
the United States, more than 55 million immigrants from every continent
have settled in the U.S. Indeed, with the exception of Native Americans,
everyone in the nation is either an immigrant, or the descendent of
voluntary or involuntary immigrants. (Pathways, Immigrant Education,
2002, p.1)

Within a decade, this student population has nearly doubled (Hakuta, 2001). In the

1990s, the number of children of immigrants exceeded 5 million, representing over 150 different

languages (Friedlander, 1991). The 5 most prominent language groups being serviced in U.S.

public schools are: Spanish (72.9%), Vietnamese (3.9%), Hmong (1.8%), Cantonese (1.7%) and

Cambodian (1.6%) (ELLKBase, 2002). Seventy-five percent of all immigrants and/or limited

English proficient (LEP) students come from highly impoverished areas (Hakuta, 2001).

Limited English Proficient (LEP) is the legal term used to identify students, who were not

born in the United States, or students whose native language is not English, and those students

who cannot participate effectively in regular classrooms because they lack fluency in spoken and

written English(Department of Education-OCR, 1999). LEP is the term recognized by the Office


of Civil Rights (OCR), and the term used throughout this comprehensive paper to refer to such

students (Department of Education-OCR, 1999). Non English Proficient (NEP) is the legal term

used to identify students who are recent arrivals (immigrant-status) and have been in the United

States less than one year. NEP students' native language is not English, and they cannot

participate effectively in regular classrooms because they lack fluency in spoken and written

English. NEP is the term recognized by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), and the term used

throughout this comprehensive paper to refer to such students (Department of Education-OCR,

1999). Bilingual is a generalized term that refers to all programs other than English as a Second

Language (ESL). In this paper, the term bilingual includes all Language Assistance Programs

(LAP) offered within the Kenosha Unified School District, and unless otherwise stated, it

includes the following programs: Dual Immersion, Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE),

English as a Second Language (ESL), and Sheltered English Immersion (SEI). Although ESL

and SEI are not commonly referred to as bilingual programs, they are the most commonly used

methods of instruction for LEP students.

“Over the past two decades, America’s classrooms have undergone an unmistakable

metamorphosis” (Friedlander, 1991, p. 1). There is seldom a school district, whether rural or

urban, that has not been affected by this influx of newly arrived immigrant students (Crawford,

1997; Hakuta, 2001; Krashen, 2001). “More than 40% of LEP students in the United States are

enrolled in rural schools” (Berube, 2002, p. 1). Today, there are over 8.6 million children

enrolled in U.S. schools, and nearly 40 % require English language assistance, including the

following subgroups: 3.2 million students identified and/or classified as being LEP; 1.3 million

LEP students enrolled in state and local bilingual programs nationwide; and 900,000 LEP


students receiving language services funded by federal, state, and local bilingual education

programs and/or through Title VII funding (Krashen, 2001). Title VII helps to ensure that LEP

students have an equal opportunity to learn challenging content and high-level skills that are

expected of all students (Crawford, 1997). However, there remain over 640,000 LEP students

who are not being serviced through any type of language programs (Krashen, 2001).

Large states, such as California, Florida, Texas, and New York, have historically

absorbed the brunt of the immigration expansion. Smaller states, such as North Carolina, are

also experiencing tremendous growth (Berube, 2002). The LEP population of California

represents 50% of all LEP students in the United States (Hakuta, 2001). In 1980, the Los

Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) reported about 110,000 students with 87 different

languages, costing the district $46 million to educate. In two decades, that number increased to

over 1.4 million LEP students and/or NEP students reported by LAUSD (Hakuta, 2001).

Recently, New York City public schools enrolled more than 176,000 LEP students, of whom

90% were recent immigrants (Brown, 2000). In Princeton, New Jersey, 99 % of its newly

arrived immigrant students are Hispanics and come from agricultural backgrounds. In St. Louis,

Missouri and Des Moines, Iowa, school officials are enrolling immigrant LEP students from

countries as divergent as Vietnam, Iraq, Haiti, and Mexico. Many school districts are enrolling

students from Bosnia and Somalia who have never attended school before (Brown, 2000;

Crawford, 1997; Duignan, 2001; Hakuta, 1998, 2001; Legge, 2000; Midwest Equity Assistance

Center, 1997).

Hawaii’s public schools are experiencing an increase in the enrollment of
students from Micronesia. The latest data from the Hawaii Department of


Education’s (HIDOE’s) English for Second Language Learners (ESLL)
Program show that 13 % of the state’s total English as a Second Language
(ESL) student population, or 1,671 students, come from the Freely
Associated States (FAS): the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM –
Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei, and Yap), the Republic of the Marshall Islands
(RMI), and the Republic of Palau (ROP). They represent a region that is
not well known but that is vastly diverse linguistically, culturally, and
geographically. (Heine, 2003, p. 1)

Wisconsin public schools have also experienced a drastic expansion of LEP students

(Pabst, 2001). As of 2001, Wisconsin public schools provided an education for over 27,000 LEP

students in 170 school districts, with Spanish and Hmong speakers accounting for the largest

number of new students (Wisconsin DPI, 2001). Milwaukee Public Schools, the largest school

district in the state, has had an increase of LEP students, while their monolingual student

population decreased (Pabst, 2001). In 2002-2003, Kenosha Unified School District, also known

as "the District", the third largest school district in Wisconsin, enrolled over 21,000 students.

The District’s LAPs consist of a Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) program (K-5), a pull-out

English as a Second Language (ESL) program (6-12), Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE)

program in K-12, and a Dual Immersion Program (Spanish/English) in K-5 (KUSD, 2003). The

District offered its LAP services to over 1,300 LEP students at all grade levels. Enrollment data

were retrieved from Wisconsin’s “Third Friday in September Enrollment Count.” As of March

2003, the District identified and assessed an additional 700+ LEP students due to the "No Child

Left Behind Act of 2001.” The District has continuously enrolled ten to fifteen new LEP

students per month (KUSD, 2003).

School districts, administrators, and teachers are facing a multitude of barriers when

dealing with this influx of immigrant NEP students, when compared to past immigrants, and are


struggling to meet their student population’s unique needs. “Every individual and new group of

immigrants bring with them their own sets of needs or priorities that must be taken into

consideration in a case-by-case manner by school districts, administrators and teachers”

(Friedlander, 1991, p. 3). Today, most of the nearly 27 million new immigrants come from Latin

America, Asia, the Caribbean, and the Middle East. Additionally, most of the newcomers speak

Spanish, but native speakers of many other languages, including Mandarin, Pilipino, Russian,

Haitian Creole, Polish, Punjabi, Vietnamese, Hmong, and Hindi, are also prevalent. In fact, over

half of the language programs enroll students from four or more different native language

backgrounds (Short, 1998).

This new wave of immigrant students is generally having a more difficult time adjusting

to regular school settings. Today’s new immigrants are coming from a variety of educational

realms. Some come from well-educated families with great expertise and knowledge, while

others come from areas where they received little to no educational support. A large percent of

these immigrants are from non-English speaking countries where access to formal education is

limited. Numerous newly arrived immigrant students are virtually illiterate and/or have received

less than their age-appropriate education in their native language (Friedlander, 1991).

Regardless of the conditions that brought them to this land, almost all
newcomers have in some way been affected by the immigrant experience.
Most of these young people have felt alienation, loneliness or an
undermining of their sense of self-confidence in the face of a strange new
world. (Friedlander, 1991, p. 3)

Many immigrants have never attended school in their home countries, and/or may have

had limited schooling that may have been interrupted by traumatic events in their lives.


Immigrants flee their countries for several reasons: religious/political conflicts, extreme poverty,

and/or lack of opportunity. Immigrant students may have experienced hardships that most

American students have never experienced and may bring unforeseen emotional "baggage" to the

classroom. This knowledge requires that the students' new home schools, administrators, and

teachers be equipped with additional resources to help their immigrant students overcome their

often horrific past experiences (The Midwest Equity Assistance Center, 1997; Viadero, 2000).

Meanwhile, other immigrant students may experience some difficulties in understanding the U.S.

grading system(s), social customs, and other complexities of the American school system. All

new immigrants experience some degree of "culture shock." Culture shock describes the anxiety

a person feels when he/she moves to a different place; the term expresses the lack of direction, or

feeling of not knowing “what” or “how” to do things in a new environment. Newcomer students

who experience culture shock may not know what is appropriate or inappropriate inside and

outside the classroom (Guipana, 1998).

Older NEP immigrant students at the middle and high school levels are experiencing

greater difficulty adjusting to U.S. public schools in comparison to elementary students

(Schwartz, 1996). Newcomer students at the secondary level range in age from ten to twenty-

two years and come from many language backgrounds (Short, 1998). They face greater

challenges when learning a second language due to neurological developmental periods, which

favor quick language acquisition by younger children (Schwartz, 1996). The older students are

expected to read and comprehend textbooks, and to learn complex subject matter that requires a

more sophisticated use of the English language (termed "academic English"). Further, they are


subjected to high stakes assessments, which can play a major role in determining graduation

completion requirements (Schwartz, 1996; Short, 1998).

Seldom do older immigrants with deficient academic preparation ever successfully

transition to fluent English proficiency; they most often remain several years below normal grade

levels, and/or drop out (Johnston & Viadero, 2002; Schwartz, 1996). “Achievement gaps are so

pronounced that in 1996, several national tests found Hispanic 12th graders scoring at roughly

the same levels in reading and math as white 8th graders” (Johnston & Viadero, 2002, pps.

18-19). This achievement gap will continue to widen as the LEP student population increases

because school districts continue to provide less language support and resources for these older

students (Schwartz, 1996). Some older NEP and/or LEP students are placed in watered down,

remedial classes, even if their education in their native language was superior. This practice

impedes academic growth and decreases NEP/LEP students’ chances to attend universities

(Schwartz, 1996). In KUSD’s Five-Year Long Range Committee’s Action Plan (2003), it listed

the lack of additional language support at the middle and high school levels as a major concern

for its LEP student population. Currently, the District only has one ESL teacher who services its

LEP students at each of the middle and high schools (KUSD, 2003).

Consider the following fictitious scenarios that describe the experiences of typical older

immigrant students entering U.S. public schools. Jose is a 14-year-old immigrant Spanish

speaker who has just arrived in New York City. Jose left his native country of Angola during a

time of war, where he witnessed the execution of his father, uncles, and two older brothers. Jose

has less than four years of formal education and lacks literacy skills in his native language.

Jose’s mother enrolls him in his local neighborhood public school, and he is placed in 9th grade


due to his age, not because of his academic abilities. Jose’s school district does not offer a

Newcomers program; therefore, he is then placed into an overcrowded mainstreamed classroom,

and possibly serviced by an ESL or bilingual teacher once or twice a week. When Jose does

receive ESL services, he is pulled out of his language arts class or mathematics class; thus, Jose

falls further and further behind (Katz, Genesee, Gottlieb, & Malone, 2001).

Or just imagine being a young vibrant teenaged girl named Sarah, from Afghanistan.

Sarah recently relocated to Kenosha, Wisconsin and was enrolled in the local neighborhood

middle school. She has never attended a formal school and has experienced only a few years of

schooling secretly conducted in her home. With Sara’s experiences in mind, she is expected to

attend school in the U.S., and meet all the same rigorous academic standards and expectations as

any other English speaking American student, which are mandated and measured by the school,

the school district, the state and now by the federal government (Midwest Equity Assistance

Center, 1997). Without a Newcomers program Jose, Sarah, and other immigrant students in

similar situations may become lost, overwhelmed, frustrated, and/or even drop out (Brown,

2000).

The variety of cultures and languages present many challenges not only for the NEP

student, but for all parties involved. School districts, administrators, and teachers are not

effectively prepared nor equipped to handle newly arrived NEP students. More specifically, they

have not been adequately trained with respect to how to address immigrant NEP students’ unique

cultural, language, and academic needs. Because of this lack of training, teachers are becoming

overwhelmed and frustrated as they teach immigrant LEP students (Midwest Equity Assistance

Center, 1997). School districts, including KUSD, are desperately investigating alternative


educational programs to assess their new arrivals. School districts across the nation have

developed a variety of methodologies for assessment and instruction, including Newcomers

programs (ESL Mini Conference, 2002; Friedlander, 1991, Igoa, 1995; Short & Boyson, 2002;

Short, 1998: Castro, 1980).

If linguistically and culturally diverse students are to gain long-term
personal, social and academic success in the United States, their school
community must be ready to help them become productive through a
comprehensive, challenging, and enriching educational program in the
mainstream learning environment—this cannot be done in isolation, but
must be part of a coordinated district effort. (ESL Mini Conference, 2002,
p 2)

Newcomers programs were specially designed to cater to the diversified needs of school

districts’ NEP students and their families. Newcomers programs originated in the 1970s, when

California began to pilot special programs catering to its new arrivals. “Newcomers programs

were developed as a response to the local needs of the individual school districts, not as the result

of an integrated state or federal educational policy” (Friedlander, 1991, p. 6). During the 1990’s,

California identified seventeen Newcomers programs; Illinois, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania and Massachusetts followed with similar programs (Friedlander, 1991).

Today, Newcomers programs are located in eighteen states; most of these
have high rates of immigration, such as New York, California, and New
Jersey. Over three fourths of the programs are in urban-metropolitan
settings; the rest are in suburban areas and rural locales. More than half
of the programs operate at the high school level. About one-third serve
the middle school level, and the remainder offers a combination of middle
and high school services. Most of the schools draw from several
attendance areas in one school district. (Short, 1998, p. 1)


Newcomers programs differ from one another in relation to their general structure,

program design, curriculum, standards, duration, and language of instruction, and entry and exit

procedures. These programs operate as schools within schools, as self-contained schools or

classrooms, or as a separate site altogether. Some Newcomers programs include reception or

intake centers. They operate full day, half day and at different times, such as the case with after-

school programs (Castro, 1980; ESL Mini Conference, 2002; Friedlander, 1991, Igoa, 1995;

Short & Boyson, 2002). Newcomers programs share a common vision, which includes the

flowing components: having high academic expectations, and developing English proficiency in

their students. They also provide a new student orientation. Newcomers programs strive to

develop understanding in a multicultural environment, foster communication, inspire lifelong

learning, increase self-esteem, and provide for the optimum professional development of their

staff (Friedlander, 1991).

Newcomers programs are designed to function as temporary “stopovers" for NEP

students, until they are ready to be transitioned into their district’s other programs including:

ESL, bilingual, and/or mainstreamed general education classrooms. NEP students enrolled in

Newcomers programs have limited to no English language abilities and have fewer than three

years of schooling in the United States. Newcomers programs foster the development of NEP

students’ English language proficiency. NEP students attend specialized sheltered English

classes that are adapted to meet their individual needs. English is offered as a necessary skill for

achieving academic success, and for assimilating into an English-speaking community.

Newcomers programs may serve as a centralized resource center for administrators,

teachers, students, and parents. The program's staff is comprised of school personnel, language


teachers, counselors, community liaisons, interpreters, and office personnel; all staff members

are specially trained to deal with NEP students. Oftentimes, these staff members are willing to

"go beyond the call of duty" to provide for its NEP students' success (Friedlander, 1991, p. 3).

By providing a centralized resources center, staff is better equipped to cater to the needs of its

NEP students. Furthermore, the students are able to have equitable access to resources during

the most critical period, or their first few months and years after arrival. Staff members receive

training in the effects of students’ native culture with regard to their values, beliefs, perspectives,

priorities, and behavior. They understand that their students’ educational experiences, home

culture, value systems, belief systems, and other factors in their upbringing can all influence

learning. This understanding may help to ease their students’ fears and allow for a smoother

transition period, as they become accustomed to their new home country.

New arrivals attend orientation classes that introduce the American school systems and

its culture. Orientation classes also introduce the following amenities that are available to the

students: 1) specially designed academic curriculum; 2) counseling services tailored to the

individual needs of the newcomers; 3) parent education and resources; 4) referral services; 5)

access to bilingual support services and community liaisons; 6) transportation available to and

from the centers; 7) extracurricular activities; and 8) tutoring. Many newcomer centers even

offer health services and immunizations (ESL Mini Conference, 2002; Friedlander, 1991; Igoa,

1995; Short & Boyson, 2002).


Funding of Newcomers programs

One of the most critical issues facing Newcomers programs today is funding. In order to

operate successfully, Newcomers programs require funding from the federal government, states,

school districts, and private sources. Kathleen Ponze, an assistant principal of New York City’s

Junior High School 190, wrote a grant and received $50,000 to create a Newcomer after-school

program. The following year, the after- school program had to reduce its costs; therefore, the

program went from having a staff of four English as a second language (ESL) teachers to only

having one ESL teacher twice a week. Ponze believes her school's situation is not unique and

that there are numerous school administrators who have expressed concerns regarding the lack of

continued program funding (Brown, 2000).

In 1989, the Federal government mandated the Emergency Immigrant
Education Act (EIEA) that allotted money for teacher training, books,
study aids, and other instructional expenses for immigrant students.
However, immigrant policies in the 1990s cut Federal funding for
immigrant school districts almost by 50% while the number of immigrant
students has increased by nearly 50%. (Pathways, Immigrant Education,
2002)

A large percent of the programs in operation today have received funding from federal,

state, local, and private sources. The amount of financial support a program receives depends

upon the state. Other sources of funding for Newcomers programs include: educational reforms,

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Title I, Title III, Title VII, Emergency

Immigrant Education Programs (EIEP), and Economic Impact Aid. Aid also comes from


literacy funds and tuition from non-resident and out-of- state students (Boyson, 2002; Short &

Boyson, 2002).

The success rate of a program is also related to support from the school district and the

community. Beverly Boyson (2002) from the Center of Applied Linguistics stated Newcomers

programs fail because they are not supported by the district and/or community and rely solely on

the federal government and/or state for funding. Furthermore, she added that successful

programs were the ones that were maintained and financially supported by their local school

districts and communities. According to Boyson, the majority of Newcomers programs

established in the 1980’s and early 1990’s were started with federal and/or state "seed" money,

but now are primarily relying on operational financial support from their districts and

communities. Most of the Newcomers programs established since the fall of 1998 still rely on

federal and state aid to subsidize the majority of their funds; however, this funding may be short

lived (Boyson, 2002; Short & Boyson, 2002).

Berkley Public Schools' Bilingual Education Program/Newcomers program, located in

Berkley, Mississippi, established its Newcomers program in 1976. During the school year of

1999-2000, the program was able to receive some federal emergency immigrant funds and state

bilingual funds; however, it relies mainly on its school district for most of its funds. County

Public School’s METS program is located in Rockville, Maryland, established its program in

1994; it receives 5% of its funding through federal reimbursement and state per pupil- funding;

and the district generates 90% of its funds. Miami-Dade County Public Schools’ Project New

Beginning’s program was established in 1993. Its funding is primarily by its school district.

Green Bay’s Area Public Schools’ Newcomers program is located in Wisconsin. The program


was established in 1992 and is fully funded by its district. Wausau School District, also in

Wisconsin, offers its new arrivals placement in its Family Newcomers Center. The program is

funded by Title VII and district funds (Short & Boyson, 2002).

The lesson for those who would develop a Newcomers program is clear. At the onset,

applying for federal funds is prudent. However, the staff should also garner the support of the

school district and the surrounding area, whose funds may become necessary when federal funds

are not available.

Federal Regulations

Bilingual programs are being closely examined by many sectors of society, due in large

part to the criticisms being directed at them from the media and several influential organizations

(Amrein & Pena, 2000). Proponents of English-only instruction criticize bilingual programs for

newly arrived immigrants in public schools. Many of these critics believe that extensive

instruction in the students' native language may lead to dependence and a delay of appropriate

grade level instruction (Amrein & Pena, 2000; Hakuta, 2002). For bilingual programs to be

effective and successful, school districts, school administrators, and teachers must respond to the

calls for greater accountability.

Obtaining adequate research on Newcomers programs has been a long, arduous process

due to the vast differences in these programs. The research is often skewed due to the wide

range of latitude among Federal requirements, which allow states to select the most effective

programs for their limited English proficient (LEP) student population (Amrein & Pena, 2000).


State officials, educational agencies, and courts have also established mandated guidelines on

educating, governing, and managing LEP students. The actual programs being offered can vary

from state to state, district to district, school to school, and classroom to classroom (Amrein &

Pena, 2000; Hakuta, 2002). Therefore, comparing these programs is difficult.

However, school districts are not free from federal and state laws that dictate specific

approaches when designing special programs for newcomer immigrant students. Some federal

laws have addressed the issue of how to best educate LEP and NEP students. A Supreme Court

case (Lau v. Nicholas, 1974) required that schools provide special language aid to students from

families in which English was not spoken. In Guadalupe v. Temple, 1978, the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals clarified the issues of language assistance raised in Lau v. Nichols. The

Appelate Court explicitly stated that “bilingual education” was not required under the US

Constitution or the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and that providing extra support in English was

meeting districts’ obligations by adequately satisfying the requirements of Lau v. Nichols

(English for the Children, 2002; ELLKBase, 2002; NCLEA, 2002).

This issue of bilingual versus English-only instruction continues to be heavily debated

today. Federal law requires school districts to take every available legal action necessary to

assure its NEP/LEP students are offered the same educational opportunities as native-born

students. The law does not dictate how districts are to implement programs; school districts are

able to implement changes that are guided by their local and demographic needs (English for the

Children, 2002; ELLKBase, 2002; NCLEA, 2002). School districts receiving federal funding of

their Newcomers programs must adhere to and comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964. Those school districts receiving federal funding are prohibited from engaging in


discriminating in programs or activities on the basis of race, color, or national origin (English for

the Children, 2002; ELLKBase, 2002; NCLEA, 2002). In 1990, the OCR investigated a

Newcomer School and determined the school to be in compliance with Title VI based on

numerous factors:

The District was not under a court or administrative order to desegregate
its schools. The program was a voluntary program. The District offered
enrollment to their immigrant students in either their home school or their
Newcomers school. These students’ home schools offered language
assistance. The Newcomer school student population make-up was
multicultural and multilingual. Students were from a variety of different
countries and spoke different languages. Attendance was limited to more
than one year. Eligibility was based on a need for language and cultural
assistance. The Districts programs offered were made available for all
students enrolled at the Newcomers school and were comparable to those
offered throughout the District’s other schools. (NCLEA, 2002, p. 20)

Congressional policies are affecting the outcome of Newcomers programs by having an

impact upon both content and funding. The “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” dictated certain

requirements that schools must address; however, it failed to clarify which language programs

will best educate immigrant students. In the case of Kathleen Ponze from NYC Junior High

School 190, an initial grant ran its course and was not replaced by additional federal funding.

Stringent federal guidelines on funding have made it rather difficult for the majority of school

districts to qualify for additional funding, causing school districts to drastically cut and/or

restructure their districts’ language programs. Today the vast majority of programs are funded

from the school district’s general education or bilingual education funds (Pathways, Immigrant

Education, 2002).


Additional Research Needed

Obtaining adequate research on Newcomers programs is rather difficult.

Despite the growing interest in Newcomers programs, no comprehensive
national study of them had been undertaken prior to this 4-year CREDE
project (1996-2000), neither for evaluating their impact, nor for providing
guidance to school districts considering establishing a Newcomers
program. (Short & Boyson, 2002, p.1)

The majority of Newcomers programs are in their infancy stage; they are continuously evolving

and are difficult to monitor and/or track. Gathering statistical information on Newcomers

programs is also difficult to obtain because the participants are NEP, and they are often exempt

from taking state and/or district mandated standardized assessment(s) (ESL Min Conference,

2002; Friedlander, 1991; Igoa, 1995; Short & Boyson, 2002). This target population is often

transient, and its attrition rate is high. The high attrition rate is due to the fact that NEP students

are not housed in Newcomers programs for their entire academic careers. School districts have

set mandates and established specified time limits on how long their NEP students can be housed

in its Newcomers programs. On average, NEP students can be enrolled for no longer than two

academic quarters and/or one to two years depending on the program's goals and objectives

(Friedlander, 1991).

Additional academic research is needed on Newcomers programs. School districts and

researchers must begin to conduct quantitative comparative longitudinal studies and qualitative

case studies on Newcomers programs in order to evaluate the programs' effectiveness and to


determine if they are meeting the immediate educational needs of their NEP students (NCLEA,

2002). The Center for Applied Linguistics (2000) began summarizing data on 115 secondary

Newcomers programs operated in 29 states and the District of Columbia. The 115 programs

mentioned in the study operate in 196 areas, meaning that some programs have multiple

locations within a district. The result was the creation of a directory that reports on the basic

operation of Newcomers programs. Over fifty percent of the exemplary programs are located in

California, New Jersey, New York, and Texas (Short & Boyson, 2002). Other than the

aforementioned directory, there is a lack of research published on the Newcomers programs

operating nationwide. This is fertile ground for future educational research.

Exemplar Newcomers Programs

In South Sioux City, Nebraska, Newcomers classrooms are located offsite at two

elementary schools. Newcomers classrooms were designed for its district’s NEP newly arrived

students (with less than one year in the U.S.) who have little or no English proficiency, and/or

low literacy skills in their primary language. Sixteen NEP students attend the program in half-

day increments; elementary NEP students (Grades 3-5) attend in the afternoon, and secondary

NEP students attend the morning session. A waiting list is created when the classroom is full.

Students may be exited from the Newcomers classroom when they reach a predetermined

language level and academic proficiency to participate in regular ESL classes at their home

schools (determined by the LAS assessments). LAS is the acronym for the Language Assessment


Scales published by CTB McGraw Hill; it is used by some school districts to assess oral, reading

and writing skills of non-native English-speaking students. Secondary students are only exited at

the end of a term, but no longer than one academic year or less. This Newcomers program offers

a specialized curriculum in English language development, and an introduction to the district’s

schools, its policies, the communities it services, and the United States. The program offers a

multicultural education, which encourages NEP students to maintain pride in their culture; it

offers equitable access to the district’s programs and resources (www.helpforschools.com, 2002).

The staff of the Newcomers classroom includes an ESL teacher and a bilingual

paraprofessional. Communication between the staff and the home school is critical. The

communication helps to ensure the NEP student's placement in an appropriate academic program

and assists in effective transitioning for the student. The mainstream teacher is accountable for

his/her students' academic progress, although they are housed only part-time at the Newcomers

classroom. It is imperative to note that the Newcomers classroom does not replace the home

school curriculum; it only enhances the English Language development of the LEP student

(www.helpforschools.com, 2002).

The South Sioux City School District also has an Orientation Center. The primary

function of this center is to provide additional educational resources for the district’s NEP/LEP

students, families, and staff. The Orientation Center registers and assesses any student who

indicated a language other than English on the District’s Home Language Survey. The staff

collaborates with other district staff on appropriate placement for its NEP/LEP students.

Referrals are made for the families, and translators are provided in this center. The center acts as

a liaison for the students and families between their classrooms and home schools; it also aids in


Student Assistant Teams and/or staffings. The staff provides teachers with classroom support,

modifications, additional assessments, and training on various topics. The center also acts as a

liaison to local colleges to help develop training for teachers in ESL (www.helpforschools.com,

2002).

The South Sioux City School District’s LEP kindergarten students are serviced in its

traditional Kindergarten classroom with a paraprofessional, and if needed, these students receive

access to all the District’s resources. The LEP students who score at Level 1 or 2 on the LAS

assessment are offered additional help and placement in the extended day Kindergarten to

receive additional language support with the District’s ESL teacher and the ESL

paraprofessional. The Kindergarten program emphasizes socialization and English proficiency

(www.helpforschools.com, 2002). Once the LEP students exit their Newcomers classrooms,

they are placed into the mainstreamed classroom and are pulled out for additional ESL support in

grades 1-12 (www.helpforschools.com, 2002).

Cesar E. Chavez Multicultural Academic Center is a Newcomers program located in

Chicago, Illinois and established in 1996. The program is funded by Federal Title VII funds,

private funds, and small grants from the educational reform. The center offers its new arrivals

(fewer than 3 years of enrollment in a U.S. school) a year round, full-day (also after-school)

academic program in bilingual education or in ESL. The new arrivals must have large

educational gaps in their formal schooling and speak little to no English. Currently there are

sixty NEP students enrolled in the Newcomers program, and all of them qualify for free or

reduced lunches. NEP students can attend the Transitional Bilingual Educational (TBE) program

at the middle school, which was designed for older immigrant and refugee students who


traditionally have more difficulty adjusting to their new environment and language. TBE does

not maintain the goal of the students to be bilingual. Ideally, the students’ native language is

used in the classroom only until NEP/LEP students acquire enough English, and then they are

transitioned into English-only classes. NEP/LEP students are housed in the program throughout

their middle school years. To exit the program, students must meet certain criteria in English

and/or Spanish and in mathematics. The Cesar Chavez Newcomers Program offers specially

designed academic classes to enhance its students' English language development, and an

orientation class to the Chicago Public School system. As of the 1999-2000 school year, all

NEP/LEP students attending were from Latin America and Poland. The staff is comprised of

teachers who loop all three years with their students; in addition, there is one full-time teacher

who works directly with the parents, handles discipline, facilitates individual student support,

registers and tests students, and gives general education support (Short & Boyson, 2002).

The International Newcomer Center is located at Taft High School, in Chicago, Illinois

(1998). This full-day immigrant program houses NEP high school students from the ages of

fourteen to seventeen years who are new arrivals (less than 12 months in the U.S.), have limited

English proficiency, and low literacy skills in their primary language. The average class size is

fifteen, with students representing twenty-four different countries and fifteen non-English

languages. The International Newcomer Center Taft High School is funded through state and

district funds as well as a private grant. The International Newcomer Center has the same

primary goals and objectives as other Newcomers programs, with one unique attribute: it

incorporates the arts into learning English. After being enrolled for two semesters, students are

expected to return to their home schools (Short & Boyson, 2002).


Project Great Start Community Consolidated School District 15 Newcomers Interim

Service Center (NISC) is located in Rolling Meadows, Illinois. Developed in 1997, the center is

an intake center that assists its district in the assessment and placement of newly arrived

NEP/LEP students. The program offers placement for its NEP students in two classes. The

Newcomers Class I provides an intensive survival English language development class, a variety

of academics, U.S. culture, and an orientation to U.S. schools; this program houses its NEP

students for no more than two months. Participation in the Newcomers Class II lasts for up to

four months and is a continuum of the first course, but it focuses more on skill development in

English (Short & Boyson, 2002).

Irvine Unified School District is located in Orange County, California; the District offers

its Newcomers an opportunity to participate in their Magnet Newcomers Program - English

Language Development (ELD) classrooms (1984). The primary goal of its program is to provide

a nurturing environment and language support for the District’s NEP/LEP students. The

eligibility requirements are similar to other Newcomers programs. The program is now available

at all grade levels (K-12). The enrollment period is for a minimal period of one semester. NEP

students are released to their home schools once they have made academic progress on the

California English Language Development Test (CELDT). Parents are able to waive their child

out of attending this program and may opt to enroll their child in their home school or other

schools offering ESL support. In 1998, the District surveyed program participant parents, and

ninety-five percent of the parents indicated they were satisfied with the program’s success

(Irvine School District, 2002).


Folsom Cordova Unified School District is located in Folsom, California. Its Newcomers

program is offered to NEP students in grades 1-12; Kindergarten students are placed in regular

educational classrooms and are serviced by the ESL staff. The NEP immigrant student

population has grown immensely. In the early 1980’s, there was an influx of political refugees

from China and Vietnam. Immigrant students make up about one percent of the total student

population of Irvine. As of 1999, the predominant language groups were from the former Soviet

Union: Russian, Ukrainian, Armenian, Moldvan, and Belarus. These NEP/LEP students, along

with Spanish speaking students, represent a total of 16 % of Folsom Cordova Unified School

District’s student population, or an estimated 900 students. These students are classified as

recent arrivals with fewer than three years of schooling in the U.S. The District has about sixty

different languages represented in its language programs. Folsom’s success rate is excellent;

two-thirds of its LEP students are reclassified as fluent English proficient (FEP) within five years

of U.S. entry. On standardized assessments, about one half of these students perform at or above

grade level in reading comprehension and in math. Between the years 1994-1998, its LEP

students superceded growth by two normal curves equivalents for reading and seven normal

curves for math (Folsom Cordova USD, 1999).

In Emporia, Kansas, the Literacy Center, also known as Dos Puente’s Newcomer

Literacy Center, provides instruction for its NEP students who are new arrivals (less than 12

months in the U.S.), have limited English proficiency, and low literacy skills in their primary

language. The entry criteria for NEP students in grades K-3 are those who scored below a 2 on

the English Pre-LAS or LAS. The district's new students are identified, tested, and referred to

the Literacy Center within four weeks of their enrollment in their home school. The center


utilizes a variety of instructional strategies including: whole language, writing process, thematic

interdisciplinary designs, cooperative centers, learning centers, multiple learning styles,

mathematics with manipulatives, performances based learning, scientific inquiry, technology,

and portfolio assessments (Emporia Unified School District, 2002).

Kenosha Unified School District

The Kenosha Unified School District needs to implement a centralized Newcomers

intake center. In 2002-2003, Kenosha Unified School District, (the District), the third largest

school district in Wisconsin, enrolled over 21,000 students, and offered its Language Assistance

Program (LAP) services to over 1,340 LEP students at all grade levels. This count was

according to Wisconsin’s “Third Friday in September Enrollment Count.” However, due to the

“No Child Left Behind Act of 2001”, and Wisconsin DPI’s new English language levels and

“cut” scores, more students are now being classified or redesignated as being NEP/LEP in the

District. As of March 2003, the District identified and assessed an additional 700 NEP/LEP

students. The District is averaging ten to fifteen new arrivals per month (KUSD, 2003). There

are nearly thirty different languages represented in the District’s language assistance programs

and its schools. The majority of LEP students housed within the District’s LAPs are Spanish and

Arabic speakers.

Like other school districts, KUSD is facing some major dilemmas. First, the district is

being scrutinized by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The District’s LEP students are not being

identified and assessed within the ten-day timeframe as indicated in its OCR Action Plan. Its


LEP students are left to “sink or swim" in its mainstreamed classrooms, with non-certified

Bilingual/ESL teachers. Its LEP students are often housed for weeks or months before they are

even identified or offered placement in the District’s language programs. Once the District

offers placement to its 700+ newly identified NEP/LEP students, it will not have the facilities or

the staff to adequately service these students. The District’s LAPs are overcrowded, and its

facilities are limited.

The number of students served by the Newcomers programs ranges from
14 at one site in Connecticut to over 740 at a high school in New York
City. Almost half of the programs enroll 50 or more students, and 12
programs serve over 200 students. Because of limited resources, not all
Newcomers programs are able to serve all eligible students in the district.
(Short, 1998, p. 1)

The District’s LAPs are understaffed and/or overburdened. The turnover rate for its LAP

staff is rather high; one program had two teachers out of six (or thirty-three percent) resign

during the first week of school. The District’s LAP classrooms are the only classes within the

District to have split grade level classes (K/1, 2/3 and 4/5). Some classes are filled to capacity

and are conducted in inadequate classrooms. These factors affect the quality of the education

that is being provided to LEP students. The District’s LAP staff members are working overtime,

often without additional remuneration. LAP staff members give up their prep and lunch periods

to help out with the language assessments, placements, and the monitoring of transitional

students. The LAP staff assists with translations, adult ESL education, and staff development.

In addition, the staff addresses the diverse needs of its LEP students such as making referrals to

government agencies, seeking food and clothing, and arranging for transportation.


Throughout the U.S., teachers are struggling to find resources to meet the educational

needs of their LEP students, and Kenosha Unified is no different. Like other teachers nationally,

the District’s teachers are feeling overwhelmed and pressured because of all the implications of

the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” and the high stakes standardized assessments that are

required. LEP students are faced with rigorous assessments that measure their academic

proficiency in English. Schools in Wisconsin are being put on the “Watch-Lists” and are being

subjected to closure or restructuring if their students do not meet the state's rigorous standards

(Brown, 2000).

By adopting the best practices of the exemplar programs studied, KUSD can best serve

its large NEP/LEP student population. If KUSD had a centralized Newcomers program, officials

would be able to administer new and annual language assessments. By properly identifying and

assessing its LEP students in a timely manner, students will no longer be misidentified or simply

neglected. Newly arrived NEP students could be housed for a minimum of two semesters, or

until they would reach a level of fluency (Level 2), and they are able to successfully transition

into the District’s other language assistance programs (Sheltered English Immersion,

Transitional Educational Bilingual, and/or ESL). By educating NEP students in the district's

language assistance programs or mainstreamed classes, the success of its NEP/LEP students may

be sacrificed.

NEP students do not have the language skills necessary to function in traditional

Sheltered English Immersion, Transitional Educational Bilingual, and/or ESL classrooms. These

students are in the pre-productive stage of second language acquisition. In this stage of

development, NEP students will often use their home language to communicate. When everyone


around them is speaking a different language, such as English, they will stop speaking entirely

out of frustration, or they will speak only their native language. After receiving no response,

these students will quit speaking in their native language. Then, students may go through a

period of not talking at all; this period is referred to as the "Silent Period.” This phase may be

brief or it may last up to a year. Even though they are not talking in English at this time, they are

absorbing the language and will attempt to communicate through non-verbal gestures or mimes

(Wisconsin DPI, 2000). Obviously, this process makes educating these students in a variety of

required subjects very difficult to accomplish.

Having a centralized Newcomers program allows the District’s resources to be readily

available to the staff, student, and families. The Newcomers program team members could be

comprised of the following: the Bilingual Community Liaison, translators, bilingual social

workers, bilingual guidance counselors, and nurses, as well as other community outreach

personnel. The District’s immigrant NEP students would be able to receive an educational

opportunity that is individualized and tailored to meet their own diverse needs.

Students would be referred to the center during registration. Parents complete the

PHLOTE (Primary or Home Language Other Than English) form, which indicates whether their

child speaks a language other than English, is new to the country, or is unable to converse in

English. The school site secretary would notify the District’s Newcomers center administrator of

the students who meet these qualifications. At the District’s Newcomers center, NEP/LEP

students would be assessed within ten working days of enrollment. The Newcomers staff would

be responsible for completing all the assessments and paperwork for each newly arrived student.

The LAP team would then decide on appropriate program placements, send parental notifications


of placement, and arrange placement and /or transportation for students. At the elementary

school, the Newcomers staff and principal would be able to discuss the appropriate grade

placement and academic schedule of the NEP/LEP student, taking into account the student’s

academic history, English language proficiency, and native country school records. At the

middle and high school level, the intake language assistance staff and bilingual guidance

counselor would be able to discuss the appropriate grade placement and academic schedule of

the LEP student. All LEP students would be offered placement in the District’s LAPs based on

whether or not they meet the requirements of the DPI and the District. The District’s LAPs

would continue to be completely voluntary. Parents may request to withdraw or deny services

for their LEP child at anytime during the program. If this request to withdraw happens, the

parents must complete a waiver of services (or withdrawal) form.

In addition, the Newcomers program staff would be responsible for teaching the

District’s NEP (Level 1) students, and completing Individual Language record Plans (ILRP), as

well as monitoring its mainstreamed DPI (Level 4-7) students. Students who are identified as

Levels 2-3 would be offered placement in the District’s language assistance programs: Sheltered

English Immersion, Transitional Educational Bilingual, and/or ESL. Levels 4-5 would remain at

their home schools and continued to be monitored and serviced by the District’s language

assistance staff. The staff would utilize a variety of instructional strategies to include the

following: whole language, writing process, thematic interdisciplinary designs, cooperative

centers, learning centers, multiple learning styles, mathematics with manipulatives, performances

based learning, scientific inquiry, technology, and portfolio assessments. Teachers and other

classroom staff would receive initial and regular training in the viable methodologies from the


center’s staff. The center would act as a liaison for its students' families between their

classrooms and home schools; staff would also aid in Student Assistant Teams and/or staffing.

The staff would provide administrators and teachers with classroom support, modifications,

additional assessments, and staff training on various topics as well as act as a liaison to local

colleges to help develop training for teachers in English as a second language

(helpforschools.com, 2002).

Conclusion

Whether or not KUSD adopts a Newcomers program is truly not the issue. The reality of

the problem is that 700+ NEP/LEP students’ educational needs are not currently being met. The

District must do a better job of addressing unique needs of its newly arrived immigrant students.

Having students waiting in mainstreamed classrooms for weeks and/or months for placement in

the District’s language assistance programs is not acceptable.

The Wisconsin Constitution (Article X. 3) states that every Wisconsin
student has the fundamental right to an equal opportunity for a sound basic
education, which is defined as ‘one that will equip students for their roles
as citizens and enable them to succeed economically and personally.’
(Wisconsin DPI, 2002, p. 9)

The challenges facing school districts are not insurmountable as long as school districts

do not become complacent. School districts must take their responsibilities seriously and

educate all immigrant students effectively regardless of their English language abilities and/or or


content area knowledge limitations. States, administrators, and teachers must recognize that

there are outside determining factors that play an integral role in the success of immigrants’

attainment of English. These factors include the student's age upon arrival and educational and

personal background; these factors are especially true of secondary students, who face greater

challenges, and higher dropout rates. District officials must take appropriate action to educate

every immigrant student within their realm.

Newcomers programs are just one of many language programs designed to aid school

districts in meeting their newly arrived immigrants students’ needs, by placing recent immigrant

students who have limited English proficiency and limited educational experience in their native

countries into a specialized academic environment separate from native English-speaking

students for a limited period of time (usually from six months to two years). These programs

have encountered many challenges, including the following: locating sources of funding, helping

students who have had interrupted education and/or little or low literacy skills, integrating

students into their home schools and into their communities; and transporting eligible students to

the program site (Short & Boyson, 2002). In spite of the inherent challenges, school districts

who have adopted Newcomers programs are building culturally responsive schools with

classrooms that are flexible in that they are able to accommodate its students with academic,

linguistic, and cultural differences. Despite these differences, these students attending

Newcomers programs are beginning to build trust, take risks, and appreciate their peers and adult

role models, particularly those who respect and treat them fairly. These programs employ

sensitive and tolerant teachers who understand the diverse immigrant cultures at play. At the

classroom level, teachers and mainstreamed students get to know these new students and


appreciate the assets they bring to school. Newcomers programs help immigrant NEP students

to learn the skills needed to become proficient in English and fully participate in commerce,

government, and education in the United States. Society benefits from the skills and abilities

that these new residents bring, as their choice of future occupations widens dramatically thanks

to the superior education that they receive upon their arrival.

It is important to understand that these students are going through difficult adjustment

periods, linguistically and socially, in addition to the typical pre-adolescent and adolescent

developmental stages. Additionally, family members provide an anchor for the students, but

they are also adjusting to a new country. The more open, understanding, and encouraging

teachers and schools can be toward these families, the better off the students and schools will be

in the long run. These students are not likely to succeed unless they feel accepted and respected,

even if they sometimes do not fit the expectations of their classrooms, schools, and larger

communities. Through tolerance and acceptance, educators can facilitate these newcomers'

ultimate transition into American society.


References

Amrein, A. & Pena, R. (2000). Asymmetry in dual language practice: Assessing imbalance in a
program promoting equality. Retrieved April 4, 2003, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n8.html.

Andrade, Rosi, Civil, Marta et al (2002). Linking home and school: A bridge to many faces
mathematics. A final report. Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
Retrieved September 1, 2002, from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/md/4.2es.html.

Avila, O. (2002, February 26). New centers try to soften immigrants’ school shock. Critics say
concept isolates students. Chicago Tribune.

Berube, B. (2002, September/October/November). Three Rs for ESL instruction in U.S. rural
schools: A test of commitment. TESOL Matters, 12(4).

Boyson, B. Center for Applied Linguistics. 4646 40th Street NW. Washington, DC 20016-1859.
Tel. 202-362-0700. Personal communication, October 16, 2002.

Brown, K. (2000). Newcomers learn English. Education News for an Educated Public.
Education Update Online. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from
http://www.educationupdate.com/may00/Newcomers.html.

Castenada v. Pickard, 648 F 2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).

Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE) (2001, September). Some
program alternatives for English language learners. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from
CREDE: http://www.cal.org/crede/pubs/PracBrief3.htm.


Crawford, J. (1997, March). Best evidence: Foundations of the Bilingual Education Act.
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved November 2, 2002, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/bestevidence/research.htm#M.

Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of Bilingual Education Act. Retrieved
November 2, 2002, from http://www.ncborgwu.edu.

Crawford, J. (1998, Winter). Rethinking schools- Does Bilingual Education work? Retrieved
November 2, 2002, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/Archieves/13-02/biside.htm.

Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights –OCR (1999). Retrieved October 22, 2002
from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/ELL/index.html.

Duignan, Peter. (2001). Hoover essay. Bilingual education: A critique. Retrieved September 6,
2002, from http://www.hooverstandfordedu./publications/he/22/22d.html.

ELLKBase- The English Language Learner Knowledgebase. A Framework for Alternative
Language Programs [Data file]. Region VII Comprehensive Center. Retrieved
September 4, 2002, from
http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/practitionerstips/Framework_ALP.shtml.

Emporia Unified School District: EUSD (2002). Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
http://www.usd253.org/.

English for the Children (1998, February). Falsehoods and facts about "English for the
children." In English for the Children. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from

The English Language Learner Knowledgebase. A framework for alternative language
programs [Data file]. Region VII Comprehensive Center. Retrieved October 22, 2002,
from

ESL Mini Conference. Building inclusive elementary school communities for ELLs. New
Jersey's HELP program wins "Best Practices" award. Retrieved September 4, 2002 from
http://www.eslminiconf.net/june/story24.html.

Ethnic groups in Wisconsin: Historical background. Retrieved on October 26, 2002, from http://
wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/mkilibrary/ethn-his.html.

Farmington Public Schools. Farmington Public Schools curriculum. Retrieved October 26, 2002,
from http://www.farmington.k12.mi.us/district/curriculum/bilingual.html.


Folsom Cordova USD (2002). Folsom Cordova Unified School District, 125 East Bidwell Street,
Folsom, CA 95630 Retrieved September 3, 2002 from http://www.fcusd.k12.ca.us/.

Friedlander, M. (Fall, 1991). The Newcomers program: Helping immigrant students succeed in
U.S. schools. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, No. 8. Retrieved November 1,
2002, from http://ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig8.htm;
http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/refernces/NEWCOMERPROGRAMTableCo.

Genesee, F. (1998). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. Retrieved
November 1, 2002, from Center for Applied Linguistic:
http://www.cal.org/crede/newcomer.htm.

Guipana, C. (1998). Culture shock. Department of Counseling and Psychology. San Diego State
University.

Hakuta, K. (2001, April 13). The Education of language minority students. Paper presented at
United States Commission on Civil Rights. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Docs/CivilRightsCommision.htm.

Hakuta, K. (2002). Improving education for all children: meeting the needs of language
minority children. Retrieved August 6, 2002, from
http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Aspen.html.

SAT-9 scores. Retrieved September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/.

Heine, H. (2003). Culturally responsible schools for Micronesians immigrant students. Retrieved
on April 11,2003, from http://www.prel.org/teams/culturally-responsive.asp.

Hispanics, Asians gain in Census. (2001, March 9). The groups' populations surge as new figures
for four states show a blurring of racial and ethnic lines. Tucson Citizen. Retrieved October
26, 2002, from http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/local/census/3_9_01n_census.html.

Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Irvine School District (2002). Retrieved on November 1, 2002, from ISD: www.iusd.k12ca.us.

Johnston, R. C. & Viadero, D. (2002, March 15). Unmet promise: Raising minority
achievement. Education week, 19(27), 1-19.

Katz, A., Genesee, F., Gottlieb, M., & Malone, M. (2001). Scenarios for ESL standards-based
assessment. Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.


Kenosha Unified School District Five-Year Long Range Committee (2003). Kenosha Unified
School District No. 1, Kenosha, WI.

Krashen, Stephen. (2001). Term limits. Class dismissed. Retrieved October 21, 2002, from http://
www.americas.org/News/Features/200112_Blingual_Education/2001110_letters.htm.

Legge, C. (2000, June). Federal Court Decision. In Decision by Judge Charles Legge: Refusing
to Delay the Effective Date of Proposition 227 by U.S. District Judge Charles A. Legge.
San Francisco: Federal Court Decision. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID-7776.

Midwest Equity Assistance Center (1997). Variety of programs helps newcomers adjust to U.S.
Schools. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from MEAC: http://mdac.educ.ksu.edu?
MDAC/resource/horizons/AugSept97/articles/newcomers/html.

Moyers, S. (1993, January). Bridging the culture gap. Instructor, 31-33.

The National ClearingHouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction
Educational Programs (NCELA) (1991/92-2001/02). The growing number of limited
English proficient students. Retrieved November 26, 2002, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu./states/stateposter.pdf.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, NCLEA (2002), retrieved September
4, 2002, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu./ .

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Title I sec. 1111(b)(3)(C)(x).

OnWisonsin.com. State Hispanic population. Retrieved November 3, 2002, from
http://www.jsonline.com/news/census2000/mar01/LATINO10g2.asp.

Pabst, G. (2001, March 9). Hispanics find that state has a winning formula good economy, jobs,
family ties help lure many Latinos here. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved
November 26, 2002, from
http://www.jsonline.com/news/census2000/mar01/latino030901gx.asp#top.

Pathways, Immigrant Education (2002). ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. Retrieved
November 27, 2002, from http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/path.asp.

Resource VIII-Overview of key ESEA Programs. Retrieved on September 6, 2002, from http://
www.ed.gov/pubs/Idea_Planning/resource_8.html.

Schwartz, W. (1996, November). Immigrants and their educational attainment: Some facts and


findings. Eric Clearinghouse on Urban Education, 116. Retrieved December 12, 2002,
from http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/digests/dig116.asp.

Short, D. & Boyson, B. (2000). Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence
(CREDE). Summary of data in secondary newcomer directory. Center for Applied
Linguistic. Retrieved July 29,2002 from http://www.cal.org/crede/newsummary.htm.

Short, D. & Boyson, B. (2002) Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence
(CREDE). Newcomers: Language and academic programs for recent immigrants. Center
for Applied Linguistic. Retrieved July 29, 2002 from
http://www.cal.org/crede/newsummary.htm.

Short, D. (1998). Secondary Newcomers programs: Helping recent immigrants prepare for
school success. ERIC Digest (ED#411703). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics, from http://www.cal.org/crede/newcomer.htm.

Short, D. J. (2002). Newcomers programs: An educational alternative for secondary immigrant
students. Education and Urban Society 34(2), 173-198. Retrieved July 29, 2002 from

United States Department of Education, Office of Civil rights Programs for English Language
Learners. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/ELL.html.

United States Census 2000. Wisconsin Latino population, by community. Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel. March 9, 2001 Retrieved November 26, 2002, from
http://www.jsonline.com/news/census2000/mar01/latino030901gx.asp#top.

West Bloomfield School District, West Bloomfield, MI. Retrieved November 26, 2002, from
http://www.westbloomfield.k12mi.us/newcomer.html.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) Retrieved November 26, 2002, from
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/title1/index.html.

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002). Legal Responsibilities when serving
Limited-English -Proficient (LEP) students in K-12 public schools. Retrieved from http://
www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/equity/biling.html.

World Population Sheet. (2003). Retrieved on April 11, 2003 from http://www.prb.org/.


QUESTION 3

Analyze how bilingual education has developed and changed during the last decade.
Explore the impact of bilingual education on meeting the needs of Hispanic students.
Has bilingual education successfully addressed the various issues of limited English
speakers? What areas need to be addressed by bilingual educators in order to
successfully meet the needs of limited English speakers, in particular, Hispanic students?

The Bilingual Movement

The Bilingual Movement began in the 1960s as a part of the Civil Rights

Movement. Prior to early 1960s, bilingual education waned because the U.S. educational

system was recovering from the effects of two World Wars. Immigrants during this time

came primarily from European nations and were more economically affluent. Their

children had more access to formal education in their native countries. Historically, the

principle motivators for foreigners relocating to the United States were economic,

political, and/or familial. Assimilation into larger society was necessary in order to gain

employment and to survive. To this day, immigrants tend to settle in neighborhoods that

are representative of their language, culture, and/or socioeconomic status (Duignan,

2001; Education World, 1998; Spring, 1996).

In the 1950s and early 1960s, major international events helped to renew an

interest in language instruction, particularly after the Soviets launched their first artificial

earth satellite, called the Sputnik, in 1958. Throughout the nation, curriculum reform

efforts resulted in a renewed interest in foreign language instruction. During this time,


the Cuban Revolution caused many to flee to the U. S. These new residents settled

Southern Florida. These Spanish-speaking residents caused bilingual educational

programs to be introduced into U.S. public schools. Bilingual programs

(English/Spanish) also began to emerge and set precedence throughout the Southwestern

part of the U.S. (California, New Mexico, and Texas) (Duignan, 2001; Education World,

1998; Spring, 1996).

Congressional Acts and judicial rulings of the 1960s and 1970s served to increase

interest and support of bilingual programs. Throughout this time, the immigration

population began to increase with the largest number of emigrants arriving from Mexico,

and countries in Central and South America. Minorities in the 1960s demanded equal

rights as part of the Civil Rights Movement. Minorities and others fought forced

segregation, and discrimination in housing and employment. Many Hispanic community

members were outraged by the inequality of the educational system. The educational

system had far fewer Hispanic educators, and Hispanics began to demand more

representation in education (and in the government), so that their issues would be

addressed (Castellanos, 1983; Duignan, 2001; Education World, 1998; Spring, 1996).

During this time of civil unrest, Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas was in fear

of losing the election of 1970, and desperately needed the Hispanic vote to win; it would

be a critical factor in his victory. In order to win the Hispanic vote, Yarborough was

appointed to a special subcommittee for bilingual education, which was part of the larger

Senate Committee of Labor and Public Welfare. This committee launched a series of


hearings in many Hispanic communities. Yarborough spearheaded support for programs

that advocated the need for bilingual education, for Spanish speakers. Legislation was

also introduced to fund educational programs that encouraged knowledge and pride for

the Hispanic culture and language. The federal programs sought to train more Hispanic

teachers. Because of the efforts of Senator Yarborough and others, the 1968 Bilingual

Education Act passed, giving birth to the Bilingual Educational Movement. With the

passing of the 1968 Title VII-Bilingual Education Act, which was a provision of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Congress authorized funding for

bilingual programs in school districts. School districts were encouraged by Title VII to

develop bilingual educational programs. By 1968, fourteen States had enacted statutes on

behalf of bilingual programs in public schools, and thirteen other States passed legislation

that mandated these laws be initiated (Castellanos, 1983; Duignan, 2001; Education

World, 1998; National Clearinghouse, 1986; Spring, 1996).

In the early 1970s, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

(USDHEW) began implementing guidelines for school districts to set up bilingual

programs nationwide. Congress addressed the issue of bilingual education by enacting

“The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974” (EEOA). The EEOA of 1974 stated

in part that, “No state shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual because

of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin” (Castellanos, 1983; English for the

Children, 1998; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998). The USDHEW

interpreted the law to mean bilingual programs were required for all children who were

from homes where English was not their primary language. Critics noted that even a


child who spoke perfect English might be required to take bilingual classes if their

parents preferred to speak Spanish or Chinese at home (Duignan, 2001, English for the

Children, 1998; Legge, 1998; Unz, 2002).

At the same time, there were complicated court decisions concerning how to

educate LEP students. The most prominent was Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols

(1974) which required school districts to provide special language aid to students from

homes in which English was not spoken. The ruling found that school programs for LEP

students conducted exclusively in English were denying students equal access to a

meaningful education. The Court mandated that school districts with LEP students had a

legal and moral responsibility to help LEP students overcome their language barriers in a

meaningful way; however, the Court never mandated bilingual education an absolute

requirement. Some have compared the significance of the ruling in Lau v. Nichols to that

of Brown v. Board of Education, which ended forced segregation in public schools. Lau

v. Nichols gave some recourse from discrimination to students who spoke languages

other than English (Castellanos, 1983; Duigan, 2001; English for the Children, 1998;

ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998; Spring, 1996).

The Supreme Court, in Guadalupe v. Temple (1978), further interpreted the

decisions pertaining to language assistance and explicitly stated that “bilingual

education” was not required under the U.S. Constitution or the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Court declared that providing extra support in English was adequately meeting

school districts' obligations as satisfying the requirements of Lau v. Nichols (English for


the Children, 1998; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998).

Then, in the 1980s, the Bilingual Movement came under fire once more with the

passing of Castaneda v Pickard (1981). Based on this court case, Congress ruled that

States and school districts servicing LEP students were to meet and address the following

four substantial mandates. They must state how they will address the language barriers

of their LEP population and provide information on how a school is pursuing a sound

educational program grounded in theory recognized by some experts. States and school

districts must explain how programs and practices actually used by schools are being

effectively implemented, and based upon the educational theory adopted by the school.

Finally, they must address how the programs produce results indicating that the language

barriers confronting students are actually being overcome (English for the Children,

1998; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998).

In 1985, the Secretary of Education, William Bennett, publicly expressed his

concerns regarding the failures of bilingual education. He stated that LEP students in

bilingual educational programs were educated exclusively in their native languages to the

detriment of English, thus providing fuel to the "English-only movement.” The

movement for making English the official language in the United States was presented by

Senator Hayakawa (Republican of California) in 1981; however, it was never ratified into

law. In 1986, President Reagan’s administration increased political activities with the

National Association of Bilingual Education, thus quieting down the “English-only

movement.” However, by the late 1980s, fourteen States passed English as the official


language legislation (Crawford, 1997; English for the Children, 1998; ELLKBase, 2002,

2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998; Spring, 1996).

In 1998, nearly 30 years after the passing of the Bilingual Education Act along

with an explosion of mass immigration, the Bilingual Movement was negatively affected

when California voters passed the Unz Initiative with a majority (60%) of the vote. This

initiative ended Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) programs and mandated that LEP

students be taught in English in California. This again set precedence in the English-only

movement and shocked supporters of the Bilingual Movement nationwide. California

housed more that half of the national LEP population, and Proposition 227 forced school

districts and educators there to adopt English-only programs for their LEP students

(English for Children, 1998).

Today, proponents of bilingual education are seeking court actions to stop the

English-only legislation. In 1998, bilingual proponents filed a lawsuit in California to

stop the English-only laws, such as the Unz Initiative. In the Courts’ decision, Judge

Legge (1998) referenced Castaneda v. Pickard (1981) and reiterated that states and

districts are not mandated to implement bilingual programs. Judge Legge (1998) cited

the fact that Congress, under the EEOA 1974, intended to leave state and local

educational authorities a substantial amount of freedom in choosing the programs they

desire while meeting their obligations. Judge Legge (1998) outlined specifics and stated,

“This Act orders states and educational agencies to take appropriate action to overcome

language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional


programs” (p. 7). This Act does not mention nor mandate any language assistance

program requirements.

The constitutions of some states also clarify these previous court rulings. The

Wisconsin Constitution (Article X.3) affirms that all Wisconsin students have the

fundamental right to an equal opportunity for a sound basic education, which is defined

as “one that will equip students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed

economically and personally" (Vincent v. Voight, The Legal Responsibilities, 2001, p. 9).

The EEOA allows school districts officials freedom to adopt any approach to educating

LEP students, provided they take “appropriate action” to ensure their students have equal

access to the curriculum. The program implemented must be based on “sound

educational theory," staffed with adequate personnel, and evaluated for effectiveness in

overcoming the students' language barriers. Failure to comply with the Wisconsin

Constitution is a violation of the LEP students’ civil rights (The Focus, 2002).

The Bilingual Movement has faced major setbacks by the recent successes of the

English-only movement. However, bilingual programs continue to be in practice in states

where no English-only laws have been passed. Faithful supporters contend that

instruction in more than one language benefits the students, the teachers, and the

community (Hakuta, 2002).


Program Effectiveness

Some researchers (Hakuta, 2001; Thomas & Collier, 2001) have found that when

implemented correctly, bilingual instruction can be successful and can produce greater

academic achievement. Still others (Hakuta, 2001; Thomas & Collier, 2001) argue that

after nearly 30 years of bilingual education in the U.S., Hispanic students have remained

in the lowest scoring group of any ethnic group on standardized assessments. Hispanics

also have the highest average national dropout rate (40%) (Netkin, 1997). Schools with

large numbers of poor, immigrant, or migrant children have higher turnover rates of

transient LEP students. This target population is often transient, and its attrition rate is

high. The high attrition rate is because LEP students are not housed in their bilingual

programs for their entire academic careers (Friedlander, 1991). In addition to switching

programs, students who jump from school to school find it hard to keep up. Research

(Viadero, 2000) has also shown that instruction slows for all students in schools with

high rates of turnover.

In a San Francisco study, in which over fifty effective bilingual classrooms were

evaluated and observed, researchers arrived at some universal effective characteristics of

bilingual programs. These universal characteristics included the following: 1) teachers

gave students clear expectations and identified their expectations for completing a task;

2) teachers used a sense of efficacy; and 3) the teachers used two languages, and 60% of

the instruction time was in English, while the remaining time was in the native language


of the LEP students. Teachers have a strong sense of efficacy when they believe that

they can affect the learning of their students. Building efficacy can help teachers create

an environment in which change and improvement can flourish (ELLKBase, 2002, 2001;

Howard, 1998; NCREL, 2002).

Often, LEP parents are not given a choice in the placement of their child. Simply

put, some rural and smaller districts cannot afford to create and implement bilingual

programs and hire bilingual teachers who are qualified to teach various languages. With

the vast number of languages represented in the U.S., the type of bilingual programs

available will all too often depend on how many students speak the language and the

feasibility of hiring support personnel. Some schools districts and/or schools have 20 or

more different languages. It is clearly not feasible for School Districts to be required to

offer over 120 different bilingual programs, nor is it logical for a smaller district to hire a

bilingual teacher for just a few students (Crawford, 1997; Legge, 1998). Like bilingual

educational programs, the success of alternative English programs also depends on

resources, availability of qualified ESL teachers, and feasibility. School districts are

opting for ESL programs because it is very costly to hire the support personnel required

for instruction in so many different languages. Teachers trained in ESL are able to

provide specialized English instruction for the LEP students whose native tongue is any

language.


It is likely that most LEP parents want their children to participate and learn

English as quickly as possible. Many people believe that by educating LEP students in

English, one is providing an education that fosters and promotes an equitable chance at

economic opportunity in the future (Education World, 1998). LEP parents, particularly

Hispanic parents, are eager to have their children fully participate in society by learning

English. For the parents who do want their children to learn English as quickly as

possible, there are alternatives to placing their children in a bilingual educational program

(Ayala & Mendoza, 1999; English for the Children, 1998; Netkin, 1997). A study

conducted by the American Institutes for Research in Palo Alto, California (1977-1978)

revealed that bilingual students' scores in reading and math were not significantly higher

than students in English-only programs. Participation in these programs did not dictate a

change in academic attitude or increased participation in school related activities (Castro,

1980). In 1998, the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) conceded,

“perhaps 10 percent or fewer of the state’s (California) bilingual programs are well

implemented” (p. 2). CABE also cited that a shortage of bilingual teachers is a main

factor in programs failing (Rodriguez, 1998). Bilingual proponents are quick to offer

justifications for these failures, placing blame on various factors other than the program

itself.

“The federal government pushes 3 out of 4 dollars to transitional bilingual

programs … The reason you have schools continuing to use failing bilingual educational

programs is that they receive federal funds for doing so" (Zehr, 2001, December, p. 2).

According to Unz, the failure of bilingual educational programs is due not to the theory,


but to the practice. The theory behind bilingual education is sound, but lack of

administration, parental, and community support hinders the program's success

(Rodriguez, 1998; Unz, 2001).

Lack of resources also contributes to the failure of bilingual programs. There are

considerable socioeconomic elements plaguing many LEP students, which may impede

their language development and cause them to drop out of school.

Minority children have less access to good preschool and day-care
programs. The New York City-based College Board notes that in 1996
only 63 percent of African American parents with young children enrolled
them in preschool. The figure was only 36 percent for Hispanic parents.
(Viadero, 2000, p. 30)

Consider the following: LEP families represent about 60% of all high school dropouts

having incomes of less than $15,000 annually; many LEP students drop out to support

their families (Sosa, 1990). Three quarters of immigrants are from lower socioeconomic

strata, and live in poor, urban neighborhoods (Crawford, 1997; Hakuta, 2001). “Poverty

is a big contributing factor to Latinos' academic deficiency” (Netkin, 1997, p. 2). Often

LEP students lack parental language support: 28% of LEP students live in homes where

no one over fourteen speaks English well (Crawford, 1997). Many LEP students are

living in neighborhoods where their native language is the spoken language. Numerous

students speak English only at schools and have no access to books in English (Hakuta,

2001; Netkin, 19971).

In Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol (1991) discussed the atrocities of many

schools in urban areas and linked these conditions to school spending per pupil ratio and


the quality of education available. Kozol found links between students' educational

achievement and their socioeconomic class. Kozol discovered that schools in minority-

majority areas were at the bottom of the education and socioeconomic scale because the

communities were full of families at or below the poverty level. Out of the 550

sophomore students enrolled at Woodrow Wilson High School, in Camden, New Jersey

200 were expected to graduate from the twelfth grade. Kozol continued his illustration

by describing the dismal facility conditions of the auditorium; the ceiling had an

enormous hole. While on the other hand, wealthy Caucasian students attend nearby

Bronx High School of Science where the educational conditions are excellent and most of

the students attend college prep courses.

Along with buildings that should have been condemned years ago, Kozol

discovered many tools (such as textbooks and lab equipment), amenities (such as heating,

and air conditioning) and all sorts of supplies (such as toilet paper) lacking in poor urban

area schools. Another aspect affecting poor urban schools Kozol depicts is the lack well-

educated and enthusiastic teachers. The officials of these schools cannot afford to hire

the highly motivated teachers, and many settle for mediocre or second-rate teachers.

Kozol further commented that "to a real degree, what is considered 'adequate' or

'necessary' or 'sufficient' for the poor … is determined by the rich or relatively rich … in

accord with their opinion of what children of the poor are fit to become, and what their

social role should be"(p. 216). Many of the student's teachers that were spoken of in this

book were part-time subs or permanent subs who did not want to teach and to add to that

had no idea of what to do or how to teach subjects.


While many professionals in the field agree that objections to bilingual education

are warranted, research findings on the effectiveness of programs continues to remain in

debate; this debate will continue as long as the achievement gap of LEP students persist.

Results of longitudinal language studies are beginning to surface demonstrating what

works with language assistance programs. Regardless of the data surfacing, people from

each side of the issue can manipulate data gathered from test scores and surveys to

benefit their cause Most of the experts have reached the consensus that they should put

aside their theoretical differences and focus on what works with language assistance

programs. Bilingual proponents and English-only advocates have agreed that having a

multitude of language programs is the best avenue in order to educate all LEP students

There is arguably a core group of components that language assistance programs require

in order to be successful; these core components will be explored next (August, 1994;

ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998; Nevin, 1993; Short, 1999; Thomas &

Collier, 2001).

Effective Program Components

Linguistic experts have produced a list of specific effective components that any

language assistance program must have in order to meet the needs of LEP students. The

ideal solution may be a mixture of highly effective program components including the

following (August, 1994; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998; Nevin, 1993;

Short, 1999; Thomas & Collier, 2001):


1) Strong leadership;
2) High standards;
3) Entrance and Exit Procedures;
4) Authentic assessments;
4) Qualified and Credentialed Staff;
5) Staff development; and
6) Parental component and community support.

Strong Leadership

Researchers and educators have long agreed that school administration officials

are key members of the leadership team, enabling and mandating the development of

language policies and program practices, which nourish the success of LEP students

(Effective Instructional Strategies, 2002).

Long-term leadership with high expectations is also important. ‘At the low
end, districts give up and blame the environment,’ Mr. Meier said. ‘You
never see that in good districts. Their attitude is, 'We can teach anybody
to learn.’ (Johnston & Viadero, 2002, pp. 18-19)

Public school administrators, including principals, vice principals, student counselors,

and school psychologists, must recognize the need for effective language assistance

programs for their LEP students. They also must take responsibility for the success of

their language assistance programs. Administrators must take a leadership role in

investigating the various language assistance programs that are available. They must be


aware of the unique attributes of their community, including demographics, such as

countries of origin and languages spoken. Administrators need to conduct research or be

in a partnership with universities who are conducting research in field of linguistics and

second language education. They must address other needs that are specific to their

community, such as the need for transportation, food, and clothing. Finally, they must

choose language assistance programs that complement and fulfill the needs of their LEP

student population (Effective Instructional Strategies, 2002; ELLKBase, 2002; Johnston

& Viadero, 2002).

High Standards

To be an effective language assistance program, it must be well organized and

structured. LEP students are entitled equal access to a high quality education and equity

in resource distribution. Setting high expectations and standards for all students may help

to ensure educational equity.

Study after study has shown that compared to whites, a disproportionately
small number of African American and Hispanic students take challenging
academic courses. The reasons vary. Some schools rigidly track kids into
such courses, using test scores or grades to winnow students and ensure
that only the best [students] get in. Other schools open tough courses to
anyone, but minority students choose not to enroll. In some urban schools
with predominantly minority enrollments, there are only a handful of
Advanced Placement offerings—if any. (Viadero, 2000, p. 30)


With the passing of the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001," states and their

public schools must commit to high standards for all students, including LEP students.

LEP students need to be held to the same high expectations as mainstream students.

Therefore, the academic content needs to be structured around high standards. Content

standards should incorporate multicultural and real-life experiences of the students.

Creating a program with high standards helps not only LEP students, but all students to

acquire the necessary skills needed to be successful in school. State and district

supplemental assessment standards and teaching standards for ESL and bilingual teachers

must be developed. These standards must acknowledge the importance of the language

abilities and the inherent language limitations of LEP students. Furthermore, they must

provide accommodations as needed according to the language proficiency level of each

student (ELLKBase, 2002; Wisconsin DPI, 2002).

When teachers expect less of students, they get less—and that can skew
standards from school to school. Data from the U.S. Department of
Education suggest, for example, that and A student in a big-city school is
achieving at about the same level as B and C students in suburban
districts. (Johnston & Viadero, 2002, p. 18)

In 1994, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act created mandates

for states and school districts to create and implement high standards and expectations.

According to the law, schools must help all students meet the new challenging standards.

They must implement effective instructional strategies and provide an enriched and

accelerated program of study. The "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001" has upped the

ante for states and public school districts by providing a structure they can employ. It


further mandates that schools assess the progress of all students, including LEP students.

When LEP students are held to the same high standards as mainstream students, they may

rise to the challenge (AFT, 2001; August, 1995; Anstrom, 1997; Hakuta, 2001; Nevin,

1993; Short, 1999).

Entrance and Exit Procedures

As the name suggests, entrance procedures are those that are used to place LEP

students in specialized programs, including Newcomers programs, ESL, bilingual,

Sheltered English Immersion. Exit procedures are those used to transition LEP students

from the aforementioned language assistance programs, to mainstream classrooms. Exit

procedures include assessing the readiness of each child to make the move out of the

program (ELLKBase, 2002).

Language assistance programs must have entrance and exit procedures in place

that must be followed by district personnel. Clearly stated expectations and criteria need

to address how a child is identified as an LEP student. Further, these criteria must assure

the appropriate placement in language assistance programs. Usually, if the student were

identified as a non-English speaker based on the home language survey, they would next

be required to take an administered language assessment. These assessments identify

their level of English and/or native proficiency level. To accurately identify and quantify

the LEP student’s individual needs, assessments should be conducted in English as well

as the home language of the child. The tests most often used for identification are the


Language Assessment Scale (LAS) or the Idea Proficiency Test (IPT). These tests assess

oral, reading, and writing abilities. Program information should also be available to the

LEP student’s family, in their native language, if possible. Interpreters should also be

made available to communicate with the LEP student and family (ELLKBase, 2002;

Wisconsin DPI, 2002).

Programs fail when they do not have effective exit procedures in place and,

consequently, students are removed from the LEP program prematurely. Experts agree

and research has shown that oral proficiency in English can be obtained in less than 2

years. However, academic English, which is more complex and is required for course

content beyond a certain level, cannot be attained by most LEP students in less than 4 to

5 years, unless there are other exceptional conditions present. Prescribing strict time

limits is thus setting students up for failure, and contributing to the achievement gap. If

LEP students receive only a foundation in English, they will fall behind their

monolingual (English–only) peers in reading, writing, and in other academic content

areas at some point. This creates a "floundering effect" and ultimately puts LEP students

at risk of being placed in remedial academic programs, or even worse, dropping out of

school (AFT, 2001; Anstrom, 1997; August, 1995; Crawford, 1997; Duignan, 2000;

Legge, 1998; Nevin, 1993; Short, 1999; Thomas & Collier, 2001).


Authentic Assessments

There are there alternative ways in which educators can measure their LEP

students’ knowledge, without subjecting their students to failure. Many LEP students

cannot complete or understand these standardized tests without help. “In spite of the high

status of tests in our society, the perception of tests as objective, scientific, and useful are

not consistent with language minority students” (McLaughlin, 1992, p. 1). The use of

standardized assessments is not an effective way to measure what LEP students have

learned due to their limited language ability and comprehension limitations. Research in

ESL suggests the most effective way to assess language minority students is through

authentic or alternative assessment (Crawford, 1997; Duignan, 2000; McLaughlin, 1995).

Authentic assessment (A.A.) is another name used for alternative assessment.

“Authentic assessment refers to any type of evaluation that requires a student to use their

talents to express their understanding in a way that allows the evaluator to determine how

deep that understanding is” (Garvin, 1996, p. 1). Authentic assessment encourages a

student to use higher-order thinking skills by conducting some type of performance; it

allows educators to adapt traditional methods and integrate assessments into their

instructional approaches. Rather than focusing on factual recall, A.A. aims to evaluate

students’ abilities in a real world setting. Authentic assessment allows ESL teachers to

focus on students’ analytical skills and their ability to share what they have learned in a

more creative fashion. All LEP students can benefit from authentic assessment (Garvin,

1996).


Teachers should use alternative assessment when considering the learning styles,

language proficiencies, cultural and educational backgrounds, and grade levels of their

students. “Alternative assessment is an ongoing process that involves the student and the

teacher making judgments about the students’ progress in language using non-

conventional ways” (Hancock, 1994, p. 2). It includes a variety of measurements that can

be altered for different educational situations. Alternative assessment is by definition

criterion-referenced which is an authentic approach based on classroom

activities that represent student progress towards instructional goals (Garvin, 1996;

Hancock, 1994; Mc Laughlin, 1995).

Because LEP students are often limited orally, authentic assessment allows them

to express what they know in a variety of ways. Students can demonstrate physically

what they know. They can be asked to perform hands-on types of activities, act out

specific vocabulary, or give non-verbal signs to specific “yes or no” questions. When

working cooperatively, LEP students can demonstrate their oral skills and develop the

language skills that are necessary for development. ESL teachers can assess their

students on how their students have developed in a similar manner. Through authentic

assessment, teachers can integrate their assessments into various classroom activities;

authentic assessment is best when it is intrinsically linked to the goals of the programs

and objectives of the teacher (Garvin, 1996; Hancock, 1994; Mc Laughlin, 1995).

Performance assessment is an authentic assessment that is designed by the

teacher. Performance assessments assess a specific skill and/or competency in relation to

an agreed upon standard. Often the performance assessment reflects a specific task and


requires the rater to judge whether the student accomplished the activity that he or she

was asked to perform. A rubric is usually used to establish a performance scale expected

by the student. In some cases, students are required to work cooperatively, and they must

apply their skills and concepts to a specific problem or task. Some teachers may require

students to perform a short investigation to assess the skills they have mastered. This is

often seen in mathematics and in writing (Epstein, 2000; Garvin 1996; Hancock, 1994;

Miles, 1991; Pearson Education Development Group, 2000; Wiggins, 1990).

Authentic assessments also come in the form of open-ended questions.

Depending on the language level of the LEP student, he/she may respond by any means

possible to the posed question. They can respond orally, by written communication, by

drawing, or by other means. Answers may be brief; a simple as "yes" or "no" may be

appropriate in some cases (Epstein, 2000; Garvin 1996; Hancock, 1994; Miles, 1991;

Pearson Education Developmental Group, 2000; Wiggins, 1990).

The most popular method of A. A. used is known as a "portfolio.” Portfolio

assessments can be implemented at any developmental stage. They are an ongoing

assessment involving the student and the teacher selecting numerous work samples or

artifacts. The primary purpose is to show the progress made by the LEP student.

“Portfolios allow teachers to see the student as an individual, each with his or her own

unique set of characteristics, needs and strengths" (Epstein, 2000, p. 1). Portfolios may

include the teacher's observations of the student in the classroom interacting with his/her

peers. The teacher follows predetermined checklists in the observation. They may also

include journal entries and writing samples of the students. The language assistance


teacher can include the student speaking and reading, recorded over a specific time to

show growth and development of their language skills. Students can place artwork,

diagrams, charts, and graphs inside the portfolio. Reports and the student's notes may

also be placed in portfolio. Portfolio artifacts should be accompanied by the teacher's and

the student's personal reflections, answering the question, "Why was this artifact chosen

to be part of the portfolio?" Performance based assessment and portfolios may be used as

documentation when considering the re-designation of a student from LEP to Fluent

English Proficiency (FEP). “Performance assessment and portfolios are typically seen as

sources of teacher and student empowerment because control over assessment shifts from

the administrators to those linked most closely to the instruction” (Epstein, 2000; Garvin

1996; Hancock, 1994; Pearson Education Development Group, 2000; Valdez &

O'Malley, 1992, p. 2).

Scoring is also a necessary part of assessment. Teachers should establish criteria

for scoring according to developmental levels of English: Non-English Proficiency,

Limited English Proficiency and Fluent English Proficiency. The levels are used for the

original identification and placement of students into the program. The scoring needs to

be holistic and focusing on students’ ability and effort. “Holistic scoring procedures

evaluate performance as a whole rather than by its separate linguistic or grammatical

features” (Valdez & O' Malley, 1992, p. 5). A rubric may also be developed to determine

learning outcomes. They should be specific and kept short. Every rubric should focus on

a specific skill and only evaluate certain, identified measurable criteria. The rubric may


focus on how a student develop and express their learning. The rubric may be a numeric

scale ranging from 1- 5 (Pickett, 1999).

Implementing A. A. allows language assistance teachers a wider range of

evidence to support whether or not their students are meeting their academic goals and

objectives. Language assistance teachers who use meaningful authentic assessments will

hold high academic expectations for all of their LEP students. Using authentic

assessment, language assistance teachers are demanding academic excellence from their

LEP students. To reach the ultimate language goal of fluency and mainstreaming,

teachers must be able to use alternative means of assessments and instruction, so their

students can have a creative manner in which to display what they have learned. Using

A. A. allows teachers to meet the individual needs of their language students and value

their diversity. When States, school districts and teachers fail to accommodate the

assessment needs of their LEP students, they are hindering their students’ progress, thus

giving their LEP students with an ineffective education, resulting in failure, low self-

esteem and halting of learning. Alternative assessment provides an effective way to

improve instruction and learning, which in the end will promote lifelong learning.

Qualified and Credentialed Staff

School Districts must make a conscientious effort to hire credentialed teachers

who are highly trained in language assistance programs, whether bilingual or ESL.

School districts and universities are failing to meet this need for trained teachers. States


or districts who do not hire credentialed language assistance teachers to service bilingual

or ESL students are in direct violation of the Equal Education Opportunities Act. In the

state of Wisconsin, districts are mandated to hire certified bilingual or ESL teachers. “No

LEP student may spend all or even a large part of their day within a self contained

classroom where the instruction is provided by an unlicensed staff member” (Wisconsin

DPI, The Legal Responsibilities, 2001, p. 6). In Wisconsin, districts that do not provide

enrollment opportunities for their LEP students into a language assistance program,

administrators, and other certified staff must create a unified plan of service indicating

how the school district will educate these students. An Individual Record Plan (IRP)

must be implemented, so that instruction is tailored to the student's unique needs

(Wisconsin DPI, The Legal Responsibilities, 2001).

The U. S. continues to benefit from a near constant influx of immigrants from all

over the world; therefore, language assistance education is a growing field and a rich

field of study for educators and positions for elementary and secondary teachers.

Teachers can learn a great deal from the field of brain research, which is providing

information on how people process first and second language acquisition. Because

research is always developing, teachers benefit from ongoing learning. The rewards are

great, for teachers witness and facilitate students learning English (August, 1994;

ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998; Nevin, 1993; Short, 1999; Thomas &

Collier, 2001).


Staff Development

Staff development is another critical component of an effective language

assistance program. In order for educators to have high expectations for their students,

they too, must be held to the same high standards. When teachers lack specific training

in the needs of their student population, they tend to dilute the curriculum and simplify

the materials and language to the essentials (The Focus, 2002).

New research indicates that children in schools with many minority and
poor students are more likely to be taught by under qualified teachers.
Those findings are emerging just as other studies are beginning to quantify
the damage that an ineffective teacher can do. Research by William
Sanders and his colleagues at the University of Tennessee suggest that
three consecutive years of bad teachers can significantly hamper a child’s
learning over the long run. (Viadero, 2000, p. 30)

LEP students’ needs are constantly changing and evolving over time, which may

interfere with their academic progress. Staff training opportunities allows time for

coaching, reflection, exploration of new techniques and strategies utilized to solve

problems that are unique to teaching LEP students. The stress of continually adapting,

creating, and modifying the curriculum and addressing the holistic LEP students’ needs

tend to cause additional pressures that are also unique to language assistance teachers

(ELLKBase, 2002).


Teachers are taught to believe that all children can learn, but their
classroom experiences sometimes convince them otherwise. According to
some experts and parents, veterans of teaching low-achieving minorities
eventually come to expect less of these students than others and
discourage them from taking advanced classes. Research, however, is thin
on whether teacher expectations create a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy
for minority students. (Viadero, 2000, p. 30)

Nevertheless, the biggest problem teachers’ face may be a simple lack of time -- time to

gather materials, develop lesson plans, assess student performance, maintain contact with

parents, and keep up with advances in teaching and in academic subjects (Hakuta, 1998).

Staff development and training may help reduce the high turnover rates typical of

language assistance teachers. In 1998, according to the California Department of

Education, there were only 14,965 certified bilingual teachers, and only 9,188 were in

training at that time (Hakuta, 1998). California determined it would need an estimate of

20,000 bilingual teachers in order to meet the needs of its large LEP student population.

Other states including Wisconsin lack a sufficient amount of trained ESL teachers.

Throughout the U.S., LEP students are now are in general education classes with

mainstreamed content teachers who are not trained in meeting their needs (Hakuta, 1998).

Without adequate training, the needs of LEP students are inadvertently being ignored.

This is especially true in content courses, and it leads to the students' failure and

increased drop out rates. Therefore, staff development should be a priority for school

districts nationwide. Proper allocation of resources for staff development should be a

part of all school districts’ budget planning. If this need is ignored, all students suffer. If


the need is met, all students, especially those who are LEP, will be better able to meet

their full potential (AFT, 2001; Anstrom, 1997; August, 1995; Duran & Slavin 1996;

ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 1998; Ortiz, 2001; Short, 1999).

Family and Community Involvement

Family and community involvement is an added assurance of LEP students’

success. Current research indicates that students’ academic success is related to

variations in parenting.

Anecdotal evidence suggests, for example, that (white) parents may
interact with their young children in ways that had better support school
success. They might, for example, ask children more questions or to
justify their requests. Moreover, as children get older … Hispanic parents
may be less inclined to pressure them to do well in school or to push for
their placement in advanced classes. (Johnston & Viadero, 2002, p. 1)

Schools must find ways to reach the LEP parents early and establish avenues of

communication. If administrators and educators fail to communicate with their LEP

parents, they may be hindering the success of their LEP students and the future of their

language programs as well. Bilingual education has played a vital role in increasing

parental involvement. Creating ESL classes for parents at the school site is also an

effective way to communicate with LEP parents and to get them involved in the

educational process (August, 1995; ELLKBase, 2002; Johnston & Viadero, 2002; Short,

1999).


More research is needed on the extent of the impact of LEP parental involvement

and LEP students’ success. There appears to be no negative effect of reaching out to the

parents. Regular communication with parents throughout the school years may increase

the effectiveness of language assistance programs. Regular parent-teacher conferences,

with interpreters on hand if necessary, will increase the communication. Parents can also

be informed of upcoming course content, perhaps in flyers printed in their native

language, if feasible; this will enable parents to be better prepared to help their children

with their assignments (August, 1995; ELLKBase, 2002; Johnston & Viadero, 2002;

Short, 1999).

Another way to get the community involved is to enact a tutoring program

involving older LEP and/or FEP students in the area. If tutors can be found that speak the

native language of the younger children, they can help the teacher to communicate with

the younger kids. This is especially vital when the students are new arrivals to this

country. It benefits the older children because they can feel a sense of pride and

accomplishment after helping the younger students (August, 1995; ELLKBase, 2002;

Johnston & Viadero, 2002; Short, 1999).

Conclusion

States, school districts, and schools have made tremendous progress in closing the

achievement gap. During the 1970s and 1980s, Hispanics and other LEP students made

greater strides in narrowing the academic gap when compared to their monolingual


counterparts. For example, from the year 1970 to 1990, the gap between minority and

majority groups declined by nearly half (Johnston & Viadero, 2002). Nevertheless,

advancement in this area is still required because the gap continues to persist.

Various linguistic experts agree that it is time to put aside debates about the

various language assistance programs. For many students today, especially students who

are poor and have limited English proficiency, both equality and excellence in education

remain out of reach. The reality is that U.S. schools are continuing to fail to meet the

academic needs of LEP students. A solitary program is not the solution because every

state has its own set of standards and benchmarks, which vary from district to district and

sometimes, from school to school. The decision on how to “best” educate LEP students

(bilingual or ESL) should be left up to the school districts. These officials should have

knowledge of their student population and their unique needs. The U.S. does not have a

national curriculum established as of yet, therefore why should states and school districts

have a "one size fits all" national curriculum for their LEP students? The National

Research Council concluded after reviewing the language assistance programs of the past

25 years, “There is little evidence to support which program is best. The key issue is not

finding a program that works for ALL children and localities, but finding a set program

that works for the community of interest” (Crawford, 1997, pps. 27-28). A "one size fits

all" curriculum disregards the variations of the LEP student population within a

community. Setting conditions on which programs to teach and which programs to

implement disregards the individual needs of LEP students such as age, maturity,


language skills, previous home-country schooling, learning styles and other unique

attributes (Legge, 1998).

Poverty, while a big factor, does not account for all of the differences.
Nor does family structure. All other things being equal, young children
growing up in single-parent homes score just as high on preschool
vocabulary tests as children from intact families. (Johnston & Viadero,
2002, p. 1)

School districts need to listen to the needs of the community. Texas A&M

University researchers studied the best schools for educating minorities in their state, and

found that solid, consistent implementation of the programs was the most important

factor (Johnston & Viadero, 2002). Despite the issues plaguing our LEP students, every

school district, school, administrator, teacher, parent, and student must be held

accountable for LEP students’ progress. Some of the statistics are striking:

Nearly half of New York City's teaching force in the 1997-98 school year
had failed certification tests in math—compared with a little over a fifth of
teachers in the surrounding suburbs and less than a quarter of the teachers
throughout the rest of the state … From birth to high school graduation,
the average child in New York City will see about $25,975 less spent on
his or her education than the average child elsewhere in the state,
according to a recent report by the Council of the Great City Schools, a
Washington-based organization of urban districts. (Johnston & Viadero,
2002, p. 1)


There can be no more excuses! Everyone involved in the education of LEP

students must do a better job at teaching these LEP students the English skills they need

to be successful. The federal government, States, and school districts must do a better job

at funding districts' language assistance programs (bilingual/ESL) for all students of

limited English. States and school districts must continue to evaluate their language

assistance programs for effectiveness. If school districts can prove their LEP students are

meeting their district and state’s grade level goals and objectives, then they should be

allowed to maintain their programs of choice. According to Castaneda v Pickard (1981),

if a district’s LEP student population is not meeting the state or school district’s level of

English language proficiency targeted projected growth, school districts will then need to

revamp their curriculum and seek alternative programs.

Limited English students remain "at risk." Even a solitary LEP student should

have equal access to a trained, certified teacher. Schools that have just one LEP student

are under the same obligation to provide their LEP student with a comprehensive English

language program. All too often, LEP students are just "pushed aside" and their

educational needs are ignored. Regardless of the program selected, whether bilingual or

ESL, these students need attention. Educators must do their part to make sure these LEP

students’ needs are met, now, and in the future.


References

Alcala, A. (2000). Practical assessments, research, and evaluation. Eric Digest.
Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/databses/EricDigests.

Addison, A. ESL Strategies for Content Teachers. Research Paper. Retrieved July 29,
2002, from http://www.shsu.edu/~lib_jeo/anneaddisonresearch.htm.

Anstrom, K. (1997, September). Academic Achievement for Secondary Language
Minority Students: Standards, Measures, and Promising Practices. Retrieved
September 6, 2002, from National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education: http://
www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/acadach.htm#Overview.

August, D., Carlo, M., & Calderon, M. (2000). Transfer of reading skills from Spanish to
English: A study of young learners. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from
http://www.cal.org/projects/obemla.html.

August, D. (1995, Fall). For all students: Limited English proficient students and goals.
Retrieved September 3, 2003, from
http://http:www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/focus/focus10.htm.

Ayala, H... & Mendoza, M. (1999, January). Text of Proposition 203. In English for the
children of Arizona. English language education for children in public schools.
Retrieved September 6, 2002, from http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?
ID=4255.

Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development: The
self as source. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Bailey, K. M., Curtis, Andy. &. Freeman, D. (2001). Goals-based evaluation
Procedures: How students perceive what teachers intend. TESOL Journal Winter,
10(4), 5-9.

Baker, C. (2000). The care and education of young bilinguals: An introduction for
professionals. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Barnhardt, S., Chamot, A., El-Dinary, P et al. The learning strategies handbook. White
Plains, NY: Longman.

Becker, J. A. (2002). Teaching language by previewing lessons. TESOL Journal, 11(2),
38.


Boston Globe Editorial. (2002, August 6). Bilingual breaththrough. Boston Globe.
Section: A14. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
http://boston.com/dailyglobe2/218/editorials/Bilingual_breaththroughP.shtml.

Bousquet, M, Butler, Y. G., Hakuta, K., & Orr, J. E. (2002, August 15). What can we
learn about the impact of Proposition 227 from Sat-9 scores? Retrieved

Brown, J. (1998). New ways of classroom assessment. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Calderon, M., & Slavin, R. (2001). Effective programs for Latino students. Mahwah,
N.J.: TEASELED.

Calderon, M., & Duran, R., Fashola, & O. S., Slavin, R. E. CRESPAR Report No. 11-
Effective programs for Latino students in elementary and middle schools
[Program 5: Language Minority Studies]. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from
CRESPAR: http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/Reports/reports11entire.htm.

Castellanos, D. (1983). The best of two worlds: Bilingual-bicultural education. Trenton,
NJ: New Jersey State Department of Education.

Castro, F. (1980, January 5). Bilingual education at a crossroad. Los Angeles Times.

Center for Applied Linguistics. CAL. Retrieved July 26, 2002, from CAL:
http://www.cal.org/schoolservices/.

Center for Law and Education. What does it take? Title I school wide programs.
Retrieved September 6, 2002, from http://www.cleweb.org/t1.htm.

Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive
academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.

Chavez, J., & Montero, R. (2001, June). Text of Colorado’s Initiative. In English for the
Children of Colorado. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from

Costello, M. (1996). Critical issue: Providing effective schooling for students at risk.
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at600.htm.

Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of Bilingual Education Act.
Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.ncborgwu.edu.


Crawford, J. (1998, Winter). Rethinking schools-Does bilingual education work? 13(2).
Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/Archieves/13-02/
biside.htm.

Cromwell, S. (1999, January 19). The bilingual education debate: Part 1. Education
World. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/
curr047.shtml.

Cummins, J. (1999, February 22). Research, ethics, and public discourse: The debate on
bilingual education. Paper presented at the National Conference of the American
Association of Higher Education.

Cummins, J., & Genzuk, M. (1991, March). Analysis of final report longitudinal study of
structured English immersion strategy, early- exit and late-exit transitional
bilingual education programs for language-minority children. The California
Association for Bilingual Education Newsletter.

Duff, P. A. (2001). Learning English for academic and occupational purposes. TESOL
Quarterly, 35(4).

Duignan, Peter. Hoover essay. Bilingual education: A critique. Retrieved July 29, 2002,
from, http://www.hooverstandfordedu./publications/he/22/22d.html.

Duran, R., & Slavin, R. Program 5 highlights: Effective bilingual education. Retrieved
September 6, 2002, from http://http;//www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/prog5hi.html.

Effective instructional practices for language minority students. MAEC. Retrieved July
29, 2002, from http:www.maec.org/instprac.htlm.

Children.” In English for the Children. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from http://
www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=4255.

English for the Children of Arizona (2003). Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.angelfire.com/az/english4thechildren/body.html.

ELLKBase- The English Language Learner Knowledgebase. (2002) A framework for
alternative language programs [Data file]. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/practitionerstips/Framework_ALP.sht
ml.

The English Plus Alternative. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/EPIC.htm.


Epstein, A. (2000). Assessment: Portfolio assessment: Checklists. Retrieved September 6,
2002, from http://www.teachervision.com.

Educational resource Information Center (ERIC) (1998, July). Qualities of effective
programs for immigrant adolescents with limited schooling. Retrieved September
5, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/databases/Eric_Digests/ed423667.html.

Estrada, P. (2002). Patterns of instructional activity in culturally and linguistically
diverse classrooms: Excellence, inclusion, fairness, and harmony. Retrieved
September 5, 2002, from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/tier/intro5_8.shtml.

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. Sheltered English instruction. Retrieved June 29, 2002,
from ERIC Digest: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed301070.html.

Friedlander, M. (Fall, 1991). The newcomers program: Helping immigrant students
succeed in U.S. schools. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, No. 8.
Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http://ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig8.htm;
http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/refernces/NEWCOMERPROGRAM
TableCo.

Garcia, E. E. (1988, Winter). Effective schooling for language minority students (1st Ed.)
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/classics/focus/01effective.htm.

Garvin, I. (1996). Authentic-alternative assessment. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://iteachnet.org.

Genesee, F., Gottlieb, M., Katz, A., & Malone, M. (2001). Scenarios for ESL standards-
based assessment. Alexandria,VA: TESOL.

Gentry, M. L. Promoting student achievement, and exemplary classroom practices
through cluster grouping: A research-based alternative to heterogeneous
elementary classrooms [Special issue]. The National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented.. Retrieved August 3, 2002, from
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/gentry.html.

Gonzalez, J. (1979). Coming of age in bilingual education: A historical perspective. In H.
Trueba & C. Barnett-Mizrahi (Eds.), Bilingual-multicultural education and the
professional. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Hakuta, K. (2001, April 13). The education of language minority students. Paper
presented at United States Commission on Civil Rights. Retrieved September 26,
2002, from http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Docs/CivilRightsCommision.htm.


Hakuta, K. (2002, August 22). Points on SAT-9 performance and Proposition 227.
Retrieved September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/.

Hakuta, K. (2002, August 29). What can we learn about the impact of Proposition 227
from SAT-9 Scores. Retrieved September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/
~hakuta/.

Hakuta, K. & August, D. (1997). Improving education for all children: meeting the
Needs of Language Minority Children. Retrieved August 6, 2002, from
http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Aspen.html.

Hayward, E. (2002, September 5). On opening day, Schools tackle bilingual ed issue.
Boston Herald.

Howard, E. R., & Loeb, M. I. (1998, December). In their own words: Two-way
Immersion teachers talk about their professional experiences. Retrieved
September 5, 2003, from ERIC Digest:
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/intheirownwords.html.

Howard, E. R., & Sugarman, J. (2001, March). Development and maintenance of two-
way immersion programs: advice from practitioners. Retrieved September 5,
2002, from CREDE: http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/11aa/pb2.shtml.

Howard, E. R., & Sugarman, J. (2001, March). Two-way immersion programs: Features
and statistics. Retrieved September 5, 2003, from ERIC Digest:
http://www.cal.org/ericcl/digest/0101twi.html.

IPT Testing Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.ballard-
tighe.com/catalog/ipt03.htm.

Issues in U.S. language policy-bilingual education (2001). Retrieved July, 29, 2002,
from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/biling.htm.

Johnston, R. C, & Viadero, D. (2002, March 15). Unmet promise: Raising
minority achievement. Education Week, 19(27), 1-19.

Kayser, H. (2000). From the heart. Retrieved July, 29, 2002, from
http://www.bilingualtherapies.com/Dr.says/.

Katz, A., Genesee, F., Gottlieb, M., & Malone, M. (2001). Scenarios for ESL
standards-based assessment. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.


Kerper Mora, J. (2000, October 10). Philosophical assumptions. Comparison of
philosophical assumptions of English-only l2 instruction versus bilingual
education. Retrieved July 26, 2002, from
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Prop227/AssumptionsEOvBE.htm.

Kenosha Unified School District (2002). Four-year graduation rate- Cohort analysis.
Office of Educational Accountability.

Ketterer, K. A.. Language immersion resources. Retrieved July 26, 2002, from
http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/watch/watch2/html.

Kitao, K., & Kitao, S. (2002, August 29). Language testing. Retrieved August 6, 2002,
from http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/visitors/kenji/test.htm.

Krashen, S. (1985). Insights and Inquires. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.

Krashen, S. (1997). Why bilingual education? Retrieved August 6, 2002, from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/bil-new.htm.

Krashen, S. (1999). Structured immersion falls short of expectations: An analysis of
Clark. NABE.

Krashen, S. (2002, August 26). Focus on the library, not the playground [Letter to the
editor]. Arizona Republic.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. Children in American schools. New York:
Perennial.

Lachat, M. (1999). What policymakers and school administrators need to know about
assessment reform for English language learners. Brown University: LAB.

Lachat, M. A. (2000). Standards, equity, and cultural diversity [Brochure]. Brown
University: LAB.

Lam, W. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: Case study of a teenager writing
on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3).

Language acquisition. Retrieved September 1, 2001, from
http://earthrenewal.org/secondlang.htm.

Legge, C. (2000, June). Federal Court decision. In Decision by Judge Charles Legge:
Refusing to delay the effective date of Proposition 227 by U.S. District Judge
Charles A. Legge. San Francisco: Federal Court Decision. Retrieved September 6,
2002, from http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID-7776.


Lokon, E. (2002). Reconsidering basic ESL/EFL Terms. TESOL Journal, 11(2).

Lu, M. (1998). English-only movement: Its consequences on education of language
minority students. Retrieved July 30, 2002, from
http://www.ed.gov/databses/EricDigests.

McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning:
What Every Teacher needs to Unlearn. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from
http://www.bilingualprek.org/dl/myths.pdf.

McQuillian, J. (1998, 22 August,).Response: Los Angeles Times. Is 99% failure a
success? Orange Unified's English immersion program [Letter to the editor].
California State University, Fullerton.

Maguire, M. H., & Graves, B. (2001). Speaking personalities in primary school children
L2 writing. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4).

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.- MALDEF (1997, September).
Preliminary section-by-section of analysis of Unz initiative. Retrieved September
6, 2002, from One Nation: http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=5112.

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund MALDEF. (1997, November).
Questions and answers on the Unz initiative. In MALDEF. Retrieved September
6, 2003, from http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=511155.

Miles, T. (1991). Criteria for complex performance-based assessments. Retrieved
September 6, 2003, from http://vmsgophercua.edu.

Milloy, M. (2002, September). To learn a language. NEA Today, 22.

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. (1986, March). The status of state
statutes for language minority students. Forum, pps. 1-3.

NeilESL@aol.com. (2002, September 5). Email: The UNZ Initiative. Message posted to
electronic mailing list, archived at http://NeilESL@aol.com.

Netkin, H. (1998, May). An assessment of Bilingual Education. In Letter. Retrieved
September 6, 2002, from http://onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=4032.

Nevin, A., Neciichea, J., & Cline, Z. Using data-based instruction to improve the learning
outcomes of students who are difficult to teach. CSUSM College of Education.
Retrieved July 29, 2003, from http://www.csusm.edu/thousand/necochea.html.

Nunan, D. (2001). English as a global language. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4).


No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Title I sec. 1111(b)(3)(C)(x).

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory- NCREL. (2002). Retrieved March 23,
2003, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le5effic.htm.

One Nation. (2001, August). STAR: Test scores and gains for elementary grades in
selected districts, 1998-2000. In English for the Children. Retrieved September 6,
2002, from http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=5101.

Ortiz, A. (2001, December). English language learners with special needs: Effective
instructional strategies. ERIC Digest. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from ERIC
Digest: http://www.cal.org/ericcll/gisgest/0108ortiz.html.

Pearson Education Development Group. Authentic assessment overview. Retrieved
September 6, 2003, from http://www.teachervison.com.

Pickett, N. (1999). Guidelines for rubric development. Retrieved September 6, 2003,
from http://edweb.sdsu.edu.

Porter, R., & Rossell, C., & Tamayo, L. (2002, June). An initiative petition for a law: An
act relative to the teaching of English in public schools. In English for the
Children of Massachusetts. English for the Children of Massachusetts. Retrieved
September 6, 2002, from http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=4257.

Rennie, J. (1993, September). ESL and Bilingual program models. Retrieved September
5, 2003, from Eric Digest: http://http;//www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/rennie01.html.

Reyhner, J., & Stiles, D. (1997). Teaching indigenous languages. In Four Successful
Indigenous Language Programs (Ch. 21). Retrieved August 6, 2002, from
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/TIL_21.html.

Ruelas, R. (2002, August 26). Adios to Spanish got lost in the translation. Arizona
Republic The School News, L. (2002, August). Implementing "No Child Left
Behind" With Adequate Yearly Progress Provisions, 7(1), 1-2.

Snow, C., & Unz, R. (2001, October 14). Bilingual education: A necessary help or a
failed hindrance? Paper presented at Harvard Educational Forum. Retrieved
September 6, 2003, from http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=4250.

Snow, M. A. (2000). Implementing the ESL standards for Pre-K-12 students through
teacher education. Alexandria,VA: TESOL.

Sociology Project 338. Retrieved from:
http://www.princeton.edu/~sociolog/syllabi/centeno_teachers.html.


Sosa, A. (1990). Making education work for Mexican-Americans: Promising
Community. Retrieved September 12, 2002, from http://npin.org/library/pre1998/
n00316/n00316.html.

Spring, J. (1996). American education (7th Ed.) New York: Mc Graw-Hill.

Tannenbaum, J. (1996) Practical ideas on alternative assessment for ESL students. Eric
Digest. Retrieved September 12, 2002, from
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/.

Tench, M. (2002, September 5). School panel eyes bilingual education. Boston Globe
Section: B5.

Teachers of English to Students of Other Languages- TESOL. (2001, July 18). Summary
of Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (Elementary and Secondary
Education Act). TESOL. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from http://www.tesol.org/
advocacy/articles/00-5-esea.html.

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness for
language minority students' long-term academic achievement. Retrieved
September 5, 2002, from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research.

Total number of English language learners in California grades 2-11 [Data file].
Available from http://star.cde.ca.gov/.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights: Programs for English language
learners. Part IV: Glossary of Terms [Data file]. Online: U.S. Department of
Education Office of Civil Rights. Available from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/
ELL/glossary.html.

Unz, R. (2002). Lau v. "Lau". UnzColumn. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from

Vaishnav, A. (2002, September 4). Seeking the right course on bilingual education
despite criticism, Lawrence schools try a different approach. Boston Globe.

Valdez, L. & O’Malley, M. (1992). Performance and portfolio assessment for language
minority students. Retrieved September 12, 2002, from
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs.

Vargas, M. (2001). Learning English in structured English immersion programs.
Retrieved July 26, 2002, from
http://www.bilingualeducation.org/2000_2_33_01.htm.


Vasquez., J. A. (1996, December). Instructional strategies for teachers of limited-
English-proficient students: A Bibliography. Retrieved July 28, 2002, from http://
www.ncbe.we.edu/miscpubs/lists/strats.htm.

Viadero, D. (2000, May). Bridging the gap. Teacher Magazine, 11(8).

Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Retrieved July 28, 2002, from

Wilson-Allam, D. (2001, December). The professional development committee: Waking
up to the needs of English language learners. TESOL Matters, 12(1).

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002). Best practices considerations
when serving limited-English Proficient (LEP) students in K-12 public schools.
Retrieved July 28, 2000, from
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/equity/biling.html.

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002). Legal responsibilities when
serving limited-English -proficient (LEP) students in K-12 public schools.
Retrieved December 21, 2002, from
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/equity/biling.html.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002) Alternative assessment. Retrieved
July 28, 2002, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002) Graduation rates. Retrieved on
January 19, 2003, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/een/sip1d.html.

Zehr, M. A. (2001, February) Bush plans alter bilingual education. Education Week.
Retrieved September 5, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org .

Zehr, M. A. (2001, April) Immigration spawns bills similar to Proposition 227.
Education Week. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org.

Zehr, M. A. (2001, June) ESL students pose a special challenge for rural schools.
Education Week. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org.

Zehr, M. (2001, September). English-language learners post improved Calif. test scores.
Education Week. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/
newstory.cfm?slug=011ep.h21.

Zehr, M. (2001, December). California's English-fluency numbers help fuel debate.
Education Week. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
http://edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=14biling.h21.


QUESTION 4

Standardized tests are the conventional criteria for measuring student learning. Evaluate the
concept that standardized tests are the most effective and accurate measurements for LEP
learners versus alternative assessments.

The trend toward basing large scale assessments on performance standards challenges practices
… have dominated public schools for more than a half century (Mary Ann Lachat, 1999).

Standardized assessments (or standardized tests) were designed by test publishers to give

a common measure of students’ performances; these tests measure a broad range of students’

abilities or skills, which are considered important when determining students’ success in school.

They can measure verbal ability, mechanical ability, creativity, clerical ability, and/or abstract

reasoning. Ideally, the results are utilized to help teachers plan instruction, develop programs,

and tailor instruction that suit students' achievement levels in each subject area, including

reading, math, language skills, spelling, and science (Lachat, 1999). This comprehensive paper

discusses the implementation of standardized assessments, such as high-stakes testing, during the

accountability movement in education in three sections in order to determine if they are the most

effective and accurate measurements for LEP learners. First, standardized testing, along with its

advantages and limitations will be examined. Second, there is a detailed look at language level

abilities of LEP students. Finally, this paper will address authentic (or alternative) assessments

as an effective way to measure limited English proficient (LEP) students’ academic achievement.

Limited English Proficient (LEP) is the legal term used to identify students, who were not

born in the United States, or whose native language is not English, and those students who

cannot participate effectively in regular classrooms because they lack fluency in spoken and

written English (Department of Education-OCR, 1999). LEP is the term recognized by the


Office of Civil Rights (OCR), and the term used throughout this comprehensive paper to refer to

such students (Department of Education-OCR, 1999). Non English Proficient (NEP) is the legal

term used to identify students who are recent arrivals (immigrant-status) and have been in the

United States less than one year. NEP is the term recognized by the Office of Civil Rights

(OCR), and the term used throughout this comprehensive paper to refer to such students

(Department of Education-OCR, 1999). Bilingual is a generalized term that refers to all

programs other than English as a Second Language (ESL). In this paper, the term bilingual

includes all Language Assistance Programs (LAP) offered within the Kenosha Unified School

District, and unless otherwise stated, it includes the following programs: Dual Immersion,

Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE), English as a Second Language (ESL), and Sheltered

English Immersion (SEI).

Standardized Assessments

Throughout educational history, standardized assessments have been popular instruments

to measure accountability and reform. They lead to changes in curriculum and changes in

teaching that have traditionally been difficult to legislate. Over the past 15 years, legislators

have created educational reform, creating the standards-based reform movement. Legislators

developed Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the 1994 Reauthorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (Improving America’s Schools Act, 1994), and now the No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001. These Acts mandated states to adopt challenging academic content


standards, develop assessments, and align the assessments with their standards (ELLKBase

2002; Testing Resource, OCR, 2000).

By the year 2000, every state, except Iowa, implemented at least one form of

standardized assessment. The majority of Iowa school districts voluntarily administered the

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, which is a standardized assessment. President George W. Bush made

educational accountability part of his agenda, as he aimed to close the achievement gap, with the

"No Child Left Behind Act" of 2001. Congress also passed a Revised Version of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, states are
now required to develop content standards, performance standards, and
assessment systems that measure the progress that schools and districts are
making in educating students to the standards established by the state. If
educators and policy-makers consider using the same test for school or
district accountability purposes and for individual student high-stakes
purposes, they need to ensure that the test score inferences are valid and
reliable for each particular use for which the test is being considered.
(Testing Resource, OCR, 2000, pp. 13-14)

Today, in order for teachers to raise the academic achievement of their students,

numerous states have created rigorous academic standards for their students at all grade levels.

To measure whether or not students were meeting these standards, states have created and

implemented a system of accountability that is measured through standardized assessments.

States and school districts are now using standardized assessments to make high-stakes decisions

regarding their student body that not only will affect their students’ ability to move on to the next

grade level, they will also be used to determine whether or not their students will be able to

graduate from high school. These types of tests are called high-stakes testing because of the


decisions they influence can lead to serious consequences for the students and for the schools.

Some examples of high-stakes decisions include the following: student placement in gifted and

talented programs; student placement in programs for students with limited English proficiency;

determinations of disability and eligibility to receive special education services; student

promotion from one grade level to another; graduation from high school and diploma awards;

and scholarship awards. Based on students’ test scores, students may be retained, enrolled in

summer school or remedial classes, or be denied access to a preferred high school or college. In

some cases, teachers’ and principals’ salaries also rise and fall based on their students’ scores. It

is important to note that high-stakes testing do not include teacher created exams or quizzes that

are used for individual classroom purposes (Hass, 2002; Hernandez, 2002; Lachat, 1999).

Advantages and Limitations of Standardized Assessments

Standardized assessments serve many practical uses in schools (Bagin & Rudner, 1996).

The best utilization of standardized assessments include the following: evaluating programs,

reporting students' progress, diagnosing students' strengths and weaknesses, selecting students

for special programs, placing students into special groups, and measuring students’ achievement.

Because a large number of students throughout the U.S. take the same test within a given

timeframe, results can be analyzed to help educators determine how students in a given class,

school, or school system perform in relation to other students who take the same test (Bagin &

Rudner,1996). In the article Standardized Testing in Schools, Robert Linn (2000) cited four

reasons for the popularity of standardized tests: 1) standardized tests are relatively inexpensive;


2) they can be administered relatively quickly; 3) their results are visible; and 4) first year results

tend to increase, indicating schools are improving.

Standardized tests have provided one way for states and school districts to judge whether

students are meeting their rigorous standards and whether their schools are performing; yet, they

have limitations. A standardized assessment does not adequately gauge an individual student's

knowledge. “The complexity of a child’s knowledge cannot simply be captured by a single test”

(Patten, 2000, p. 1). In terms of LEP students, standardized assessments’ results neither

demonstrate nor take into account all of the human and contextual factors which affect a

student’s English language proficiency and the student’s ability to handle a standardized test

(Fontana, 2002). Traditional standardized assessments hinder educational opportunities for

several reasons:

1. They are culturally biased;

2. they inadequately measure what LEP students actually know; and

3. they are often used for placement purposes (Lachat, 1999).

Standardized assessments are limited in what they can measure. Standardized

assessments are quantitative measurements, which can determine when students have achieved

or failed a task. They can provide national ranking, percentiles, and allow researchers to conduct

comparison analysis; however, they cannot provide the “total” picture of why a particular student

has either succeeded or failed (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall et al., 1996; Meloy, 2002; The

Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis, 2003; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate,

2003). In order to measure student academic achievement more effectively, states, school


districts, and teachers can use authentic assessments, which measure the progress of the “whole

academic student.”

Standardized Testing and LEP Students

In the age of educational accountability, states and school districts face an increased

number of responsibilities. Three major areas of concern in education are students who are

culturally and linguistically diverse, students who are at risk of failure to meet new and

challenging standards, and students who have special needs. The increased responsibilities have

placed added pressure on educators as they continue to teach to a more diversified student body.

At the same time, they must help all of their students reach academic achievement according to

their rigorous state and school district standards. For many limited English proficient (LEP)

students, there has been no system of accountability in place that ensures whether or not they

have achieved the same high standards that have been set for English-speaking students. There

has been inconsistency amongst states when recording LEP students’ progress in their language

development and/or attainment of content area skills and knowledge (cite a source). Without an

accountability system in place, the achievement gap between LEP students and English-speaking

students will continue to exist (Hernandez, 2002).

An analysis of reports from state education agencies were compiled by the National

Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education for the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of

Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) (1997). The study indicated

that LEP students were exempt from such assessments if they have been in the United States or


enrolled in ESL/bilingual education programs for three years or less. Limited English proficient

students were also permitted exemption based on their English language proficiency level.

Today, this ruling is still in effect and reinforced with the passing of the “No Child Left Behind

Act 2001” (Holmes, Hedlund, & Nickerson, 2000; Lachat, 1999; No Child Left Behind Act of

2001; Wisconsin DPI, 2002).

Then Congress enacted the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Title III of the Act

concerns assessment. LEP students are to be assessed annually to ensure that they are making

"adequate yearly progress" (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; Wisconsin DPI, 2002). The

NCLB act requires that States create and implement annual assessments aligned to their current

academic content standards, by the 2005–2006 school year. In addition, all students, including

students identified as LEP, who have had at least one year of English instruction, will be required

to take the assessments in English. States and school districts must analyze the results to

measure achievement gains, set a beginning “achievement bar” then “raise the bar” in equal

increments at least once every three years. This new legislation requires that within 12 years, all

students must reach 100% English proficiency in their basic skills (Hass, 2002). Because of this

new emphasis on accountability for all students’ learning, and particularly LEP students, all

involved parties- states, school districts, administrators, teachers, and students themselves-are

greatly affected by the new requirements (Hernandez, 2002; Lachat, 1999; Menken, 2000;

Riddle, 1999).

Some schools have reverted to teaching just the basics. This instructional change causes

a narrowing of the curriculum, affecting what and how LEP students acquire knowledge that is

assessed (Hernandez, 2002). By narrowing their LEP students’ curriculum, teachers limit their


students’ equal educational opportunities. States and school districts must comply with the Title

VI obligation to provide equal educational opportunities to their LEP students. Under Title VI,

school districts must identify LEP students, and provide them with an academic program or a

service that enables them to acquire English-language proficiency. Teachers are obligated to

help LEP students gain the knowledge and skills that are expected of all students. This includes

providing meaningful opportunities for LEP students to acquire the academic knowledge and

skills covered by tests required for graduation or other educational benefits (Hernandez, 2002).

Many APA (Asian American and Pacific Islander) students, particularly
(English Language Learners) ELLs, are likely to be harmed by new
policies requiring standardized testing for promotion and graduation. New
York State recently began a policy requiring all students to pass new more
difficult Regents exams in English. Most ELL students have not had
proper access to the English Language Arts curriculum. Furthermore, in
the last four years, the percentage of APA students dropping out of high
school has risen by a higher proportion than any other group. Most
advocates suspect that the new graduation policy is the main factor in this
rise. (Chin, 2000, p. 5)

The standards-based education reform movement has had serious implications for LEP

students, leading many educators and members of the community to be concerned. Across the

country, as new laws are enacted and enforced, numerous states and school districts are

subjecting LEP students to these high-stakes tests and are holding them accountable to the same

standards and benchmarks as English speaking students (ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001;

Lachat, 1999; Urquhart, 2002). As schools become increasingly diverse, administrators and

teachers are becoming concerned about how they will effectively implement and achieve this

goal. Teachers are face with considerable challenges on how to implement these standards while


still providing an appropriate education for their students (Crawford, 1997; Duignan, 2000;

ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Lachat, 1999; Urquhart, 2002).

In the last decade, enrollment of LEP students in the nation's public schools has increased

105%. According to the 1990 Census, our educational system had an LEP population from the

age of 5 to 14 of about 6.3 million. Today, over 8.6 million immigrant children are in U.S.

schools and nearly 40% require some sort of language assistance, totaling 3.2 million LEP

students nationwide (Hakuta, 2001). There are 1.3 million students in state and local bilingual

programs, and over 75% of LEP students attend schools in high poverty areas (ELLKBase, 2002;

Hakuta, 2001; Lachat, 1999; Urquhart, 2002). There are over 640,000 LEP students not being

serviced through any type of language assistance programs. As more and more LEP students

enter our school systems, educators need alternative ways to assess each of student’s language

development appropriately (Crawford, 1997; Duignan, 2000; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001;

Lachat, 1999; Urquhart, 2002).

The President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic

Americans (2000) supported standards-based school improvement, yet the involved officials

remain cautious (Chin, J. 2000). They are questioning the ramifications of the high-stakes

assessments being imposed on U.S. LEP students, particularly Hispanic students. The

commission stated that the LEP students alone will bear the consequences of academic failure or

success that is associated with their tests scores, while these results may be misleading and/or

inaccurate. They believe this is a significant risk, which undermines the educational future of all

LEP students (Robertson, 2000).


The U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has received numerous

complaints and inquiries from K-12 administration, teachers, and parents regarding

discrimination toward LEP students in regards to high-stakes learning. The OCR has

responsibility for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. These statutes prohibit educational institutions that

receive federal funds from discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and

disability (Robertson, 2000).

Parents have demanded that their LEP children have equal access to testing in their native

language. LEP parents from San Francisco, California to Miami-Dade County, Florida have

protested against their children being tested in English, a language their children do not clearly

understand. They claim that traditional testing is a waste of time and money that serves to only

to embarrass their children (Pinzur, 2003; Robertson, 2000).

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has also voiced their concerns with regard

to the standards-based education reform movement (Robertson, 2000). Officials at the AFT are

worried that states and school districts are only focusing on students achievement based on

assessments, when there are ignored issues that can result in student failure. These other issues

include the lack of curriculum development, lack of supplies (such as textbooks), and the lack of

teacher training needed to support standards-based school improvement. States and school

districts are setting their LEP students up for failure when their teachers have not been provided

with strategies on how to prepare LEP students for the required exams (Robertson, 2000).


These high-stakes tests will have a tremendous impact on LEP students and their

learning. LEP students acquire their English through a lengthy, highly idiosyncratic, and

difficult process (Fontana, 2002). Second Language Acquisition is a developmental process in

which a language learner proceeds. Some people become bilingual by learning two languages

developmentally at the same time. This happens when one has had an extended amount of

opportunities to speak both languages (Abella, Shneyderman, & Urrutia, 2003; Crawford, 1997;

Duignan, 2000; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Krashen, 2002; Lachat, 1999).

For many LEP students, standardized tests are conducted in English and often do not

allow LEP students to demonstrate their academic achievement. According to a recent Miami-

Dade County schools’ study:

Standardized tests, which are given in English, do not accurately, measure
the knowledge of students who have spoken another language for most of
their lives. Those exams -- especially the Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test -- can determine a student's advancement and graduation,
leading the study's author to contend that recent immigrants may be at a
serious disadvantage. (Pinzur, 2003, p. 1)

Some LEP students do not have a strong command of the English language, and are not able to

discern the appropriate response on a test. This lack of English proficiency forces LEP students

to guess the answers to some test questions. The resulting test score is thus an invalid

measurement of these students’ true knowledge (Cesar, 2002; Crawford, 1997; Duigan, 2000;

Hernandez, 2002; Pinzur, 2003). Students who are administered any standardized assessment

often need to have a firm command of the English language (reading, writing and/or oral skills).

LEP students, more often than not, are administered standardized assessments when they do not

have sufficient literacy or fluency skills in English,and this may introduce construct-irrelevant


components to the testing process. By requiring LEP students to test in English before they have

attained reasonable levels of proficiency only serves to confirm what their language teachers

(Bilingual and/or ESL) already know: LEP students are often not yet ready to test in English

(Cesar, 2002; Crawford, 1997; Duigan, 2000; Hernandez, 2002; Pinzur, 2003).

Although some students are legally and rightfully excluded from taking standardized

assessments, such as special education students who have an active Individual Educational Plan

(IEP), LEP students are mandated to take these high-stakes assessments in English. The rules

when assessing LEP students with standardized test vary from state to state as well as from

district to district. Local standards become particularly complex as states and districts move

toward the broader inclusion of LEP students in their standardized assessments and systems of

accountability. States and school districts offer LEP students the same tests as those taken by

native English speakers, but with special testing accommodations that are intended to “level the

playing field.” Each state varies in the accommodations it permits (Iowa Testing, 1999; IPT,

2000; Lachat, 1999). Therefore, standardized assessments are neither the most effective nor

accurate measurements for limited English proficient students (LEP) when compared to

alternative assessments which can be utilized as an effective measurement of limited English

proficient students’ achievement.


LEP Students and Language Ability Levels

Since the enactment of the NCLB act, standardized assessments will play an integral part

in determining states’ LEP students’ academic proficiency (ELLKBase, 2002; No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001; Wisconsin DPI, 2002). To level the playing field of those LEP students

who are administered and mandated to take and pass these tests, it is imperative that states

consider the language development of their LEP students. When decisions are made affecting

students' educational opportunities and benefits, it is important that they be made accurately and

fairly. These assessments should measure LEP students' abilities, knowledge, skills, or needs,

and do so in ways that do not violate federal law of discrimination on the basis of students' race,

national origin, sex, or disability. Any assessment of LEP student’s content-area knowledge

administered in English may be greatly influenced by the student’s English language proficiency.

If LEP students were not proficient in English, any testing done in English would primarily be

just an English language proficiency exam and not necessarily a measure of content knowledge

(Cesar, 2002; Crawford, 1997; Duigan, 2000; Hernandez, 2002; Menken, 2000; Pinzur, 2003;

Robertson, 2000). It is uncertain at what point a child should be tested in a second language to

yield more meaningful results (Menken, 2000).

A student learning two languages typically progresses through one of the following paths:

1. Simultaneous Bilingualism: When a student speaks Spanish or their primary

language with their parents and English with their siblings and friends.


2. Receptive Bilingualism: Occurs when students receive a high exposure to a

second language throughout their lives, but have little opportunities to use the

language.

3. Rapid Sequential Bilingualism: Is when students learn a second language after

their first language has already been established.

4. Slow Sequential Bilingualism: Is when students with little to no exposure to

English have few opportunities to practice their English skills (Crawford, 1997;

Duignan, 2000; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Krashen, 2002; Lachat, 1999).

Some states are actively trying to level the playing field of their LEP students when it

comes to standardized assessments and measuring their LEP students’ academic proficiency.

Limited English proficient students in Wisconsin must take an annual language proficiency exam

such as the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) or Idea Proficiency Tests (IPT). Based on the

results, LEP students are classified and are placed into one of six recognized language levels; this

classification helps school districts and teachers to determine the level of English language

instruction best suited for the states’ LEP students. The following describes the language

abilities of LEP students according to the English language proficiency levels. These were

adapted from the definitions given in PI 13.03(3) (a)-(e), Wisconsin Administration Code; they

also align with the IPT-I Oral English, Forms: C & D, English Proficiency Tests. The state of

Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction (DPI) uses language level scale of 7. The levels

are:


In a pre-productive stage, or DPI Level 1, the student will often use their home language

to communicate. When everyone around these students is speaking a different language than the

students, such as English, the students may stop speaking entirely because they are frustrated, or

they may speak their native language. At some point, students quit speaking in their native

language because no one will respond to them in their first language. Students will go through a

period of not talking, which may be brief or it can last up to a year. Even though they are not

speaking in English at this time, they are absorbing the language; they will attempt to

communicate through non-verbal gestures or mimes. These students should not be subjected to

standardized assessments due to their limited English ability. If testing is required, these

students should have accommodations and/or perhaps should use alternative (authentic)

assessments to determine their academic progress (IPT, 2000; Wisconsin DPI, 2000).

The second language developmental stage (DPI Level 2) is the early-productive stage, in

which the students are basically nonverbal. Their speech is still not fluent but telegraphic. They

use words like, “Go bathroom!” “Drink water!” This is the period in which students begin to

crack the code of their second language. Students in this stage use simple sentences in English,

such as isolated words and expressions. During this stage, LEP students are at an emergent level

of reading and writing in English. During this stage, LEP students should not be administered

standardized assessments without accommodations. The use of alternative assessments to

determine their academic progress is appropriate (IPT, 2000; Wisconsin DPI, 2000).

The third stage of language acquisition is called the speech-emergence stage, or DPI

Level 3. In this period of language development, students are "ready for the lime light."

Students are considered to have “playground” language (or speech). Non-ESL teachers will


often question why students are placed in the program when they are speaking English. People

will hear students speaking English on the playground and think they are fluent English speakers,

yet they are not. This is the first form of English, LEP students learn, and it is classified as

survival English. These students know enough language to get by with their peers, yet they may

not have the full capabilities to understand academic language, which is formally tested.

Students are post-emergent, developing reading comprehension, and writing skills in English.

Their English literacy skills allow them to demonstrate academic knowledge in content areas

with assistance. It is in this stage of language development that the standardized assessment

becomes controversial. Some States have declared students ready for standardized assessments

with or without accommodations at Level 3. To increase students’ success, students at this stage

should be allowed accommodations (IPT, 2000; Wisconsin DPI, 2000).

Students then merge into an advanced intermediate level, which is DPI Level 4. During

this stage of language development, students’ speech is beyond telegraphic utterances and

memorized word chunks. They begin to form sentence structure and grammatical patterns. With

time, students will begin to demonstrate understanding of syntactic language. Minor

grammatical errors, at this point, are evident; however, students are more competent in their new

language. At this language development stage, students’ comprehension is building, and they

begin to develop the academic language needed to pass standardized assessments implemented in

many states. Students in this level should take standardized assessments with accommodations

(IPT, 2000; Wisconsin DPI, 2000).

Not until the Advanced level of language development, or DPI Level 5, do the students

understand and speak conversational and academic English well. Students are near proficient in


reading, writing, and the content area skills needed to meet grade level expectations. Students

require occasional support. During standardized assessments, students at Level 5 should be

allowed accommodations because they are still not considered fully fluent (IPT, 2000; Wisconsin

DPI, 2000).

DPI Level 6 is the reclassification from being LEP to Fully English Proficient (FEP).

During this stage, FEP students understand, speak, read, and write in English. They possess

critical thinking skills, which enable them to succeed in academic classes at or above grade level.

FEP students do not need accommodations during standardized assessments (IPT, 2000;

Wisconsin DPI, 2000).

Level 7 according to Wisconsin DPI’s language levels are those students who were never

classified as limited-English proficient and do not fit the definition of a limited English proficient

student outlined in the "No Child Left Behind Act" of 2001 Title IX sec. 9101(25)(A)-(D)

(Wisconsin DPI, 2000). This includes native English speakers.

States are implementing changes or alterations in the language assessment process in

order to comply with current law of the “No Child Left Behind Act 2001.” In the state of

Wisconsin, during the 2001-2002 school year, LEP students at Level 4 or 5 were mandated to

take the state assessments and district assessments, but were allowed to have accommodations.

In the 2002-2003 school year, to comply with the NCLB law, the DPI changed the rules of

assessment: the DPI lowered assessment levels to students at Level 3-5. During these stages, the

DPI continues to grant accommodations for those LEP students Levels 3-5; however, a Level 6

or 7 student would not be granted any accommodations. Students who are at Levels 1 and 2 are

required to take alternative performance assessments.


Fortunately some states, school districts, and teachers have recognized that standardized

assessments are not the most effective ways to measure their LEP students’ success and are

relying on alternative (authentic) forms of assessments as way to effectively measure their LEP

students’ success such as authentic assessments. When States, school districts, and teachers fail

to accommodate the assessment needs of their LEP students, they hinder their LEP students’

progress, thus giving them an ineffective education. This may result in failure, low self-esteem,

and/or halting of learning, which is in direct violation of their civil right to an equal education.

Educational policymakers, states, school districts, and the Federal government should continue to

collaborate to ensure that educational practices do not unfairly deny educational opportunities to

LEP students (Iowa Testing Programs, 1999; Wisconsin DPI, 2000).

Alternative/Authentic Assessments

Standardized assessments are neither the most effective nor accurate measurements for

limited English proficient students (LEP) when compared to alternative assessments (also termed

authentic assessments), which can be utilized as an effective measurement of limited English

proficient students’ achievement (Hancock, 1994; Garvin, 1996; Wiggins, 1990). With shifts in

pedagogical theories of learning, and as more research on effective best practices for teaching

LEP students is surfacing, language teachers are now beginning to incorporate authentic lessons

into their classrooms that are student centered, hands-on, cooperative, and involve

communicative approaches to learning (Hancock, 1994; Garvin, 1996; Wiggins, 1990). Through

authentic assessments (or alternative), teachers are able to integrate their assessments with


various classroom activities, and the assessments may be linked to the programs' goals and

objectives. Language teachers use alternative assessments that are aligned with their LEP

students’ language proficiencies, learning styles, cultural and educational backgrounds, and

grade levels (Hancock, 1994; Garvin, 1996; Wiggins, 1990).

“Alternative assessment is an ongoing process that involves the student and the teacher in

making judgments about the students’ progress in language using non-conventional ways”

(Hancock, 1994, p. 2). Alternative (authentic) assessments are by definition criterion-referenced

which is an authentic approach based on classroom activities that represents students’ progress

towards meeting instructional goals. Alternative assessments (A.A.s) require students to

demonstrate skills and knowledge by engaging in a complex performance, creating a significant

product, or accomplishing a complex task using higher order thinking, problem solving, and

often creativity. These assessments require real-world applications of skills and knowledge that

have meaning beyond the assessment activity (Garvin, 1996; Hancock, 1994; Mc Laughlin,

1995; Peterson, 2002).

“Authentic assessment refers to any type of evaluation that requires a student to use their

talents to express their understanding in a way that allows the evaluator to determine how deep

that understanding is” (Garvin, 1996, p.1). Authentic/alternative assessments present more of a

qualitative form of assessment than traditional standardized tools, which typically use

quantitative methods of assessment (Kerka, 1995). They are learning experiences, which engage

students and can be aligned with the states’ and districts’ standards. Authentic/alternative

assessments include a variety of measurements that may be altered for different educational

situations (Archibald & Newman, 1988). These assessments allow educators to adapt traditional


methods and integrate assessments hand in hand with their instructional approaches Alternative

assessments allow language teachers (Bilingual/ESL) to focus on students’ analytical skills and

their ability to share what they have learned in a more creative fashion. LEP students can

demonstrate physically what they know. Students may be asked to perform hands-on type

activities, act out specific vocabulary, or give non-verbal signs to specific “yes or no” questions.

When working cooperatively, in pairs or in groups, LEP students can demonstrate their oral and/

or language skills (Archibald & Newman, 1988).

In Authentic Assessment for English Language Learners , Valdez-Pierce and O'Malley

(1992) presented a number of practical approaches to implementing authentic assessment for

LEP students. The authors described how teachers could integrate assessments and instruction

so that the two are virtually indistinguishable. Results from these assessments may be combined

with results from standardized tests or language proficiency tests to profile LEP students'

competency in their language of study, content and academic communication skills. This allows

the teacher to form a more realistic picture of the “whole” student’s academic development. In

addition, this type of assessment provides teachers with frequent feedback on their instruction,

allowing them to adjust their curriculum to meet the varied needs of their LEP students in a

timely manner.

Performance and Portfolio Assessments

Some popular forms of alternative assessments are performance assessments, portfolio

assessments, and open-ended assessments. “Performance assessment and portfolios are typically


seen as sources of teacher and student empowerment because control over assessment shifts from

the administrators to those linked most closely to the instruction" (Valdez-Pierce & O’Malley,

1992, p. 2). Performance assessments may be designed by the teacher to assess a specific skill

and/or competency in relation to an agreed upon standard. Often, the performance assessments

will reflect a specific task and will require a rater to judge whether the student accomplished the

tasks he/she was asked to perform.

When assessments are tied to standards, students must demonstrate what they know and

perform the task, requiring high order thinking and complex problem solving skills. They offer a

better way to measure the achievement of high standards as well as to accommodate LEP

learners' unique needs. Performance-based assessments have the following characteristics.

These programs: 1) compare student achievement to an agreed upon level of proficiency; 2)

solicit higher order thinking process; 3) emphasize contextual importance through assessment

tasks using real-life problems involving multiple steps; and 4) invite students to problem solve

within groups or alone (Lachat, 1999, p. 24).

Portfolio assessments are used in various classrooms throughout the United States.

Language teachers can easily integrate and implement the use of portfolios during any phase of

their LEP students’ language development. They are an ongoing assessment involving the LEP

student and the teacher selecting numerous work samples or artifacts and displaying them in a

portfolio. The primary purpose of portfolios is to show LEP student’s progress. “Portfolios

allow teachers to see the student as an individual, each with his or her own unique set of

characteristics, needs and strengths" (Epstein, 2000, p. 1). This type of authentic assessment

includes teacher documentations, observations, and/or checklists. They may also include journal


entries and writing samples of students. The language teacher can include a recording of the

student speaking and reading over a specific time to show growth and development of their

language. LEP students can place artwork, diagrams, charts, and graphs of their own inside.

Portfolio artifacts should be accompanied by a reflection from the LEP student, if possible, or

from the teacher. The student and/or the teacher should explain why the particular artifact was

chosen to be part of the student’s portfolio. Performance based assessments and portfolios may

be used as documentation when considering the re-designation of a student from LEP to FEP

status (Epstein, 2000; Garvin 1996; Hancock, 1994; Lachat, 1999; Pearson Education

Development Group, 2000; Valdez-Pierce & O’Malley, 1992).

Rubrics

Scoring students’ work is a necessary part of the authentic assessment process. Teachers

should establish criteria for scoring according to the developmental levels of English: Non-

English Proficiency (NEP or Level 1), Limited English Proficiency (Level 2-5), and Fluent

English Proficiency (Level 6-7). “Holistic scoring procedures evaluate performance as a whole

rather than by it separate linguistic or grammatical features” (Valdez-Pierce & O’Malley, 1992,

p. 5). The scoring criteria needs to be holistic and focused on LEP students’ abilities and their

level of effort.

To score students’ work, teachers need to develop a rubric in order to determine their

LEP students’ learning outcomes. A rubric is used to establish a performance scale expected by

the student. In some cases, students are required to work cooperatively, and they must apply


their skills and concepts to a specific problem or task. Rubrics are often seen in mathematics or

in writing. Every rubric should focus on a specific skill and solely evaluate specific measurable

criteria. Rubrics may focus on how LEP students develop and express their learning. The rubric

should be specific and kept short; it may be a numeric scale ranging from 1 through 5. Some

teachers may require their students to perform a short scenario to assess the skills they have

mastered (Epstein, 2000; Garvin 1996; Hancock, 1994; Lachat, 1999; Miles, 1991; Pearson

Education Development Group, 2000; Pickett, 1999; Valdez-Pierce & O’Malley, 1992; Wiggins,

1990).

Conclusion

Regardless of how one feels about standardized assessements, they are here to stay.

Assessements are used today in ways that may profoundly shape the lives of LEP students. To

be effective, assessments should also be used in effective ways which accurately reflect

educational standards and that do not deny opportunities or benefits to LEP students based on

their race, nationality (including limited English proficiency), sex, and/or disability. All

standardized tests should be used as instruments by educators to help their students achieve their

full potential regardless of their language ability. School districts and schools should utilize the

educational test scores in ways that benefit students. Most importantly, before assessments are

implemented and evaluated, they should be designed to help school districts, schools, and

teachers irradicate inequalities in the kinds of educational opportunities their students are


receiving; thus, educators may utlize this knowledge to support educational efforts that ensure

that all students have equal opportunity to achieve high standards.

If standardized tests indicate performance gaps, school districts and schools should focus

on the quality of educational opportunities afforded to under-performing students and restructure

their programs to meet their needs as well. While evaluating the effectiveness of these

assessments in terms of the context of standards-based reforms and the use of tests as measures

of student accountability, educators should consider the following inquiry: have all students been

provided quality instruction, sufficient resources, and the kind of learning environment that

fosters academic success?

Standardized tests, when used in combination with other assessment techniques such as

observing students, evaluating daily work, meeting with parents, and tracking students'

development, can help provide teachers with a better picture of a student’s abilities, level of

knowledge, and learning needs. Some school districts are adjusting their policies to

accommodate both individual learning needs and the state's standards (Robertson, 2000). Using

a “one-size-fits-all” approach to assessment (standardized) is a quick fix to a very complex

problem. It is evident that testing LEP students in English is necessary in order to determine

their progress and growth in English language skills; however, assessments should be directly

correlated to LEP students’ needs and instruction (Fontana, 2002). Knowledge of language

acquisition and developmental levels assigned to individual students should guide educators on

when it is best to implement standardized testing.

Students who are not yet at a predetermined language level should be taught by teachers

who are given the freedom to use authentic assessments. By implementing alternative


assessments into language assistance programs, teachers will have a wide range of evidence to

support whether or not their LEP students are meeting their language academic goals and

objectives. Because LEP students have unique individual language needs, language teachers

(Bilingual/ESL) must be able to use any alternative means to effectively assess their students,

which enables their students to enjoy a variety of methodologies for displaying what they have

learned in the classroom. With A. A., teachers are demanding academic excellence from their

LEP students by challenging their students to reach the ultimate goal of language fluency,

academic excellence, and mainstreaming. Using authentic assessment will allow teachers to

meet the individual needs of their LEP students and value their diversity.

Alternative assessments can provide an effective way to improve instruction and learning,

which in the end will promote lifelong learning. By nature, A.A.s require integrated knowledge

and skills, rely on scorer interpretation, and are less standardized than other traditional

assessments (Lachat, 1999). Therefore, states and school districts should adopt a variety of

assessment practices that are inclusive of all students regardless of their language needs and

abilities. There is little evidence indictaing that one single assessment can accurately measure

what students know. Before states, school districts, and schools adopt a variety of assessements

for their LEP students, they should keep in mind the whole picture: costs, benefits,

consequences, and the feasibility (Lachat, 1999). Because of the inherent benefits, A. A.s can be

utilized throughout a student's educational career.


Appendix A

Types of Alternative Assessments

Portfolios
Student-authored books
Models
Posters
Displays
Murals
Newsletters
Brochures or pamphlets
Graphic organizers
Drawings
Oral reports
Interviews
Story Telling
Story or text retelling
Book talks
Literature circles
Journal writings
Essays (process writing pieces)
Research papers
Role-plays
Experiments
Debates
Drama (dialogues, skits, plays)
Use of technology

(Epstein, 2000; Garvin 1996; Hancock, 1994; Pearson Education Development Group, 2000).


References

Abella, R., Shneyderman, A. & Urrutia, J. (2003, February). An examination of the validity of
English language achievement test scores in a LEP student population. Miami-Dade
County Public Schools.

American Educational Research Association (1999). American psychological association &
national council on measurement in education, standards of educational and
Psychological Testing (Introduction).

Anstrom, K. (1995). New directions for Chapter 1/Title I. Directions in language and education.
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, Washington, DC. Retrieved June 29,
2003, from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/07.htm.

Archibald, D. A., & Newmann, F. M. (1988). Beyond standardized testing: Assessing authentic
academic achievement in the secondary school. Reston, VA: National Association of
School Principals.

Assessing language development in bilingual preschool children. Retrieved January 3, 2003,
from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs.

August, D. (1995, Fall). For all students: Limited English proficient students and Goals 2000.
Retrieved January 3, 2003, from NCBE Focus: Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education:
http:www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/focus/focus10.htm.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Educating language-minority children. Committee on
Developing a Research Agenda on the Education of Limited-English-Proficient and
Bilingual Students, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, National Research Council.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bagin, C. B. & Rudner, L.M. (1996). What should parents know about standardized testing in
schools? Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://npin.org/library/1998/n00030/n00030.html.

Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (2001). Teachers doing research. A power of action
through inquiry. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cantu, Norma V. & Riley, Richard W. (2000, Dec.).The use of tests as part of high-stakes
decision-making for students: A Resource Guide for Educators and Policy-Makers. U.S.
Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.


Cesar, L. (2002, Spring). Stanford Educator. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/educator/fall2002/pages/forum-fall02.html.

Chin, J. (2000). The President’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders and the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders .
(2000). Retrieved November 12, 2002 from
http://www.asiaxpress.com/Articles/john_chin/townhallmeeting/townhall_meeting.htm.

Clark, L & White, N. (2003, May 24). Some who fail FCAT still may get a diploma. Gov. Bush
wants state to consider students' scores on college exams. The Miami Herald. Retrieved
May 25, 2003, from
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/education/5934464.htm.

Crawford, J. (1997). Best Evidence: Research Foundations of the Bilingual Education Act.
Retrieved January 12, 2003, from http://www.ncbegwu.edu.

Duignan, P. (2000). Bilingual education: A critique. Retrieved January 12, 2003 from
http://hoover.standord.edu.

ELLKBase-The English Language Learner Knowledgebase (2002). A framework for alternative
language programs. Region VII Comprehensive Center. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from

Epstein, A. (2000). Assessment: Portfolio Assessment: Introduction. Retrieved June 29, 2003,
from http://www.teachervision.com.

Fontana, R. M. (2002). Stanford Educator. Retrieved June 28, 2003, from

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R. & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research. An introduction. (6th ed.).
White Plains, NY: Longman.

Garvin, I. (1996). Authentic-alternative assessment. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from

Hancock, C. R. (1994). Alternative assessment and second language study: What and why?
Retrieved June 29, 2003, from Eric Digest Available:

Hakuta, K. (2001, April 13). The education of language minority students. Paper presented at
United States Commission on Civil Rights. Retrieved September, 2002, from


Hass, B. (2002, Fall). How equitable is U.S. education for English language learners? Stanford
Educator. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/educator/fall2002/
pages/article-us-education-fall02.html.

Hernandez, A. (2002, Spring). Stanford Educator. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from

Heubert, J. P. & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and
graduation. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Idea Proficiency Tests- IPT Testing (2000). Retrieved June 29, 2003, from http://www.ballard-
tighe.com/catalog/ipt03.htm.

Iowa Testing Programs (1999). Using the tests. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://www.uiowa.edu/~itp/use-specialneeds.htm.

Kayser, H. (2000). From the heart. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://www.bilingualtherapies.com/Dr.says/.

Kerka, S. (1995). Practice application brief techniques for authentic assessment. Retrieved June
29, 2003, from http://ericacve.org/docs/auth-pab.htm.

Krashen, S. (2002). Term limits. Class dismissed. Retrieved October 21, 2002, from
http://www.americas.org/News/Features/200112-
Blingual_Education/2001110_letters.htm.

Lachat, M. A. (1999). What policy makers and school administrators need to know about
assessment reform for English language learners. The Education Alliance. Retrieved
September 25, 2002, from http://www.lab.brown.edu.

Laturnau, J. (2002). Standards-based instruction for English language learners. Retrieved June
29, 2002, from http://www.prel.org/products/pc_/standards-based.htm.

Meloy, Judith M. (2002). Writing the qualitative dissertation. Understanding by doing.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Menken, K. (2000). What are the critical issues in wide-scale assessment of English language
learners? Framing effective practice: Topics and issues in education English language
learners. NCBE. Retrieved June 29, 2002, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/tasynthesis/framing/3criticalissues.htm.

Miles, T. (1991). Criteria for complex performance-based assessments. Retrieved June 29, 2002,
from http://vmsgophercua.edu.


National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. (1997). High stakes assessment: A research
agenda for English language learners. Symposium summary. Retrieved June 29, 2002,
from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/highstakes/symposium.htm.

New York City Board of Education. (2000, Jan.). Class of 1996 four-year longitudinal report and
1998-1999 event dropout rates.

National Research Council (1982). High stakes. Placing children in special education: A strategy
for equity.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Title IX sec. 9101(25)(A)-(D)

Patten, P. (2000). Standardized testing in schools. Parent News [Online], 6(1). Retrieved
September 29, 2002, from http://npin.org/pnews/2000/pnew100/feat100.html.

Pearson Education Development Group (2000). Authentic assessment overview. Retrieved June
30, 2002, from http://www.teachervison.com.

Peterson, K. Authentic assessment and school wide projects. Retrieved from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ccvi/pubs/publication/archive/newsletter/Winter1997_Weavin
gAuthenticAssessment/AuthAssessment_SchoolwideProj.htm.

Pickett, N. (1999). Guidelines for rubric development. Retrieved June 30, 2002, from
http://edweb.sdsu.edu.

Pinzur, M. (2003, January). Even after English lesson, foreign kids lag on tests. Retrieved July
26, 2002, from http://oer.dadeschools.net/nabe03paper.pdf.

Pinzur, M. (2003, May 7). At low-scoring schools, poverty often is fact of life. The Miami
Herald. Retrieved May 21, 2003, from
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5801560.htm.

The qualitative versus quantitative analysis (2003). Retrieved April 5, 2003, from
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/monkey/ihe/linguistics/corpus3/3qual.htm.

The qualitative versus quantitative debate ( 2003). Retrieved March 20, 2003, from
http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/gentrans/pop2f.cfm.

Robertson, A. (2000, November/December). High-stakes" testing: New guidelines help direct
school change. Parent News. Retrieved March 20, 2003, from
http://npin.org/pnews/2000/pnew1100/int1100b.html.


Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. (1991, April). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction.
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL. ERIC Document No. ED337468. Retrieved March 20, 2003.

Tannenbaum, J. (1996). Practical ideas on alternative assessment for ESL students. Retrieved
March 20, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/.

Urquhart, (first initial)(2002, November/December). Three faces of diversity. Principal.
Retrieved March 20, 2003, from http://www.naesp.org/comm/p1102c.htm.

Valdez, L. & O’Malley, M. (1992). Performance and portfolio assessment for language minority
students. Retrieved March 20, 2003, from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs.

Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Retrieved February 19, 2003, from Eric
Digest: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/.

Winerip, M. (2003, May 21). Pupil held back, a heavier burden. New York Times.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2000). Alternative assessment. Retrieved February
19, 2003, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/.


QUESTION 5

Analyze how brain-based research has impacted teaching and learning strategies of limited
English proficient students. What professional development strategies can be implemented to
train teachers to improve the linguistic and academic development of limited English proficient
students (SDAIE and CALLA)?

Even though some U.S. school districts have over 90 languages represented within their

schools, language teachers continue to successfully guide and facilitate their LEP students’

learning while at the same time meeting the rigorous demands of their states and school districts

(Duignan, 2000, p. 2). Mainstreamed educators often question how these language teachers are

successfully educating their LEP students within a multilingual environment. By accumulating,

investigating, evaluating, and applying the contributions of brain-based research, language

teachers are able to effectively teach, present materials, and contribute to the cognitive

development of their LEP students (ELLKBase, 2002; Freeman, 1998; Krashen 1981, 1985).

Brain-based research is confirming what experienced language teachers already know

about how people learn and acquire language. “What the research adds, at this point, is a partial

understanding of why certain procedures or strategies work” (Wolfe, 2001, p. V). The research

on the brain provides promising links to what language teachers may do to engage their students

in learning. Through the findings of brain-based research, language teachers are now more

effectively enabled to design classroom instruction that coincides with how their students learn

(English for the Children, 1998; ELLKBase, 2002; Freeman, 1998; Krashen 1981, 1985; Nevin,

1993; Short, 1998; Thomas & Collier, 2001; Wolfe, 2001). This comprehensive paper explores

brain research, including new knowledge about how the brain processes language. Second, how


classroom instruction relates to language acquisition is examined. Finally, two educational

models that emerged from the study of cognition, SDAIE and CALLA, are closely examined.

The methodologies are each examined for use with LEP students, in order to help these students

succeed academically.

Brain Research

Scholars have been studying the anatomy of the brain for over three thousand years

(Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001). For over a century, neuroscientists have tried to understand how

the human brain learns, stores, and processes information. This task has been rather difficult

because there are no animals that have symbol systems as rich as human's spoken language. For

a long time, information about how the brain processed language came only from the studying

effects of disease of the brain, known as neurological disease. Scientists dissected and studied

the brains of people who had suffered and died from a neurological; the study of cadavers is

known as post-mortem research (Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).

The adult brain weighs about three pounds; it is made up of predominately water (78%);

the remaining weight is fat (10%); protein (8%), and other materials (4%) (Jensen, 1998). The

brain is about 2% of an adult’s body weight but uses about 20% of the energy of the body. It

contains about 100 billion nerve cells (or neurons) and about 1 trillion supporting cells, known as

glia. These neurons are the only cells in the body that process information. The nerve cells of

the brain make about one thousand trillion synaptic contact points with each other. These

neurons pass information at a speed of up to 200 miles an hour. A single neuron can receive


thousands of signals from other neuronal sources although they do not make physical contact

with one another. The neurons send and receive chemical messages over the synaptic space.

They are constantly firing electrical and chemical energy, gaining strength through usage. With

a few exceptions, new neurons do not grow, however new connections between neurons are

always forming. It is within these connections in the brain that contributes to learning and

memory (Christison, 1999; Cogito: Brain and Mind; Genesee, 2000; Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).

Most neuroscientists believe that at birth the human brain has all the
neurons it will ever have … Some connections that control automatic
functions are in place by birth such as breathing. However, mental
circuitry results from experiences that greet the newborn and continue to
throughout their life. (Classroom Compass, 2000, p. 1)

In the past decade, exciting new brain imaging techniques have allowed researchers to

view the brains of live people. Using positron emission tomography (PET), special analyses of

electroencephalograms (EEG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),

magnetoencephalography, and other tools, researchers can now view the brain in real time.

Linguists and neuroscientists use these imaging techniques to view the brains of people while

they process language. The researcher instructs the human subjects to do a language task while

their brains are being imaged by these technological advances borrowed from the field of

medicine (Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).

Neuroscientists long ago mapped the brain, and sophisticated imaging has increased

knowledge of how each section of brain operates. The brain is composed of four areas, called

lobes, and each has specific functions. Neuroscientists agree that the frontal lobe, located behind

the forehead, is involved in the most sophisticated, integrated brain functions (Jensen, 1998;


Wolfe 2001). The primary responsibilities of the frontal lobe include the following: thinking,

judgment, creativity, conceptualizing, problem solving, and planning skills. The parietal lobe is

in the top back of the brain; sensory and language functions are found there. The occipital lobe

is located in the middle back of the brain and is responsible for vision. The temporal lobes are

located on the left and right sides of the brain; these areas are responsible for hearing, memory,

meaning, and language. Experts believe that there is some functional overlap in the lobes.

Usually, several different areas of the brain are simultaneously engaged in an activity. For

example, thirty areas of the outer surface of the brain are involved in vision alone (D’Arcangelo,

1998; Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).

The brain has two nearly identical halves: the left and the right hemispheres.

Neuroscientists have discovered that there are small differences in the sizes of some regions in

the two hemispheres. The hemispheres connect via nerve fibers in a structure called the corpus

callosum. The hemisphercity theory attributes particular preferences and learning styles to one

side of the brain. This information comes from adults and children suffering brain injuries due to

catastrophic events. Language is typically a left hemisphere activity whereas art and music are

typically located in the right hemisphere. The left hemisphere appears to be responsible for both

sign language and spoken language. The left-brain is involved with processing words, numerals,

lists, and providing logic, analyses and order; the right brain is involved with rhythm, color,

daydreaming, imagination, space, and the ability to move through dimensions (Davies, 1996).

By studying the different times and areas of brain growth, language teachers can have a better

understanding of how language is developed, tailor the academic content, and develop their


students’ skills to enhance the curriculum, and provide an enriched, brain-friendly classroom

environment.

The Brain and Language Acquisition

“Learning is a process that establishes new connections among networks and the new

skills or knowledge that are learned" (Genesee, 2000, p. 3). The brain plays a vital role in

learning a language. How the brain works has a significant impact on what kinds of learning

activities are most effective. Neuroscientists long believed the regions of the brain developed

according to genetic codes that were predetermined at birth. Some neuroscientists believe the

brain begins to form its learning patterns, such as learning a language, at birth. Today, scientists

believe the brain is much more malleable than ever thought before (Jensen, 1998). They now

believe that the regions of the brain are not fixed at birth, but are shaped by experiences and

learning. As the individual responds and adapts to their environment, the brain also adapts itself

to the learning environment (Jensen, 1998). Scientific research has indicated that early in a

child's life, neural connections form as he/she learns. At what age these circuits are completed is

uncertain (Genesee, 2000; Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).

A newborn's brain makes connections at an incredible pace as the child
absorbs its environment. The richer the environment, the greater the
number of interconnections that are made, and learning takes place faster
and with greater meaning. As the child grows, the brain selectively
strengthens and prunes connections based on experience. Although this
process continues throughout our lives, it seems to be most pronounced
between the ages of 2 and 11, as different development areas emerge and
taper off. (Sousa, 1998, p.1)


Neurosurgeons have discovered that language processing is not located solely in the left

hemisphere of the human brain. In the normal brain, in fact, the two hemispheres work together

during speech. When people have had their brain midline severed, through the corpus callosum,

they stopped communicating. The language system connects to other intellectual and motor

systems, as well as mechanisms required for speech. These areas of the brain require motivation

to become aroused and activated. Neurological imaging studies have provided strong evidence

that the frontal lobes and structures deep in the brain become active during many language tasks.

Written language connects to the areas of the brain that are part of the visual cortex, and sign

language may recruit the areas of the brain that are related spatial ability; spatial ability allows

the brain to locate objects in space (Classroom Compass, 2000; Genesee, 2000; Wolfe, 2001).

Language acquisition and learning are two separate processes. Language acquisition is a

developmental type of learning processed in the auditory-temporal cortex located in the left

hemisphere. Language acquisition is a complex system that consists of a special kind of code (or

a set of symbols) that are connected to words and phrases and is a natural phenomenon that

occurs without any interventions (Jensen, 1998). The language pattern formed in an infant's

brain will continue to remain for a lifetime unless something intervenes to change that pattern

(Jensen, 1998). Experts believe that children discover the system of language from a small,

unsystematic amount of data and do not require instruction in how to acquire language (Krashen,

1981, 1985).

Language acquisitioning is the unconscious process that occurs when the infant or novice

hears real conversation; learning is the act of acquiring formal knowledge about the language


(Krashen, 1981). Linguist Stephen Krashen (1981) defined language acquisitioning in Second

Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning:

Language acquisition is very similar to the process children use in
acquiring first and second languages. It requires meaningful interaction in
the target language--natural communication--in which speakers are
concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they
are conveying and understanding. Error correction and explicit teaching
of rules are not relevant to language acquisition but caretakers and native
speakers can modify their utterances addressed to acquirers to help them
understand, and these modifications are thought to help the acquisition
process. It has been hypothesized that there is a fairly stable order of
acquisition of structures in language acquisition, that is, one can see clear
similarities across acquirers as to which structures tend to be acquired
early and which tend to be acquired late. (pp. 1-2)

Linguistic research is divisible into first and second language learning. A student’s

primary language (L1) is the language one has developed from birth and the language that was

closely intertwined with the development of cognition. Learning a second language (L2) is a

lengthy, highly idiosyncratic, and difficult process which language acquisition theorists suggest

can take up to seven or more years for a student to develop proficiency, depending on his/her age

(Classroom Compass, 2000; D’Arcangelo, 1998; Jensen, 1998: Krashen, 1981; 1985).

The best time to master a new language is when one is younger; their
neural connections are strong and not completely filled. If a person waited
until they are 18 or 30, learning a new language is possible, but it becomes
more difficult because the system governing this have been used for
something else. (D’Arcangelo, 1998, p. 4)

A child has twice as many neurons as adults. Therefore the ideal time for learning a

second language is during the first eight to ten years of development because it is during that

period that neural growth is so high (D’Arcangelo, 1998; Krashen, 1981, 1985). After that,


neural branches (dendrites) that have not connected will eventually die off. A newborn's neural

cortex grows at a rapid rate, then reaches a peak during adolescence, and then slowly declines.

“It is believed the brain interacts together as a whole brain and that learning begins when

connections are made within the brain and between the brain and the outside world" (Cognito:

Brain and Mind, 2002, p. 1). When one is learning, the neurons communicate using chemicals

called neurotransmitters. These connections occur when children are stimulated through

meaningful experiences such as learning a new language. Therefore, a solid educational

experience during this period of life is more critical than ever thought before.

These so-called "windows of opportunity" represent critical periods when
the brain demands certain types of input to create or consolidate neural
networks, especially for acquiring language, emotional control, and
learning to play music. Certainly, one can learn new information and
skills at any age. But what the child learned during that window period
will strongly influence what is learned after the window closes. (Sousa,
1998, p.1)

As we age, the development of neural connections can modify our capacity to learn new

concepts, such as a new language. Once, researchers believed that only young brains were

plastic. They thought that the dendrites developed in the first few years of childhood and were

fixed and difficult to change. An enormous amount of animal and human research in the past

two decades, however, confirms that the brain retains some of its plasticity throughout life.

Evidence has shown that older brains can adapt in order to overcome a number of barriers, such

as suffering a stroke. Language processing and motor function can return after this type of event.

Neuroscientist Marian Diamond stated in an interview, “If we continue to learn and enrich our


minds, we continue to grow dendrites, and if we stop we lose them with age" (D’Arcangelo,

1998, p. 4). In 1993, researchers Green, Black, and Wallace studied rats’ brains and

demonstrated enhanced synaptic growth due to a complex environment in both young and older

rats. In 1995, Karni and her colleagues demonstrated an expansion in cortical involvement

during the performance of motor tasks. The cerebral cortex was altered even in adult brains in

response to an enriched environment or complex learning experiences (Genesee, 2000, p. 2).

The longer continuous meaningful learning occurs in life, the longer the brain will make the

neural connections necessary for growth. Therefore, research on the brain and language

indicates that during the early years it is critical for teachers to help establish meaningful

associations between their students and learning opportunities. By examining research data from

the field of neuroscience and linguistics, language teachers can have a better understanding of

how language is developed. The ESL teacher may tailor the academic content to help develop

their student's skills most efficiently. Through curriculum enhancement, they may provide an

enriched, brain-friendly classroom environment. Classroom instruction and language acquisition

is explored next.

Classroom Instruction and Language Acquisition

Scientific research on the brain has transformed and enhanced how language instruction

is delivered in classrooms across the globe (Bueno, 1999; Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).

Instructional models have transitioned from the authoritative teacher-centered environment of the

first half of the twentieth century to the “humanistic" classroom and learner-centered mode of


instruction that predominated the 1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s, language classrooms

transformed again with the implementation new approaches and techniques to assist with

learning English as a Second Language. These approaches include the Communicative

Approach, the Total Physical Response (TPR), cooperative learning, and integrated learning

(Bueno, 1999; Garvin, 1996; Hancock, 1994; Krashen, 1981, 1985; Mc Laughlin, 1995;

Peterson, 2002).

The Communicative Approach is a language instructional methodology that emphasizes

the importance of interpersonal relationships to language learning and focused on the “whole”

student; it includes subjects such as music, physical activity, and art. The Communicative

Approach uses the stages of second language acquisition, comprehensible input, low affective

filter, and authentic activities and assessments. In 1981, Stephen Krashen defined

comprehensible input in his Monitor Model of Second Language Acquisition. According to

Krashen, language learners acquire second language through exposure to language samples that

contain mostly familiar forms and a few novel expressions. The familiar forms should resemble

"motherese" forms, which is a special form of language that caregivers use with their children as

they develop language. In the school setting, language teachers’ speak at a slower rate, and use

clear articulation, longer pauses, paraphrases, and gestures; they also use objects or pictures

frequently (Bueno, 1999). Affective filter, a term coined by Krashen, refers to how emotions,

such as motivation, self-confidence, self-image, and anxiety, influence learning. Students will

learn when they are motivated, their confidence and self-image are strong, and their anxiety

remains low (Bueno, 1999; Krashen, 1981). Learning activities and assessments are authentic

when students use language to interpret and express real world settings. To be considered an


authentic activity or an assessment, students must apply real-world applications of skills and

acquire meaningful knowledge that goes beyond an assessment activity (Bueno, 1999; Garvin,

1996; Hancock, 1994; Krashen, 1981, 1985; Mc Laughlin, 1995; Peterson, 2002).

Total Physical Response (TPR) is another instructional methodology teachers use to

teach language. James Asher (2002) created Total Physical Response in 1974; he applied brain

research to explain natural language acquisition. “TPR is based on the premise that the human

brain has a biological program for acquiring any natural language on earth - including the sign

language of the deaf.” Total Physical Response differs from other instructional techniques in

that is involved the use of physical actions. In TPR, language teachers employ kinesthetic-

sensory activities to stress “the full development of listening comprehension before encouraging

any active oral participation” (Bueno, 1999, p. 1). Total Physical Response continues to be one

of the most popular methods of delivering language instruction in today’s language classrooms

(Asher, 2002; Bueno, 1999).

Cooperative learning involves sharing knowledge within a group by collaboratively

working together. Each person has a specific role in a group-project: researcher, recorder, artist,

and/or presenter. By working cooperatively in small heterogeneous groups on a specific task,

students can negotiate the means to construct an outcome. This allows them to exchange

information, knowledge, and experience. In return, they will make connections themselves with

the content and the language. Using cooperative learning and center-based activities, teachers

can address the various learning styles, as well as the English language levels, of their students

(Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; D’Arcangelo, 2000).


Integrated (also termed interdisciplinary or thematic) learning occurs when teachers

introduce a topic thematically and intertwine two or more subjects to make connections to

learning more meaningful. When learning is orchestrated throughout the curriculum, students

become fully engaged, and in return, they enjoy learning and take ownership of it. Students are

taught to link content and language learning in a meaningful way, which helps to develop their

critical thinking skills. These skills are also needed for other content subjects, so it improves

performance "across the board" (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; D’Arcangelo, 2000).

In the 1990s, classroom instruction was again transformed with the findings of Dr.

Howard Gardner, a cognitive psychologist who developed a theory of Multiple Intelligences

(MI) (1993, 1995). Gardner theorized that human cognitive competence was pluralistic, rather

than unitary, in design. Human beings, according to Gardner, possess multiple intelligences in

varying amounts and each individual has a different intellectual composition. These

intelligences are located in different areas of the brain and can work either independently or

together. Gardner proposed a schema of eight types of intelligence, while suggesting there are

probably many others that educators have not yet been able to decipher.

A summary of Gardner's eight types of intelligence follows:

1) Linguistic intelligence is the ability to use language effectively both orally
and written.
2) Logical/mathematical intelligence is the ability to use numbers effectively
and reason well.
3) Visual/spatial intelligence is the ability to recognize form, space, color,
lines, and shapes to graphically represent visual and spatial ideas.
4) Bodily/kinesthetic intelligence is the ability to use the body to express ideas
and feelings and to solve problems.
5) Musical intelligence is the ability to recognize rhythm, pitch, and melody.


6) Naturalist intelligence is the ability to recognize and classify plants,
minerals, and animals.
7) Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand another person's
feelings, motivations, and intentions and to respond effectively.
8) Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to know about and understand
oneself and recognize one's similarities to and differences from others.
(Christison, 1998, 1999; Davies, 1996; ELLKBase, 2002)

The theory of Multiple Intelligences continues to be widely accepted by educators; it is

affecting instructional delivery throughout the world. Since the inception of Gardner’s MI

theory, teachers have become more receptive of differentiated learning. “In a differentiated

classroom, teachers begin where students are, not the front of a curriculum guide. They accept

and build upon the premise that learners differ in important ways” (Tomlinson, 1999, p. 1). In

addition, teachers are better equipped to work with their students, for they bring with them an

appreciation for individual strengths, unique learning styles, and different learning potentials

(Christison, 1998, 1999; Davies, 1996; ELLKBase, 2002; Tomlinson, 1999).

Educators, Geoffrey and Renate Caine (1994, 1997) have also studied brain-based

research and arrived at twelve principles of brain-based learning that are based on the notion that

all people are driven to search for meaning in life. These principles were derived from an

exploration of many disciplines and are viewed as a pedagogical framework for teaching. The

principles are:

1. The brain is a complex adaptive system.
2. The brain is a social brain.
3. The search for meaning is innate.
4. The search for meaning occurs through patterning.
5. Emotions are critical to patterning.
6. Every brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts and wholes.
7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral attention.
8. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes.


9. We have at least two ways of organizing memory.
10. Learning is developmental.
11. Complex learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat.
12. Every brain is uniquely organized. (p.28)

The Caines believe that each principle represents an aspect of learning based upon brain-based

research. These principles were designed to enhance the learning environment. Teachers who

have used their principles in instruction no longer see their students as a “blank slate, and have a

new appreciation of the fact that the body, brain, and mind are a dynamic unity” (p. 27).

According to the Caines (1997), teachers tend to fall into one of three categories. The

first is the traditional, old school, teacher-centered, or "stand and deliver" approach. The second

approach is the middle ground, where the teacher is in charge but creates a rich learning

environment, with more complex learning experiences, for their students. And the third

approach involves a complex, interactive, student-centered classroom environment. It is in this

student-centered environment that second language learners tend to flourish and to develop and

retain their new language most readily. In an interactive student-centered classroom, the teacher

has removed classroom threats and allowed the student's mind to be calm yet attentive (Krashen

1981, 1985).

For complex learning to occur, Caine and Caine have identified three conditions:

1. An optimal state of mind that is called relaxed alertness, consisting of a
low threat and high challenge.
2. The orchestrated immersion of the learner in multiple, complex,
authentic experience.
3. The regular active processing experience as the basis for the making
meaning. (p. 32)


Emotions may impede students’ learning (Caine & Caine, 1997; Jensen, 1998; Wolfe,

2000). Neuroscientists believe emotions are mediated through a complex mix of thoughts,

perceptions, feelings, and reasoning. These aspects are interwoven and can affect how a student

learns. When people are exposed to constant threat or early trauma, high levels of the

neurotransmitters serotonin and noradrenalin are released (Jensen, 1998). If fear or stress is

constant, the brain’s normal circuits can be altered; therefore, a person’s physical and emotional

well being is closely linked to the ability to think and to learn effectively (Jensen, 1998; Krashen,

1981, 1985; Wolfe, 2000). The affective filter is a screen of emotion that blocks language

acquisition or learning as it keeps the users from being too self-conscious or too embarrassed to

take risks. Krashen (1985) stressed that optimal input or learning occurs when the affective filter

is low. When the classroom atmosphere exhibits threatening or high tones, students will shut

down and not be willing to take risks. It is only when the atmosphere is “threat” free or (at least)

low threat that students begin to take risks (Bueno, 1999; Jensen; 1998; Krashen, 1981, 1985).

Teachers may use the understanding how students’ emotions play a critical role in their

learning to drive the curriculum. It is most important to realize that emotions can be a hindrance

in learning or can be an aide, depending on how the teacher uses them. If students experience a

negative emotion when under threat, the research indicates that the brain will downshift or (at

least) slow down. “When threatened, the second language learner becomes less flexible and will

revert back to a more routine behavior and will have difficulty processing new information"

(Christison, 1999, p. 1). When teachers’ instruction captivates students’ emotions in a positive

way such as love, excitement, enthusiasm, and joy, they enhance the ability of the cerebral cortex

to process information and create meaningful connections. Depending upon how students "feel"


about a learning situation determines the amount of attention they will devote to it. Their

emotions interact with reason to support or inhibit learning. Students, for example, must feel

physically safe and emotionally secure in their schools and classrooms before they can focus on

the curriculum. To aid in building an emotionally secure environment, teachers must provide

outlets for their students' emotions through discussions, singing, sharing, writing, music, or even

drawing. Teachers should do whatever it takes to get their students' emotions out in the open so

they do not suppress them (Jensen, 1998). When teachers promote emotional security in their

classroom, they are establishing a positive climate that encourages students to take appropriate

risks that enhance the learning experience.

“Teachers influence learning everyday by designing the physical and emotional

environment" (Jensen, 1998, p. 3). Students’ learning is influenced not only by their emotions

but also through social interactions because the brain is social by nature. There is a human need

to build realistic, intimate relationships with others in the environment; this need has evolved

over thousands of years (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; Krashen 1981, 1985). Social interaction is

also emotionally stimulating and supports the learning process. According to the Caines (1997),

teachers must immerse learners in complex, interactive experiences that are both rich and real.

An excellent example is illustrated in which the students are immersed in a foreign language

(English) and culture (American) in order to help them learn.

Through research, teachers are discovering how the brain makes new neural connections

when it gets actively involved in interesting and challenging situations. Classrooms should be

busy, interactive environments where students and their teachers are learning from one another.

In an interactive classroom teachers do not hesitate to have their students physically stand up,


move around, and have peer interactions. An interactive, task-centered classroom is critical to

students’ learning process because it helps maintain students’ focus while enhancing their sense

of meaning. Often this effective model of instruction can be found in most elementary

classrooms; however, in many secondary and college classrooms, students sit passively for long

period with little sensory stimulation, listening primarily to their teachers lecture (Caine &

Caine, 1997).

One of the most ineffective forms of instructional delivery for students, especially for

LEP students, is traditional lecturing. When teachers lecture, most often their students left-brains

begin to send sabotaging messages such as "How is this relevant to my life?” "How will I ever

use this information?" and/or "Does this teacher know what he/she is doing?” For many LEP

students, their critical left-brains may be telling them to ignore their teacher because their brains

have not been coded for the new language. In other words, their brains may be telling them that

there is no such language as the one the teacher is using. Often, to LEP students, it sounds like

their teacher is speaking like the teacher from Charlie Brown, “Blah, blah, blah.” After all, the

teacher is the only person in the room who is trying to challenge what the student knows to be

true. Therefore, in the students’ brains, whatever data the teacher is presenting is irrelevant to

the learner because their brains fail to store the information in their long-term memory and will

not be able to retrieve the data for later use. “Our marvelous brain remembers everything, the

problem we have is ineffective recall" (Davies, 1996, p. 5). That is why after extended periods

of instruction and practice, students later return to the class and act as if they have never heard

the material before (Davies, 1996).


Researchers, such as the Caines, recommend a relaxed learning environment that offers

numerous options for individual learning. In the student-centered classroom, the teacher is the

facilitator of learning, who guides their students learning by design. Teachers create

interdisciplinary, thematic lessons and then engage their students through an array of student-

centered, versatile activities. These activities speak to their students’ interests, thus creating an

interest in learning (Caine & Caine, 1994). According to Gerald Edelman (1992), chairman of

the Department of Neurobiology at Scripps Research Institute, students learn best when they

interact continuously in an environment that provides many sensory, cultural, and problem

layers. His ideas suggest that students have a natural inclination to learn, understand, and grow.

Surround the students with a variety of instructional opportunities and they will make the

connections for learning.

Both the Caines' and Edelman’s learning theories follow the model of Vygotsky’s social

cognition learning model. Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, an educational theorist and behaviorist

(1896-1934), suggested that culture is the primary determinant of individual development.

Through culture, children learn language and acquire much of the content of their thinking. The

familial culture of LEP students dictated what and how they thought within their native

homeland, but now they must learn to adjust to their new surroundings and culture (Vygotsky

and Social Cognition, 1998). Through communication with their peers, students learn a rich

body of knowledge that exists in the culture (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; D’Arcangelo, 2000).

The social cognition-learning model has heavily influenced education today. The teacher

becomes a facilitator of their students’ learning. The teacher sets up scenarios that students


perform with others. The students accomplish and perform tasks they may never have completed

on their own (Vygotsky and Social Cognition, 1998).

The best way help LEP students to transition students from one culture to another is

through peer interaction in cooperative student centers. These cooperative centers involve LEP

students in a variety of activities involving groups of students creating and solving specific tasks

together. Activities may include role-playing, cooperative learning, and story telling. The

lessons allow students to be focused for short periods of time allowing them to input the

information, reflect upon it, and then process the new information learned. These centers need to

be hands-on and allow the students to investigate new concepts and dialogue each other; the LEP

students will gain new knowledge and have immediate feedback from their peers. The students

are provided options and must learn to take responsibility and prioritize. By using cooperative

learning and center-based activities, teachers can address the various learning styles and the

English language development of their LEP students (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; D’Arcangelo,

2000; ELLKBase, 2002). Limited English proficient students can learn to excel in a variety of

ways when the classroom teacher offers an ample number of learning opportunities.

When learning is orchestrated throughout the curriculum, students will become fully

engaged, and in return, they will enjoy learning and take ownership of it. Implementing

interdisciplinary learning (thematic) is also an effective way to engage students. These students

are taught to link content and language learning in a meaningful way, which helps to develop

their critical thinking skills. By working cooperatively in small heterogeneous groups on a

specific task, LEP students can negotiate the means to construct an outcome. This activity

allows students to exchange information, knowledge, and experience. In return, they will make


connections themselves with the content and the language. Educators need to help students have

appropriate experiences and capitalize on those experiences. These activities will help to build

oral language development as well as increase the vocabulary needed to build comprehension

(Bower, 1998).

Brain-based research has provided evidence that individuals have different learning

styles, which affects their comprehension. Some children learn through problem solving

experiences, which they share with another student or the teacher. Others learn kinesthetically,

by using their sense of feel. Educators must take advantage of the brain's ability to parallel

process. Students must have a personal and meaningful challenge to gain new knowledge. Such

challenges stimulate a student's mind to the desired state of alertness. In order for a student to

gain insight about a problem, there must be intensive analysis of the different ways to approach

it. This is what is known as the "active processing of experience" (Jensen, 1998). Student

learning can be enhanced when teachers realize that how they deliver instruction can impede or

improve their students’ learning. It is imperative that teachers examine how they deliver

instruction because LEP students process and retain information differently. They must

determine whether they will require students to memorize facts and listen to lectures or engage in

meaningful exercises. Further, they must question whether the information being presented is

meaningful to the student. When LEP students are asked to merely memorize facts, it will not

lead to constructive learning. They will just be regurgitating information and not make a

meaningful connection. Evidence from neuroscience has shown that when students are asked to

learn facts and skills in isolation, the brain cannot make the necessary connections. If the lessons

are meaningful, students will learn quicker and retain the information longer (Christison, 1999).


Teachers are learning more about how students store and recall information in their long-

term memory. The research has indicated that students’ experiences may influence new

learning. Memory acts like a filter that helps students to focus on those things that have relevant

meaning and discard irrelevant thoughts. Meaning has a tremendous impact on what information

and/or skills will be learned and stored. If students do not develop a profound connection by the

end of a learning episode, there is little likelihood that much information will be recalled. To

help students find meaning, today's curriculum must contain connections to their experiences,

not just their teachers.

An example of how memory functions is evident when LEP students learn their new

language. The sounds (phonemes) are unfamiliar to their brains and therefore their brains are not

able to register the connections to words. If the brain hears an unfamiliar sound or word, it will

search other avenues such as auditory, visual, spatial, or motor sources to aid in the detection for

meaning. It registers as “an undifferentiated neural activity”; the learner must “retrain” their

brain to recognize these sounds (Genesee, 2000, p. 2). If all sources do not recognize the sound

or the word, the input will not be comprehensible and the sounds or words to be deciphered

become useless noise or jargon, and therefore meaningless. Only through continual exposure

over time does the brain begin to make sense of the sounds and words. Language teachers

successfully aid in this process by extending phonemes and exaggerating them until their

students are able to make the neural connections and learn the new sounds (Talukder, 2000). By

doing so, the teacher is naturally exercising their students’ neural activity. After this continual

exposure to the new sounds, the brain will be able to decipher among the new sounds. By

working together to form connections, the neurons form a type of network, which will allow one


to comprehend the sounds, the words, and the phrases (Talukder, 2000). An analogy for this

process is a Polaroid picture that is fuzzy when the photo is first pulled out of the camera and

then has greater definition when it is fully developed.

Knowledge of the manner, which the brain processes and stores memory, may assist

teachers with their lesson planning and their presentations (Jensen, 1998). There are four types

of memory: procedural, episodic, semantic, and sensory. Procedural memory occurs after

repeated action; it typically deals with routine activities, such as brushing teeth. Episodic

memory is emotionally charged, either positively or negatively. Teachers may use positive

episodic memory to aid their students in recalling important information, building on their prior

knowledge, and acting upon it (Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998).

Semantic memory, or rote memory, is often used in the classroom to recall facts. The

right side of the brain is thought to be virtually non-verbal or mute, and non-critical; however, it

is pattern seeking. Although this side of the brain is mute, and does not allow for spoken

language, it will try to communicate by whispering softly and using body language such as

gestures. When the pattern-seeking part of the brain finds cause-and-effect relationships, they

are likely to be stored in the long-term memory. The implication for teaching is that assertions

by the instructor are not enough; the student's brain will insist that each assertion is proved

(Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998).

Sensory memory, which is in the right part of the brain, is automatic. This allows one to

process short-term and long-term memory. Because every person has a neural history, teachers

draw from past experiences to grab students’ attention and build understanding. If a personal

connection is made to the learning experience, it will stimulate a response, which can generate a


new real life experience. According to Davies (1996), “We often remember information when it

is characterized by: sensory associations, emotional context, intense associations, necessities for

survival, personal importance, or repetition"(p. 5). Bringing two sources of stimulus together,

such as using of pictures and music, increases the overall amount of brain activity and creates

more neural connections; this ultimately assists with learning and language acquisition. When

these neural connections are formed, memories are created. If a teacher increases the number,

and the variety of the connections, there is an increased chance of retention and later recall.

Recall is also greater for information that is presented first or last in a session; this is known as

the "primacy effect" and the "recency effect." In order to retain the information necessary, the

brain needs to rehearse the information using a variety of repetitive actions such as learning

through rhyming, poetry, music, and movement. A teacher can also use word chunking to

convey the information. This process allows students to make connections to concepts to which

they are already familiar (Christison, 1999; Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998; Sprenger 1999).

Schemas are interpretive frames that teachers use to help their students make sense of

information by relating it to previous experiences. By providing students with a simple graphic

organizer or a visual aid that displays the chunks of information to be learned, the students have

a framework, which they can use to approach the information. Schemas also help to clarify

instructional goals and clear up any misconceptions. A story map is one example of a graphic

organizer that breaks down the elements of a narrative into chunks of texts, so that the students

can organize and comprehend the events therein. It also illustrates what the students are

responsible for learning. Using a story map for the study of literature helps to make the learning

interesting and increases later recall.


To inspire effective learning, a teacher should also include music. Music is often linked

to emotions in the brain, and playing it in the classroom can trigger pleasurable memories. “The

reason music is so important to the learning environment is that is actually corresponds to and

affects our physiological conditions” (Davies, 1996, p. 3). With music, students develop spatial

reasoning which they can use for mathematical skills (Classrooms Compass, 2000; Davies,

1996). It is probably the most inexpensive adaptation that can be easily applied in the classroom

environment. Teachers can use classical music, which is universal and has no lyrics to confuse

LEP students. Music may be employed during "quiet time," in which students quietly read a

book or relax without talking to each other. This quiet period allows time for neural connections

that were made during learning to be processed (Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998).

An effective teacher will use knowledge of brain activity to focus on wholes to parts and

parts to wholes resulting in a balanced approach. One benefit of a balanced approach to

language it that is allows students to make real world connections. It uses the natural language

that students use in social interaction. Balanced approach instruction includes the integration of

listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Phonics and spelling are each integrated meaningfully

into the student’s written language, allowing them to express their thoughts. Using rich language

activities allows students to recall events they have learned both inside and outside of the

classroom (Christison, 1997).

Brain research has lead to changes not only in teacher presentation, but also in student

assessment. Assessment effects student learning because students learn differently, assessments

must take place in a variety of ways. It is particularly important to use multiple modes of

assessment that will allow students to show their strengths and perform optimally. The core of


Gardner's MI theory and Caines’ principles are opposed to the dated use of formalized,

standardized testing. Many testing professionals currently have confidence in authentic

assessment, which emphasizes viewing students' knowledge from different perspectives so as to

provide a complete picture of students' abilities, efforts, and progress during the learning process.

Brain-based research has indicated that students need to have a diverse system of assessments

that offer a variety of ways for students to express what they know. Assessments can be process-

based, individualized-based, contextualized-based, performance-based, and ongoing-based type.

The assessment may include paper-and-pencil tests, portfolios, journals/logs, projects, exhibits,

performances, and displays. Students need comments from teachers, their parents, and other

students to help reinforce their training (Christison, 1997; D’Arcangelo, 1998).

Middle and high school LEP students are entering U. S. public schools and are being

placed in English-only general education (mainstream) classrooms with minimal language

support. For those school districts that have language assistance programs, some of their LEP

parents are opting to “waiver” their children out of bilingual and/or ESL services (KUSD, 2003).

If LEP students are placed in mainstream classes, their teachers will need additional professional

development in order to effectively deal with them. Two highly effective language instructional

approaches that can aid general education teachers in improving the linguistic and cognitive

academic skills of their LEP students in the mainstreamed classroom are known as Specially

Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) and Cognitive Academic Language

Learning Approach (CALLA) (ELLKBase, 2002; Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000).


Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English

SDAIE is the acronym for Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English, and is

based upon the theoretical work of linguistic theorists Stephen Krashen and Jim Cummins. Their

development of the “Contextual Interaction Theory” and the hypotheses therein provides the

cornerstones for SDAIE methodology and program design. SDAIE equips mainstream teachers

with neuroscience researched English language development strategies to effectively teach their

LEP students (Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000). SDAIE incorporates Vygotsky’s Zone

of Proximal Development, which is that level that is just above the students’ language abilities,

into classroom discussion. SDAIE was not originally designed for beginning level LEP students,

but for those LEP students who had been transitioned into the mainstreamed classrooms, and

who had reached intermediate fluency in English. These LEP students are usually orally

proficient in English, but are reading and writing below grade level (ELLKBase, 2002; Gulack &

Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000). SDAIE provides teachers with special techniques and strategies

that were designed to assist them in guiding their LEP students in both language acquisition and

subject matter content (ELLKBase, 2002; Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000).

The two major components of SDAIE methodologies include the comprehensible second

language input and a supportive affective environment (Gulack & Silverstein, 1997). Although

SDAIE uses ESL instruction, it functions in a different manner. SDAIE does not primarily focus

on language development, rather, its focus is on academic content comprehension, and English is

learned through this process. SDAIE is often referred to as "sheltered instruction" because it is

by sheltering students’ language development that instructors provide some “protection” from


the awesome prospect of learning a new language. The analogy often used for “sheltered” is one

of an umbrella; an umbrella protects one from a storm. SDAIE strategies provide LEP students

an extended opportunity to progress academically as they acquire the English skills necessary

(Gulack & Silverstein, 1997).

SDAIE strategies allow LEP students to comprehend the information presented by the

teacher (comprehensible input) in any format as long as it makes sense to the learner. It provides

the context for complex language and a motivation for both the student and the teacher to study

their textbooks for additional reading and writing activities. SDAIE strategies used in the

mainstreamed classrooms to enhance student learning may include:

1) realia, which are real objects and materials used as visual clues
that provide a literal and visual way to describe key words and
concepts;
2) manipulatives, such as drawings, posters, graphs, tables, maps,
props, multimedia presentations, storyboards, and story maps;
3) visuals, such as study-prints, textbook illustrations, overhead
projections, paintings, and documents;
4) graphic organizers, such as matrices, Venn diagrams, and webs;
5) classroom interactions between all individuals, such as creating
a skit and acting it out, cooperative learning, collaborative
learning, and student-generated stories based on personal
experiences; and
6) high thinking skills as previously discussed in Metacognitive
strategies. (ELLKBase, 2002; Gulack & Silverstein, 1997;
O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Rohac, 2000)

SDAIE strategies are divided into three categories: metacognitive, cognitive, and social-

affective (Rohac, 2000). Metacognitive strategies are high order critical thinking that, “may

entail planning for, monitoring, or evaluating, the success of a learning activity” (O'Malley &

Chamot, 1990, p. 44). Cognitive strategies are those derived from the knowledge and

competency structures involved in the learning activities and productions achieved by the


learner. Strategies may include grouping, note-taking, elaboration of prior knowledge,

summarizing, deduction/induction, imagery, auditory representation, and making inferences

(O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). Social-affective strategies are present when students work in

collaboration with other learners within the learning environment. Social-affective strategies

may include questioning for clarification, cooperative learning, and self-talk (ELLKBase, 2002;

Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). These activities provide the linguistic

"hooks" upon which the students can "pin" their new language.

SDAIE teachers continually make allowances for their LEP students’ language levels.

The teachers continually monitor their instruction including their rate speech, syntax and

language structure. Most commonly, reading and writing activities are considered guided

activities. Teachers use pre-reading activities with appropriate questioning strategies that relate

to students’ prior knowledge and experiences. Teachers provide graphic organizers and other

tools to help prepare and support students work and promote success (Gulack & Silverstein,

1997; ELLKBase, 2002; Rohac, 2000).

Additional instructional approaches imbedded in SDAIE classrooms include

heterogeneous grouping, hands-on instructional activities, word banks or guarded vocabulary,

and scaffolding. Schools often use heterogeneous grouping, in which LEP students are placed in

classes according to their ability, rather than by grade-level. This type of grouping allows

students from several grade-levels to be placed in one class, termed multi-age grouping (Gulack

& Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000). Hands-on activities are real life experiences that teachers use

to engage physically their LEP students. The teacher may use nonverbal cues to help his/her

students understand what is expected of them. Word-banks or guarded vocabulary is often


referred to as a “catch-all phrase” for a variety of language activities used to build vocabulary

concepts from the textbooks their students read. Although the vocabulary may contain

unfamiliar words, the main purpose of the list is to pre-teach significant ideas and concepts in the

reading (Gulack & Silverstein, 1997). This builds familiarity so those students recall being

introduced to the terms later in their education. Teachers are conscious of the selection of words

used, and how they are introduced, practiced and incorporated into all components of their lesson

plans. Teachers scan text materials for their content vocabulary and decide which terms might

cause comprehension problems in instruction and direction (this is termed the support

vocabulary). The teacher creates activities, games and other low stress activities to build upon

this new vocabulary item (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994, 1999; Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; Rohac,

2000).

Introduced by Vygotsky, scaffolding refers to all of the various strategies that teachers

use to make English more comprehensible to students. The teacher’s role in the learning process

is to provide the support and guidance to help his/her students’ progress (Vygotsky and Social

Cognition, 1998). Teachers use scaffolding strategies as a tool in which their LEP students can

accumulate knowledge; they provide a foundation for continued learning. Some examples of

scaffolding are shared reading, book reading, patterned writing, journaling, graphic organizers or

mapping, learning routines or instruction in and outside the class (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994,

1999; ELLKBase, 2002; Freeman & Freeman, 1998; Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000).

Scaffolding differs from sequencing because it places a time constraint on students to complete a

task (e.g. read a certain number of chapters in a book) (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994,1999;

ELLKBase, 2002; Freeman & Freeman, 1998; Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000).


Another effective instructional approach educators can implement in their classrooms to help

their LEP students succeed linguistically and academically is called CALLA, which will be

examined next.

Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach

CALLA is the acronym for the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach.

CALLA was specially designed for students enrolled in English Speakers of Other Languages

(ESOL) programs. The model is a component of Bilingual Education, and it is used in

traditional ESL classrooms. CALLA was first developed by Chamot and O’Malley (1994) and is

based upon their knowledge of research on cognition. The CALLA model integrates academic

language development, content area instruction, and explicit learning strategies for both course

content and English language acquisition.

The CALLA model was intended to reach out to ESOL students whom research indicated

were not being sufficiently prepared for grade-level content-area classrooms. There is a great

difference between the academic language skills needed by LEP students to function and those

needed to succeed in mainstream content classes at the high school and college levels. Academic

English takes up to 7 years to develop, in most cases. The academic content and learning

strategies beginning with math and science and gradually work into the language arts and then

the social sciences. Teachers may implement CALLA’s instructional model in their classroom

as a way to meet the challenges of implementing the standards of content-based language

instruction that is required of their school district or state (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994, 1999).


In The CALLA Handbook, Chamot and O'Malley (1994) provided teachers with useful

research on effective instructional strategies that will help LEP students to succeed. The

research findings revealed that when teachers carefully chose a learning strategy to implement

that was appropriate for a given task, their LEP students improved their academic English

remarkably. LEP students began to take ownership of their education by regulating their

learning through a strategic approach to learning tasks. Chamot and O"Malley indicated students

worked more independently and were less dependent on their teacher after learning the

strategies.

According to Chamot and O'Malley (1994), CALLA should be utilized to develop

academic content as the primary purpose of instruction. The secondary purpose is to develop

language skills out of the content areas as the need arises. The purpose of using content in the

development of English is simply to provide meaningful context for the students. Instead of

“watering down” the curriculum, a CALLA teacher presents an array of instructional strategies

that are research based, and uses complex content in lecture and activities. These methodologies

allow LEP students to comprehend the underlying meaning. CALLA teachers use every means

possible and may borrow from other disciplines, such as MI, gifted and talented, or special

education, to provide the meaningful or comprehensible input needed to help their students be

successful. Teachers find a way to allow all students to participate no matter how fluent they are

in English (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994, 1999).


Conclusion

Educators can no longer remain on the sidelines while neuroscience reveals important

information about how the brain learns. As understanding of the brain continues to grow, it is up

to teachers to continue to interpret these findings and apply the research to their teachings so that

their students' learning evolves over time. Brain research does not dictate to teachers what to

teach or how they teach; it merely offers an insight that may assist them in lesson planning,

delivery, and assessment. Teachers must not abandon their traditional sources of insight and

guidance when it comes to planning effective instruction. Teachers must continue to draw upon

cognitive research while still developing their own insights based upon their classroom

experience. The two sources of information (research and experience) should complement each

other so that cognitive science reinforces what seasoned professionals already know about

learning.

Teachers are expert practitioners. They can build their craft by knowing more about how

the brain processes and stores information. This knowledge strengthens their expertise about

educational practices that build accountability and trust. When educators consider neuroscience,

they organize their curriculum around real experiences and integrated, "whole" ideals. They

tailor instruction to promote complex thinking and the natural "growth" of the brain. Brain-

based teachers understand the development of the human brain and its "windows of

opportunity,” when the hard, permanent wiring must take place. To miss these windows can

handicap students’ ability to learn. Educational experiences create connections in the brain that

form the foundation for spoken language, reading, comprehension of written language, writing,


and problem solving. These experiences will allow students to recall past experiences and use

this information to make neural connections. Instructional approaches consist primarily of trying

to maintain a relaxed, focused atmosphere that offers options for learning in individually

satisfying ways; this represents a major shift from the old paradigm of the teacher-centered

classroom. Traditional schooling often inhibits learning by discouraging, ignoring, or punishing

the brain's natural learning processes (Classroom Compass, p. 1).

To be effective, teachers must have a knowledge base that is kept current by acquiring

scientific understanding of the brain. Only then can teachers determine the educational

applications of the research. By increasing their knowledge base, teachers will gain competence

in determining which classroom strategies are more compatible with the current understanding of

the brain. Teachers must design learning around students’ interests and make learning

contextual. They must let their students learn in teams and use peripheral learning. Teachers

must structure students’ learning around real problems, and encourage their students to learn in

settings outside the classroom and the school building. In view of the fact that all students learn,

their assessments should allow them to understand their own learning styles and preferences. In

this fashion, students will monitor and enhance their own learning process.

Sheltered English teachers use various extra-linguistic learning strategies or

modifications to aid in building LEP students’ cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP).

Some SEI techniques utilized by teachers include SDAIE and CALLA, TPR, visual aids, realia,

manipulatives, hands-on activities, props, body language repetitions, pauses in speech, and

various types of technology. These techniques help facilitate comprehensible content, as

frequent checks for comprehension is incorporated. Thematic instruction and holistic lesson


plans are often implemented to encourage student interest and facilitate long-term memory

(English for the Children, 1998; ELLKBase; Freeman, 1998; Krashen, 1981, 1985; Nevin, 1993;

Short, 1998; Thomas & Collier, 2001). Teachers trained in SDAIE and CALLA pedagogical

theories frequently check their LEP students for progress in terms of understanding. Further,

these educators check themselves on how well they are meeting the needs of their students they

face on daily basis. By implementing instructional strategies, such as SDAIE or CALLA, that

are grounded in brain-based research, teachers will be forced to scrutinize every aspect of their

lessons they are delivering; in essence, it will make them better educators.

Teachers nationwide must do a better job at teaching their LEP students English. They

must do whatever it takes to encourage their students to become life-long learners. Too many

students are faltering in the current educational system. Teachers must continue to take a

leadership role in shaping their students’ learning. It is an educator’s duty to make innovative

and effective changes in his/her classroom to encourage student engagement and comprehension.

Change is inevitable, and teachers must embrace the new information that is coming from the

field of brain research. All educators have their students’ futures in their hands. If educators

become complacent and stagnant in their teachings, LEP students will continue to be withdrawn

and/or to drop out of school. Alternately, a brain-based educator can shape minds, inspiring their

students to achieve and dream of a future that matches their unique skills and abilities.


References

Barron, M. Surprising truths: The implications of brain research. Retrieved February 23, 2003,
from http://www.nauticom.net/www/cokids/brain.html.

Bower, B. The brain is tuned to grammar as music is tuned to lyrics. Retrieved February 23,
2003, from http://www.brainconnection.com.

Brain-Based Learning. Retrieved February 23, 2003, from http://www.funderstanding.com.

Bruer, J. (1999). In search of brain based learning. Kaplan. Retrieved February 23, 2003, from
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappan.htm.

Bueno, K. (1999). Glossary. Retrieved April 28, 2003, from http://www.siue.edu/~kbueno/fl486/
gloss.html.

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1994). Mindshift. Tucson, Arizona: Zephyr Press.

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Unleashing the power of perceptual change. Alexandria,
Virginia: ASCD.

Chamot, A. U. & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P.B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The Learning Strategies
Handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Chan, T. (1998, Nov.). The brain learns better in well-designed school environments. Classroom
Leadership, 2(3). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.ascd.org/pubs/cl/2nov98.html.

Christison, M. A. (1990, Oct.). Cooperative learning in the EFL classroom. English Teaching
Forum. Retrieved September 1, 2002, from
http://exchanges.state.gov/education/engteaching/chr1099.htm.

Christison, M. A. (1996). Multiple intelligences in the second language classroom. TESOL
Journal. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Christison, M. A. (1998, April-June). Applying multiple intelligences theory in preservice and
inservice TEFL education programs. English Teaching Forum.


Christison, M. A. (1999, April/May). Applications of brain based research to second language
teaching and learning: Part 1. TESOL Matters, 9 (2). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.tesol.org.

Christison, M. A. (1999, April/May). Applying mind-brain principles to L2 teaching. TESOL
Matters, 7(4). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.tesol.org.

Christison, M. A. (1999, June/July). Applications of brain based research to second language
teaching and learning: Part 2. TESOL Matters, 9 (3). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.tesol.org.

Christison, M. A. (1999, Dec). Classroom compass: How can research on the brain in form
education? Multiple Intelligences: Theory and practice in adult ESL. Retrieved February
24, 2003, from http://www.cal.org/ncle/digests/MI.htm.

Classroom Compass (2000). How can research on the brain inform education? 3 (2). Retrieved
September 22, 2002, from http://www.sedl.org/scimath/compass/v03n02/brain.html.

Curtain, H. (1995). Foreign language and content instruction in grades K-8. Retrieved February
24, 2003, from http://www.uncc.edu/~medomoto/4201/handouts/tpr%20and%20other
%20strategies/calla.html.

Crandall, J., Jaramillo, A., Olsen, L., & Kreeft Peyton, J. (2002, Oct). Using cognitive strategies
to develop English language and literacy. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0205crandall.html.

Cogito: Brain and Mind (2002). Retrieved December 26, 2002, from http://www.educ.drake.edu/
romig/cogito/brain_and_mind.html.

D’ Arcangelo, M. (2000, June). Wake-up call about brain research. Education Update, 42( 4).
Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edupdate/2000/june00/02jun00.html.

D’ Arcangelo, M. (1998, Nov). How the brain learns: The brains behind the brains. Educational
Leadership, 56(3). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/
edlead/9811/darcangelo.html.

Duignan, P. Hoover essay. Bilingual education: A critique. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.hooverstandfordedu./publications/he/22/22d.html.

Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire: On the matter of the mind. New York: Basic.

Effective instructional practices for language minority students. MAEC. Retrieved July 29, 2002,


from http:www.maec.org/instprac.htlm.

Children.” In English for the Children. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from

English for the Children of Arizona (2003). Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.angelfire.com/az/english4thechildren/body.html.

ELLKBase (2002). A framework for alternative language programs [Data file]. Region VII
Comprehensive Center. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from

The English plus alternative. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/EPIC.htm.

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. Sheltered English instruction. Retrieved June 29, 2002, from ERIC
Digest: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed301070.html.

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.

Friedlander, M. (1991, Fall). The newcomers program: Helping immigrant students succeed in
U.S. schools. NCBE program information guide series, 8. Retrieved November 1, 2002,
from http://ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig8.htm;
http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/refernces/NEWCOMERPROGRAMTableCo

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1995). "Are there additional intelligences? The case for the naturalist
intelligence." Howard Project Zero. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Howard
College.

Garvin, I. (1996). Authentic-alternative assessment. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from

Genesee, F. (1999-2001). Bilingual acquisition. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://earlychildhood.com/Articles/index.

Genesee, F. (2000). Brain Research: Implications for Second Language Learning. Retrieved


February 24, 2003, from Eric Digest: http://cal.org./oricall/digest/ooo12brain.html.

Gulack, J. & Silverstein, (1997). SDAIE handbook: Techniques, strategies, and suggestions for
teachers of LEP and former LEP Students. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.csupomona.edu/~tassi/SDAIE .htm.


Hakuta, K. (2002, August 22). Points on SAT-9 performance and Proposition 227. Retrieved

SAT-9 Scores. Retrieved September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/.

Hakuta, K. & August, D. (1997). Improving education for all children: meeting the Needs of
Language Minority Children. Retrieved August 6, 2002, from http://www.standford.edu/
~hakuta/Aspen.html.

Hancock, C. R. (1994). Alternative assessment and second language study: What and why?
Retrieved June 29, 2003, from Eric Digest Available:

Hart, L. (1995, January 25). Human brain and human learning. Your child’s mind. Time
Magazine.

How the Brain Learns: The Key to Student Achievement. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.brainconnection.com.

How the Brain “Hears” Language. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from

Jensen, E (1998, November). How the brain learns: How Julie’s brain learns. Educational
Leadership, 56 (2), Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9811/darcangelo.html.

Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, Virgina: ASCD

Kennedy, D. Key Resources, 3(2). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://sedl.org.scimath/compass.

Kenosha Unified School District (KUSD) Five-Year long range committee (2003). Kenosha


Unified School District No. 1, Kenosha, WI.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. (1st ed. Internet,
December 2002). Retrieved January 3, 2003, from
http://www.sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/index.html.

Krashen, S. (1997). Why bilingual education? Retrieved August 6, 2002, from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/bil-new.html.

Krashen, S. (1985). Insights and inquires. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.

Krashen, S. (1999). Structured immersion falls short of expectations: An analysis of Clark.
NABE.

Krashen, S. (2002, August 26). Focus on the library, not the playground [Letter to the editor].
Arizona Republic.

McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: What Every
Teacher needs to Unlearn. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from
http://www.bilingualprek.org/dl/myths.pdf.

Netkin, H. (1998, May). An assessment of bilingual education. In Letter. Retrieved September 6,
2002, from http://onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=4032.

Nevin, A., Neciichea, J., & Cline, Z. Using data-based instruction to improve the learning
outcomes of students who are difficult to teach. CSUSM College of Education. Retrieved
July 29, 2003, from http://www.csusm.edu/thousand/necochea.html.

Nunan, D. (2001). English as a global language. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4).

Peterson, B. The Evolution of Language. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from

Peterson, K. Authentic assessment and school wide projects. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ccvi/pubs/publication/archive/newsletter/Winter1997_Weavin
gAuthenticAssessment/AuthAssessment_SchoolwideProj.htm.

Rohac, R. (2000, May). SDAIE - Specially designed academic instruction in English. Retrieved
January 3, 2003, from http://rohac.com/sdaieinfo.htm.



Languages and Linguistics. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.cal.org/crede/
newcomer.htm.

Short, D. J. (2002). Newcomers programs: An educational alternative for secondary immigrant
students. Education and Urban Society 34(2), 173-198. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from

Short, D. & Boyson, B. (2000). Center for research on education, diversity & excellence
(CREDE). Summary of data in secondary newcomer directory. Center for Applied
Linguistics. Retrieved July 29,2002, from http://www.cal.org/crede/newsummary.htm.

Short, D. & Boyson, B. (2002) Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence
(CREDE). Newcomers: Language and academic programs for recent immigrants. Center
for Applied Linguistic. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from
http://www.cal.org/crede/newsummary.htm.

Sousa, D. (1998). Is the fuss about brain research justified? Retreived May 12, 2003, from http://
www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/16sousa.h18.

Sprenger, M. Learning and memory: The brain in action. 1999 Retrieved February 24, 2003,
from http://www.ascd.org/pubs/cl/2nov98.html.

Sylwester, R. (1996). Celebrating neurons. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

Talukder, G. How the brain makes way for a second language. Retrieved February 23, 2003,
from http://www.brainconnection.com.

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness for language
minority students' long-term academic achievement. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research.

Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom. Responding to the needs of all learners.
The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved March 15,
2003, from http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/books/tomlin99book.html#chap1.

Vygotsky and Social Cognition. Retrieved February 23, 2003, from
http://www.funderstanding.com.

QUESTION 6

Evaluate how CBT or WBT can be used to improve staff development offerings for language
assistance teachers? Develop a comprehensive staff development program using CBT or WBT.

“Over the past two decades, America’s classrooms have undergone an unmistakable

metamorphosis” (Friedlander, 1991, p. 1). There are over 8.6 million children enrolled in U.S.

schools and nearly 40% require some sort of language assistance (Hakuta, 2001). Today,

virtually all school districts, whether rural or urban, have at least one limited English proficient

(LEP) student (Friedlander, 1991; Short, 1998; Viadero, 20001). This new wave of immigration

sweeping the U.S. is vastly different from that of a hundred years ago. Most of the 26.8 million

immigrants living in the U.S. come from Latin America, Asia, the Caribbean, and the Middle

East (Short, 1998). Forty percent of new immigrants are under 18 years of age, and one in five

children in America is an immigrant or a child of immigrants (Viadero, 2000). These new

immigrants are coming from a variety of educational realms; some come from well-educated

families with valuable expertise and knowledge, while others come from highly impoverished

areas (Friedlander, 1991; Short, 1998; Viadero, 2000). It is more difficult to educate the new

immigrants, when compared to immigrants of the past, because most new immigrants come from

non-English speaking countries, where access to formal education is limited (Short, 1998;

Viadero, 2000). Limited English proficient (LEP) is the legal definition used to identify students

who were not born in the U.S., or whose native language is not English and who cannot

participate effectively in the regular curriculum because they have difficulty speaking,

understanding, reading, and writing in English (Department of Education-OCR, 1999). LEP is


the term recognized by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and therefore will be the term used

throughout this comprehensive paper.

States and school districts are searching for effective methods to train their staff on how

to educate their LEP students in the mainstreamed classroom. School districts and universities

are currently failing to meet their LEP students' needs. These institutions are having difficulty

locating, hiring, and training qualified Bilingual and ESL language teachers (Hakuta, 1998).

New research indicates that children in schools with many minority and
poor students are more likely to be taught by under qualified teachers.
Those findings are emerging just as other studies are beginning to quantify
the damage that an ineffective teacher can do. Research by William
Sanders and his colleagues at the University of Tennessee suggest that
three consecutive years of bad teachers can significantly hamper a child’s
learning over the long run. (Viadero, 2000, p. 30)

Instructors of LEP students typically receive specialized training in bilingual and/or English as a

Second Language (ESL) education. In 1998, according to the California Department of

Education, there were only 14,965 certified bilingual teachers and only 9,188 who were in

training nationwide (Hakuta, 1998). This number is not enough to meet the ever-increasing need

for language assistance teachers who provide services to LEP students in mainstreamed/general

education classrooms.

The most challenging task facing American educators is finding or developing

methodologies to successfully integrate new LEP students into the academic arena. Effective

teachers must continually update their professional skills; however, today’s educators are

inundated and overworked. Teachers lack time to keep up with advances in their subject matter


and lack the funds to obtain the additional professional development needed. To aid in this

endeavor, a school district may elect to adopt available technologies, such as technology-based

learning programs, to enhance the educational development and/or professional development of

its staff (Beer; 2000; Gibson, 1992; Hakuta, 1998; Philips, 1999; Short, 1998; Viadero, 2000).

Technology-based Learning Inception

Education is changing and evolving over time. As in the business world, today’s

educational institutions are transitioning into the Information Age. Education via the use of

electronic technology is challenging traditional modes of instruction that have been in common

practice for hundreds of years. Because there are over twenty-five million host servers on the

Internet and over two hundred million users today, school districts, administrators, and educators

are beginning to reexamine the learning process of when, how, and where learning occurs

(Chute, Thompson, & Hancock, 1999). Many educational institutions and corporations are

investing in a wide range of educational services or courses that are posted on the Internet and/or

downloaded to their Intranet.

The power and the flexibility of distance learning technologies offer new
and enhanced ways to incorporate active and interactive learning
experiences into curricula at all educational levels to most appropriately
meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population of learners. (Chute et
al., 1999, p. 4)

Technology-based learning (TBL) is a viable option for school districts and/or

administrators to improve their staff professional development. Technology-based learning


(TBL) is the “preferred term for any form of technology to deliver or support learning” (Philips,

1999, p. 289). Technology-based learning encompasses presentation and delivery methods using

multimedia, videoconferencing, virtual reality, Groupware, distance learning, Internet/ Intranets,

CD-ROMS, satellites, e-mail, and voicemail (Philips, 1999).

School districts and administrators are incorporating newly available distance learning or

Internet instruction to train staff and/or to provide specialized training to meet their schools’

individualized needs (Beer, 2000; McKenzie, 2001). Distance learning courses allow a

participant to access the training he/she needs anywhere, any time, and at any location. The

student must have access to a computer, a CD-ROM, and/or a reliable connection to his/her

organization’s Intranet or to the Internet. Many educators are restructuring and creating an ideal

learning environment for their students and are employing new technologies to address their

needs. At Weekend College programs, multimedia programs and additional educational

opportunities are rapidly being developed. Through the use of satellite broadcasting, an array of

learning opportunities are now available for millions of people worldwide (Beer, 2000; Gibson,

1992). The virtual campus has shifted learning environments from a teacher/professor-centered

approach to a student-centered system of learning. Eighty-five percent of two-year colleges and

84% of four-year colleges were projected to offer distance learning courses by 2002 (Brown,

John, & Duguid, 1996; Herrington, Oliver, & Omari, 1996; Gallego, 1998; Philips, 1999; Young,

1997).


Internet/Intranet-based Training

The explosion of technological advances is due to the launch of the Internet, twenty-five

years ago, followed by the inception of the Worldwide Web (WWW) in 1989 (Chute et al.,

1999). Commonly referred to as the “Net, the World Wide Web, or simply the Web, the Internet

is the largest computer network in the world” (Philips, 1999, p. 303). The Internet has made it

possible for one to communicate quickly, easily, and inexpensively anywhere in the world. The

Internet has allowed organizations to expand the various types of technology, including distance

learning via web-based training or Internet/Intranet training. In 1998, there were 710,000

students enrolled in some form of distance-learning program, and the number was projected to

increase to over 2.2 million in 2002 (Driscoll, 1999; Gallego, 1999; Herrington et al., 1996;

Philips, 1999). The delivery of TBL opportunities available via the Internet/Intranets includes

the use of e-mail, multimedia, WBT, and CBT (Brown et al., 1996). Training Industry

Magazine reported that 19 % of training courses available were delivered via computer using

CD-ROMs, diskettes, or online via the Internet (Brown et al., 1996; Philips, 1999).

“Internet-based training is referred to any skill or knowledge transfer that takes place

using the WWW as a distribution channel” (Gallego, 1998, p. 7). The Internet/Intranet has made

it possible for corporations to provide “just-in-time training” to their employees anywhere across

the globe. The delivery is virtual and “distance becomes irrelevant which makes it ideal for

global learning solutions” (Philips, 1999, p. 304). An Intranet is an internal network that

organizations use to deliver in-house information; this information is not available to the public


(Leiden & Wilensky, 2000). By placing a single website on an organization’s Intranet, it allows

administrators and staff to access all types of learning resources within the organization. The

resources may include internal, external, instructor led programs, on-line courses, fixed media

coaching resources, books, or on-the-job training courses (Philips, 1999, p. 295).

Internet/Intranet instruction is now one of the most popular instructional modes for a variety of

reasons (Beer, 2000; Philips, 1999). “It is easily accessible, it supports flexible storage and

display options, it provides a simple yet powerful publishing format and a means to incorporate

multiple media elements” (Herrington et al., 1996, p. 2).

The emergence of the Worldwide Web, with its easy-to-use graphical
interface, has drastically altered the way in which people access
information, and how they think about computers. Methods in which we
deliver and receive instruction may also be on the brink of a new
dimension. (Hoffman & Ritchie, 1996, p. 1)

Interactive forms of communications include electronic e-mails, interactive television,

and teleconferencing. As the name suggests, interactive forms of communication allow the

instructor and the participants to interact with one another in live time. Networks allow

organizations to provide desktop platforms to interface with each other. Networks include the

Internet, Intranets, local-area networks (LANs), and wide-area networks (WANs) (Leiden &

Wilensky, 2000). A LAN is defined as computers or other devices that communicate over small

geographical areas, such as a home office, a floor of a building, or even several buildings on a

small campus (Leiden & Wilensky, 2000). A WAN is a network of computers that span

geographical distances that are too large for a LAN (Leiden & Wilensky, 2000). Organizations

that use networks are able to reduce training costs because networks do not require complex


software. Incorporating multimedia is an efficient and cost-effective way to deliver training

(Chute et al., 1999; Philips, 1999).

Web-based and Computer-based Training

Technology-based learning includes web-based training (WBT) and computer-based

training (CBT). Web based training (WBT) may be delivered in a variety of modes. For

instance, the simple text-only utilizes e-mail technology, whereas more complex networking

utilizes multimedia and/or live video-conferencing (Beer, 2000). Computer-based training

(CBT) often includes the use of CD-ROMs, or diskettes used by an individual, to provide instant

and up-to-date instruction (Beer, 2000). CD-ROMS are considered today to be one of the best

delivery systems for TBL. Web-based training differs from CBT in that WBT requires a

computer with a connection to the Internet, whereas CBT can include the use of one computer

with a CD-ROM inserted to deliver instructional materials. Web-based training is considered to

be more versatile and "user- friendly" than CBT; it is always available as long as the user has

Internet or Intranet access (Beer, 2000). Computer-based training devices may be ineffectual if

the user is not able to upload the information (Beer, 2000; Chute et al., 1999; Gibson, 1992;

Philips, 1999).

“Web-based training generally applies to any kind of instructional material delivered over

a corporate Intranet or Internet accessed by browser-equipped users” (Gallego, 1999, p. 3).

Web-based instruction is described as “a hypermedia instructional program which utilizes the

attributes and resources of the World Wide Web to create a meaningful learning environment


where learning is fostered and supported" (Brandon 1997, p. 1). Web-based training is an

innovative method that incorporates a distance learning format; in this format, CBT is

transformed by the technologies and methodologies of the Internets/Intranets. Web-based

training programs offer base knowledge instruction that engages the learner in problem solving

exercises and provide a summation of the participants’ overall performance (Beer, 2000). With

full access to the Internet, WBT programs can expand to include a worldwide community of

learners not accessible in an ordinary classroom (Beer, 2000; Boshier & Gallego, 1998; Chute et

al., 1999; Philips, 1999; Wilson & Qayyum, 1999).

In Australia, CBT has been legislated to a greater extent than in most
countries. Policy directives at the national/federal level I the early 1990s
have ensured that competency-based training would become the preferred
method of delivery of VET [Vocational Education and Training]…
Today, CBT is synonymous with training in Australia. (Lowrie, 1999, p.
2)

WBT can be delivered synchronously or asynchronously. In an asynchronous virtual

classroom delivery, students and instructors are not required to engage in online collaborative

learning activities at the same time. With this type of program, learners are usually self-directed

and/or self-paced. This type of instruction utilizes hypermedia, hypertexts, online quizzes, and e-

mail (Beer, 2000; Driscoll 1999; Gallego, 1999; Herrington et al., 1996). A more technically

sophisticated WBT course may use a synchronous mode of instructional delivery that resembles

more of a “traditional” classroom because it may consist of an instructor and students who are

online at the same time (Beer, 2000). The instructor facilitates the instruction and guides his/her

students through conversations regarding the course context using questions, discussions, and


debate tactics. Tools utilized in synchronous course include electronic whiteboards, video-

conferencing, audio-conferencing, and online chats (Beer, 2000; Gallego, 1998). This process is

commonly referred to as "interactivity" because there is dialogue between the participants (Beer,

2000; Gallego, 1998; Herrington et al., 1996). “Through their connection across time and space,

teachers and students gain experiences, share text, graphics, audio, video, and virtual reality

experiences” (Weinstein, 1997, p. 24).

WBT programs can save organizations money even though they are rather expensive to

develop initially. School districts and administrators must consider the development costs,

which include the following: equipment, software, hardware, and program maintenance. The

cost of WBT programs varies depending on the organization's technological infrastructures

already in place. If the organization has no existing infrastructure, the cost could range from

$25,000 to $50,000 (Beer, 2000; Chute et al., 1999; Philips, 1999; Wilson & Qayyum, 1999). If

a school district opts to send fifteen employees to a traditional training program, it could cost the

district an average of $24,000. This amount, according to numerous experts, is less than the

estimated cost for developing a WBT; however, the costs of creating a WBT could be recovered

initially and/or over time of the program (Beer, 2000; Boshier & Gallego, 1998).

Technology-based Learning and Education

Technology-based learning has particular implications not only for the student, but, for

the teaching profession and the learning environment. Technology-based learning utilizes

multimedia that is capable of evaluation, adaptation, and remediation; all multimedia is


independent of the computer platforms of each user. Educational organizations are now offering

a wide range of courses and programs without having the additional expense of adding buildings

and classrooms (Beer, 2000). A student may enroll in an unlimited number of correspondence

courses and distance learning educational programs. These programs are now regarded as

important educational environments in which a significant number of adults are opting to enroll

(Beer, 2000; Chute et al., 1999; Gibson, 1992; Philips, 1999).

Technology is not only challenging and transforming higher education, but secondary and

elementary education as well. Distance learning technologies are being implemented into

schools to improve the quality of instruction delivered. Secondary and elementary schools are

offering on-line full-time accredited distance educational programs. Advanced placement high

school courses are available on-line for secondary students. In Appleton, Wisconsin students in

grades K-8 are now (2003-2004) able to attend a virtual charter school called Wisconsin

Connections Academy (Borsuk, 2002). “The school plans to use teachers hired by Appleton and

curriculum provided by a private company, Sylvan Ventures, to educate about 300 children

learning from their homes all across the state” (Borsuk, 2002, p. 1). A curriculum enrichment

program, such as the "virtual field trip," is also available at most school districts (Borsuk, 2002).

These types of technologies offer educators tools for design of their learning environment that

encourages their students to work on activities both individually and collaboratively with other

students around the globe (Chute et al., 1999).


Technology-based Learning Effectiveness

Regardless of what type of instructional delivery that is utilized with TBL, instructors and

participants who are separated by space and time, come together. Today’s educators have the

ability to develop the skills necessary to require students to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the

information presented (Chute et al., 1999; Driscoll 1999; Gallego, 1999; Herrington et al.,1996).

To be an effective TBL program, it must be aligned with how adults (children if applicable) learn

and process information (Grill, 1999). According to Grill (1999), the distance learner's average

age ranges from 25 to 50 years. These adults are often self-directed learners who tend to focus

on the process and take control of their own learning. Often, TBL students set their own learning

goals, locate appropriate resources, and determine which learning methods to employ. They also

tend to evaluate their own progress along the way, allowing them to keep up with others enrolled

in the course. Although there is no physical classroom where distance learners meet, they do

communicate with each other as part of study groups.

Technology-based learning programs tend to utilize experiential learning theory models,

which postulate that students' learning should be built upon their own experiences, and that their

experiences represent a valuable resource (Jarvis, 1987). Technology-based learning allows

participants to progress through their training at their own pace (Beer, 2000). It also provides the

student with the opportunity to immediately evaluate his/her own learning. As "most WBT

programs are little more than self-paced learning, success in these programs hinges on the

learner's ability to engage in self-directed learning and to develop metacognitive skills for the

Web" (Driscoll, 1999, p. 24).


Instructors play a vital role in the success of a TBL program. Instructor effectiveness is

one of the determining factors in participant dropout rate; however, this is also true of traditional

courses. Traditional courses provide a detailed time frame that allows the participant to

complete the course in the manner set out before them. In TBL, instructors facilitate learning by

using creative lessons and incorporating a variety of multimedia modes into their lectures.

Often, courses are subdivided into incremental sections, which are taught in a systematical

manner. Activities utilized in TBL often include advanced graphic organizers, hyperlinks, and

scaffolding. These methods are designed to help students construct knowledge and complete

tasks utilizing their interpersonal and analytical skills (Beer, 2000; Brown, 2000; Herrington et

al., 1996). "Learning communities must foster communication between teacher and student, and

use the computational power of the Web to provide rich media that enhance the learning process"

(Driscoll, 1999, p. 25).

It facilitates student-centered approaches creating a motivating and active
learning environment; it supports and encourages browsing and
exploration, learner behaviors that are frequently associated with higher-
order learning. The nature of the organization … appears to closely mimic
human memory, and retrieval methods closely resemble the human
thought processes. (Herrington et al., 1996, p. 1)

Web-based training and CBT provide an effective learning environment that offers

students flexibility of course materials, immediate communication with peers and instructors,

and the informational feedback that they desire (Beers, 2000). Effective web-based tasks require

participants to build from their prior knowledge as well as apply their new skills and abilities in a

more insightful manner (Chute et al., 1999; Lightfoot, 1998, 1999; Rowe & Gregor, 1999; Yang,


2001). Technology-based learning courses instigate problem-solving, critical thinking skills, and

acknowledge the diverse cognitive learning styles of their participants. Technology-based

learning offers hands-on, cooperative, real-world learning activities. Appropriately, designed

courses engage participants in finding real-world solutions to real-life problems (Beer, 2000). At

the same time, the students construct new tools for understanding, based upon their prior

knowledge (Brown, 2000). The materials themselves do not actually teach the participants but

provides a medium that supports learning (Herrington et al., 1996). In a professional

development course on tolerance education, an instructor may assign participants the task of

demonstrating the ways culture sometimes impedes classroom learning. A participant may use

web-based search engines or a library database to find information on culture in schools. The

participants may use their own set of resources and capabilities to access the necessary

information needed to complete the lesson (Beer, 2000; Brown, 2000).

Technology-based Learning Limitations

Despite its multiplicity of applications, the Internet is not the best educational or training

environment for some people. Herrington and colleagues (1996) found that in many instances

delivery via the Web might impede learning rather than enhance learning when compared to

conventional educational forms. Participants tend to become disenfranchised because

technology may be intimidating for some users. Learners do not always have the technology

skills, navigational skills, and/or prior knowledge of the subject matter needed to effectively

learn in TBL (Beer, 2000; Eastmond, 1998; Tergan, 1997). Technology-based learning may


require the learner to have more complex technical skills (Wilson & Lowry, 1998). Learners

may have to use video, animation, audio, e-mails, bulletin boards, online chats, complicated

software, and web browsers such as MS Internet Explorer, and Netscape Navigator (Driscoll,

1999; Gallego, 1999; Herrington et al.,1996; Wonacott, 2000).

Often the constraints of TBL have to do with the students’ technological skills and their

attitude towards the faculty. “WBT courses tend not to be as interactive as instructor-led ones,

and the absence of an instructor means that most students will not push themselves as hard”

(Heckler, 1999, p. 4). Learners who experience difficulty with the courses have indicated the

need for more one-on-one interaction with their instructor, including the need for further input

and feedback on their progress. Based upon completed program evaluations, some participants

experienced isolation in their courses, from their instructors and were less engaged overall (Beer,

2000; Brown, 2000; Edelson, 1998). Experts conclude unsatisfactory evaluations could be

related to TBL instructors not being adequately trained in facilitation of TBL courses, how to

increase their students' participation and interaction while other instructors tend to utilize the

more traditional mode of delivery, the lecture mode, as the predominant method of instruction

(Beer, 2000; Brown, 2000; Edelson, 1998).

Researchers, including Lightfoot (1998, 1999) and Lowrie (1999), have found the

opposite contention to be true. Their research suggested that participants enrolled in WBT

courses on the Web experienced immediate and more productive interactions with their peers

and their instructor. Through course feedbacks, learners have stated they had a more intimate

learning experience and had experienced more ownership, which led to more positive learning

outcomes. Participants reported a stronger sense of connection to their peer learning community


and had developed a more powerful learning experience as a result of their participation in the

WBT course. The researchers also indicated that successful completion of WBT/CBT courses

was difficult for those participants who were undisciplined or lacked motivation. While

motivation is always important, those who lack discipline may be suited to a more traditional

learning environment (Beer, 20000; Brown, 2000; Lightfoot, 1998, 1999; Vondanovich &

Piotrowski, 1999, 2000).

Conclusion

The use of TBL is rapidly growing because of the advantages this type of instruction

offers to educational organizations. Children will enjoy more in-class contact time with their

teachers. Teachers will be able to participate in training that is relevant to their particular needs

and on their own time, when convenient for their schedules. Technology-based learning allows

participants the flexibility of choosing the time and place for their instruction; this aspect is

appealing to teachers who are trying to balance their own training with classroom and home

responsibilities (Beer, 2000; Brown, 2000; Lightfoot, 1998, 1999). By changing the way

professional development is delivered, students, educators, and administrators will each benefit.

School districts will be able to save money that is usually spent on substitute teachers.

Administrators would be able to add additional student contact days to the school calendar by

reducing the number of professional development days required for teacher training.

Technology-based learning provides school districts a way to assess their staff members’ active

participation in their professional development (Lightfoot, 1998, 1999). As states face huge


deficits and school districts continue to scramble to find the funding for professional staff

development, TBL allows districts to the ability to reduce costs associated with training. Savings

would come from a reduction in travel expenses, instructor fees, facility costs, materials, and

office equipment costs. In addition, the cost of lost job time that occurs when teachers are in

training would be saved. Technology-based learning saves districts an average of $1,500 per

employee annually (Beer, 2000; Brown & Duguid, 1996; Driscoll, 1999; Herrington et al., 1996;

Pollack, 1996; Philips, 1999).

It is commonly accepted among educators that there is not just one way in which all

students learn; each learner is unique and has his/her own learning style (Beer, 2000; Brown &

Duguid, 1996; Driscoll, 1999; Herrington et al., 1996; Philips, 1999; Pollack, 1996).

How do learners learn best? Trainers and educators often ask this
question. The answer invariably is that it depends on the learning context
and the individual’s learning style. Getting information when we want it,
where we want it, and in a way that is meaningful to us can have
significant effects on both our willingness and our ability to learn. (Chute
et al., 1999, p. 205)

It is illogical to conclude that there is a single mode of instructional delivery that will effectively

reach all potential learners. Technology-based learning was not designed to replace universities

or instructor-led learning. Due to the complexity of human learning, the need for face-to-face

communication will not be eliminated. In order to be effective, TBL must offer a balance

between virtual interaction (between the learner and the material) and real-time interaction

(between the instructor and the students) (Weinstein, 1997). Technology-based learning offers a

methodology of instruction that can be used by the teacher and the students.


Regardless of how one feels about TBL, WBT and/or other distance
learning technologies used in education, they are here to stay. Educators
will continue utilizing TBL in their classrooms to enhance how they
deliver instruction that fosters students’ learning. School districts and
educators are discovering that the type of training programs currently
offered are not representative of how adults optimally learn. Learning can
no longer be confined within the four walls of a classroom. An instructor
armed with a textbook will no longer be the sole source of knowledge and
educational experiences. Information resources will be everywhere, often
separated from learners by time and space. (Chute et al., 1999, p. 204)

Through TBL, states and school districts can begin to eliminate the educational and

instructional problems facing schools. When school districts and administrators implement

technology-based instruction, they provide their staff members with an effective way to

collaborate with colleagues elsewhere. This type of professional development affords educators

a viable way of sharing their knowledge and expertise with others in the same field.

Technology-based learning may provide learning environments that allow educators and other

staff members to become life-long learners. Using technology as a strategy for training teachers

and others in education may ultimately benefit not only the individual learner, but the

organization as a whole.


Tolerance Education: Changing Our World One Child at a Time!

Technology-based Learning Course Model

Rationale

As of September 2002, Kenosha Unified School District, also known as "the District," the

third largest school district in Wisconsin, enrolled over 21,000 students. The District offered its

Language Assistance Programs (LAPs) services to over 1,300 LEP students at all grade levels

(KUSD, 2003). Enrollment data were retrieved from Wisconsin’s “Third Friday in September

Enrollment Count.” In March 2003, the District identified and assessed an additional 700+ LEP

students due to the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.” The District has continuously enrolled

ten to fifteen new LEP students per month (KUSD, 2003).

In addition, the District has had various complaints filed with the Office of Civil Rights

(OCR) on behalf of its LEP student population. In July 2002, the District reached an agreement

with OCR (termed the Action Plan). Part of the Action Plan mandated that the District provide

professional development to teachers on effective instructional strategies for mainstreaming LEP

students, as stipulated by OCR. Based upon the preliminary results of the training sessions, the

District’s staff indicated a need for additional professional development in the area of diversity

education and/or cultural sensitivity training. The District is now mandating all its employees to

attend this staff development on diversity education and/or cultural sensitivity training. The

District has made a concerted effort to train its staff on these issues, but due to time constraints


and funding, it has not been able to reach and train all of its staff members. Currently, the

district has two ESL certified “classroom” teachers to train all of the staff members. These two

teachers team-teach within the same classroom. Additionally, these teachers must attend various

meetings and/or training sessions during school hours and rely on substitute teachers to teach

their students in their absence.

In order to assist in this endeavor, a technology-based learning model course was

developed for the District to train the entire staff. Prior to creating this course, the District’s

technology team met to discuss the District’s available technology resources and to determine

whether a model was feasible and/or reasonable. It was determined from this meeting that the

District has the capabilities to incorporate a WBT/CBT on its Intranet-Advisory Board, but has

never attempted to do so. Based on the information gained from various educational courses at

Capella University, a model was created for a TBL program on Tolerance Education for KUSD.

The District administrators will be consulted to determine content changes. Also, the

administrators will arrange for implementation of the TBL course in the Fall 2003- 2004.


Tolerance Education: Changing Our World One Child at a Time!

Technology-based Learning Course Model

Designed for Kenosha Unified School District No. 1, Kenosha, Wisconsin

Step 1: To access the web-based training site, utilize the following link:

http://scjven.puertasdebabel.org/ell/email.htm

Step 2: Input the username: Tolerance

Step 3: Input the password: education

* This program is case sensitive. Please use the correct wording, and use of capitalization,
or access will be denied.


References

Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995, November/December). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm
for undergraduate education. Change, 13-25.

Beer, V. (2000). The web learning fieldbook. Using the World Wide Web to build workplace
learning environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass- Pfeiffer.

Borsuk, A. (2002). Virtual schools hit turbulence in state-One delayed by lack of charter, second
challenged by teachers union. Journal Sentinel. Retrieved May 27, 2003, from
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug02/64523.asp.

Boshier, R., Wilson, M., & Qayyum, A. (1999). Lifelong education and the World Wide Web:
American hegemony or diverse Utopia? International Journal of Lifelong Education.
Retrieved March 4, 2003, from http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/tern/Text/contact.htm.

Brandon, H. (1997). Web-based training cookbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Brown, B. (1998). Distance education and web-based training. ERIC Information Series No.
379. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH.
Retrieved March 4, 2003, from http://ericacve.org/majorpubs2.asp?ID=20.

Brown, B. (2000). Web-based training. ERIC Digest No. 218. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult,
Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH. Retrieved March 4, 2003, from http://
www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed445234.html.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1996). Universities in the digital age. Part two: Business, commerce
and services, Information Age Anthology. Retrieved March 4, 2003 from
http:www.dodccrp.org/antch13.htm.

Buchanan, T. (1998-99). Using the World Wide Web for formative assessment. Journal
Educational Technology Systems, 27(1).

Chute, A., Thompson, M., & Hancock, B. (1999). The McGraw-Hill handbook of distance
learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dede, C. (1998). ASCD Yearbook-1998. Learning with technology. Alexandria: ASCD.

Desimone R., Werner, J., & Harris, D. (2002). Human resource development. Fort Worth:
Harcourt College Publishing.


Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights –OCR (1999). Retrieved October 22, 2002
from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/ELL/index.html.

Driscoll, M. (1999). Web-based training in the workplace. Adult Learning, 10 (4), 21-25.

Driscoll, M. M. (1997). Defining Internet and web-based training. Performance and Instruction
Journal, 36(4).

Dugan, S. (1998). Internet fuels training market. InfoWorld, 20(36).

Dunn, S. (2000). The virtualizing of education. The Futurist, 34 (2).

Eastmond, D. V. (1998). Adult learners and Internet-based distance education. Adult learning
and the Internet, new directions for adult and continuing education, 78, 33-41.

Edelson, P. J. (1998). The organization of courses via the Internet, academic aspects, interaction,
evaluation, and accreditation. Paper presented at the National Autonomous University of
Mexico, Mexico City.

Friedlander, M. (1991, Fall). The newcomer program: Helping immigrant students succeed in
U.S. schools. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, No. 8. Retrieved November 1,
2002, from http://ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig8.htm;
http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/refernces/NEWCOMERPROGRAMTableCo
.
Gallego, G. (1998). The state-of-the-art in web-based training. Retrieved March 3, 2003 from
http://gracespace.com/weblearn/.

Gibson, C. (1992). Distance education: On focus and future. Adult Education Quarterly, 6(4).

Giroux, S., Hotte, R., & Dao, K. (1997). Adaptive and agile learning environments on the
WWW. In WebNet 97 Conference of the WWW, Internet, and Intranet Proceedings,
Charlottesville, VA. Edited by S. Lobodzinski and I. Tomek. Charlottesville, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 1997. (ED 429 535).

Hakuta, K. (1998). Improving education for all children: meeting the needs of language minority
children. Retrieved August 6, 2002, from http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Aspen.html.


Henke, H. (1997). Evaluating web-based instruction design. Retrieved March 3, 2003, from
http://www.scis.nova.edu/~henkeh/story1.htm.


Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Omari, A.,(1996). Creating effective instructional materials for the
World Wide Web. Retrieved March 2, 2003, from
http://elmo.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ausweb96/educn/oliver/.

Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D. (1996). CSU instructional technology initiatives. Office of
Chancellor: The California State University. Retrieved March 2, 2003, from
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/DCD/WWWInstrdesign/Instruction.html.

Imel, S. (1997). Web-based training: Trends and issues alerts. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Center on Education and Training for
Employment, Ohio State University.

Jarvis P. (1987). Adult Learning in the Social Context. Croom Helm: London.

Kahn, R. (1997). 21st century training. Sales and marketing management. 146 (6).

Kenosha Unified School District Five-Year Long Range Committee (2003). Kenosha Unified
School District No. 1, Kenosha, WI.

Lawson, K. (1998). The trainer’s handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass- Pfeiffer.

Lee, W., & Owens, D. (2000). Multimedia-based instructional design. Computer-based training,
web-based training, distance broadcast training. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass- Pfeiffer.

Leiden, C., & Wilensky, M. (2000). TCP/IP for dummies. (4th ed.). New York: Hungry Minds,
Inc.

Lightfoot, J. (1998-99). A Blueprint for using the World Wide Web as an interactive teaching
tool. Educational Technology Systems, 27(4).

Lowrie, T. (1999). Policy innovations in the VET sector: The role of instructors in a
competency-based environment. Retrieved February 25, 2003, from
http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/low99164.htm.

McKenzie, J. (2001). How teachers learn technology best. Retrieved February 25, 2003, from
http://staffdevelop.org/howteachrslearn.html.

Miliano, M., & Ullius, D. (1998). Designing powerful training. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass-
Pfeiffer.

Phillips, J. (1999). HRD trends worldwide. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.


Pollack, T. A. (1996). Distance learning and today’s educational environment. In association of
small computer users in education summer conference proceedings, 29th, North Myrtle
Beach, SC.

Rah, K. Y., & Scuello, M. (1996). Computer aided statistics instruction protocol (CASIP)
restructuring undergraduate statistics in psychology: An integration of computers into
instruction and evaluation. Paper presented at 10th Annual Conference on Undergraduate
Teaching and Psychology, Psychology Department, Brooklyn College of the City
University of New York.

Rowe, G., & Gregor, P. (1999). A computer-based learning system for teaching computing:
Implementation and evaluation. Computers and Education.

Silberman, M. (1998). Active training. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: Pfeiffer.

Sherry, L., & Wilson, B. (1997). Transformative communication as a stimulus to web
innovations. B. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.

Languages and Linguistics, from http://www.cal.org/crede/newcomer.htm.

Tergan, S. (1997). Conceptual and methodological shortcomings in hypertext/hypermedia design
and research. Journal of Educational Computing Research.

Viadero, D. (2000, May). Bridging the gap. Teacher Magazine, 11(8).

Vondanovich, S., and Piotrowski, C. (1999-2000). An Internet-based approach to legal issues in
industrial-organizational psychology. Journal of Educational and Technology Systems,
26 (1).

Weinstein, P. (1997). Education goes the distance: Overview. Technology & learning,
17 (8).

Wilson, B., & Lowry, M. (1998). Constructivist learning happens all the time on the web. In
learning technologies: Reflective and strategic thinking, new directions for adult and
continuing education. Edited by E. Burge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Wonacott, M. E. (2000). Web-based training and constructivism. In brief: Fast facts for policy
and practice. (2). Retrieved March 2, 2003, from
http://www.nccte.org/publications/infosynthesis/in-brief/in-brief02/index.asp.

Wright, S. W. (1998). The distance learning explosion. Community College Week.


Yang, S. C. (2001). Synergy of constructivism and hypermedia from three constructivist
perspectives- Social, semiotic, and cognitive. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 24 (4).

Young, J. R. (1997). Information technology: Rethinking the role of the professor in an age of
high-tech tools. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44 (6).

Collection of papers on english as a second language

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Collection of papers on english as a second language

Recently uploaded

Collection of papers on english as a second language