Learning the Language

Oakland Unified School District in California this week opened its first school that enrolls only immigrant students. Called the Oakland International High School, it is modeled after international high schools in New York City for newcomers to the United States, according to a news broadcast by a California television station. The school aims to help English-language learners acquire the language and academic skills they need to graduate from high school and go on to college.

The school was started with help from the Internationals Network for Public Schools, a nonprofit organization in New York City that gives support to eight public high schools and one program within a school for newly arrived immigrants in that city. Claire E. Sylvan, the executive director of the network, said she sought out Oakland school district officials and found they were receptive to having her organization help replicate the international high school model.

Ms. Sylvan said her group chose California because it has many English-language learners and also because it provides in-state college tuition rates for undocumented students. The network rejected the idea of helping to start an international school in Minnesota, for instance, because it doesn't offer such a tuition break, she added.

Oakland International High School started with 75 9th graders and will add a new grade each year for the next three years. The school's Web site says the school has received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Ms. Sylvan said her staff has helped the Oakland school with planning, curriculum, and fundraising. Graduation rates for ELLs who attend the international high schools in New York City are higher than for ELLs in the city's school system overall and also higher than those for all students in the system, she noted.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The House Education Committee has released a draft of a reauthorized No Child Left Behind Act that provides both added flexibility and a couple of new requirements concerning how schools educate and assess English-language learners. For an overview of the draft, read the article by my colleagues David J. Hoff and Alyson Klein.

Among the added flexibility is the opportunity for school districts to test ELLs in their native language for up to five years—up from three years in the current law—with the option of extending that testing for two additional years for children on a case-by-case basis.

The draft of the revised NCLB, released yesterday by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., also contains a provision that would let school districts use their state English-language-proficiency tests for determining adequate yearly progress in reading for ELLs with the lowest levels of English-language proficiency for a period of two years after enactment of the reauthorization.

But the draft of the federal education law also includes new requirements. One of them is that states with more than 10 percent of ELLs who share the same language will be required to create valid and reliable native-language assessments for that language group. (Last time I checked, in January 2006, only ten states were using such assessments.)

Also, states will have to show in their plans submitted to the U.S. Department of Education how they will prepare teachers to use testing accommodations for ELLs appropriately.

What feedback do you have for the representatives in the U.S. Congress and their aides who created this draft? They welcome comments sent to ESEA.Comments@mail.house.gov (deadline is Sept. 5).

Also, let us know here on this blog what you think of the proposed provisions, so we can have a discussion about them.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 8:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Education Week published this week a story I wrote about educators' ideas for reauthorization of the federal migrant education program under the No Child Left Behind Act.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, 36 percent of the 685,000 children in the migrant education program are English-language learners. Most migrant children are Latinos.

Don't miss the accompanying photo gallery, put together by Sarah Evans, Education Week's director of photography.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If you've read my blog items about states' attempts to estimate the cost of educating undocumented children, you'll appreciate a cautionary statement in a December 2006 report examining the costs and benefits of the presence of undocumented immigrants in Texas.

In the introduction to education costs in "Undocumented Immigrants in Texas: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy," Carole Keeton Strayhorn, a former Texas comptroller and the author of the report, writes: "Any estimate of state costs associated with undocumented immigrants is imprecise due to the difficulties involved in determining their numbers. In public education, federal guidelines prohibit questions of legal status."

Unlike what seems to be the case among some Arkansas lawmakers (click here), Ms. Strayhorn is knowledgable about how court cases have prohibited the identification of undocumented children in schools.

Ms. Strayhorn's report, however, does include an estimate of the cost of educating undocumented children in primary and secondary schools in fiscal 2005, using an estimate of the number of such students in Texas by the Pew Hispanic Center. That cost figure is $957 million.

The report concludes that state revenues of $1.58 billion collected from undocumented immigrants exceeded what Texas spent on services, including education, for them in fiscal 2005, with the difference being $424.7 million. The report notes, however, that local governments bore the burden of uncompensated health care costs and local law enforcement costs not paid for by the state.

Michael A. Olivas, a law professor at the University of Houston and reader of this blog, drew my attention to the Texas report. Readers, keep me posted if officials in your state are looking into this issue. I admit, I'm developing a fascination for taking apart the methodology states are using to make these guestimates.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The American Civil Liberties Union announced a settlement today with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the ACLU says will improve conditions for immigrant children and their families at the T. Don Hutto detention center in Taylor, Texas. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, which is a branch of the U.S. Homeland Security Department, followed up with its own announcement confirming the settlement and saying: "Indeed, [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] had already implemented many of the modifications contained in the final agreement."

Part of the settlement agreement describes the kind of schooling the center will provide. The 100 or so children now at the facility are guaranteed five hours of education per day that is based on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills standards. The settlement agreement also says children will have teachers who are certified or who are enrolled in a program to become certified. It says students will have access to a computer lab and will receive classes in English as a second language. (See Exhibit C toward the end of the 34-page settlement agreement for stipulations regarding education.)

Before the ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal court in March against the federal government regarding the conditions at the center (for more on that, click here ), a number of nonprofit groups had said the schooling there was not adequate, Vanita Gupta, a staff attorney for the ACLU, told me today in a telephone interview. Children were grouped into only two large classes and received only one hour of instruction per day, she said. She added that teachers were not certified.

But she noted that the center responded to the criticism and made improvements in education before the ACLU filed its lawsuit and since then.

Under federal law, children picked up by U.S. immigration authorities and held in detention are entitled to the same schooling as other children. At the Boystown shelter in Miami for unaccompanied minors, for instance, three teachers employed by the Miami-Dade County school district provide a full day of schooling.

Each year more than 6,000 immigrant children spend some time in U.S. shelters for detainees. Typically, many of these children come from Central America and most of them know little or no English when they arrive in the United States.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For the first time, Fairfax County schools failed to make adequate yearly progress goals under the No Child Left Behind Act, and district officials say it's primarily because they were required by the federal government to change their policy last school year for testing English-language learners in reading, according to a Washington Post article published Aug. 24.

Officials from the Fairfax County school district put up a good fight last school year to get permission from the U.S. Department of Education to continue to give beginning-level English-language learners an English-proficiency test—instead of a regular reading test—for accountability purposes under NCLB. The Fairfax County school district and a number of other Virginia school districts lost the battle. The Fairfax County superintendent, Jack D. Dale, says he's hoping that the U.S. Congress will come up with new ways to measure schools' progress with reauthorization of the federal law, according to the Post article.

See my earlier post, "Fairfax County School Officials Back Down in Testing Impasse."

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Demographically speaking--if one can really speak that way--the U.S. Department of Education appears to have picked the right school district to give a grant for training teachers of English-language learners. It's in the metropolitan area with the fastest-growing Hispanic-student population in the nation, and many of those students likely are ELLs.

Are you thinking Texas or Florida or California? Think again. We're talking Arkansas.

The University of Arkansas, in partnership with the school district of Springdale, Ark., just received a federal grant of $1.3 million to train 100 English-as-a-second-language teachers over the next five years, according to the Associated Press and The Morning News, a newspaper in northwest Arkansas.

Research by the Pew Hispanic Center shows that the region surrounding Springdale--and neighboring cities Fayetteville and Rogers--has the country's fastest-growing Hispanic-student enrollment. Between the 1993-94 and 2004-05 school years, the Hispanic-student enrollment in that area grew 1,247 percent, according to research by Richard Fry, a senior research associate at the Pew Hispanic Center.

Second on the list of the Top 100 Hispanic Metropolitan Areas identified by Mr. Fry is the Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord area of North Carolina, which grew in Hispanic-student enrollment by 1,102 percent during the same time period. Mr. Fry has discovered that 86 percent of all enrollment of Hispanic students is contained within 100 metropolitan areas of the United States.

It seems to me that if the Education Department is interested in improving educational achievement of Hispanic students, it's wise for it to give some extra funds to the school system in Springdale to get teachers up to speed in working with ELLs.

Of course, we can't assume that all of the Hispanic newcomers to the Springdale area are English-language learners, but a lot of them probably are, given that 40 percent of Springdale's 16,500 students are ELLs.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's been interesting to see how readers of this blog have expressed what they think of Diane Ravitch's definition for bilingual education that appears in her new book about education jargon. See my earlier post, "Plenty of 'Edspeak' to Go Around." Since some readers relayed what they presume is her philosophy concerning bilingual education or the education of Hispanic students, I asked Ms. Ravitch if she wanted to respond to comments. I also asked if she wanted to defend her definition or acknowledge that it could be improved.

Here's what she said:

"The definition of bilingual education in my book Edspeak: A Glossary of Education Terms, Phrases, Buzzwords, and Jargon is neutral. It does not advocate nor oppose bilingual education. It states: 'School program that teaches English language learners all subjects in their native language while they are learning English. Advocates see bilingual education as a way to help students gain knowledge while becoming literate in two languages. Critics question such programs' value and effectiveness, contending that limited-English-proficient students' main priority should be to learn English--and learn in English.'

"I believe this is an accurate summary of the main goal of bilingual education as well as the views of advocates and critics. Many definitions in the book, like this one, refer to the views of advocates and critics. In each case, I attempt to summarize, fairly and accurately, their contrasting claims."

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

In her book about educational jargon published in July, education historian Diane Ravitch includes a number of terms I hear tossed around in the field of educating English-language learners. I confess that I toss some of those terms around myself.

In the preface of EdSpeak: A Glossary of Education Terms, Phrases, Buzzwords, and Jargon, Ms. Ravitch writes that while a specialized vocabulary may help people working in a particular field to discuss "sophisticated ideas that are beyond the understanding of the average citizen," the result, "is to mystify the public."

I applaud Ms. Ravitch for trying to translate educational terms into plain English.

Here's her definition of bilingual education, for example: "School program that teaches English-language learners all subjects in their native language while they are learning English. Advocates see bilingual education as a way to help students gain knowledge while becoming literate in two languages. Critics question such programs' value and effectiveness, contending that limited-English-proficient students' main priority should be to learn English—and learn in English."

Her definition is confusing, though, in that she says that all subjects are taught in students' native tongue while students are learning English. In fact, bilingual education programs that I've observed include at least some English lessons—even if it's only oral English—from the start. The definition would be better if she deleted the word "all."

It just goes to show that demystifying is not an easy task.

EdSpeak is published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development in Alexandria, Va. By the way, that same organization has its own online lexicon for educational vocabulary, which also includes a fair number of definitions for terms related to educating English-language learners.

Ms. Ravitch is a co-writer with education scholar Deborah Meier of a blog, Bridging Differences, hosted at www.edweek.org.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Saul Arellano may be one of the most well-known schoolchildren in the United States whose mother has been deported. Saul's mother, Elvira Arellano, 32, is an undocumented immigrant who lived in the Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago for a year to avoid being deported and separated from her son, who is 8 and a U.S. citizen. The boy participated in rallies and met with Washington politicians and Mexican officials in a campaign to try to persuade U.S. immigration authorities to let his mother stay in the United States, according to a May 8 interview with the boy by the Chicago Sun-Times.

The Associated Press reports today that Ms. Arellano was arrested yesterday in Los Angeles after she left the church in Chicago to speak about immigration reform. She was deported to Mexico, according to an Aug. 20 press release from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

I've met a boy in rural Virginia who has lived with foster parents since his father was deported to El Salvador. I've had conversations this past school year with a teenager in New York City who has been raised by older siblings since her parents were deported to Mexico more than four years ago.

For now, Saul has been left behind in the United States. I'm curious to hear more about who will take care of him here and support him as he starts a new school year.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 2:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Some Arkansas lawmakers are looking into how much it costs the state to educate children of undocumented immigrants. But at a recent legislative hearing, they couldn't get a simple answer from Andre Guerrero, the director of programs for language-minority students in the state.

Mr. Guerrero told me in a phone interview last week that he was questioned for about an hour at the Aug. 14 hearing on the issue. "They wanted to know why we can’t collect data to determine if people are here legally or illegally—why we couldn’t ask for social security numbers and so forth," he said. "I felt it was a witch hunt."

Mr. Guerrero told the legislators that the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe prohibits the state from collecting information on the immigration status of students. State Sen. Steve Faris, a Democrat, responded that constituents are pressing their legislators to ensure that state taxes aren't being spent on immigrants who are living illegally in the country, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, which reported on the hearing that same day (registration required). Click here for a LexisNexis News copy of the article.

Late last week, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based organization that aims to curtail both illegal and legal immigration, released a report contending that illegal immigration is the primary factor in the increase of the number of English-language learners in U.S. schools. The report says that educating such students may cost taxpayers more than $4 billion each year. The report doesn't contain an analysis of how the writers reach the conclusion that illegal immigration is the main contributor to the increase of ELLs in schools, but rather refers to a 2005 report published by the same organization.

Keep in mind that nationwide about two-thirds of English-language learners were born in the United States and are thus U.S. citizens. (See "After All, Two-Thirds of ELLs Are Born in the United States.") Also, the Government Accountability Office concluded in a 2004 report that government data is insufficient to determine state-by-state costs of educating undocumented children.

For an earlier post about a state's estimates of the cost of educating undocumented students, see "Utah Asks Feds To Pay For Educating Undocumented Children."

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A Dallas Morning News article published today explores whether schools should move toward replacing transitional bilingual education programs with dual-language immersion programs. The article tells how in Texas, some school districts are doing this.

With transitional bilingual education, children receive some instruction in their native language while transitioning into English; such programs do not necessarily aim to have students maintain their native language. By contrast, dual-language programs aim for children to become literate and understand academic content in both their native language and English over the long haul. In many dual-language programs, children who speak Spanish and children who speak English learn both languages in the same classroom.

The reporter quotes only researchers Wayne P. Thomas and Virginia P. Collier, professors emeritus of education from George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., on the effectiveness of dual-language programs versus other kinds of bilingual programs. Some researchers question the strength of some of their conclusions, as I noted in an article about research on dual-language programs, which are also called two-way immersion programs, in February 2005.

See earlier posts, "School Districts That Offer Dual-Language Classes Through High School," and "Two-Way Vision: How Four Schools Promote Bilingualism."

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Every once in a while, I hear of a situation in which a school district employee doesn't know that children are entitled to a free K-12 public education in this country regardless of their immigration status—and causes unnecessary problems for immigrant parents. That reportedly was the case with the assistant of the superintendent of the North Chicago Community Unit School District #187, in North Chicago, Ill., who is accused of telling a parent she couldn't enroll her child in school without providing proof of legal residency or work authorization.

A regional counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund reports in an Aug. 9 letter to Superintendent Sandra Ellis that though the issue was eventually resolved--after MALDEF intervened--he still finds it disturbing that the district employee was so uninformed about federal and state laws. He also said it was disturbing that the employee gave the parent information from the Web site of an organization fighting illegal immigration, the American Resistance Foundation (which, according to its Web site, is now defunct.) An Aug. 10 MALDEF press release has other details.

By the way, Illinois is one state that recently has taken extra steps to clarify that school officials cannot inquire about a parent's immigration status. (Click here for an article I wrote for Education Week in April about the rule change.)

The employee that MALDEF identifies as being misinformed didn't return my call seeking her side of the story.

I think there is a lesson to be learned here that school districts need to ensure that anyone who interacts with parents on student registration issues must be clear about what immigrant students' rights are under the law.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Back in March, an official from the office of English language acquisition for the U.S. Department of Education told me the department was just about ready to send a two-year evaluation of programs for English-language learners to the U.S. Congress.

It's now mid-August, and the report has yet to have been released.

The No Child Left Behind Act requires that the U.S. Secretary of Education give an evaluation of programs funded under Title III, Part A, of the act to Congress every two years. (Click here for a description of the evaluation.) Title III is the section of the education law that supports schools to operate programs for ELLs.

Chad Colby, a spokesman for the Education Department, told me in an e-mail last week that the report has been delayed because "there were submission issues for some states." He added: "The report is currently being prepared and will go through clearance as soon as possible."

Two years ago, the first two-year evaluation for Title III found that states—and thus schools—were struggling to make adequate yearly progress in math and reading for English-language learners. I wrote in Education Week then that only Alabama and Michigan, for instance, met their AYP goals for both math and reading for ELLs in the 2003-2004 school year. States fared much better, however, in reaching goals for students' progress in learning English. Twenty-two states, for example, met their goals for ELLs to attain fluency in English during the 2003-04 school year. (See the article about the evaluation here.)

I've been persistent in asking the Education Department for the evaluation of the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years because I'm eager to report if it's gotten easier or harder with time for states to meet their goals for ELLs under NCLB.

The last two-year evaluation was released in March 2005.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I've been struck by the close relationships that recruiters for the federal migrant education program form with immigrant families. For one thing, they're more likely to find themselves visiting homes of families than many educators are.

"I get invited to birthday parties, baptisms, and quinceañeras," Dorca L. Oyola, a native of Puerto Rico who recruits families for the federal migrant education program in Chester County, Pa., told me this summer while I was reporting on the program for Education Week. "I go and I recruit right there."

Recruiting families means making sure they know that supplemental educational services are available to migrant children and determining if the children are eligible.

Ms. Oyola speaks Spanish and English, and many migrant families in Chester County—most of whom are Mexican—don't speak English. Many schools in the area don't have bilingual secretaries, so parents will often call her to pass a message on to the school, such as that their child is sick and can't attend school, she says. She helps parents to navigate the school system, such as letting them know that "they can't be going to Mexico all the time—they have to go during school vacations." If students miss more than 10 days of school, she said, parents can be fined.

Ms. Oyola, who is 50, moved to the United States when she was 23. She worked in a meat packing plant for eight years, furthered her education, and eventually earned an associate's degree in business administration. She said she shares her own experiences with migrant students, hoping they will be motivated to get an education. "Whenever I register high school kids, I tell them I didn't come with a briefcase in my hand. I won it. I made myself professional so I can help others."

Sometimes, she said, that means helping families in very practical ways, such as driving them to a food pantry when she finds they don't have anything in the house to eat. She added: "You go to bed at night and say, 'I did something good today for somebody.' "

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While the federal government requires school districts to communicate with immigrant parents "to the extent practicable" in languages they can understand, doing so is seldom a simple matter. An article that ran Aug. 13 in The New York Times provides insight into the challenges of translating school documents into many different languages.

I wrote about the New York City Education Department's decision to set up a centralized office for translation and about efforts by other school districts to communicate with parents who don't speak English in October 2004.

Readers, I'd like to hear how your school districts are trying to meet the challenge of communicating with parents who don't know much English.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I teach English as a second language to three immigrant women one night a week as a volunteer for the Literacy Council of Montgomery County, in Maryland, so I have a personal interest in the recent findings by researchers from the Migration Policy Institute on adult English-language instruction.

I figure that some of you may have an interest as well because the researchers are talking about the parents of many of the children whom you serve.

The 24-page study, "Adult English Language Instruction in the United States: Determining Need and Investing Wisely," spells out how much money it would cost and how many hours it would take for adult immigrants to learn enough English to pass the U.S. naturalization test or begin postsecondary education.

The researchers conclude it would cost federal, state, and local governments $200 million more per year than the current $1 billion per year they are now spending to provide English classes for immigrants who are legal permanent residents. The funding would have to be sustained for six years, which is about the amount of time the researchers estimate it would take immigrants to become fluent in the language. If undocumented immigrants are added to the mix of people taking English classes, the researchers say that $2.9 billion in new funds would be needed on top of the $200 million each year for six years. The costs are adjusted to take into consideration the fact that some immigrants are already on the path to fluency and not everyone needs six more years of study.

The Brazilian woman and two Korean women whom I teach have each attended or graduated from college in their home countries, yet it has been a slow process for them to become fluent in English. In the two years I've been teaching them, the students and I celebrate each accomplishment that shows they are improving their English skills and becoming more integrated into American society. One woman realizes that she can understand the story being read when she takes her children to a local bookstore for story time. We congratulate her. Another woman finds that she can be helpful in serving as an interpreter for a Korean family to register their children for school. We applaud her. Finally, one student passes the written exam to become a U.S. postal carrier, which she had failed the previous year. We are elated.

Let me add that the English tutoring I provide through the literacy council is free--and there are 300 people on a waiting list to get tutors. Many of those people work in low-paying jobs, such as making sandwiches in delis or cleaning houses, and cannot afford to pay for English classes.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Many English-language learners have trouble reading cursive writing, so mainstream teachers can make life easier for them if they write on the blackboard in print letters. That's one of ten tips for how mainstream teachers can make slight adjustments in their teaching that will help English-learners to follow what's going on in the classroom, recommended by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (whose contract to operate has ended).

¡Colorín Colorado!, a bilingual Web site for teachers and families of ELLs, sent the list of ten tips out on a listserv yesterday. Among the other tips are reminders for teachers to present information in several ways and to avoid idioms and slang words.

I suppose some educators might feel they shouldn't have to adjust their teaching for one particular group of students in the classroom. But it doesn't seem to me that any of the tips suggested would lessen the quality of schooling for other students.

August 14 Clarification: The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory is still operating, but its name has been changed to REL Midwest.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Immigrants to the United States often use the commercial mass media to help them learn English, and they are susceptible "to swallow the value system," warns Elizabeth Thoman, the founder of the Center for Media Literacy. She's quoted in an article posted on the center's Web site that makes the case that teachers of English as a second language should tap into the growing media literacy field to develop lessons.

One goal of teaching English-language learners about the media would be to help them avoid being passive and vulnerable to media messages, and enable them to make good selections as consumers and to question the information they receive, according to the article.

It sounds like a good idea to me.

The article, which was first published in 2002 in Language Magazine, gives some practical help for where to start, such as giving students a questionnaire about their perceptions of the media.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Arkansas will receive 26 percent less in federal funds to educate its English-language learners this school year than the previous school year—-or $891,770 less than the $3.4 million the state received for such students last school year, according to an article published today in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. But last school year, the state got 90 percent more in funds for ELLs than it did in the 2005-2006 school year.

The amount of federal funding a state gets is based on the count of ELLs in that state, and the fluctuations in funding for Arkansas, according to the article, reflect the difficulty that the federal government has had in extrapolating an accurate count for each state from U.S. Census Bureau reports. A Government Accountability Office report released December 2006 documented that problem.

What do you think is the best way for the federal government to get an accurate count of ELLs for each state that it can use to give out funds? Do you accept the Government Accountability Office's conclusion that data on ELLs collected by states themselves is incomplete? What are the challenges for states to get an accurate count themselves?

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

One of the recommendations of the National Association for Bilingual Education for reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act is that the law should base the participation of English-language learners in standardized testing on students' English-proficiency levels, not the amount of time that children have spent in the United States, as is the case with the law now. The recommendation says that English-language learners should at least be at the advanced level in English when they take states' regular tests for accountability purposes under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Currently English-language learners must take their state's math test as soon as they set foot in U.S. schools, and they must take their state's reading test after they've spent at least a year in U.S. schools. The scores for both the math and reading tests count for accountability purposes after students have been in U.S. schools for one year.

The NABE statement on reauthorization of NCLB was released in June. I just came across it. The organization hasn't been very visible since it has been without an executive director. In March 2006, the NABE board of directors decided not to renew the contract of its executive director, James Crawford. The position is still open.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 9:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

In a commentary arguing that the United States should establish English as the national language, a couple of writers from the Heritage Foundation also claim that English immersion is more effective in schools than bilingual education. The commentary was posted today on the Tucson Citizen Web site.

In the piece, writers Matthew Spalding and Israel Ortega imply that schools should use English immersion to teach children from immigrant families. Here's an excerpt: "The empirical data in favor of English immersion—the opposite of multilingualism—are overwhelming, with even its most vociferous opponents conceding its merits."

Apparently as an example of a "vociferous opponent" acknowledging the merits of English immersion, the authors note that Ken Noonan (they mistakenly call him Ken Noon) publicly supported English immersion after California voters approved a ballot measure in 1998 to curtail bilingual education. He had previously been an advocate of bilingual education. The authors do not, however, cite any of the "empirical data" in favor of English immersion.

As usual, Stephen D. Krashen, a professor emeritus at the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles, and an advocate for bilingual education who keeps close tabs on editorials that run in newspapers about this subject, did not let the view of the Heritage Foundation writers stand uncontested. He posted a comment, saying "The empirical data is not in favor of English immersion. In fact it is 'overwhelmingly' in favor of bilingual education. Study after study shows that children in bilingual programs consistently do better than children in English immersion programs on tests of English reading."

The example of Ken Noonan's change of view has been included repeatedly in newspaper articles for eight years. Education Week first quoted him in 1999 when he was the superintendent of the Oceanside Unified School District in California. For much longer than that, Mr. Krashen has been trying to set members of the public straight regarding what research says about the merits of bilingual education.

Educators, do you have examples on the ground to flesh out the claims on either side of the debate? If so, let us know what they are—and next time I write an article about this topic for Education Week, I'll contact you.

I'd like to get some new voices into this debate.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 1:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)