|
Successful Bilingual Education Programs: Criteria for Exemplary Practices in Bilingual Education
Marķa Robledo Montecel, Ph.D., and Josie Danini Cortez, M.A
[©2001, IDRA. The following article originally appeared
in the IDRA Newsletter by the Intercultural Development Research
Association. Every effort has been made to maintain the content in its
original form. However, accompanying charts and graphs may not be provided
here. Permission to reproduce this article is granted
provided the article is reprinted in its entirety and proper credit
is given to IDRA and the author.]
Twenty-five common characteristics contribute to the high academic
performance of students served by bilingual education programs. The
Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) identified these
characteristics through funding by the U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA).
IDRA rigorously and methodically studied exemplary bilingual education
programs in schools across the nation as determined by limited-English-proficient
(LEP) students' academic achievement. IDRA now is helping others identify
successful programs or raise the bar with their own bilingual education
programs.
The 25 indicators that emerged from the research were clustered around
five domains:
- School Indicators,
- Student Outcomes,
- Leadership,
- Support, and
- Programmatic and Instructional Practices.
This study comes at a critical time. There are an estimated 3.7 million
LEP students in the United States, a persistent achievement gap between
LEP and non-LEP students, and a critical shortage of bilingual education
teachers with the preparation, skills and tools to ensure that all
of their students succeed.
Over the next six months, the IDRA Newsletter will feature a series
of articles on our research study's significant findings. The series
will provide information on each of the five indicators and outcome
standards with first-hand accounts from teachers, administrators,
parents and researchers across the country.
We begin the series this month with an overview of the research study.
The primary purpose of this study was not to prove that bilingual
education works - there are years of rigorous research that prove
it does work when implemented with integrity. Instead, the purpose
of this research study was to identify those characteristics that
are contributing to the high academic performance of students served
by bilingual education programs. First, we will present some background
information.
Condition of Education for LEP Students
Bilingual Education Act
The Bilingual Education Act (BEA) was first enacted in 1968 as a
response to the 80 percent dropout rate of language-minority (Hispanic
and Native American) students. California offers an excellent example
of the condition of education for language-minority students prior
to the Bilingual Education Act.
In 1872, California legislators passed an English-only classroom
mandate that lasted 95 years. In 1967, then Governor Ronald Reagan
signed Senate Bill 53, repealing the English-only mandate and authorizing
bilingual education in California schools.
In his 1999 testimony to the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions, Dr. Joel Gomez, director of the Institute for
Education Policy at the Graduate School of Education and Human Development
at George Washington University, cites the reasons for the English-only
repeal:
It [the English-only mandate] kept students from learning their
academic subjects in a timely fashion; it caused language-minority
students to be retained in grade because they were behind in their
academic studies; it caused students to become frustrated, to give
up and drop out of school. And most ironic of all, English-only instruction
did not lead to mastery of the English language.
Prior to the repeal of the English-only mandate in California, only
half of the California Mexican-American youth between the ages of
18 and 24 had even completed the eighth grade.
The intent of the 1967 California Bilingual Education Act and the
federal version in 1968 was to help states and school districts develop
and implement quality education programs for LEP students.
The word "quality" must be underscored for it was the intent
that LEP students be afforded an equitable and excellent education,
using programs and approaches that would accelerate their academic
achievement and performance and hold all students, including LEP students,
to high standards.
LEP Enrollment
There were an estimated 3.5 million LEP students in the United States
in 1996-97 - a conservative estimate of LEP student enrollment as
reported by the nation's state education agencies that receive Title
VII funds. This represents a 6.9 percent increase from the previous
year (see below). This is considered a conservative
estimate also due to the incomplete response rate of state education
agencies to OBEMLA's annual Survey of States' Limited English Proficient
Students and Available Educational Programs and Services, which is
one of the primary methods used to collect data on the number of LEP
students in the various states and outlying territories and jurisdictions.
For the 1996-97 school year, 54 states or jurisdictions
responded to the survey - Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia
did not participate nor did American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and
Wake Islands.
Confounding the data collection and analyses is the fact that there
is no federally mandated definition of limited English proficiency.
While the Bilingual Education Act does include an operational definition
of "limited English proficiency," LEP status depends largely
on state and local agencies. In the 1996-97 survey, most of the state
education agencies based their definitions of limited English proficiency
on a combination of a non-English language background and/or difficulties
with speaking, reading, writing and understanding English.
LEP Student Assessment
State education agencies use various assessment methods to identify
LEP students, including home language surveys (which may be used to
identify language backgrounds or determine limited English proficiency),
teacher observations, parent information, achievement tests and/or
referrals, student records, and teacher interviews. A few states report
using between the 30th and 50th percentile cutoff on standardized
tests as a criterion for determining limited English proficiency.
Language proficiency tests are also used by states to determine limited
English proficiency, including Language Assessment Scales, Idea Oral
Language Proficiency Test and the Language Assessment Battery.
The primary reasons that the survey results are incomplete in determining
the educational condition of LEP students are the variations in assessment
instruments across states and the exemption of LEP students from testing
or data not reported by the category of "LEP student."
Educational Status of LEP Students
With these caveats in mind, the national snapshot of the educational
status of LEP students as reported in the survey is dismal:
- Thirty-three states reported that 5.1 percent (37,837) of their
LEP students were retained one or more grades the previous year
(1995-96). These states reported a total of 740,516 LEP students
collectively. This is only 21 percent of the 3.5 million LEP students
at the time.
- Thirty-three states reported that 1.7 percent (14,032) of their
LEP students dropped out of school the entire year before the survey.
Few states even reported any information regarding academic achievement
as measured in performance on standardized tests.
- Thirty states reported 19.3 percent (253,763) of LEP students
scored below state norms in English reading.
- Thirty states reported 16 percent (211,433) of LEP students scored
below state norms in mathematics.
- Eighteen states reported 6.9 percent (52,880) of LEP students
scored below state norms in science.
- Seventeen states reported 6.6 percent (51,388) of LEP students
scored below state norms in social studies.
LEP Student Services
Forty percent of US teachers reported having LEP students in their
classrooms in 1994, but only 29 percent of these teachers had received
any training at all in how to serve them. L.T. Diaz-Rico and L. Smith
report that between 100,000 to 200,000 bilingual teachers are needed
in US classrooms (1994). The critical shortage forces schools to rely
on uncertified aides. D. Haselkorn reports that in California, two
out of five adults providing bilingual instruction are bilingual aides
(1996). In fact, California, the state with the most LEP students,
was unable to serve 23 percent of their LEP students in 1995.
This is an important statistic to factor in any assessment of student
achievement. The achievement gap between LEP and non-LEP students
is indicative that many teachers lack the preparation, skills and
tools to ensure that all of their students succeed.
In the year 2000, the numbers of LEP students in California served
by bilingual education programs has been dramatically affected by
the passage of Proposition 227. In June 1998, California voters passed
Proposition 227 that officially mandated an end to bilingual education
in that state (with few exceptions). Now, less than 12 percent of
LEP students are enrolled in bilingual education programs (California
Department of Education). Thus, most LEP students are not receiving
the services and programs they need for an equitable and excellent
education.
Despite the political and educational realities of California, the
country's leadership is still calling for all students to receive
equitable and excellent educational opportunities, including equitable
and excellent bilingual education programs.
The importance of this call to action is the underlying premise that
native languages and cultures are assets, not deficiencies. English
language learners should not have to give up their language, their
culture, or their diversity as the price for learning English. The
inherent value of all students and their characteristics must be recognized,
acknowledged and celebrated. When LEP students walk into a classroom
in this country, they should not be limited in their access to an
equitable and excellent education. For that to occur, teachers must
be prepared to serve them.
Methodology Used for This Study
IDRA had one primary research question: What contributed to the success
of a bilingual education classroom as evidenced by LEP student academic
achievement?
"Success" was operationally defined as evidence of academic
achievement (compared to district and/or state standards) for LEP
students in bilingual education. Additional indicators and research
questions that guided the IDRA study included the following.
School Indicators
- What are the school indicators, including retention rate, dropout
rate, enrollment rate in gifted and talented programs and in advanced
placement programs, enrollment in special education or remedial
programs, test exemption rates, and program exiting standards (by
LEP and non-LEP percentages)?
Student Outcome Indicators
- What are the student outcomes for oral and written language proficiency
(by LEP and non-LEP percentages)?
- What are the student outcomes for content area mastery in English
and the native language (by LEP and non-LEP percentages)?
School Level Indicators
- How evident is leadership at the school level, and what are the
characteristics?
- How evident are the vision and goals at the school level, and
what are the characteristics?
- What are the characteristics of the school's climate?
- What linkages exist between central office and school level staff?
How are they characterized?
- How is the school organized?
- What are the demographic characteristics of professional staff,
and what opportunities for professional development are provided?
- What is the type, level and quality of parent involvement in the
school and the bilingual education program?
- How do staff hold themselves accountable for student success,
and how are students assessed?
- How are the staff selected and recognized?
- What is the type, level and quality of community involvement in
the school and the bilingual education program?
Classroom Level: Programmatic and Instructional Practices
- What are the characteristics of the bilingual education program
model?
- What are the characteristics of the classroom climate?
- What are the teacher expectations regarding student success?
- How is the program articulated across grade levels?
IDRA ensured that programs selected for site visits reflected the
diversity of US schools and included elementary and secondary schools,
different language groups, LEP concentrations, and Title I targeted
assistance and schoolwide programs as well as Title VII grantees (current
and former).
In addition to the review of quantitative student and school outcome
data, school demographic data, surveys of principals, teachers and
administrators, and structured formal classroom observations were
other sources of quantitative data. Qualitative data included structured
interviews with the school principals and the administrators and focus
group interviews with teachers, parents and students (whenever possible).
Additional qualitative data were elicited from school profiles.
A framework was provided for describing each site visit thus providing
a context and background for the visit. IDRA gathered, analyzed and
synthesized all of these data. Results were then triangulated to provide
a rich and accurate picture of each program. Patterns and trends across
programs were also identified, providing the empirical basis for the
resulting criteria.
It is important to note that this research study was not an evaluation
of bilingual education programs, that is, we did not evaluate programs
using a set of characteristics and criteria already established. Instead,
we developed the criteria by observing and learning from programs
that had evidence of achievement for all of its students. These criteria
can now be used by practitioners and researchers to assess programs
and recognize areas that are strong and others that may need improvement.
It is also important to note that if each of the programs in this
study were to conduct a self-assessment by these criteria, there would
be no perfect program - one that meets 100 percent of the criteria.
They would, however, meet most of the criteria with room for improvement
for a few. Perhaps one of the most important lessons these programs
teach is the need for constant assessment in a context of school accountability
for student success, and/or focus on improvement and celebration of
achievements. It is in this spirit that we present the major findings
of this study. Next month, we will feature the school indicators,
including school profiles and organizing similarities.
Resources
Diaz-Rico, L.T. and J. Smith. "Recruiting and Retaining Bilingual
Teachers: A Cooperative School Community-University Model," Journal
of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students (Winter 1994)
v. 14 p. 255-268.
Haselkorn, D. "Breaking the Class Ceiling," Education Week
on the Web (August 7, 1996). Available at: http://www.edweek.org/(archives).
María Robledo Montecel, Ph.D., is the IDRA executive director.
Josie Danini Cortez, MA, is the production development coordinator.
Comments and questions may be directed to them via e-mail at
contact@idra.org.
|
