LDE 3910 – Week 3

1. LDE 3910 – Week 3 Vicki Nilles Metropolitan State College nilles@mesanetworks.net

2. Week 3 • True colors • Silent Epidemic • Brain-based Assessment – cont. • Federal Legislation & Linguistically Diverse Students

3. True Colors • Find your “color” group • Record the things that bring you great joy and cause you great stress • Share what you think your strengths will be as a classroom teacher • Discuss your possible challenges as a classroom teacher

4. Silent epidemic…not so silent! • The Silent Epidemic – Perspectives of High School Drop Outs • A report by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation • March 2006

5. Subjects of report • Four focus groups of 467 ethnically diverse 16 to 24 year olds who did not complete high school • Subjects were from 25 different locations including large cities, suburbs, and small towns – all with high drop out rates

6. National Graduation Rate • Between 68-71% • One third of all American students fail to graduate • In 2003, 3.5 million youth ages 16-25 did not have a high school diploma and were not enrolled in school • Experts expect rates to increase substantially through 2020 unless significant improvements are made

7. Drops outs • Are more like to: • be unemployed • live in poverty • receive public assistance • be in prison • be on death row • be unhealthy • be divorced • be single parents with children who drop out of high school themselves

8. Top Five Reasons Students Drop Out • Classes not interesting – 47% • Missed too many days and could not catch up – 43% • Spent time with people who were not interested in school – 42% • Had too much freedom and not enough rules in life – 38% • Was failing in school – 35%

9. What Might Help Students Stay in School? • Improve teaching and curricula to make school more relevant and engaging and enhance connection between school and work • 81% said that there should be more opportunities for real world learning and more experiential learning. Students said they needed to see more of a connection between school and getting a good job

10. Improve instruction, and access to supports for struggling students • 81% wanted better teachers and smaller classes with more individualized instruction and 55% felt that more needed to be done to help students who had problems learning • Build a school climate that fosters academics • 62% felt more classroom discipline was necessary and 57% felt their schools did not do enough to help students feel safe from violence.

11. Ensure that students have a strong relationship with at least one adult in the school • 65% said there was a staff member or teacher who cared about their success, only 56% said they could go to a staff person or teacher with school problems and 41% said they could talk to someone about personal problems

12. Improve communication between parents and schools: • 71% said they felt that one of the keys to keeping kids in school is to have better communication with parents and the school and increasing parental involvement in their child’s education. 47% of parents reported being notified by the school if their child was absent or had dropped out.

13. Ending the Silent Epidemic • The 10 Point Plan – supported by various organizations representing educators and community stakeholders • Support accurate graduation and dropout data • Establish early warning systems to support struggling students • Provide adult advocates and student supports • Support parent engagement and individualized graduation plans • Establish rigorous college and work prep curriculum for high school graduation

14. 6. Provide supportive options for struggling students to meet rigorous expectations 7. Raise compulsory school age requirements under State laws 8. Expand college level learning opportunities in high school 9. Focus the research and disseminate best practices 10. Make increasing high school graduation and college and workforce readiness a national priority

15. Interest Surveys

16. Brain-based Assessment – cont.

17. Federal Legislation and Linguistically Diverse Students

18. Guidelines for Working with Second Language Learners Vicki Nilles Educational Consultant nilles@mesanetworks.net

19. Theoretical Framework

20. Historical Federal Legal Requirements

21. Lau v. Nichols – 1974 Supreme Court judges ruled, based on the grounds of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that 1800 Chinese students were not being provided an equal educational opportunity compared with their English speaking peers. There is no equality in treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.

22. Basic English skills are at the very core of what these public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the education program, he must already have acquired those basic skills is to make a mockery of public education. We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful. ( Lau v. Nichols, 1974)

23. Although it did not expressly endorse bilingual education, the Lau decision legitimized and gave impetus to the movement for equal educational opportunities for students who do not speak English. Lau raised the nation’s consciousness of the need for bilingual education, encouraged additional federal legislation, energized federal enforcement efforts, led to federal funding of nine regional “general assistance Lau centers”, aided the passage of state laws mandating bilingual education, and spawned more lawsuits.

24. May 25th Referendum First memorandum issued regarding national origin minority groups with limited English language skills was issued by the Office of Civil Rights on May of 1970. It recommends the following: 1) Where inability to speak and understand the English language prevents minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students.

25. 2) School districts must not assign minority groups with limited English language proficiency to classes for the mentally retarded on the basis of criteria which essentially measure or evaluate English language skills. 3) Any ability grouping or tracking system employed by the school system to deal with the special language skill needs of minority group children must be designed to meet such language skill needs as soon as possible and must not operate as an educational dead-end or permanent track.

26. 4) School districts have the responsibility to adequately notify national origin-minority group parents of school activities which are called to the attention of other parents. Such notice, in order to be adequate, may have to be provided in a language other than English ( U.S. Office of Civil Rights, 1970). Language assessment is one of the key components of the Lau Remedies.

27. 1) Identification-identify the target population: all students with a primary language other than English who are (a) limited or non-English speaking and/or (b) achieving below grade level. Identification can be carried out by the means of a home language questionnaire, parent interview (K-8), or student interview ( 9-12). The Four Must Do’s

28. 2) Language Assessment-the classification of identified students into five language categories: A. Monolingual speaker of the language other than English (speaks the language other than English exclusively). B. Predominantly speaks the language other than English (speaks mostly the language other than English, but speaks some English). C. Bilingual ( speaks both the language other than English and English with equal ease).

29. D. Predominantly speaks English (speaks mostly English, but speaks some of the language other than English). E. Monolingual speaker of English ( speaks English exclusively). Those students who are classified as belonging to categories C,D, and E are entitled to special services in schools only if they are achieving below grade level. This determination is done through proficiency testing in both English and the first language, combined with school achievement scores.

30. 3) Diagnostic Prescriptive Process: After the students are placed in a special program, the next step involves regular ongoing diagnostic prescriptive evaluation in all subject areas, just as in any school program. 4) Exit Criteria: For decisions regarding when it is appropriate for students to leave the special program, “a district must provide predictive data which show that such students are ready to make the transition into English and will educationally succeed in content areas and the educational program in which he or she is to be placed” (U.S. Office of Civil Rights, 1975).

31. The 1980 proposed changes in the Lau Remedies were an attempt by the federal government to address some of the problems that had arisen in implementation. The determination was to leave the decisions on the specifics of assessment and program design up to the individual school districts.

32. Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 According to Perez and Roos, this act has been the most useful legal tool in language-minority education cases EEOA requires each school district to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.

33. Castaneda v. Pickard 1981 A school district in Raymondville, Texas, was charged with inappropriate ability-grouping practices, discrimination against Hispanics in employment as teachers and administrators, and inadequate bilingual instruction. The court did not find the school district guilty of segregation and discrimination, but it applied a three-part test to judge the adequacy of the school program.

34. The three part test consisted of: Examination of the educational theories of the school system Comparison of actual practice to the theoretical base Examination of program effectiveness after given period of time Findings: The court found the district’s plan conceptually sound but ordered improvement of the Spanish-language ability of teachers and more appropriate assessment of student achievement in both English and Spanish.

35. Federal Requirements for LEP Students According to NCLB

36. Title III is the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement Act. What is Title III of NCLB?

37. What are the basic requirements of Title III for school districts? LEAs must implement quality instruction educational programming that is supported with scientifically based research in its effectiveness with LEP students in acquiring English language proficiency LEAs are accountable for meeting annual measurable achievement objectives that relate to LEP student’s development & attainment of English proficiency & academic achievement

38. LEAs must assess, annually, the progress of LEP children enrolled in Title III language instructional programs in the five domain areas of listening, speaking, reading, writing & comprehension Report on the progress made by LEP students in meeting state academic content & achievement standards for each of the two years after these children no longer receive services under Title III Follow any requirements based on subgrantee guidelines if receiving Title III funding

39. What does the instructional programming need to look like for LEP students according to Title III? High quality English language instruction educational programming can look many different ways. It must, however, be supported by scientifically based research that has been demonstrated to be effective with students who are limited English proficient. What quality instructional programming does not look like is a pre-packaged program that can be bought and implemented tomorrow (there is no thing!)

40. An effective program is based on a sound theoretical foundation which is embedded in research surrounding second language acquisition… Theory first…materials later!

41. What are the evaluation requirements for LEP students in districts receiving Title III funding? LEAs that receive Title III subgrants must submit every second fiscal year an evaluation, in a manner determined by the State, that includes a description of the programs and activities conducted by the school district with Title III funds during the two immediately preceding fiscal years. The measures in the local evaluation should assess: The progress of children in attaining English proficiency, including the level of comprehension, speaking, listening, reading, and writing in English

42. Student attainment of challenging State student academic achievement standards as measured by performance on State content assessments

43. What are school districts required to do to meet parent notification requirements according to Title III? Parent’s Right to Know: Under the new opt-out provision, parents must be notified within 30 days after the start of the school year (or 30 days after date of student enrollment) of the following: The reasons for identifying their child as LEP and in need of placement in a language instruction educational program

44. The child’s level of English proficiency, how such level was assessed, and the status of the child’s academic achievement The methods of instruction used in the program in which their child is or will be participating, and the methods of instruction used in other programs available to the child, including how such programs differ in content, instructional goals, and the use of a native language in instruction (if applicable).

45. How the program in which their child is or will be participating will meet the educational strengths and needs of their child How the program will specifically help their child learn English and meet age-appropriate academic achievement standards for grade promotion and graduation The specific exit-criteria requirements for the program, including the expected rate of transition from such program into classrooms that are not tailored for LEP children, and (if the funded program extends into high school) the expected graduation rate for the children

46. In the case of a child with a disability, how the program will meet the objectives of the child’s individualized education program (as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Act

47. Identification and Exiting Process

49. Guidelines for Establishing Exit Criteria for LEP Students “Once students have been placed in an alternative language program, they must be provided with services until they are proficient enough in English to participate meaningfully in the regular educational program. Some factors to examine in determining whether former LEP students are able to participate meaningfully in the regular educational program include:

50. (1) whether they are able to keep up with their non-LEP peers in the regular educational program (2) whether they are to participate successfully in essentially all aspects of the school’s curriculum without the use of simplified English materials; and (3) whether their retention in grade and dropout rates are similar to those of their non-LEP peers” (Office of Civil Rights, 1991).