190 likes | 316 Views
Opportunities and Challenges in Creating a Bi-Lingual, Elementary Education Teacher Workforce in Rural Nebraska. Rochelle L. Dalla, Ph.D. and Catherine Huddleston-Casas, Ph.D., Department of Child, Youth and Family Studies University of Nebraska-Lincoln
E N D
Opportunities and Challenges in Creating a Bi-Lingual, Elementary Education Teacher Workforce in Rural Nebraska Rochelle L. Dalla, Ph.D. and Catherine Huddleston-Casas, Ph.D., Department of Child, Youth and Family Studies University of Nebraska-Lincoln Presented at the 3rd Annual Cumbre of the Great Plains Conference, April 28th, 2007
Background & Purpose • 1990-2000, number of LEP students in NE increased by 1,000% • Meeting LEP student needs acute in rural areas; • 10% of rural educator hold ESL endorsement • The Career Ladder (CL) Project: • Increase ESL endorsed elementary school teachers in rural NE school districts; teacher ed. & preparation • Federally funded 1.98 million dollar 5-year grant • Teaching certificates & ESL endorsement; • Distance-delivered courses (147 cr. hours) • Six rural NE Communities: Schuyler, Madison, Norfolk, Wayne, Wakefield, S. Sioux City
Background & Purpose (continued) • 30 participants began CL (Jan., 2003); • By Jan. 2004, 9 had dropped-out. • Purpose: was to identify individual & familial factors that promote/challenge CL program completion.
Methods: Procedure • All active & former CL participants contacted by CL coordinator • Data Collected by PI: • Quantitative: Self-report survey instruments (e.g., dep., social sup., lang., acculturation) • Qualitative: In-depth, tape-recorded Interviews (i.e., benefits/challenges, ways to improve) • Participants compensated $40.00
Career Ladder Participation: Active (n = 20) Former (n = 6) Gender: F = 25; M = 1 Immigrant: 1st Generation (n = 15) 2nd Generation (n = 5) Home Country: Mexico (n = 17) Guatemala (n = 1) Peru (n = 1); Honduras (n = 1) Marital Status: Married (n = 21); Co (n = 2) Single (n = 3) Parents (n = 24; Total Kids = 64) M = 2.4 / R = 1 – 4 kids Child age: M = 10. 4 (R = 11 mo. - 28 yrs.) Education: GED (n = 4) / 1 in process M = 8.4 yrs public educ. R = 7 yrs. to 11 yrs College Experience: M = 2 yrs; (6 mo. - 4 yrs.) Methods: Sample
Results: Quantitative/Survey Data • Depression: • M = 13.9 / (R = 0 – 38) / [Possible Range = 0–60] • Depressive symptoms not characteristic of entire group • Sub-sample (n = 9): Mean = 27.2 (*16 cutoff). • Two groups (n = 9; HIGH vs. 17 LOW) created: • Statistically significant difference b/w them: • (t (24) = 11.1, p < .001) • 2 of the 6 (33%) former participants in HIGH depressive group;
Results: Survey Data (Continued) • Social Support: • Total Group Mean = 147.4 (R = 103 – 175) • Indicating perceptions of strong social support from informal (i.e., family/friends) network members • Comparisons b/w HIGH & LOW depression groups: • HIGH depressive group significantly LESS: • Total Support and all 3 sub-scales: Intimacy/Assistance, Social Integration, & Nurturance
Results: Survey Data (Continued) • Active (n = 20) vs. Former (n = 6) CL Participants: • Active participants reported fewer children (M = 2.3 vs. 3.0; p = .08); • Active participants reported longer residence in their communities (M = 11.3 vs. 5.5 yrs.; p < .01)
Results: Qualitative / Interview Data • Program Strengths: • Direct: • Economic benefits (tuition, books, computer) • Program flexibility: (e.g., registering; books) • Opportunity earn degree: “Dream come true”, “Fulfilling life-long goal,” • Indirect: • Children/families proud of them they were “Role Models” for children kids study more, imp. of education/doing homework
Results: Qualitative Data (Continued) • Program Challenges: • Time / energy required (i.e., FT work, FT school, & maintain family), “Exhausted” • Guilt: neglecting family • Those adapting best were those with partners actively supported CL involvement (e.g., housework/childcare) • 4 partners not supportive; only if own lives NOT impacted: • “I’m always watching the clock during class, because I have to be home on time- before he [husband] get home or else he will be upset.” • Another reported doing homework late at night- after children & husband were asleep.
Results: Qualitative Data (Continued) • Challenges (continued): • Financial Strain • Required to work FT as para professionals who earn very little (appx. $12,000/year). • Recognized $ status improve dramatically after graduation economic burden temporary & long-term goal worth it
Conclusion • Differences b/w active & former minimal: • Child care assistance and community integration (proxy resources?) necessary • 35% group (n=9) elevated depression scores; • Mental health assessment & treatment for rural, ethnically diverse populations • Mental health access/availability notoriously scarce in rural areas (Doyle, 1998)
Conclusion (Continued) • Social support & mental health; • Strengthening networks (formal & informal) • Relationships w/ intimates critical to mental & physical health • Include family members in various aspects of program increase their knowledge of and support for program involvement
Policy Implications • Policy efforts to support the development of ESL teachers must approach the issue systemically • Success is more likely when interdependence is addressed • School • Work • Family
School Maintain full-time student status to complete program within funding term Work Requires full-time employment as paraeducators Policy Implications: Current Efforts • Fails to recognize the important influence of family • Family economic needs when more lucrative employment is forgone • Critical role of spousal support for participant success • Additional constraints posed when parenting young children
School Maintain full-time student status to complete program within funding term Work Requires full-time employment as paraeducators Family Family economic need, spousal support, parenting responsibilities Policy Implications: Incorporating Family
Policy Implications: Incorporating Family • Address pressure to secure more lucrative employment • Larger stipends or special vouchers (e.g., child care) • Sponsorship successful in other para programs • Devise strategies to incorporate entire families, fostering spousal support • Periodic social gatherings • Family-based educational activities • Address parenting burden • Access to and availability of quality child care
Additional Policy Implications • A funding stream that allows flexibility in the timeline of the program • Managing school, work, and family responsibilities eased if part-time student status were an option • Distance program is flexible, but can be isolating • Enhance informal support networks • Developing intensive mentoring relationships • Devising opportunities for greater personal contact among the para cohort