Resource Needs for English Learners: Getting Down to Policy Recommendations

1. Resource Needs for English Learners: Getting Down to Policy Recommendations Patricia Gandara, Julie Maxwell-Jolly, Russell Rumberger UC LMRI BCN Meeting September 25, 2008

2. History • Williams v. State of California • The Inequitable Treatment of English Learners in California’s Public Schools (2003) • Getting Down to Facts • Resource Needs for California’s English Learners (2006) • Resource Needs for English Learners: Getting Down to Policy Recommendations (2008)

3. Context

4. The Scope of the Challenge • Linguistic minorities are the fastest growing demographic group in California and the U.S. • More than 40% of K-12 students in California are defined as linguistic minorities • More than 25% of K-12 students are English Learners • These students begin school at a considerable disadvantage relative to their English speaking peers

5. The Linguistic Minority Population, 5-17 Years of Age: 1980-2005

6. Performance on 2005 CA ELA Standards Test by Language Background

7. 2008 California Standards Test, Algebra I Results by Language Group

8. Cognitive Skills of California Beginning Kindergartners by Language Background, Fall 1998

9. Conditions of Learning (2003)

10. 1. Inequitable access to appropriately trained teachers: lessthan half of teachers of EL have appropriate credential 2. Inadequate professional development 3. Invalid and unreliable assessment 4. Inadequate instructional time 5. Inadequate instructional materials 6. Segregated in poorest facilities 7. Linguistic isolation:>half of K-6 EL’s in schools with >half EL students

11. Resources (2006)

12. Study Methods • Review of cost literature and studies of costs for EL students • Review of Professional Judgment Panels of costs for EL students • Collection of data in 5 BTO schools --what did they spend money on? • Synthesis of the above

13. It matters what the goal of an adequate education is 1. English proficiency, nothing else 2. English proficiency and sustained academic proficiency 3. Close achievement gaps 4. Biliteracy

14. Findings • Consistent finding that low income students have greater needs than non-poor • There is little consistency in studies about additional resource needs for EL students--some show large differences in needs, others show none • There are certainly differences in needs • There are at least some marginal cost differences • Both poor and EL students in California have unmet needs

15. Resource Needs: Similar to low-income students • Preschool • Reduced student/teacher ratio • More instructional time • Specific professional development for teachers • More support personnel • Appropriate instructional materials • Appropriate assessment • Parent outreach • Safe, secure environment

16. Cost Category Bilingual teachers More instructional time Bilingual support personnel Some additional materials (ELD, books) Valid and reliable assessment Some translation Additional Cost Probably cost neutral Additional cost for poorest students Marginal additional cost Marginal additional cost Significant cost --shared with fed. government Marginal additional cost Resource Needs: Different from low-income students

17. Policy Recommendations

18. Study Methods • Two convenings of major stakeholders (August, September 2007) • Discussion among other stakeholders • Consideration of current budget constraints and political support

19. Categories • Funding • Accountability • Teacher infrastructure • Educational leadership infrastructure • Instructional infrastructure

20. Funding

21. Recommendation 1 The State of California should set an initial funding augmentation of 20 percent for English Learners above and beyond the augmentation for poverty to be applied to a weighted system of pupil funding, an improved categorical system, or any other funding mechanism that the state adopts. Moreover, students who attend schools that are 50% or more English Learners should receive an additional augmentation of 5 percent that reflects the additional interventions that may be necessary to help them join the English mainstream.

22. Recommendation 2 The state should also consider an augmentation for linguistic minority students—those whose language backgrounds result in an ongoing need for support to achieve full proficiency in standard and academic English. This would include students who are Standard English Learners as well as those who have been reclassified as Fluent in English, but who still struggle with academic English.

23. Accountability

24. Recommendation 3 The state should develop an evaluation template that can be used by schools and districts to help them collect formative, and to the extent possible, summative (outcome) data on resource expenditures and EL student academic progress to aid schools in data-based decision making. Select data from this evaluation should be reported annually through the school’s online report card.

25. Teacher Infrastructure

26. Recommendation 4 The State should establish several Centers for Research and Teaching Excellence for English Learners in key regions where both need and resources converge.

27. Recommendation 5 The California Teacher Credentialing Commission should design and adopt two forms of single subject specialist certifications for teachers in grades 7-12. The content of these certifications would be established by a group of experts in the field, relying on research-based findings from empirical work that might be carried out in the Centers for Research and Teaching Excellence for English Learners. One form of this certification would be an ELD Specialist credential/certificate for middle and high school teachers who teach ELD as a content area. This increased specialization could be obtained at the preliminary (initial credential) or advanced credential level. A second form of certification could be earned by educators who provide support, mentoring, and/or professional development (including literacy coaching) for the instruction of ELs.

28. Recommendation 6 Bilingual resource teacher positions should be funded at attractive levels and be offered at every school with EL students and APLE (forgivable loan) awards should be increased for credentialed bilingual teachers from $11,000 to $18,000—the level of awards for special education, math, and science teachers.

29. Leadership Infrastructure

30. Recommendation 7 The State should design and award a Supplementary Administrative Certification in EL instructional services initially on a volunteer basis, but Principal Leadership programs being conducted in California should also adopt the content of this certification for all principals in training.

31. Instructural Infrastructure

32. Recommendations 8 and 9 All schools should report California English Language Development Test (CELDT) scores, along with the California Standards Test (CST) scores, in a way that allows policymakers and practitioners to easily evaluate to what extent CELDT is aligned with or predicts CST performance. Require each district to report reclassification criteria to the state, and make this information available online.

33. Recommendation 10 We propose that in schools and districts where current mandated practices are not resulting in satisfactory progress for English Learners, those that are willing to partner with an approved technical assistance agency or research organization, such as a university, be given the opportunity to exercise more choice in both materials and pedagogical practices. We call these “Zones of Choice”.

34. A Strategy for Moving Forward