LAW AND RESEARCH IN REGARDS TO STUDENTS WHO ARE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 91
About This Presentation
Title:

LAW AND RESEARCH IN REGARDS TO STUDENTS WHO ARE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

Description:

LAW AND RESEARCH IN REGARDS TO STUDENTS WHO ARE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS Dr. Criselda Guajardo Alvarado www.educationeval.com – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:403
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 92
Provided by: Criselda4
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: LAW AND RESEARCH IN REGARDS TO STUDENTS WHO ARE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS


1
LAW AND RESEARCH IN REGARDS TO STUDENTS WHO ARE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
  • Dr. Criselda Guajardo Alvarado
  • www.educationeval.com

2
LAW
3
  • Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Sec. 2000d. Prohibition against exclusion from
    participation in, denial of benefits of, and
    discrimination under federally assisted programs
    on ground of race, color, or national origin.
  • No person in the United States shall, on the
    ground of race, color, or national origin, be
    excluded from participation in, be denied the
    benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
    under any program or activity receiving Federal
    financial assistance.

4
  • Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974
  • Title 20, Chapter 39, Subchapter I, Part 2,
    Section 1703
  • Denial of equal educational opportunity
    prohibited
  • No State shall deny equal educational
    opportunity to an individual on account of his or
    her race, color, sex, or national origin, by -

5
(a) the deliberate segregation by an educational
agency of students on the basis of race, color,
or national origin among or within schools
6
  • (b) the failure of an educational agency which
    has formerly practiced such deliberate
    segregation to take affirmative steps, consistent
    with part 4 of this subchapter, to remove the
    vestiges of a dual school system

7
  • (c) the assignment by an educational
    agency of a student to a school, other than the
    one closest to his or her place of residence
    within the school district in which he or she
    resides, if the assignment results in a greater
    degree of segregation of students on the basis of
    race, color, sex, or national origin among the
    schools of such agency than would result if such
    student were assigned to the school closest to
    his or her place of residence within the school
    district of such agency providing the appropriate
    grade level and type of education for such
    student

8
  • (d) discrimination by an educational agency on
    the basis of race, color, or national origin in
    the employment, employment conditions, or
    assignment to schools of its faculty or staff,
    except to fulfill the purposes of subsection (f)
    below

9
(e) the transfer by an educational
agency, whether voluntary or otherwise, of a
student from one school to another if the
purpose and effect of such transfer is to
increase segregation of students on the basis of
race, color, or national origin among the
schools of such agency or (f) the failure by an
educational agency to take appropriate action
to overcome language barriers that impede equal
participation by its students in its
instructional programs.
10
  • Office of Civil Rights
  • Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance
    Recipients Regarding Title VI of the Civil
    Rights Act
  • Prohibition Against National Origin
    Discrimination Affecting Limited English
    Proficient Persons
  • Recipients (of Federal financial assistance)
    are required to take reasonable steps to ensure
    meaningful access to their programs and
    activities by LEP persons. Parenthetical
    information added

11
  • Lau v. Nichols, 1968
  • 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 educational 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 their classroom experiences
    wholly incomprehensible and in no way
    meaningful.

12
  • Where inability to speak and understand
    the English language excludes national
    origin-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.

13
Executive Order 13166August 11, 2000
  • The Federal Government provides and funds an
    array of services that can be made accessible to
    otherwise eligible persons who are not proficient
    in the English language. recipients must take
    reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to
    their programs and activities by LEP persons.

14
RESEARCH
15
Research on Special Language programming
16
Special Language Programming
  • Students who are ELLs immersed in the
    English mainstream because the parents refused
    bilingual/ESL services showed large decreases
    in reading and math achievement by 5th grade. The
    largest number of dropouts came from this group
    and those remaining finished 11th grade at the
    12th ile (Thomas Collier, 2001) Curiel et al
    in 1986 and Theobald in 2003 also found that ELLs
    who do not receive assistance from either ESL or
    bilingual programs have higher dropout rates.

17
Special Language Programming
Artiles et al. (2002 2005) report that ELLs
in English immersion classrooms were almost 3
times more likely to be placed in special
education as LD than ELLs in bilingual education.
18
Special Language Programming
Initially, students who were
schooled all in English outperform those who
were schooled bilingually on English
measures. But, the bilingually schooled
students reach the same levels of achievement as
those schooled all in English by middle school.
Then during high school, the bilingually schooled
students outperform the monolingually schooled
students. (Thomas Collier, 2001, National
Literacy Panel, 2006).
19
Special Language Programming
  • Bilingually schooled students outperform
    comparable monolingually schooled students in all
    academic achievement areas after 4 to 7 years of
    dual language schooling (Thomas Collier, 2001).

20
Special Language Programming
  • Native-language programs of only 1 to 3 years
    for students with no proficiency in English yield
    poor results. The minimum length of time it takes
    to reach grade-level performance in the second
    language is 4 years (Thomas Collier, 2001).

21
Research on the bilingual brain
22

Cognitive
  • Learning a second language increases the
    density of grey matter in the left inferior
    parietal cortex, and the degree of structural
    reorganization is modulated by the proficiency
    attained and the age of acquisition (Mechelli et
    al., 2004).

23
Cognitive
  • The process of language acquisition during
    childhood differs for certain languages. Valaki
    et al. (2004) investigated the cortical
    organization of Chinese, English, and Spanish
    speakers. English and Spanish speakers showed a
    strong laterization to the left hemisphere, while
    Chinese speakers presented bilateral symmetry.

24
Cognitive
  • In alphabetic languages such as Spanish,
    phonological awareness in the native language
    facilitates understanding of the relationship
    between sounds and symbols in the second language
    (Snow et al., 1998, August et al., 2002,
    Dickinson et al., 2004).

25
Cognitive
  • Research of Korean (Kim Davis, 2004), Arabic
    (Abu-Rabia, Share,
  • Mansour, 2003), Latvian (Sprugevica Hoien,
    2003), and Chinese (McBride-Chang Kail, 2002)
    students revealed a strong relation between
    phonological processing and reading performance.

26
Cognitive
  • The research conducted by Tan et al. (2003)
    suggested that Chinese-English bilingual subjects
    were applying the system of their native language
    (Chinese) to reading in English, that is, that
    second language reading is shaped by the first
    language of the bilingual.

27
Cognitive
  • The lack of letter-to-sound conversion rules in
    Chinese appears to lead Chinese readers to be
    less capable of processing English by the
    analytic reading system on which English
    monolinguals rely.

28
Research on oral language development
29
  • Students whose first language has many
    cognates with English, such as Spanish Italian,
    have an advantage in English vocabulary
    recognition, but often do not fully use this
    advantage without targeted instruction
    (Cunningham Graham, 2000, August et al., 2002).

Oral Language Proficiency
30
  • For example, a bilingual Spanish/English or
    Italian/English speaker, using cognate knowledge,
    can easily understand the English term,
    campanology as the study of bells (campanas).

Oral Language Proficiency
31
  • Basic interpersonal communication skills or
    conversational language acquired in one language
    do not appear to transfer to a second language,
    whereas skills that are academically mediated
    such as academic oral language or reading, do
    appear to transfer (Royer Carlo, 1991).

Oral Language Proficiency
32
.
  • In studies of Spanish readers, the level
    of reading skills in their first language
    predicted the level of English reading skills.

Oral Language Proficiency
33
Research on dyslexia the eng lang. learner
34
  • Paulesu et al. (2001) found in their research
    that there is a universal neurobiological basis
    for dyslexia. Deficits in phonological processing
    appear to fundamentally characterize dyslexia,
    regardless of language.

Dyslexia
35
  • The differences in the reading performance
    among individuals from different countries,
    speaking and reading different languages, who
    were identified as having dyslexia was found to
    be due to the level of adherence of the written
    system of the language to the alphabet principal.

Dyslexia
36
  • More reading problems are seen in students in
    opaque (aka deeper or irregular) orthographies
    that is orthographies that are highly
    irregular such as English, French, Danish, and
    Portuguese. In opaque orthographies, one grapheme
    can several phonemes and one phoneme can have
    several graphemes

Dyslexia
37
  • Reading difficulties in transparent
    orthographies, that is, orthographies that adhere
    to the alphabet- principle, (i.e. Spanish,
    Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Finish) are more
    often noticed in the students reading speed and
    reading comprehension and less noticed in the
    students reading decoding.

Dyslexia
38
Research on english literacy of ell students
39
  • Instruction that provides substantial coverage
    in the key components of readingidentified by
    the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) as
    phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,
    and text comprehension has clear benefits for
    language-minority students (National Literacy
    Panel, 2006).

English Literacy
40
  • Instruction in the key components of reading
    is necessary but not sufficient for teaching
    language-minority students to read and write
    proficiently in English. Oral proficiency in
    English is critical as well but student
    performance suggests that it is often overlooked
    in instruction (National Literacy Panel, 2006).

English Literacy
41
  • Individual differences contribute
    significantly to English literacy development
    (National Literacy Panel, 2006).

English Literacy
42
Research on cross transfer of skills abilities
43
  • Oral proficiency and literacy in the first
    language can be used to facilitate literacy
    development in English. (National Literacy Panel,
    2006).

Cross-Transfer
44
  • Native-language (if alphabetic-based)
    phonological awareness training can facilitate
    students ability to read in English. (Durgunoglu
    et al., 1993).

Cross-Transfer
45
  • Spanish word recognition significantly
    predicts performance on English word and pseudo
    word reading tasks (Durgunoglu et al., 1993,
    August et al., 2002).

Cross-Transfer
46
  • Students who have developed good
    meaning-making strategies in their first language
    use those strategies in their second language,
    even when they are not as fluent in that second
    language (Langer et al., 1990).

Cross-Transfer
47
  • A significant positive relationship is found
    between Spanish passage comprehension at the end
    of second grade and English passage comprehension
    at the end of fourth grade (August et al., 2002).

Cross-Transfer
48
EVIDENCE-BASED BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
  • Unfortunately, language policy
  • is highly politicized in the United States and
    practice and policy sometimes contradicts
    research.

49
THANK YOU
  • Dr. Criselda Guajardo Alvarado
  • www.educationeval.com

50
(No Transcript)
51
(No Transcript)
52
Regarding Assessment
  • Most assessments do a poor job of gauging
    individual strengths and weaknesses (National
    Literacy Panel, 2006).

53
Regarding Assessment
  • Figueroa Newsome (2006) studied 19
    psychological reports of English Language
    Learners in a small urban elementary school
    district in California. Results indicated that
    the reports seldom adhered to existing legal and
    professional guidelines.

54
Regarding Assessment
  • The examiners unfamiliarity with a minority
    group could also lead to bias in testing. Fuchs
    and Fuchs (1986) found that examiner
    unfamiliarity with the students culture had a
    significant impact on standardized test
    performance. This effect was even greater when
    the students were of low socioeconomic status.

55
Regarding Assessment
  • Klingner et al. (2003) conducted an ethnographic
    study of the special education identification
    processes of ELLs in 12 schools. They found that
    the child study teams and the ARD/IEP committees
    paid little attention to information related to
    language acquisition.

56
Regarding Assessment
  • Ochoa et al (1997) conducted a survey of 859
    psychologists who had conducted psychoeducational
    assessment of bilingual students. Only 1
    attempted to determine whether a learning
    disability also occurred in the students native
    language.

57
Regarding Impact of Sociocultural
and Socioeconomic
  • There is surprisingly little research on the
    impact of sociocultural variables on literacy
    achievement or development. However, home
    language experiences can have a positive impact
    on literacy achievement (National Literacy Panel,
    2006).

58
Regarding Impact of Sociocultural
and Socioeconomic
  • Poverty has significant effects on childrens
    cognitive and verbal skills (Koreman et al.,
    1995 Liaw Brooks-Gunn, 1993 Smith et al.,
    1997).

59
Regarding Impact of Sociocultural
and Socioeconomic
  • Brooks-Gunn et al, 1994 found that five year olds
    living in chronic poverty had adjusted mean IQs
    about ¾ of a standard deviation lower than
    children who were considered nonpoor.

60
Regarding Impact of Sociocultural
and Socioeconomic
  • Studies have shown that the negative life events
    and adverse conditions faced by poor and low-SES
    children can place demands on them that exceed
    their coping resources resulting in conduct
    problems (Carothers, et al., 2006 Pryor-Brown et
    al., 1986 Wadsworth et al., 2005).

61
  • Effects of poverty on cognitive development and
    academic achievement appear to be particularly
    strong in the earlier years (birth through 5),
    but continue to be strong for the first two
    decades of life (Axinn et al, 1993 Brooks-Gunn
    et al, 1999).

62
  • Poverty has significant effects on childrens
    cognitive and verbal skills (Koreman et al.,
    1995 Liaw Brooks-Gunn, 1993 Smith et al.,
    1997).

63
Regarding Impact of Sociocultural
and Socioeconomic
  • Studies have found that children in poverty have
    a higher prevalence of emotional and behavioral
    problems than children who are considered
    middle-class (Koreman et al, 1995 and Liaw
    Brooks-Gunn, 1993).

64
Regarding Impact of Sociocultural
and Socioeconomic
  • Sherman (1994) and Zill et al. (1995) found that
    the chance of being retained in a grade level or
    placed in special education classes increases by
    2-3 for each year a child lives in poverty.

65
Regarding Impact of Sociocultural
and Socioeconomic
  • Research has shown that teachers expectations of
    poor children are lower than that of affluent
    children (McLoyd, 1998). These lowered
    expectations appear to be caused mostly by
    noncognitive considerations, such as speech
    patterns and dress.

66
Regarding Impact of Sociocultural
and Socioeconomic
  • Skiba (2005) found that in 259 school districts,
    disproportionality was greater in the judgment
    disability categories (LD, MR, ED) than in the
    biologically based hard disability categories
    (such as visual impairment, etc.).

67
Regarding Impact of Sociocultural
and Socioeconomic
  • They also found that students living in a high
    poverty school district were
  • More than twice as likely to be identified as
    Mildly Mentally Retarded
  • Nearly twice as likely to be identified as
    Moderately Mentally Retarded and
  • Twice as likely to be identified as Emotionally
    Disturbed as students who reside in wealthier
    school districts.

68
Research RtI and the ELL
RtI and The
ELL
  • A handful of researchers have conducted RtI
    studies specifically with bilingual students
    and/or ELLs. Most of this research, however,
    ignores the issue of language of intervention.
    Consequently, these studies end up being of
    bilingual and limited English proficient students
    receiving English only language RtI.

69
RtI and The
ELL
  • The results are generally favorable towards RtI,
    but it still leaves the question unanswered,
    regarding how the student would have responded if
    the intervention had been in a language the
    student could have more meaningfully accessed.

70
  • Additionally, many researchers of these studies
    do not control for the English language
    proficiency levels of the students in their
    study, leaving educators uncertain on how to
    implement RtI appropriately for the myriad of
    variations in their linguistically diverse
    student populations.

71
  • Moore-Brown et al (2005) report on a Tier 3 RtI
    program of 123 fourth and fifth grade students at
    high-risk for special education referral in an
    urban school district which had a 96 minority
    (mostly Hispanic) student population.

72
RtI and The
ELL
  • Out of the 123 students in the study, 79 students
    were identified as ELLs. The Tier 3 RtI was
    conducted in English only by speech-language
    pathologists and resource teachers.

73
RtI and The
ELL
  • Students were given a 45 hour intensive
    instructional program based on the National
    Reading Panels five building blocks of reading.
    The program was systematic, intense, and given
    every day over a 9 week period.

74
RtI and The
ELL
  • Significant gains in overall reading scores were
    documented. Only 8 students required special
    education services within the two year follow-up
    of the study.

75
RtI and The
ELL
  • Since the subjects of the study were 4th and 5th
    grade students, the ELLs in the study are assumed
    to have had at least 5 to 6 years of English
    language exposure in a Tier 1 setting.

76
RtI and The
ELL
  • The students level of English may have been
    sufficient to meaningfully access the Tier 3 RtI,
    but the researchers did not evaluate English
    language proficiency, only reporting the school
    districts ELL classification.

77
RtI and The
ELL
  • The researchers recommendations included
  • At the end of the day, all students who
    successfully participated in this Tier 3 RtI
    program, although not requiring special
    education, still continued to have learning needs
    that needed to be addressed by general education.

78
RtI and The
ELL
  • That the students made dramatic progress in a
    short period of time in a non-prescriptive
    program indicated that general education had to
    make some changes.

79
RtI and The
ELL
  • Interdisciplinary teams composed of Resource
    Specialists and Speech Language Pathologists
    can provide Tier 3 intensive services.

80
RtI and The
ELL
  • System structures will need to change. Resource
    Specialists and Speech Language Pathologists
    cannot be reasonably expected to carry maximum
    caseloads of identified special education
    students and also provide prevention activities
    as well.

81
RtI and The
ELL
  • RtI is not an individualized intervention
    specific to the students being served. All
    students received the exact intervention protocol
    that targeted all fives building blocks of
    reading.

82
RtI and The
ELL
  • Administrative support of RtI is critical. It is
    the responsibility of administrators to create an
    environment supportive of changing roles and
    developing understanding of the joint
    responsibility of general education teachers and
    special education interventionists.

83
RtI and The
ELL
  • As part of a larger program project investigating
    biliteracy and bioracy, Linan-Thompson et al
    (2006) conducted a series of studies in the state
    of Texas on the effectiveness of RtI for ELLs
    identified as at-risk in first grade.

84
RtI and The
ELL
  • Of the 103 total students, 53 ELLs with reading
    difficulties were randomly assigned to receive
    the intervention in the Fall of their first grade
    (31 received Spanish-language RtI and 22 received
    English-language RtI)

85
RtI and The
ELL
  • 50 ELLs also with reading difficulties were
    randomly assigned to serve as the comparison
    group (33 received Spanish-language instruction
    and 17 received English-language instruction).

86
RtI and The
ELL
  • Students in the intervention program received
    supplemental reading intervention daily for 50
    minutes from October to April while students in
    the comparison group received the existing school
    districts instructional program for students
    with reading difficulties.

87
RtI and The
ELL
  • The results (see Table 1) indicated that students
    receiving English-language RtI overwhelmingly met
    the success criteria (91) as did the students
    receiving Spanish-language RtI (97).

88
RtI and The
ELL
  • A year later, 94 of the students who had
    received English-language RtI and 100 of the
    students who had received Spanish-language RtI
    still met the criteria. However, only 40 of the
    students in the comparison group who received
    English-language instruction met the criteria at
    the end of the first year

89
RtI and The
ELL
  • while 70 of the students receiving
    Spanish-language instruction met the criteria.
    Interestingly, at the one year follow-up, an
    incredible 92 of the at-risk students who had
    received Spanish-language instruction (not RtI),

90
RtI and The
ELL
  • now met the success criteria (going from 70 to
    92), while students who had received
    English-language instruction still showed a low
    success rate of 44 (going from 42 to 44).
    Thus, the results appear to yield three
    conclusions.

91
RtI and The
ELL
  • First, RtI appears to generally outperform
    traditional remedial reading programs. Second,
    native language instruction RtI outperforms
    English only instruction RtI for ELLs. Third,
    native language instruction, in the long run, may
    be the sole intervention that is needed for ELLs
    at-risk for reading difficulties.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com