ERIC ED379922: For All Students: Limited English Proficient Students and Goals 2000. Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education FOCUS No. 10.

35 Pages·1994·1 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 379 922
FL 022 764
AUTHOR
August, Diane, Comp.; And Others
TITLE
For All Students: Limited English Proficient Students
and Goals 2000. Occasional Papers in Bilingual
Education FOCUS No. 10.
INSTITUTION
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education,
Washington, DC.
SPONS AGENCY
Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages
Affairs (ED), Washington, DC.
PUB DATE
94
CONTRACT
1292008001
NOTE
35p.
AVAILABLE FROM
NCBE, 1118 22nd Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20037.
PUB TYPE
Non-Classroom Use (055)
Guides
Reports
Evaluative /Feasibility (142)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
Accountability; American Indian Education; *American
Indians; *Change Agents; Community Role; Course
Content; *Curriculum Design; Educational Innovation;
Elementary Secondary Education; Equal Education;
*Evaluation Criteria; Evaluation Methods; *Limited
English Speaking; Measures (Individuals); Minority
Groups; *Research and Development; Standards
IDENTIFIERS
Content Area Teaching; *Goals 2000
ABSTRACT
This paper presents recommendations designed to
ensure that limited-English-proficient (LEP) children are included in
proposals embodied in "Goals 2000." These are as follows: persons
knowledgeable about the education of LEP students should be included
in national, state and local panels; all educational reform
activities should address the needs of LEP students; content
standards should reflect the best knowledge about how LEP students
learn and how the content can be taught most effectively to them, and
should include foreign language standards to accommodate the native
language of students; states should develop performance assessments
appropriate for LEP students and should evaluate the extent to which
schools implement core standards; states should also develop
accountability systems that incorporate LEP students; research and
development is needed on issues related to instruction,
opportunity-to-learn, and assessment that are specific to LEP
students; issues regarding participation of Native American
governmental groups in the "Goals 2000" process should include the
participation of tribes in the formulation and coordination of plans
relating to their culture; and the Department of Education should
meet with Native Americans r larding implementation of "Goals 2000."
Two appendices provide specific recommendations, and a list of
participants at two meetings on systemic reform and LEP students.
(CK)
CN4
617111.111
(1.1
FOR ALL STUDENTS:
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT
STUDENTS AND GOALS 2000
Compiled and edited isy
Occasional
Papers in
Diane August
Bilingual
Education
With the assistance of
Kenji Hakuta
Delia Pompa
U.S. OSPANTMENT OF
EDUCATION
Othc a Eaucbonat
Remarch AM Improvement
-PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
c?,
INFORMATION
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
CENTER (ERIC)
clocumont has team
'produced
'10roivooj
from MO 0110/1 Or
organize/aft
ongmatmp it
O
Minor chance* Nye
bw+
to Wo0f0VO
reproduction
Pom10114o or oderontlatclin
thdoCu
mini do 1101 necilaattly
rar1 °thaw
Fall
OERI matron pr ockY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERICI
1994
2
BEST COrl AVAILABLE
The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education
(NCBE) is funded by the U.S. Department of Education's
Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages
Affairs (OBEMLA) and is operated under Contract No.
T292008001 by The George Washington University,
Graduate School of Education and Human Develop-
ment. The contents of this publication do not necessarily
reflect the views or policies of the Department of Educa-
tion, nor does the mention of trade names, commercial
products, or organizations imply endorsement Ey the U.S.
Government. Readers are free to duplicate and use these
materials in keeping with accepted publication standards.
NCBE requests that proper credit be given in the event of
reproduction.
Director: Joel Gomez
NCBE Editor: Minerva Gorena
Publications Manager: Omar Shabka
\fie
The
n
as
S
university
WASHINGTON CC
;
IIIIII11--
Contents
Executive bum
1
5
Discussion Paper
19
Appendix A: Specific Recononendations
27
Appendix 9: Perticipents
4
FOR ALL STUDENT$
veloped, as well as teaching standards for English
in addition,
as a second language teachers.
For All Students:
content standards in English must be certified
that are calibrated to aspects of the language that
Limited English Proficient
need to be learned by English as a second lan-
guage (ESL) students, but are otherwise not
Students and Goals 20001
addressed by content standards for English lan-
guage arts. Tile relationship between these new
ESL standards and content standards in English
language arts will ne:-d to be worked out through
future research/development efforts and collab-
Executive Summary
oration between groups that are developing stan-
dards in these areas. The content standards for
English as a second language should be accom-
The following recommendations are offered
panied by standards for teaching and assess-
to ensure that limited English proficient (LEP)
ment.
children are consideredand includedin
sweeping proposals now embodied in
The standards should also acknowledge the im-
Goals
portance of the abilities in the non-English
2000.
languages of LEP students, through the devel-
opment of foreign language standards that ac-
Inclusion at All Levels
It is es,,ential that persons knowledgeable and
commodate these students who speak the for-
concerned about the education of LEP students
eign language as a native language.
be included in national, state, and local panels
We recommend the certification of additional
and be encouraged to attend public hearings and
performance standards in the content areas to
participate in evaluative and analytical studies of
programs that include LEP students. LEP stu-
measure the progress of LEP students until they
dents must also be included in all aspects of
reform activities. For example, state and local
This paper is based on several meetings on LEP students
plans should address the unique needs and con-
'
and systemic education reform that have taken place over
tributions of LEP students.
the past two years, and the documents that have resulted
from them. These include meetings of the Stanford Work-
Group on Federal Education Programs for Limited -
ing
The Standards sod the Opportunity to Achieve no
and its resulting document,
English- Proficient Students
The content standards should reflect the best
Blueprint for the Second Generation
(sponsored by the
available knowledge about how LEP students
Carnegie Corporation of New York); two Washington,
learn and about how the content can be most
DC, meetings on Standards and Assessment and LEP
Students and a meeting summary document (sponsored by
Moreover, they
effectively taught to them.
the U.S. Department of Education, the Carnegie Corpora-
should incorporate the cultural background
tion, and the MacArthur Foundation); and regional meet-
and life experiences of culturally diverse chil-
ings to discuss the implications of systemic reform on the
education of I.EP students at the local and state levels
dren.
(sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation and the Carn-
egie Corporation). A list of participants at the Washington
Because limited English proficient students have
ystemic Reform and LEP students is includ-
meetings on Systemic'
to acquire English language skills and knowl-
ed .1 Appendix B. The document was drafted principally
by Diane August, with editorial assistance from Kenji
edge that students who arrive in school speaking
Hakuta and Delia Pompa, and innumerable contributions
English already possess, supplemental perfor-
from the participalts in our m^,tings, as well as other
mance and assessment standards should be de-
experts in the education of LEP
nts.
5
FOR All STUDENTS
2
These modifications might entail: altering the
can be classified as fully English proficient and
procedures used to administer the assessments;
thus held to the same performance standards as
modifying the assessment itself so it is more
native English speakers.
comprehensible to LEP students; using alterna-
tive assessments; and employing computer-as-
Setting high expectations for all children will
sisted assessments that are tailored to the lan-
further the cause of educational equity, provided
guage needs and content knowledge of LEP
that appropriate, high-quality instruction and
si.aclents. In all instances, however, it is impor-
other essential resources are available. We pro-
pose that States establish a multi-faceted ap-
tant to ensure that assessments are equivalent in
content and rigor to those used to measure the
proach to enhancing opportunitics to learn with
It is not
progress of fluent English speakers.
provisions to ensure that the unique educational
imperative that these assessments be the same as
needs of LEP students are met. This approach
those given to fluent English speakers. Howev-
should include both the enforcement of a core
er, to gauge the progress of LEP students, the
set of standards as well as the use of "indirect"
strategies to build the capacity of schools and
assessments must remain comparable over time.
school districts, and continuing study of the
Until the psychometric issues underlying these
effectiveness of the various kinds of programs
assessments have been addressed, and until mech-
that will be developed.
anisms to ensure opportunities to learn have
Ammon
been fully implemented, these assessments should
not be used in high stakes 'testing for students
If LEP students are not assessed, no one can
disaggregated by LEP status.
really be held accountable for what these stu-
dents know and can do in important content
In keeping with the opportunity-to-learn model
areas. Thus, we recommend that states develop
proposed in this paper, we recommend that
performance assessments that are appropriate
states evaluate the extent to which schools and
for LEP students.
districts implement the "core standards" as well
as the merit of indirect strategies in improving
LEP students who are instructed in their native
LEP student access and participation in high
language should be assessed in that language.
quality learning.
LEP students who are better able to demonstrate
content knowledge in their native language,
even though they have not received native lan-
Accountability
guage instruction, should also be assessed in
States should develop systems ofschooi and LEA
accountability that fully incorporate LEP stu-
their native language. The native language as-
dents. Performance assessments that are devel-
sessments should parallel content assessments
oped should be administered to a sample of
and performance standards in Enosh. States
students adequate to provide statistically stable
w:th substantial numbers of LEP students in
estimates for schools and subgroups of students
given language groups should include a process
in their state plan for developing or borrowing
below.
(from other states or entities such as large school
In the case of LEP students for whom adequate
districts with substantial LEP students) content
assessments in the native language are not avail-
area assessments in languages other than English.
able and for whom English language assessments
are inappropriate, schools may choose to waive
Modifications in assessments and assessment
content performance assessments conducted in
procedures should be encouraged to enable LEP
English. However, states must use alternative
students to take content assessments in English.
AUGUST ET Al.
methods to hold schools accountable for the
Native American issues
progress of LEP children who have not been
Two major issues related to the participation of
assessed. One option is to require schools to
Native American gc rernmental groups in the
count LEP student assessment scores as zero for
process include (1) the participation
Goals 2000
these students. Another option is CO monitor the
of tribes in the formulation of plans, standards,
progress of LEP students through other means
and assessments in the areas of Native American
such as teacher ratings and grades.
language and culture, and (2) the role of tribes in
coordinating such plans, standards, and assess-
States should set a limit on how long LEI'
ments across district or state lines. In
Goals
students can be waived from taking the same
2000, Native American governments and their
performance assessments in English as their
tribal education departments' seem to have been
English-speaking peers. This should be based on
inadvertently marginalized or excluded.
their English proficiency levels rather than years
in school or in English-only programs.
We recommend, therefore, that in schools or
districts with substantial minority or majority
States should collect and report data on stu-
populations of Native American children from
a given tribe, the appropriate departments of
dents' performance in the content areas for the
school, district, and state as a whole, disaggregat-
education as well as the parents of these children
ed by LEP status of the students. In so doing,
be involved in formulating educational plans,
states should determine what constitutes ade-
standards, and assessments, especially as they
quate progress for all students, including LEP
relate to the language and culture of these tribes.
students. In making this determination, states
We further recommend that tribal divisions of
should consider the results of the required assess-
education, as well as parents of Native American
children, help coordinate Native American lan-
ments as well as other measures ofschool success,
such as grade retention and dropout rates. In
guage and culture plans, standards, and assess-
cases where LEP students fail to make adequate
ments across districts and states where there are
progress, the state should take corrective action,
schools with majorities or substantial minorities
including but not limited to ensuring the imple-
of students from a given tribe. The educational
mentation of opportunity-to-learn standards.
unit with which the tribal government collabo-
rates will depend upon the distribution of Na-
tive American students from any given tribe.
Research and Development
There is a considerable need for research and
Finally, to address these complex issues and
development if LEP students are to be equitably
and fully incorporated into systemic rc-orm.
possible solutions, we recommend that the De-
Many of the research and development issues
partment of Education convene a special meet-
apply to all students, e.g., how to ensure that
ing of representatives from the Native American
community, including tribal departments of
schools have the resources to educate students
education, to further discuss the implementa-
without creating an excessively prescriptive ac-
tion of
(and the Improving Ameri-
countability system, or how to make alternative
Goals 2000
ca's Schools ActIASA) for Native American
performance assessments sufficiently reliable and
students.
valid such that they can be used for accountabil-
ity purposes. Certain issues related to instruc-
tion, opportunity-to-learn, and assessment that
The term "tribal education department" refers to that
are specific to LEP students and that need re-
=
part of a tribe's government, if any, that deals mainly with
search and development are elaborated in the
It does not refer to the Indian Education
education.
paper.
Department of a state government.
FOR ALL STOMATA
7
to develop and adapt curricula and training
Nstional Skill Stow Ikrds fiord
materials for limited English proficient students
The National Skill Standards Board (Title V of
is required to endorse voluntary
Gals 2 000)
that will enable them to meet the skill standards.
,
Finally, because very few organizations have
skill standards that are not discriminatory with
experience with LEP students, technical assis-
respect to, among other things, race, color, eth-
tance must be provided to the voluntary partner-
nicity, or national origin, consistent with federal
ships to enable them to develop skill standards
civil rights laws. To ensure that LEP students
and assessments that meet the unique needs and
have access to the full range of skills to prepare
strengths of limited English proficient students.
them for employment at every level, we recom-
mend that the National Skill Standards Board
The law requires a nondiscriminatory assess-
include persons with expertise in preparing LEP
ment and certification system with respect to
students for the workforce, with special consid-
race, color, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, dis-
eration given to individuals from organizations,
ability, or national origin. We recommend that
agencies, and institutions that have historically
assessments ofworkferce skills be developed and
been involved in educating language minority
conducted in the native languages of students
students for the workplace. Voluntary partner-
substantially represented in the United States so
ships, established to develop standards in iden-
that LEP students can demonstrate workplace
tified occupational clusters, should also include
knowledge and skills in their native language.
persons with expertise in the education of LEP
We also recommend the development of assess-
students. Further, we recommend that the skill
ment procedures to determine that LEP stu-
standards that are developed be responsive to
dents have sufficient English proficiency to suc-
LEP students.
cessfully communicate in the workplace. English
in the
proficiency should also include facilit:
Title V authorizes research, dissemination, and
language specific to a given profession.
coordination to support the work of the volun-
tary partnerships and the Skill Standards Board.
Finally, in evaluating the implementation of
We recommend that research be conducted to
skill standards, and assessment and certification
determine how best to prepare LEP students to
systems, we recommend that the evaluations
attain the skill standards. In addition, research
address the extent to which LEP students suc-
on how to assess these students to determine if
they have met the skill standards is urgently
ceed at meeting the skill standards.
needed. Moreover, there must be a serious effort
5
Ramon Cortines, has undertaken the develop-
ment of a curriculum framework for all the city's
For All Students:
public schools. According to the Chancellor,
standards are needed to address vast differences
Limited English Proficient
in the material taught to certain grades in each of
the city's schools and community school districts.'
Students and Goals 2000
This movement toward setting high standards is
accompanied by a general recognition that the
system must be for all students, including limited
English proficient students. We welcome lan-
A Discussion Paper 3
guage in Goals 2000 that defines "all students"
as meaning "students or children from a broad
range of backgrounds and circumstances, in-
cluding among others, students or children with
limited English proficiency." However, there
he parade marking the advent of stan-
has not been an explicit analysis of how to
dards-based reform has left town hall.
On March 31, 1994, President Clin-
incorporate LEP6students into systemic reform.
ton signed into law the Goals 2000.
Educate America Art, an Act that cod-
The general recognition that the system must be
ifies in law the national education goals and
for all students is backed by civil rights laws that
provides resources to states and communities to
govern the administration of all Federal aid to
develop and implement systemic 'education re-
educational institutions. Title VI of the Civil
forms aimed at helping all students reach chal-
Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination on the
basis of race, color, and national origin. The
lenging academic and occupational standards.
U.S. Department of Education interprets the
Already, there are many endeavors to develop
Act and its implementing regulations to require
content and performance standards in different
academic areas and to create assessments that are
' Comments on this document are welcome. They should be
aligned with these standards. Content standards
Kenji Hakuta, School of Education, (ERAS
addressed to:
are being developed or have been developed by
Bldg., Stanford University, Stanford, CA. 94305; fax: 415
professional organizations of teachers and schol-
723 -7578.
ars in English, mathematics, science, history,
Pechman, E. M. & LaGuardia, K. G.Status of New State
geography, foreign languages, citizenship/civics,
Curriculum Frameworks, Standards, Assessments, and Mon-
the arts and other subjects. The New Standards
itoring Systems (Washington, D.C.: Policy Studies Associ-
Project is developing and field-testing innova-
ates, 1993).
tive assessments tied to some of the new content
"N.Y.C. to Develop Curriculum Standards for All
standards.
Schools." Education Week, Nov. 17, 1993.
Throughout our discussions, we have been aware of the
States and districts have also been very involved
possibly pejorative connotation of the LEP acronym. Al-
in some aspects of systemic reform. At least 45
though some interesting alternatives were suggested and
states have created or are preparing new curric-
have been used in the course ofour discussions, we felt that
the term had been significantly institutionalized in impor-
ulum frameworks, while at least 26 states and the
tant areas such as those that bz.:ar on the counts of such
District of Columbia will be dealing with edu-
students, and that changing terminology at the present
cational standards in 1994.4 New York City,
time would result in confusion and possible damage to the
under the guidance of Schools Chancellor,
progress that has been made.
ALL STUDENTS
FO
part of the change is to address the current
that school districts address the language related
needs of LEP students; this interpretation has
fragmentation of educational services.
States
now play a limited role in Title VII (Bilingual
Lau
been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in
U.S. 563 (1974). Section 1703(f)
v. Nichols, .14
Education Act) projects which in turn are rarely
(7E0A)
coordinated with Chapter 1 (Title I), migrant
ofthe
Equal EducationalOpportunity A..-
of 1975 also lays out the responsibilities of
education, or other federal or state efforts."
school districts toward the education of LEP
students. The EEOA stipulates that failure to
take appropriate steps to educate LEP students
There is extremely limited information at the national
level on the outcomes for LEP students because major
constitutes a violation of equal educational op-
national studies, such as NAEP and NELS, exclude LEP
portunity.
students due to the unavailability of instruments in lan-
guages other than English. However, data from NELS on
eihth grade Hispanic students show significant under-
This paper is an attempt to highlight the sub-
achievement (approximately 30 percent failure to achieve
stantive issues that arise in incorporating LEP
basic levels of performance in reading and 36 percent in
students into systemic reform. Further, it makes
math) and even among students who were judged to have
recommendations for how to address these is-
sufficient proficiency in English to take the tests, "those
with low proficiency in English failed at a much higher rate
sues. Because state and local efforts in this area
than did students with high proficiency" (NCES, Language
will most likely be coordinated around the frame-
Characteristics and Academic Achievement: A Look at Asian
work of
the recommendations, for
Goals 2000,
and Hispanic Eighth Graders in NELS:88 [Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, February 19921).
the most part, follow the format of the Act. The
Preliminary data collected on a national sample of 1.EP
analysis and recommendations are our first at-
students during the 1991-92 school year indicate that of
tempt to define and shape the national dialogue
2.3 million school-aged children nationwide, approxi-
mately 200,000 LEP students were assigned to grade levels
on how LEP students might profit from this new
at least 2 years lower than age-grade norms. H. Fleischman,
paradigm.
P. flopstock, and A. Zehler, "PreliminaryFindingsfiom the
National Descriptive Study of Services for Limited English
Vision ter Refers
Proficient Students "(Paper presented at the AERA meeting,
Atlanta, April 1993).
School failure persists among a disproportionate
number of language minority students.' For
N C: ES , Are Hispanic Dropout Rates Related to Migration?
Hispanics and Native Americans, dropout rates
OERI Educational Research List (TCSVM): Hispanic Drop-
out Rates (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Educa-
remain far higher than for other groups." Those
tion, November 14, 1992); Hispanics' Schooling: Risk Fac-
who stay in school dun graduate without the
tors for Dropping Out and Barriers to Resuming Education.
rigorous preparation needed to compete in the job
General Accounting Office, July, 1994 (GAO/PEMD-94-
24). See also Indian Nations at Risk, (U.S. Department of
market. Large numbers of LEP children contin-
Education) p. 7.
ue to receive instruction that is substandard to
what English speakers receive.° This amounts to
" For a well-dozumented case of California, see P. Berman,
a two-tiered system of education, with challeng-
J. Chambers, P. Gandara, B. McLaughlin, C. Minicucci,
B. Nelson, L. Olsen, and 1'. Parrish, Meeting the Challenge
ing curriculum for some and mediocrity for the
oflinguistic Diversity: An Evaluation ofPrograms fir Pupils
rest. There is an urgent need to address the
with Limited Proficiency in English (Berkeley, Calif: BW
school failure of LEP students given current
also CCSSO, School Success for
Associates, 1992).
Limited English Proficient Students: The Challenge and State
demographic trends. The U.S. Census Bureau
Response. (Council of Chief State School Officers, Febru-
reports that the number of U.S. residents who
ary, 1990).
"do not speak English very well" is growing at a
very fast rate-37.3 percent during the: 1980s.'°
Numbers and Needc, 2, 4 (Jul. 1992, p. 1).
10
" For example, the Westat study reported regular coordi-
Fundamental changes are clearly in order, yet
nation between Chapter 1 and bilingual education offices
the mechanisms have been elusive. A necessary
in only one of six SEAs surveyed; Providing Chapter 1
AMU ET AL
1 0