Latino Students in California Schools

“The Majority Report: Supporting the Educational Success of Latino Students in California” provides an extensive look at how the state’s largest ethnic group is faring at every level of California’s education system. The report finds that while the over 3 million Latino students in K-12 schools are the majority of California’s 6.2 million K-12 population, and nearly 1 million Latino students are in California’s public colleges and universities, these students continue to face troubling inequities from early learning through higher education. California’s Latino students:

·       Attend the nation’s most segregated schools;

·       Are often tracked away from college-preparatory coursework;

·       Are sometimes perceived as less academically capable than their White or Asian peers; and

·       Have insufficient access to early childhood education;

·       Are less likely to feel connected to their school environment;

·       Are more likely to be required to take remedial courses at colleges and universities.

The study also highlights bright spots throughout the state where promising practices are helping Latino students advance academically, dispelling the myth that these gaps cannot be closed, and reiterating the need for more action and urgency from state leaders.

The Majority Report includes a policy timeline and infographic and is accompanied by a data tool looking at achievement gaps by county.

Produced by Ed Trust – West.  Nov. 2017.

https://west.edtrust.org/resource/the-majority-report/

Researchers criticize Arizona school treatment of English Learners

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/07/08/36arizona.h29.html?tkn=USZF%2B33KLyBnvWBqCQXaJnq8852IbM5w2FXg&cmp=clp-edweek


Be sure to note Margaret Garcia Dugan's comment that the teachers they talk to "love the program" and that based on the state's reclassifcation rates, the program works, especially if it is adhered to "with fidelity." 
The program separates students for up to 4 hours per day of intensive instruction in English.
 

English Learners and Test Scores

The Organization California Together Responds to the publication of California STAR test results. August 18,2009.

“System Failure; For the seventh straight year, the achievement gap between English Learners and English proficient children has widened. The State Board of Education and State Superintendent equally share the blame for what can only be described as a system failure. Children, parents, teachers and administrators deserve better.

The reforms of the State Board of Education, Superintendent O’Connell and the Secretary of Education have not kept their promise of closing the achievement gap. The system has failed nearly 1.6 million English Learners, 25% of California’s student population.”

Note: California’s school accountability program relies upon testing only in English. Thus, they do not accurately test the 1.6 million English Language learners. The accountability measures focus only on English and have severe negative consequences for some schools. When that school has a large percentage of English Language Learners, the testing is not valid nor reliable.
We are rewarding some schools and teachers, and punishing others, based upon non reliable and non valid measurements.
Distributed at California State Senate Latino Caucus event.
www.californiatogether.org

State Superintendent Jack O’Connell:
Aug. 18,2009. On the CDE web site:

"The number one priority of my office is to close this persistent achievement gap that deprives too many students of color opportunities to succeed in school and in life,' O'Connell said. "We must continue to push our education system to better serve all students. I remain committed to making changes at the state level to support the work being done at the school and district level to close the gap.'
The performance of African American students and Hispanic students continues to lag behind that of white, Asian, and Filipino students regardless of economic status in most cases. (Tables 3, 4, 8 and 9) The 2009 STAR data reveal that the percentage of not economically disadvantaged African American students (35 percent) achieving the proficient level and above in math is eight percentage points lower than economically disadvantaged white students (43 percent) achieving at the same level. Likewise, the percentage of not economically disadvantaged Hispanic students (41 percent) achieving at high levels in math remains two percentage points lower than that of the economically disadvantaged white students (43 percent). The lone exception to this situation is the percentage of Hispanic students who are not economically disadvantaged scoring proficient or above in English language arts is two percentage points higher than the white students who are economically disadvantaged.
Under the STAR program, California students attain one of five levels of performance on the CSTs for each subject tested: advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic. The State Board of Education has established the proficient level as the desired achievement goal for all students. The proficient level represents a solid performance. Students demonstrate a competent and adequate understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area. This goal is consistent with school growth targets for state accountability and the federal No Child Left Behind requirements. The state target is for all students to score at the proficient or advanced levels.

See the following post on ELL learners and Race to the top.

Race to the top

The Honorable Arne Duncan
U.S. Secretary of Education
Washington, DC

Dear Secretary Duncan,

The $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund presents you with a unique opportunity. By using this program to reward boldness and creativity, you could support a wide range of projects to expand the knowledge base about teaching and learning, fostering valuable innovations in our nation’s schools.

Unfortunately, your proposed priorities for Race to the Top would squander that opportunity by restricting federal funding to a set of preconceived notions about “reform,” which may be ideologically fashionable but are largely unsupported by scientific research.

Our organization is especially concerned by your insistence that standardized test scores be used as part of teacher-compensation systems. In the absence of evidence that such a change would be beneficial, it would be irresponsible – not to mention undemocratic – to force states to bring their laws into conformance with your plan.

As evidence for this mandate, your proposal cites only a handful of economists, far removed from actual classrooms, who were unable to isolate the observable characteristics of effective teachers – “effective” as determined by their students’ test scores. So, the logic goes, why not just evaluate and pay teachers on the basis of those scores rather than on their years of teaching experience or academic credentials?

Perhaps, lacking any background in education, the economists were “observing” in the wrong places and failed to consider the myriad of talents and skills that inspire children to learn. Or maybe their study designs were slanted, consciously or otherwise, to bolster a hypothesis that monetary incentives based on test data are key to improving teacher quality. (Several of the authors are members of the Future of American Education working group at the American Enterprise Institute, which is associated with that position.) Whatever the case, your proposal is based on research that is admittedly inconclusive and on a theory of teacher motivation that remains unproven.

The grant criteria would also place an undue reliance on standardized tests that offer, at best, a blurry snapshot of student progress. For English language learners (ELLs) in particular, such tests are rarely valid or reliable. Because these students cannot fully show what they have learned when assessed in a language they have yet to master, their scores typically lag far behind those of English-proficient peers. If teachers are to be penalized for an “achievement gap” over which they have no control, how many will want to teach ELLs? It is also well established that these children’s progress in speaking, comprehending, reading, and writing English is never a straight-line trajectory.[1] How could any “growth model” fairly accommodate that reality?

During his campaign, President Obama raised hopes that his administration would limit the uses (and abuses) of high-stakes testing. But paying teachers on the basis of test scores can only raise those stakes, at considerable cost to kids.

Surely, Mr. Duncan, you must be aware of the growing body of evidence about the perverse effects of high-stakes testing: narrowing the curriculum, teaching to the test, stressing basic skills over critical thinking, limiting bilingual instruction, unfairly labeling and sanctioning schools, demoralizing dedicated educators, fostering corrupt practices, encouraging educational triage, and – worst of all – creating incentives to push low-scoring students out of school before test day.[2]

Or perhaps you, like the economists you cite, are unfamiliar with what takes place in actual classrooms after your ceremonial visits are over. So here’s a basketball analogy that you and the President should be able to appreciate.

Suppose that NBA team owners woke up one day and decided they no longer trusted scouts and coaches to rate players. There were just too many unobservable traits that required human judgments to assess: motivation, leadership, flexibility, ability to work as a team, court smarts, and so forth. It wasn’t clear how those characteristics correlated with player effectiveness, as measured by objective performance data. How could the owners tell whether they were getting their money’s worth? So they decided it would be simpler to pay the players based on a single measure: points scored per game.

You can imagine how that would work out. The long jump-shot would be highly valued, while skills like ball-handling, rebounding, and assists would be expendable. Nobody would pass the ball or worry about playing defense. In fact, the players would all be competing against their own teammates in an individual “race to the top.” Winning wouldn’t matter anymore – only point totals. Basketball would be an entirely new game, drudgery to play or watch. But whoever said it had to be fun?

Can you now envision how schooling, a far more complex endeavor than basketball, might be harmed by a pay system that gives significant weight to one crude performance indicator? You yourself have complained about the quality of standardized tests. So how can you propose a central role for such tests in making major decisions about teachers, which, in turn, could have cascading, negative effects on their students?

We encourage you to rethink this approach and consider not only the potential waste of federal funds but, more importantly, the potential damage likely to be done by Race to the Top as presently conceived.

You might also consider the need for a kind of Hippocratic Oath among self-styled school reformers: First, do no harm. Or to put it another way: Until you have solid evidence to support your policies, don’t try to impose them on our schools.

Sincerely,

James Crawford, President
Institute for Language and Education Policy


[1] See, e.g., De Avila, E. (1997), Setting Expected Gains for Non and Limited English Proficient Students, NCBE Resource Collection Series, No. 8, Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

[2] Nichols, S.L., and Berliner, D.C. (2007), Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press; McNeil, L.M., Coppola, E., Radigan, J., and Heilig, J.V., (2008), “Avoidable Losses: High-Stakes Testing and the Dropout Crisis,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 16, No. 3; Menken, K., (2008), English Language Learners Left Behind: Standardized Testing as Language Policy, Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.

English Learners and NCLB

An Equity Agenda for English Language Learners
A Seven-Point Plan by the Institute for Language and Education Policy
P.O. Box 5960, Takoma Park, MD 20913; www.elladvocates.org

In recent years the educational needs of English language learners (ELLs) have been, at best, an afterthought
for policy-makers. As a result:

• Decisions affecting ELLs are often made on the basis of political expediency, not sound research.
• School programs for ELLs are under-resourced in every state and at the federal level.
• Most teachers with ELLs in their classrooms have limited training in effective ways to serve them.
• All-English teaching methods are on the increase, despite their generally inferior results for ELLs.
• The parents of ELLs are rarely kept informed about, or involved in, their education.
• The vast majority of academic assessments now provided to ELLs are inappropriate for second-
language learners.
• So are the one-size-fits-all provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which sets unreachable
targets for an ELL “subgroup” that is constantly changing.
• While the law imposes detailed sanctions for “failure” by ELLs, it offers no guidance whatsoever to help
improve instruction.

Thus it is hardly surprising that English language learners – the fastest-growing group of American students –
also have among the highest failure and dropout rates. These children deserve better.

ELL Advocates

Dear Colleague:

Please join with us in building the Institute for Language and Education Policy, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting research-based policies for educating English and heritage-language learners.

Details about our activities, founders, bylaws, and organizational structure may be viewed at http://www.elladvocates.org/. Information on how to become a member of the Institute appears below.

We believe that our mission has never been more critical. In a time of misguided “accountability” measures, high-stakes testing, cutbacks in school funding, and English-only activism, strong advocacy for children is essential. Scientific knowledge about what works -- not political ideology or expedience -- must guide public policy.

Our goals are ambitious:

– Encourage and disseminate research on education policy and practice.
– Educate the public and policymakers about the benefits of bilingual and heritage-language education for individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole.
– Represent the needs of English language learners as Congress moves to reauthorize -- and, we hope, reform -- the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
– Support grassroots efforts by local and professional organizations to secure adequate resources for quality language programs at all levels.
– Combat English-only legislation that threatens to restrict the rights and educational prospects of language-minority Americans.
– Create professional development opportunities for educational practitioners.

To succeed in these efforts, we need your help. One way is to volunteer your time and talents -- for example, by organizing meetings in your school or community, contacting members of Congress, or writing articles for our web site.

Another way is to become a member of the Institute -- just fill out and return the application below -- and provide financial support for our advocacy work. The annual membership fee is $50 for professionals, $25 for parents and full-time students. Contributions over and above those amounts are naturally welcome. Our membership form is attached below. For a Web version, please click on http://www.elladvocates.org/documents/Announcing.pdf.

Member benefits include participation in an email listserv to discuss legislative and policy developments; access to the latest research on educating English and heritage language learners; eligibility to participate in Institute elections and to serve on professional committees; and a 25% online discount on books published by Multilingual Matters. Additional benefits in the planning stage -- which we hope to provide soon -- include a monthly newsletter and online access to the new International Multilingual Research Journal.

Since incorporating as a nonprofit group last year, the Institute has signed up members in 29 states and several foreign countries, including many leaders in our field who are dedicated to advocacy for English and heritage-language learners. We urge you to join with us in this important cause.

James Crawford, President
Institute for Language and Education Policy


Institute for Language and Education Policy
P.O. Box 5960
Takoma Park, MD 20913
bilingualed@starpower.net
www.elladvocates.org

Improving ELL in California

"Obvious" Ways to Improve Education of ELLs in California
Providing learning materials and making available assessments in students' native languages, and hiring teachers and staff who speak students' primary languages are some of the "obvious" ways that California schools could improve how they teach English-language learners, according to a couple of researchers in the state.

I find it interesting that Patricia Gándara, a professor of education at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Russell W. Rumberger, a professor of education at the University of California, Santa Barbara, have chosen the word "obvious" in their recent recommendation for an increase in the use of students' native languages in a state where voters approved a ballot initiative in 1998 to try to get rid of bilingual education.

What's obvious to the researchers was OBVIOUSLY not obvious to many Californians in 1998, and I wonder if much has changed since then. (Readers, tell me what you think.) Though Proposition 227 provides a way for schools to provide bilingual education through a parent waiver process, the number of English-learners in bilingual education has decreased dramatically since the initiative's passage.

But Ms. Gándara and Mr. Rumberger persist in trying to get the word out that research findings indicate closing the achievement gap between language-minority students and students who speak only English (See Claude Goldenberg's glossary) is most likely to occur with a bilingual curriculum. Their view and others they hold for how to improve education for English-language learners in California based on their research or review of research are published in a 4-page summary of a study, "Resource Needs for California's English Learners," released last week along with 22 other studies about the financing and governance of public education in California. Education Week's Linda Jacobson wrote an article about the studies.

Also last week, Mr. Rumberger published an article analyzing research data showing that Spanish-speaking, language-minority students in California aren't doing as well in keeping up with their peers who speak only English as are their counterparts nationwide. The results of Mr. Rumberger's analysis "call into question California's current efforts to educate the state's growing linguistic-minority population--especially Spanish-speaking students--and to close the sizeable achievement gap with other students," he writes.

He doesn't mention Proposition 227 in his article, which was published in a newsletter of the University of California's Linguistic Minority Research Institute and which I wrote about for Report Roundup on Education Week's Web site.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr on March 19, 2007 10:51 AM | Permalink
Mary Ann Zehr writes for Education Week.

Testing the limits of NCLB

Testing the Limits of No Child Left Behind

By James Crawford
Hispanic Link News Service, 25 February 2007

A grassroots rebellion against the No Child Left Behind Act is sprouting all over the country. It’s long overdue. What’s surprising is that the most active opposition is growing in a conservative state. And it’s being waged on behalf of immigrant children.

State and local officials in Virginia are defying a federal order to test these students in a language they don’t fully understand. U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings insists that, after just one year in United States schools, children learning English must take the same standardized tests as native-English speakers – regardless of the language barrier.

About 70,000 students in Virginia are now classified as English language learners. Many would be set up to fail if the feds get their way.

School boards throughout the state are voting to resist the mandate, which they consider unreasonable and harmful to children. Fairfax County, for example, is among several districts that have resolved to use assessments for English learners only when they are “fair, valid, reliable and appropriate.”

By doing so, Virginia schools risk losing millions in federal funding. The state’s Republican-controlled legislature, anticipating that outcome, is making plans to sue Secretary Spellings.

This is not about evading “accountability.” Virginia already requires schools to assess students’ progress in learning English. For several years they have been using such tests – which serve a valid educational purpose – to determine whether students are making “adequate yearly progress” under the requirements of No Child Left Behind.

But Spellings says that’s no longer good enough. All students must tested for “grade level proficiency,” she argues, or they will be left behind.

Never mind that assessment experts say English-language achievement tests are “neither valid nor reliable” for English learners. In other words, we can’t count on such tests to generate meaningful information about student progress – a reality that even the U.S. Department of Education does not dispute.

“English language learners are far more likely to fail standardized tests than native English-speakers,” says Queens College professor Kate Menken. But “this does not indicate that the students or those who educate them are failing” – only that the tests are not designed to measure what these children have learned.

Drawing on her research in New York City, Menken warns that using invalid tests to make educational decisions often “results in classroom teaching strategies that are inappropriate for English language learners.” Schools feel increasing pressure to teach to the test and to eliminate effective programs like bilingual education.

Yet this is precisely what the Bush Administration is demanding. “High stakes” are attached to grade-level assessments, and No Child Left Behind requires that all kids be tested. Where scores are low, schools must be labeled failures and subjected to sanctions. Educators can ultimately lose their jobs.

What better way to give English learners an early taste of failure? To stigmatize them as a burden to their schools? And to discourage instruction in their native language, because students must “perform” in English or else?

The federal mandate is a bit like requiring hospitals to use faulty thermometers to measure every patient’s temperature, then relying on the results to rate doctors’ performance and make decisions about medical care.

Nonsensical rules are not unknown in the federal bureaucracy, but the requirement to use invalid tests is in a class by itself. What’s really going on here?

In a word: politics.

No Child Left Behind was the centerpiece of “compassionate conservatism,” the strategy that put George Bush in the White House. With the law up for extension in Congress this year, the Administration is trying to bolster its rationale.

Schools will never do a good job for Hispanics, the logic goes, unless they are forced to do so. High-stakes testing, backed up by the threat of harsh penalties, provides a handy crowbar.

So what if the system is irrational, unfair, and unlikely to improve instruction? By making public education look bad, it will pave the way for privatization – the Right-Wingers’ ultimate goal.

Blaming the schools also diverts attention from the real causes of underachievement. These are much tougher and more expensive to address: poverty, family illiteracy, inadequate health care, inequities in school spending, and a shortage of teachers trained to meet the needs of Left Behind groups, including English learners.

When the nation finally gets serious about providing excellent schools for all kids, this is where we will invest our resources – not in additional tests of dubious value. Meanwhile, let’s hope the Virginia rebellion continues to spread.


James Crawford is President of the Institute for Language and Education Policy.