a comparison of english and spanish assessment measures of readin

University of IowaIowa Research Online

Theses and Dissertations

2014

A comparison of English and Spanish assessmentmeasures of reading and math development forHispanic dual language studentsLisa M. StevensonUniversity of Iowa

Copyright 2014 Lisa M Stevenson

This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4764

Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd

Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons

Recommended CitationStevenson, Lisa M.. "A comparison of English and Spanish assessment measures of reading and math development for Hispanic duallanguage students." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2014.http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4764.

http://ir.uiowa.edu?utm_source=ir.uiowa.edu%2Fetd%2F4764&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://ir.uiowa.edu/etd?utm_source=ir.uiowa.edu%2Fetd%2F4764&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://ir.uiowa.edu/etd?utm_source=ir.uiowa.edu%2Fetd%2F4764&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/787?utm_source=ir.uiowa.edu%2Fetd%2F4764&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

A COMPARISON OF ENGLISH AND SPANISH ASSESSMENT MEASURES

OF READING AND MATH DEVELOPMENT

FOR HISPANIC DUAL LANGUAGE STUDENTS

by

Lisa M. Stevenson

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the Doctor of

Philosophy degree in Educational Policy and Leadership Studies

(Educational Administration)

in the Graduate College of

The University of Iowa

May 2014

Thesis Supervisor: Associate Professor Liz Hollingworth

Copyright by

LISA M. STEVENSON

2014

All Rights Reserved

Graduate College

The University of Iowa

Iowa City, Iowa

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

________________________

PH.D. THESIS

________________

This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of

Lisa M. Stevenson

has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Educational Policy and Leadership Studies (Educational Administration) at the May 2014 graduation.

Thesis Committee:

Liz Hollingworth, Thesis Supervisor

James Maxey

Lia Plakans

Pamela Wesely

Ernest Pascarella

Howard Smith

ii

To Maya, Malik, and Macy

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe my most abundant thanks to my patient advisor, Dr. Liz Hollingworth. She

believed in me through all of the revisions and my job changes. I also would like to

thank my committee members for their time, knowledge, and expertise: Drs. James

Maxey, Ernest Pascarella, Lia Plakans, Pam Wesely, and Howard Smith. Each of the

committee members shared their wealth of resources with me and encouraged me to

reflect and finish. I did not have many classes with most of the members as I had

transferred back to The University of Iowa, but all of the members listened to me and

understood my passion about the topics of bilingual education, language acquisition,

standardized testing, and No Child Left Behind. My courses, comprehensive

examinations, and dissertation spanned the course of five years which also gave me a

chance to learn from so many other great professors including Drs. Susan Lagos-Lavenz,

Marc Haack, and Alan Henkin.

I am also extremely grateful for the most patient husband in the entire world. He

never once told me to stop and for far too many years has been the constant stable in our

home for our three children. My oldest daughter Maya always encouraged me by telling

me that I had to finish since we were both not going to be in college at the same time.

My son Malik and my daughter Macy have never had a mom who wasnt a full-time

elementary principal and doctoral student. They are going to be so happy to have me

back after graduation.

I am thankful for my extended family and friends both old and new. My mother

Vicki Danner and father Joe Danner havent always understood why I am so driven to

write about bilingual education and standardized testing, but they never questioned me.

My sisters Jennifer Gorrell and Gretchen Steines have been waiting a long time for me to

get through school and I know they, their husbands, and my nieces and nephew will be

here to cheer me on and celebrate. My childhood friends from Dubuque and my friends

iv

from adulthood also deserve a big thank you from me as they have pitched in and helped

in so many ways whether it was an encouraging message online or driving one of my

children to an event. Their encouragement is priceless.

Lastly, I would like to thank my past and present colleagues and superintendents

who supported my efforts. It is extremely difficult to be a full-time public school

administrator and doctoral student at The University of Iowa. There were many times

when I had to step back from projects at work, but my fellow principals, my teachers, my

staff, and my superintendents all have waited patiently cheering me on. They are as

excited as I am that I have finished my study and can share my research with others.

Teaching and language acquisition have been my passion for almost 25 years. I

have always loved languages and studying other cultures. I have been so fortunate to be

able to learn, live, and grow as a student, teacher, and administrator in environments

surrounded by my passions. I hope that my work inspires others to advocate for those

that cannot always advocate for themselves.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) ............................................................................... 5 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 6 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 8 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 10

Iowas NCLB Approach ................................................................................ 12 Impact of NCLB in Iowa ............................................................................... 14

Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 15 Federal Policy Effects on ELs ....................................................................... 17

Research Questions ............................................................................................... 18 Organization .......................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................................................... 22

Program Models for Bilingual Education ............................................................. 22 Bilingual Program Type Overview ............................................................... 27 Program Approaches ..................................................................................... 27 Study Model .................................................................................................. 37

History of Two-Way Immersion Programs .......................................................... 38 The Models of Bilingualism: Separate Underlying Proficiency or Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) ............................................................................. 40

Benefits of Bilingualism ................................................................................ 42 Barriers Impacting Bilingual Education Programming ................................. 47

Achievement and Standardized Testing................................................................ 49 Native Language Standardized Testing ......................................................... 50 Monolingual Assessment Practices ............................................................... 51

Native Language Testing: Translation, Adaptation, or Parallel Development ..... 53 Validity .......................................................................................................... 54 Reliability, Consistency and Equity .............................................................. 55 Accountability ............................................................................................... 57 Standardized Testing Concerns ..................................................................... 58

Bilingual Program Student Testing Outcomes ..................................................... 60 Assessing the Assessments ................................................................................... 61

Case Studies in Dual Language and Related Fields ...................................... 65 Summary ............................................................................................................... 65

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 66

Data Sources ......................................................................................................... 67 The Research Site .......................................................................................... 67 Regal Community School District Funding .................................................. 69

Participants ............................................................................................................ 70 Participant Selection ...................................................................................... 70 Testing Groups .............................................................................................. 71

vi

Test Instruments .................................................................................................... 74 Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) ................................................................. 74 Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) .......................................... 78 Logramos ....................................................................................................... 81 Assessment Summary .................................................................................... 85

Data Analysis Methods and Procedures ............................................................... 85 Consenting/Assenting Procedures ................................................................. 85 Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................... 86 Sampling Procedures and Sample Size ......................................................... 86 Data Sources .................................................................................................. 88

Research Questions ............................................................................................... 91 Summary ............................................................................................................... 91

CHAPTER IV - RESULTS ............................................................................................ 94

Results for Research Question One ...................................................................... 95 National Grade Level Equivalency Reading Comparisons ........................... 95 Percentage Proficient Reading Comparisons ................................................ 98 ITBS/ITED Reading and Logramos Percentage Proficiency Comparison by Graduating Cohorts .............................................................. 99 Results for Reading ..................................................................................... 100

Results for Research Question Two .................................................................... 101 National Grade Level Equivalency Math Comparisons .............................. 101 Percentage Proficient Math Comparisons ................................................... 103 ITBS/ITED Math and Logramos Math Percentage Proficiency Comparison by Graduating Cohorts ............................................................ 104 Study Results ............................................................................................... 104

Matched Pairs Comparison ................................................................................. 105 All Cohorts .......................................................................................................... 106 Summary ............................................................................................................. 108

CHAPTER V - DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS ..................... 111

Summary of the Study ........................................................................................ 111 Summary of the Findings and Implications ........................................................ 111

Research Question One ............................................................................... 112 Research Question Two ............................................................................... 114 Comparison of Research Question Results ................................................. 116

Limitations of the Study...................................................................................... 118 Implications for Education .................................................................................. 120

School Leadership Influence on ELs and Hispanics Development .......... 121 Language Acquisition and Dual Language Future Programs ..................... 124 Public Policies and Support of Bilingualism ............................................... 124 NCLB and Native Language Testing .......................................................... 125

Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 125 Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................. 128

APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY of TERMS .................................................................... 130

APPENDIX B - SAMPLE TEST ITEMS .................................................................... 135

APPENDIX C - SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD APPROVAL .................................... 138

vii

APPENDIX D - UNIVERSITY OF IOWA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ....................................................... 146

APPENDIX E - PERCENTAGE PROFICIENT READING COMPARISONS ......... 148

APPENDIX F - PERCENTAGE PROFICIENT MATH COMPARISONS ................ 157

APPENDIX G - COMPARISONS OF MATCHED PAIRS RESULTS ..................... 165

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 173

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Critical Dates in Bilingual Education History ................................................. 2

Table 2. Non-English Primary Languages in Iowa ...................................................... 16

Table 3. English Language and Bilingual Program Models ........................................ 23

Table 4. Effects of Aging on Bilinguals and Non-Bilinguals ...................................... 45

Table 5. Student Class Cohort Size for English Reading and Math Assessment ........ 72

Table 6. Student Class Cohort Size Comparison for Spanish Reading and Math Assessment .................................................................................................... 73

Table 7. Levels of Testing for ITBS ............................................................................. 75

Table 8. ITBS/ITED/Logramos Testing Windows and Forms Used ............................ 85

Table 9. Demographics of Study Participants............................................................... 87

Table 10. Data Sources by Research Question .............................................................. 92

Table 11. Comparisons on Reading National Grade Level Equivalency (NGE) Between Logramos and ITBS/ITED for the Combined 2011-2018 Cohorts .......................................................................................................... 96

Table 12. Comparisons on Math National Grade Level Equivalency (NGE) Between Logramos and ITBS/ITED for the Combined 2011-2018 Cohorts ........................................................................................................ 101

Table 13. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (All Cohorts by Grade) ................................................................................ 106

Table 14. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (All Cohorts by Grade) ....................................................................................... 107

Table 15. Reading and Math Test Results Comparisons ............................................. 117

Table E1. Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2018 (3-6 Years in Dual Language Program) ...................................................... 148



ix


Table E5. Percentage of Students at Reading Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2014 (6-10 Years in Dual Language Program) .................................................... 152




Table F1. Percentage of Students at Math Proficiency (41st National Percentile Rank or Higher) at Each Grade Level by Class of 2018 (3-6 Years in Dual Language Program) ............................................................................ 157








x

Table G1. Comparison of Logramos NGE Reading vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Reading (Class of 2018) ............................................................................................ 165

Table G2. Comparison of Logramos NGE Math vs. ITBS/ITED NGE Math (Class of 2018) ............................................................................................ 165















xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. English Achievement of ELs: Long-Term K-12 Standardized Tests in English Reading Across Seven Programs ....................................................... 36

Figure 2. Ethnic Breakdown of Regalville Population .................................................... 68

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, a former teacher who believed that equal

access to education was vital to a child's ability to lead a productive life, worked with

Congress to provide funding to improve the educational opportunities of economically

disadvantaged students (Weisbrod, 1965). The nation's largest federal elementary and

secondary education program, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and

the legislation that has come after it shape educational policy and practice in classrooms

throughout the United States.

The law initially consisted of six titles that result in the federal government

providing funding to 90% of the nation's public and parochial schools. As originally

conceived, Title I provided funding and guidelines; Title II funded the purchase of library

materials and audio/visual equipment; Title III provided funding for programs for

students "at risk" of school failure, including after-school, radio and television,

counseling, and foreign language programs; Title IV provided funding for college and

university research on education; Title V provided funding to individual state

departments of education; and Title VI laid out the law's general provisions (Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965).

Because educational conditions change over time, Congress reviews and revises

the law as necessary, reauthorizing ESEA several times since its initial passage in 1965.

Critical dates relative to ESEA and bilingualism are presented in Table 1. ESEA was

amended in 1968 to include Title VII, the Bilingual Education Act (BEA), to

educate limited English proficient children and youth to meet the same rigorous standards for academic performance expected of all children and youth, including meeting challenging State content standards and challenging State student performance standards in academic areas by developing systemic improvement and reform of educational programs serving limited English proficient students through the development and implementation of exemplary bilingual education programs and special alternative instruction programs(Bilingual Education Act, 1968).

2

Table 1. Critical Dates in Bilingual Education History

Event Public Law

Date Passed

Purpose

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

89-10 1965 ESEA originally provided legal authority for the U.S. governments financial support of K-12 education, setting funding limits and establishing legal requirements for state and local education agencies, universities, Native American tribes, and other entities receiving federal assistance through programs such as Title I.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1969

91-230 1969 These amendments to ESEA authorized comprehensive planning and evaluation grants to state education agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs) and established a National Commission on School Finance.

Bilingual Education Act (BEA)

90-247 93-380 95-561 98-511 100-297 103-382

1968 1974 1978 1984 1988 1994

Added Title VII, BEA, which provided discretionary, supplemental funding (federal aid) for school districts that established programs to meet the special educational needs of children with limited English speaking ability.

The 1978 amendment to the act (PL 95-561) provided a transition to English-speaking classes. BEA also was amended in 1974 (PL 93-380), 1984 (PL 98-511), 1988 (PL 100-297), 1994 (PL 103-382), and 2001 as part of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

Lau v. Nichols 414 U.S. 563

1974 Ruling on Limited English Proficient education, in Lau v. Nichols the Supreme Court ruled that school districts must provide remedies for non-English-speaking children for meaningful education. (Identical is not equal.)

Department of Education Organization Act

96-88 1979 Signed by President Carter, established the cabinet-level department known as the Department of Education.

Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA)

97-35 1981 ESEA consolidated and simplified the administration of Federal elementary and secondary education programs to eliminate unnecessary paperwork and undue Federal interference in our nation's schools.

3

Table 1. (cont.)

Event Public Law

Date Passed

Purpose

Goals 2000: Educate America Act (EAA)

103-227 1994 EAA added two goals to the National Educational Goalsincreased parental involvement and professional development for teachers. Also provided support to states to develop standards and assessments.

Improving Americas Schools Act (ISEA)

103-382 1994 Through ISEA, Title I was revised to require all students (including economically disadvantaged) be assessed against the same standards, which states were developing with support from Goals 2000; schools with low performance were to be identified and provided extra assistance as schools "in need of improvement."

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

107-110 2001 NCLB requires that all students be proficient (determined by individual state Department of Education) in reading, mathematics, and science by 2014, with Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measures to determine school success; annual standardized tests (developed by the states) in grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics; reports from all schools by disaggregated groups of students; sanctions on schools not meeting AYP requirements; plans to close achievement gaps.

English Language Acquisition Act (ELAA)

107-110 2001 Sections 3101 and 3102 of NCLB constitute the ELAA, which replaces the Bilingual Education Act and requires that LEP students be tested in English after three years in the U.S.

This act also changed the name of the US Department of Education Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs to Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English-Proficient Students (OELA).

Source: Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English-Proficient Students (OELA), retrieved from http:// http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html.

Note: Tables containing important terms and acronyms used in this document are provided in Appendix A.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html

4

Title VII focuses on language instruction for limited English-proficient (LEP) and

immigrant students, helping to ensure that LEP and immigrant children attain English

language proficiency and meet the same challenging academic content and achievement

standards that all children are expected to meet.

The 1971 Supreme Court case, Lau v. Nichols, raised public awareness of equal

education opportunities for K-12 English language learners. This class action suit was

brought when the San Francisco, California, school system was integrated with 2,800

Chinese students who did not speak English. A portion of these students received

additional courses in English, while more than half did not. According to the U.S.

Supreme Court, as stated in their 1974 decision, When children arrive in school with

little or no English-speaking ability, sink or swim instruction is a violation of their civil

rights (Lau v. Nichols, 1974).

During the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Education Consolidation

and Improvement Act (ECIA) in 1981 to reduce federal regulations of Title I, placing

resource control in the hands of states and local jurisdictions rather than at a federal level

and cutting federal aid to schools (Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act). An

attempt to remedy these alterations occurred in the 1994 Improving Americas Schools

Act (IASA), which significantly revised the original ESEA. The IASA attempted to

coordinate federal resources and policies with the pre-existing efforts at the state and

local levels in order to improve instruction for all students. This reform made three major

changes to Title I: (1) adding math and reading/language arts standards to be used to

assess student progress and provide accountability; (2) reducing the threshold for schools

to implement school wide programs from 75% poverty to 50%; and (3) increasing the

opportunity to use federal funding from multiple programs to dispense funds at a school

wide level (Improving Americas Schools Act of 1994).

The most recent and significant alteration to ESEA was made by President

George W. Bush in 2001 when Congress reauthorized the legislation as No Child Left

5

Behind (NCLB), including the English Language Acquisition Act (ELAA), which

changed the way that non-English speaking students are tested in the United States.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Prior to 2001, the ESEA recognized the unique educational disadvantages faced

by non-English speaking students. The BEA established a federal policy to assist

educational agencies serving students with limited English proficiency by authorizing

supporting funding (Bilingual Education Act of 1968), but the change from the BEA to

NCLB increased accountability for ELs on English language proficiency and content area

standards on the state and local level while removing federal financial support for

bilingual education programs. With the onset of NCLB, Crawford (2002) stated,

Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which transformed the way language minority children are taught in the United States - promoting equal access to the curriculum, training a generation of educators, and fostering achievement among students- expired quietly on Jan. 8, 2002. (p. 124)

Under ESEA, state and local educational agencies worked under the direction of

federal agencies, but were not held publicly accountable for the educational achievement

of ELs. Under NCLB, yearly standardized tests in reading, math, and science under the

direction and responsibility of state and local education agencies were mandated to

measure how schools were performing against the achievement bars set by Title I, but did

not provide the funding to perform this education and testing. Title III of NCLB included

EL students as Limited English Proficient (LEP) children, addressing the EL students

needs so that EL students attain English language proficiency, develop high levels of

academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging state-determined levels of

academic content (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001).

To accomplish these goals, each state was instructed to create an integrated

system of English language proficiency standards (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001).

NCLB also provides for accountability and measuring of progress. The shift in policy

was evident even in the change of the name of the office responsible for addressing the

6

needs of ELs from the Office of Bilingual Education and Language Minority Affairs to

the Office of English Language Acquisition (Crawford, 2002). .

Statement of the Problem

Since 2000, the federal government has built a case for the need for bilingual

education by focusing on the international and economic advantages of bilingualism for

American youth. Even though the international and economic advantages have been

noted, there appears to be a disconnect between the governments support of bilingual

education as it relates to national growth compared to the governments message in

NCLB which requires annual standardized testing for all students, including ELs, with

sanctions involved for those schools and districts that do not show adequate yearly

progress with all students including ELs. Richard W. Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education

from 1993 to 2001, addressed the nation on April 19, 2000 with his vision for bilingual

education for the country.

I am a strong supporter of high-quality dual-immersion schools that help children to learn English and another language. We currently have 260 of these types of schools in the United States. I believe we should raise that number to at least 1,000. Currently, we are requesting $310 million in bilingual education programs that could support these types of schools. This is a $54 million increase over last year. (Riley, 2000)

His support was crucial to ongoing funding for the development and research of best

practices in dual language education in the last decade. According to Jose Ruiz-

Escalante, president of the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE), Rileys

vision, along with other factors, has contributed to nearly 2,000 dual language programs,

while other bilingual education programs have decreased in number (Wilson, 2011).

The legislative and philosophical changes have caused issues revolving around

the methods, techniques, and strategies used to promote the reading and writing skills of

ELs in three major areas: teacher availability, teaching resources, and testing assessment.

Bilingual education in the United States does not always incorporate English-Spanish, but

the majority of programs use that combination (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2012).

7

The availability of native speakers of Spanish in the elementary school lends itself to the

choice of Spanish instead of other less spoken languages in the United States. According

to the Center for Applied Linguistics (2012b), 394 of the 427 dual language programs in

the United States use Spanish and English as their languages of instruction; other

languages include Chinese, French, Korean, Japanese, German, and Italian.

NCLB did not prohibit states from utilizing assessments that were written in

languages other than English. The lack of native language assessments in the federal

accountability workbooks may have been due more to fiscal and time constraints than of

intentional decisions by state-level administrators. However, the level of competence can

interfere with the test performance of students who are not yet proficient in the language.

The content test is also a language test for those students, which means that a reading test

or math test may be a test of both reading ability and English language skills, not just

reading ability, which is a problem for students who are not yet fluent English speakers

(Abedi, 2004).

The underlying hypothesis of this study is that academic skills may be more

appropriately assessed in the students first language. By definition, students who qualify

for EL services are non-English or limited-English speakers. Their second language

limitations have a direct impact on their ability to understand, speak, read, and write the

English language. The annual reading comprehension tests are much more a measure of

a students level of English language skills than of a students reading skills. Abedi and

Dietel (2004) supported this claim:

The test becomes a measure of two skills for the ELL student: subject and language. When ELL students are allowed to demonstrate their ability to apply reading comprehension skills in their dominant language, they generally have higher levels of performance as compared to their performance in English which is their second language. (p. 2)

Given this knowledgethat more accurate assessment occurs when testing in a students

native or dominant languagethen why do some states and districts continue to only test

8

ELs in English? This study concentrates on this dilemma, focusing on testing and

assessment in both English and the ELs native language.

Significance of the Study

There is an increasing number of students for whom English is a second language.

Achieving high levels of achievement at the same pace as native English speakers is

unrealistic for ELs. Fry (2009) reported that as a result of the rapid growth in minority

students and flat growth among white students, 287 of the nations 2,808 suburban school

districts have become majority-minority school districts since 1993-94. According to the

2000 U.S. Census, the number of Americans who speak a language other than English

increased by 47% between the years 1990 and 2000. School-aged children representing

heritage (language spoken in the home) languages other than English and who spoke the

English language with difficulty increased 114% between 1979 and 2004 (Planty et al.,

2009). The growing EL population presents large challenges for public education to meet

the federal requirements of NCLB for providing bilingual solutions in schools.

Various program models across the United States serve the English language

acquisition needs of K-12 students identified as in need of specific English language

instruction in addition to their general education curriculum. These program models

serve students who use English only at home and those who use a language other than

English at home, which is the framework used by De Jess (2008). All of the bilingual

program models, both transitional and dual language, are used throughout the United

States and have had empirical research conducted to gauge their effectiveness in relation

to increasing academic achievement for ELs. A review of that research is presented in

Chapter II. Basic characteristics of program models as characterized by De Jess (2008),

Baker (2011), Howard et al., (2007) and Rennie (1993) are explained in Chapter II.

This study focuses on testing results for Hispanic students in a dual language two-

way immersion (TWI) model program. TWI is the chosen program design for this school

district for a variety of reasons including student demographics, teacher qualifications,

9

community support, and financial feasibility. The community, including the school

board, administrators, parents, teachers, and community have voiced strong feelings that

TWI is the best model as it is how the ELs learn best in their community and that it is

best for non-ELs, too, to learn a language in addition to their native language. The TWI

model in the study includes a 50/50 Spanish/English model for K through 5 and then a

class period Spanish/English model approximately 65% English and 35% Spanish in

terms of language of the course for grades 6 through 12. Finally, this program includes

both native and non-native speakers of Spanish to represent the language majority and

language minority balance needed in a TWI program model. Features and empirical

research associated with TWI programs are detailed in Chapter II.

The premise of TWI programs is to provide academic success, to value the

heritage language and cultures represented in the classroom, as well as to erase the stigma

of students deemed as subordinates in other programs (Collier, 1992). This type of

additive bilingualism, in which all students are provided the opportunity to acquire a

second language at no cost to their home language (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000),

is the basis for a model in local schools that can be a benefit for ELs and language

majority students, but can still carry the pressures created by NCLB for accountability.

According to Abedi (2004), if ELs are taking only the assessments for reading and math

in English, they may not be accurately represented in terms of their proficiency with

grade level skills due to issues of English language acquisition levels, not due to issues

with reading and/or math skills. These lower levels of proficiency contribute in NCLB to

schools and school districts being labeled as failing and/or in need of assistance.

This is the challenge faced by the statesthey have flexibility in meeting English

language proficiency standards, but must make wise choices, since their funding is

dependent on their success. The main reported benefits of additive bilingualism focus on

academic achievement, English language acquisition, and engagement in the learning

process (Collier, 1995). School districts and states are willing to balance the pressure of

10

achieving high levels of academic achievement with the benefits of acquiring a second

language while learning English because research demonstrates that additive bilingualism

models like TWI or dual language produce results. Thomas and Collier (2002) found that

ELs who enroll in dual language programs achieve a greater academic level compared

with ELs enrolled in other bilingual program models.

The results of this research study are important because they may impact what

program models and methods that local school districts choose to use to help Hispanic

and/or EL students learn grade level content material and learn the English language. If

students in dual language programs like the one found in this school district show that,

when tested in reading and math in their native language of Spanish, students achieve at

significantly higher levels, then more school districts might consider dual language

programming as an option. Also, if the student achievement data show different levels of

achievement for reading as compared to math in English or Spanish, then the study may

lead to further conversations about how to close the gap between the two content areas of

reading and math for ELs.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which the language of

testing in reading and math had a positive effect on 50/50 dual language program

Hispanic students reading and math achievement level as measured by a standardized

achievement test. This chapter focuses on the history of educational policies, but

introduces the present and anticipated effects of educational testing practices related to

No Child Left Behind. This study examines a school district in Iowa serving students in

pre-kindergarten through 12th

grade that chose to offer dual language TWI

(Spanish/English) instruction to its students. Iowa, like other states, has experienced a

large increase in ELs since NCLB began in 2001. There were 20,000 EL students in

Iowa during the 2008-2009 school year, which was more than double the number

reported in 1998-1999 (Iowa Department of Education, 2009a, p. 55). Over 1,245

11

students were being educated in the district according to 2011-2012 student enrollment

data, with more than half of the enrolled students classified as Hispanic. The district in

this study uses the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), the Iowa Tests of Educational

Development (ITED), both presented in English, and the Spanish test Logramos to

evaluate student achievement. The reading and math results of Hispanic students are

compared in this study by content area and by language of the test to determine if the

Hispanic students, on average, achieve at higher levels as measured by national grade

equivalency (NGE) when testing in Spanish versus English.

According to Iowa state standards, English language assessments may include

utilizing state, local or nationally recognized tests, as well as teacher observations and

recommendations (Iowa Administrative Code, 2009). Additionally, the Iowa Title III -

Enrollment Status Descriptors provide specific guidance for placing students in

educational programs based on both English language proficiency and general

achievement levels and provides specific guidance for placing students in educational

programs based on both English language proficiency and general achievement levels.

English language use both in the classroom and outside of school is positively associated

with the development of English proficiency (CAL, 2011). The Hispanic students in this

study were tested for reading and math standardized achievement results in both the

English and Spanish versions of the grade level assessments. In Iowa, the reported

assessments are written in English.

This study is an examination of the academic progress of eight cohorts toward the

goal of math and reading proficiency in Spanish and in English over a five-year window

of collected testing data. According to the data collected in the Iowa Department of

Education (DOE) Annual Condition of Education (2009b) report, Spanish is the first

language of over 73.8% of the identified ELs in Iowa. The second and third most

reported primary language in Iowa after Spanish were Bosnian and Vietnamese, which

were the only other languages that had more than 500 speakers. Bosnian and Vietnamese

12

were each reported at 4.2% of the total EL student population in Iowa. In 2008-2009,

there were more than 15,000 ELL students and almost three of every four or 73.7% of

those EL students in Iowa reported that Spanish was their primary language (Iowa

Department of Education, 2009b, p. 55). The results of this study will be generalizable to

other states, as ELs are a rapidly growing subgroup in most of the United States and

according to the 2000 U.S. Census, the number of Americans who speak a language other

than English increased by 47% between the years 1990 and 2000.

The growing subgroup is required to attain proficiency in math and reading on

standardized assessments, even though students might not yet have reached proficiency in

the English language. When the Hispanic subgroup fails to achieve a high enough level

of proficiency in reading and math on state standardized assessments, local school

districts face sanctions by the state department of education and programming options for

Hispanic students who are learning English come under scrutiny by the public.

Iowas NCLB Approach

When NCLB was enacted, state departments of education were required to create

accountability workbooks that delineated which reading, math, and science assessments

would be used at particular grade levels, including the testing of ELs (No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001). The chosen assessments in Iowa received rigorous evaluation and

scrutiny in terms of their ability to demonstrate reliability and validity as technical

instruments. The results (Badgett, Buckendahl, & Rodeck, 2006) suggested that the Iowa

Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) for grades 2 through 8 and Iowa Tests of Educational

Development (ITED) for grades 9 through 11 were well aligned with Iowas content

standards. These results were used by the Iowa Department of Education (DOE) and

school districts to evaluate local curriculum and instruction. The Buros Center for

Testing, an independent organization, completed a report for the Iowa DOE that provided

another source which validated the alignment of the ITBS and ITED tests to state

standards for the state (Badgett, Buckendahl, & Rodeck, 2006). ELs were assessed in

13

reading, math, and science with the ITBS and/or ITED (Iowa Consolidated State

Application Accountability Workbook, 2011b, p.8). The only permissible modification

from the Iowa DOE was that ELs in the first year of schooling in Iowa were exempt from

the Reading test and instead were allowed to count as participants since they were

assessed with the state English language development assessment in reading (Iowa

Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2011b, p.8).

In 2012, local school districts in Iowa only report students English reading

comprehension scores per the Iowa Accountability Workbook. The Iowa Accountability

Workbook states that all limited English-proficient (LEP) students participate in

statewide assessments: general assessments with or without accommodations or a native

language version of the general assessment based on grade level standards (Iowa

Accountability Workbook, 2011b, p. 28). Further, according to the Iowa Accountability

Workbook, all ELs must participate in an English language proficiency assessment

annually, as per Title III guidelines. For ELs in their first year of enrollment in US

schools (defined as up to 180 school days of enrollment), English language proficiency

assessment constitutes their participation in reading for purposes of reporting Adequate

Yearly Progress (AYP) (participation rate calculation) only. Students participate in the

states accountability assessment in math, which constitutes their participation in

mathematics for AYP purposes (participation rate calculation); however, these students

will not be included in calculations for annual measurable objectives (AMO) for reading

or mathematics in any appropriate membership subgroups (as per US ED guidance).

(Iowa Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2011b, p.28).

In Iowa, the state accountability workbook application noted the need to use the

required assessments, ITBS and ITED, even though the increased number of Iowa

students with non-English primary language is clearly evident (Iowa Department of

Education, 2002, p. 24). The Buros Report further recognized the need for a more

14

delineated system of assessment for ELs and those resources available to districts seeking

additional measurements of ELs reading and mathematical skills.

Impact of NCLB in Iowa

Iowa education agencies are required to identify Schools in Need of Assistance

(SINA) and Districts in Need of Assistance (DINA). NCLB requires that SINAs and

DINAs develop a two-year plan to address deficiencies. A search of the schools and

districts in Iowa named as deficient shows disproportionality because schools with higher

than average numbers of ELs are identified more frequently as SINAs. For the 2009-

2010 school year, 24 school districts in Iowa were considered DINAs out of the 364 total

school districts. Of these 24 districts, eight comprise the Urban Education Network,

which refers to the eight largest school districts in Iowa in terms of student enrollment

and includes Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Des Moines, Dubuque, Council Bluffs, Waterloo,

Sioux City, and Davenport. Of the other DINA districts, seven contain some of the

highest concentrations of Hispanics and ELs, including Ottumwa, Muscatine, West

Liberty, Denison, South Tama, and Marshalltown (Iowa Department of Education, 2010).

The highest percentages of students in Iowa who speak a language other than English and

qualify for LEP status come from the ethnic subgroup of Hispanic.

The districts with the highest percentages of ELs are disproportionately

represented on the Iowa DINA list for not meeting AYP in reading or math as measured

by the ITBS or ITED. According to the Iowa DOE website, of the 16 public school

districts with the highest percentage of ELs (>10%) 8 of the 16 are on the Iowa DINA

list. This means that of the 24 school districts on the Iowa DINA list, about one-third are

in DINA status due to Hispanic and/or EL subgroup data. Though some groups may

reach proficiency in as little as two years, according to Collier (1992), it is projected that

EL students on average will take four to eight years of second language acquisition to

fully master social English language and academic English language as measured on

standardized tests. Given the observations noted from former and current EL consultants

15

at the state level, local school districts are faced with an assessment situation for ELs that

language acquisition research has shown will result in non-proficient status for the

students (Dr. Carmen Sosa, personal communication, 2008).

The number of ELs in Iowa, similar to the rest of the United States, has risen

considerably in recent years and reached 500,601 or 4.76% EL students in grades PK

through 12 in 2012 (Iowa Department of Education, 2013). Table 2 demonstrates the

growth and diversity of languages spoken in Iowa. For example, Iowas status as a

refugee home for the United Nations explains the sudden increase in population from

South Sudan. If the Iowa policy is set at a one-year exemption and then a student is fully

accountable, what other options exist for EL students who are learning English and

academic content simultaneously? One option permissible via the Iowa Federal

Accountability Workbook is to use native language math, reading and/or science tests in

place of or in addition to the ITBS and ITED.

Conceptual Framework

Historically, the United States excluded the participation of ELs from large scale

student assessment programs, which brought about concerns regarding the influences of

language proficiency and academic achievement. The Abedi et al. study (2004) frames

the problem for the Hispanic dual language students in this study because these students

take standardized assessments in their second language (English) and these results are

used for AYP decisions as an example of their academic achievement without regard for

language proficiency levels among the EL subgroup. Discussion on the validity and

reliability of instruments administered in the students second language (L2) has been

ongoing by experts in the field, administrators, and teachers in the classroom. Chapter II

will explore the literature on standardized testing issues for ELs more thoroughly.

16

Table 2. Non-English Primary Languages in Iowa

Language 2000-2001 2009-2010 2010-2011

Spanish; Castilian 7,014 15,552 15,886

Vietnamese 766 823 881

Bosnian 363 828 810

Serbian, Srpski 434 0 0

Serbo-Croatian 556 0 0

Tai Dam 142 0 0

Arabic 81 383 413

Lao 409 360 324

Chinese 80 288 311

Karen languages 0 130 217

Russian 65 202 195

Somali 0 150 159

Swahili 0 136 158

Rundi 0 100 146

German 153 123 142

Marshallese 0 121 136

Korean 76 122 125

Nilo-Saharan (Other) 0 115 112

Dinka 0 90 97

Creoles and pidgins, English

based (Other)

0 57 91

Cambodian 101 56 0

Nepali 0 55 80

Hmong 0 51 78

17

Table 2. Continued

Language 2000-2001 2009-2010 2010-2011

Burmese 0 0 76

Tagalog 0 55 67

French 0 0 65

Ukrainian 0 58 62

Urdu 0 61 62

Pohnpeian 0 0 59

Other 1024 1358 1352

Source: Iowa Department of Education, Bureau of Information and Analysis, Basic Educational Data Survey and EASIER, www.educateiowa.gov, 2011b.

Federal Policy Effects on ELs

As of February 2004, the U.S. DOE allowed states to not count the scores of

newly arrived ELs in their AYP for the first year, but still encouraged all ELs to be tested

(Echevarria et al., 2006). That allowance has had a negative result for ELs because most

tests now used were designed for native English speakers. As the acting director of the

National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) in 2004, Crawford summarized the

failure of NCLB to improve programming or academic results for ELs, noting that NABE

supported NCLB in 2001 initially, as the NABE hoped that NCLB would bring attention

to the lack of public accountability and limited sources of funding and attention that ELs

were receiving. Many ELs were not receiving an intellectually challenging educational

experience or sufficient material resources to promote English language acquisition

(Crawford, 2004). He further noted that NCLB failed to recognize what makes the EL

subgroup unique as how the EL subgroup itself is a problematic construct. The EL

subgroup needs benchmarks and valid assessments to measure growth, though according

18

to Crawford (2004), NCLB guidelines do not recognize the pressing issues of mobility,

diversity, socioeconomic status, level of prior education, type of instructional program

experience, and linguistic and cultural background.

Hursh (2005) observes that NCLB marks a change in the level of school control

as it moves from local educational agencies to state and federal agencies. By requiring

standardized achievement tests and state accountability systems, principals, teachers, and

students will be responsible for schools that fail, but many schools across the United

States are failing to meet the NCLB accountability requirements for AYP due to these

very testing constraints. According to Hursh (2005):

Even if the tests were well constructed and valid, the yardstick by which schools are measuredadequate yearly academic progress (AYP)often discriminates against schools serving students of colour and living in poverty. The determination of whether a school is making AYP tells us little about whether a school is improving. Not only can we question the validity of the tests but the determination of success or failure may have little to do with whether the school is improving (pp. 612-613).

NCLB, according to Hursh (2005), has transferred control from local and state

agencies to the federal level under the guise that standardized testing and accountability

would cause teachers to be more responsible and students to achieve at higher levels.

The push for competitiveness in a global economy, the lessening of inequality, and the

presence of more objective assessments were the driving forces behind the NCLB reform.

Although these goals were admirable, Hursh (2005) reflects that the NCLB reform has

not met its goals, as indicated by the fact that the achievement gap between advantaged

and disadvantaged students has increased.

Research Questions

This study examines the results on the reading and math achievement on

standardized English and Spanish assessments of Hispanic students who are enrolled in a

50/50 English-Spanish dual language program. The design features analysis of the

assessment results of Hispanic dual language students reading and math skills over a

five-year window in both English and Spanish which provided the researcher the

19

opportunity to examine the development and interrelationships among skills in the two

languages. The research questions guiding this study are:

1. Is there a statistical difference in reading achievement for Hispanic 50/50 English-

Spanish dual language program students when testing data is disaggregated

linguistically?

To resolve this question, the following null hypothesis was examined and tested:

Null Hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the

reading achievement of Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language

program students when testing data is disaggregated linguistically.

2. Is there a statistical difference in math achievement for Hispanic 50/50 English-

Spanish dual language program students when testing data is disaggregated

linguistically?

To resolve this question, the following null hypothesis was examined and tested:

Null Hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the math

achievement of Hispanic 50/50 English and Spanish dual language program

students when testing data is disaggregated linguistically.

If the Hispanic dual language students are assessed in reading and math in

Spanish in accordance with NCLB standards, the students will achieve at higher levels of

proficiency than when they are assessed in English. Those higher levels of achievement

are a result of participation in a dual language program, where the Hispanic students

benefit from math and reading content and instruction without the interference of lack of

proficiency in English.

The results of this study will potentially inform second language program design,

standardized testing practices, native language testing use, and policy modifications to

NCLB regarding AYP for ELs. In terms of second language program design, if the

results of this study demonstrate that Hispanic students and/or ELs achieve at higher

levels and/or at grade level in reading and math when measured by Spanish language

20

assessments, then more schools and districts may consider implementing additive

bilingual programs like dual language to replicate these results. Standardized testing

practices may change as a result of this study because ELs are a fluid group that

combines newcomers with little to no English with ELs who are ready to transition to

general education classes only. Their results as one subgroup are not representative of

EL achievement due to these vast differences in language proficiency; therefore, ELs

need more time before being accountable to AYP for math and reading. Native language

testing use might become more widespread for AYP purposes if schools, districts, or

states see that Hispanic and/or EL students are able to make AYP if tested at grade level

in reading and math, but on an assessment written in their native language. Finally, there

might be policy modification to NCLB to account for this research and prior research that

demonstrates that ELs are not able to demonstrate adequately their knowledge or

command of grade level reading and math skills on an assessment written in English

without more systemic modifications or accommodations. All of these implications will

inform the field of educational leadership as teachers, administrators, and politicians

work to best understand how to serve and teach ELs in such a way that produces the

greatest academic achievements for all.

Organization

This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter I is an introduction to this

research study and includes general introductory information, NCLB background, a

statement of the problem, significance and purpose of the study, NCLB in Iowa and its

impact, conceptual framework including discussion of programming, control,

accountability, and standardized testing concerns, and the studys research questions.

Chapter II includes a review of the related research and literature regarding theories of

bilingual education, models of bilingualism, achievement and standardized testing, native

language testing, and bilingual testing outcomes. Chapter III describes the research

methodology, which includes data sources, participants, test instruments, and data

21

analysis methods and procedures. Chapter IV presents results from data collected during

the study in relation to the research questions, an analysis of the matched pairs' results,

and a qualitative analysis of those results. Chapter V details a summary of the study,

findings, implications for further research, limitations of this research, and

recommendations for future research. Appendices A through G provide a glossary,

NCLB and Title I/III definitions, bilingual program model explanations, sample test

items from ITBS/ITED and Logramos, charts of percentage proficient comparisons for

reading and math, charts of matched pairs test results, and The University of Iowa

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to conduct the study.

22

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This review includes theories of bilingual education, bilingualism, achievement

and standardized testing, native language testing, and testing outcomes for bilingual

students. Because many factors impact the success or failure of educating bilingual

students, it is critical to examine the five factors as they relate to this study. The first

factor involves a review of program models for bilingual education, an overview of

bilingual program types and approaches, as well as the bilingual program used in this

research study. Secondly, the literature review includes a history of Two-Way

Immersion (TWI), theories of bilingualism, and barriers that impact bilingual education

programming. Then the review includes information about achievement and

standardized testing including information about native language testing and

accommodations for English Language Learners (ELs). The literature review ends with a

review of the research about testing outcomes for students in bilingual programs.

Program Models for Bilingual Education

Although standardized testing is the means used to assess the knowledge of ELs,

of equal importance is the program model selected by state and local administrators to

educate ELs. Various program models across the United States serve the English

language acquisition needs of K-12 students identified as in need of specific English

language instruction in addition to their general education curriculum. The models can

be divided into those that use English only and those that use a language other than

English, which is the framework used by De Jess (2008). Both transitional and dual

language models are used throughout the United States and have had empirical research

conducted to gauge their effectiveness in relation to increasing academic achievement for

ELs. The program models, along with each models research source, are provided in

Table 3.

23

Table 3. English Language and Bilingual Program Models

Program Model Source(s) Description

English Language Only

English-Only Pull-Out or Class Period or Resource Center

Rennie (1993) Students learn English as a stand-alone subject/class.

Common in elementary and middle schools

English-Only Sheltered English or Content-based Instruction

Rennie (1993) Baker (2011)

Students learn English while in other academic content classes such as science and math.

Common in high schools

Structured English Immersion (SEI)

Rennie (1993) Teacher has English as a Second Language (ESL) or bilingual credentials or training

ELs native language is only used for clarification

English is taught through the content areas

No explicit English instruction

Submersion Baker (2011) Students are completely immersed in mainstream language classroom with no specialized language services.

This has been referred to as the sink or swim approach.

Transitional Bilingual

Bilingual Early Exit

De Jess (2008)

Initial instruction in students first language to teach English, to teach reading in the second language, and/or clarify.

First language use is phased out over 1 to 2 years.

Bilingual Late Exit (maintenance or enrichment)

De Jess (2008)

Initial instruction in students first language to teach English and to clarify instruction.

First-language use is maintained at initial level of student in maintenance model

First language use is expanded for student in enrichment model

Dual-Language

Two-Way (TWI)

Baker (2011) De Jess (2008) Howard et. al (2007)

Instructional group includes language minority and language majority students.

Instruction is provided in both languages at a 50/50 ratio, but may be at a 90/10 ratio depending on program goals.

24

Table 3. Continued

Program Model Source(s) Description

One-Way Howard et al., (2007)

Instructional group includes language minority students who all speak a single language.

Instruction is provided in both languages at a 50/50 ratio, but may be at a 90/10 ratio depending on program goals.

Heritage Baker (2011)

Instructional group includes language minority students who all speak the same ethnic language

Goal is preservation of the ethnic language and culture

There are five models for English Language only including pull-out, class period,

resource center, sheltered English/content-based, and structured immersion. Empirical

research indicates that sheltered English/content-based programming is the most effective

in regards to increased student achievement for ELs.

The two bilingual program models (Bilingual Early Exit and Bilingual Late Exit)

use the students' home language, in addition to English, for instruction to enable students

to be transitioned into an English-only program. These programs are most easily

implemented in districts with a large number of students from the same language

background. Students in bilingual programs are grouped according to their first

language, with teachers proficient in both English and the students' home language.

The three dual language programs, which include both Two-Way and One-Way

bilingual program models, group language minority students from a single language

background in the same classroom with language majority (English-speaking) students.

Native English speakers and speakers of another language have the opportunity to acquire

proficiency in a second language while continuing to develop their native language skills.

Students serve as native-speaker role models for their peers.

25

Across the United States, English-only models are frequently used. Kindler

(2002) notes some of the non-English-only states include Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois,

Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and New Mexico. In English-only programs, students

are given a number of minutes or class periods of English language instruction by a

certified ESL teacher, but then are educated in a general education environment without

direct ESL services for the rest of the school day. This approach is ineffective for ELs

who have newly arrived in the United States because many may not have proficiency in

their native language or in English (Kindler, 2002). Many of these newly arrived ELs

enter the American school system with little to no formal education experiences from

their home country. In contrast, some newly arrived ELs have had adequate formal

education experiences prior to arriving in the United States and some have had English

language instruction as well. This heterogeneity in the EL population or classroom

challenges administrators and educators. It is a challenge to administrators and educators

as they try to design programs, curriculum, and interventions to meet the needs of such a

diverse group within the EL subgroup. ELs enroll in American schools with a broad

range of language proficiencies and content area knowledge, both in their native language

and in English (Short & Boyson, 2003).

States such as Massachusetts, California, and Arizona, have joined the English-

only movement in the last decade. Californias Proposition 227 was approved by 61% of

the California electorate in June 1998 and Proposition 227 has also been called the

English for the Children initiative (Garca and Curry-Rodriguez, 2000, p.4). The main

focus of this legislation was to mandate Structured English Immersion (SEI) and to

reduce bilingual or native language program options for ELs. In place of the bilingual

program options, students were placed in SEI classes, programs, or schools to learn

English as rapidly and effectively as possible and to enter general education, grade level

classrooms with age-appropriate peers (Garcia and Curry-Rodriguez, 2000).

26

In Arizona, similar legislation called Proposition 203 was passed in 2000 and

required pupils who are English learners to be taught in English immersion classes during

a temporary transition period not normally to exceed one year (Arizona State Legislature,

2000). When pupils have acquired a good working knowledge of English and are able to

do regular schoolwork in English, they are required to be transferred to classrooms in

which the students are native English language speakers or students who already have

acquired reasonable fluency in English. These classrooms are called English language

mainstream classrooms (Arizona State Legislature, 2000).

Arizonas Proposition 203 has caused similar programmatic changes for ELs in

the last 9 years. Research has indicated that one year of English language instruction,

even in a sheltered, intensive program model, is not comprehensive or long enough for

ELs to learn English (Zehr, 2008). According to Zehr (2008), cumulative and

comparative studies based on National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP)

scores suggest that statewide mandates limiting bilingual education in California,

Arizona, and Massachusetts have produced less-than-stellar results (p.10).

The growth, expansion, and success of TWI/Dual language programs have helped

to dispel many of the negative perceptions of the American public about bilingual

education and to counter the criticisms of English-only supporters (Collier & Thomas,

2004). Students learn academic content most effectively when given opportunities to

learn and test with material in their native language. Krashen (1997) notes this about

quality bilingual education programs:

The best bilingual education programs include all of these characteristics: ESL instruction, sheltered subject matter teaching, and instruction in the first language. Non-English-speaking children initially receive core instruction in the primary language along with ESL instruction. As children grow more proficient in English, they learn subjects using more contextualized language (e.g., math and science) in sheltered classes taught in English, and eventually in mainstream classes. In this way, the sheltered classes function as a bridge between instruction in the first language and in the mainstream.

27

Bilingual Program Type Overview

Villarreal (1999) identified two dimensions that he proposed are connected to the

success or failure of a bilingual programSupport of the program at all levels of the

school hierarchy and level of knowledge of bilingual education as evidenced through

curriculum and instructional activities implemented in the program (p.11). His purpose

was also to provide insights to school administrators on campuses with bilingual

education programs to encourage appropriate bilingual education practices and policies.

For example, to maximize program support and commitment to ELs, a positive learning

climate must be established (Villarreal, 1999). This can be assessed by observing

whether EL staff and bilingual education staff are included in school leadership teams

and on curricular alignment committees. If these staff members are not included in

curricular decisions, the outcomes for ELs may be less positive than for non-ELs.

Having a voice from the EL program promotes the knowledge that bilingual

education and EL programs are not remedial and that they play an important role in the

school. Additionally, programs can be evaluated by reports or anecdotes received from

students, teachers, parents, and administrators. Effective language acquisition programs

celebrate and validate language diversity from the first day of school (Villarreal, 1999).

Setting goals for ELs and the programs in which they participate is an effective way to

monitor program effectiveness over time within a school and across schools within a

district and to align with the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requiring yearly growth in

reading and math for all subgroups.

Program Approaches

There are three major approaches to language acquisition from which educational

programming decisions are derivedthe English Language Only Model, the Transitional

Bilingual Model, and the Maintenance Bilingual/Dual Language Model. Each of these

theories or models has advantages and disadvantages as well as supporters and critics.

These theories in second language acquisition impact how public school districts and

28

state departments of education identify ELs, determine programming for ELs, and assess

ELs. In addition, the research over time and political climate reflect swings in which

model or theory the federal government is supporting both publically and financially.

English Language Only Models

English-only is a program model that promotes the use of English exclusively as

the medium for teaching all content in English to students. There is no use of the

students native language, and in many cases use of the native language is discouraged or

illegal.

Pull Out and Class Period

The empirical research from Cornell (1995) for the ESL pull-out and class period

programs indicate that ESL pull-out model programs have been less than satisfying in

helping ELs acquire English language skills. Cornell (1995) performed an evaluation of

ESL programs for ELs by synthesizing other studies in the field and focusing on pull-out

programs and concluded that EL dropout rates have been disproportionately high and the

academic achievements of ELs in pull-out programs has been limited to a few ELs.

Cornell (1995) also reviewed studies and concluded that ESL pull-out programs resulted

in fewer than two hours of English instruction per day for secondary EL students in

particular. As a result, content area instruction and English language instruction became

the responsibility of general education teachers who may or may not have had formal

training in ESL methods. Also, Cornell (1995) noted that the content of the ESL pull-out

classes became homework completion from the general education classes in place of

direct instruction in the English language.

ESL Resource Center

Many school districts have established self-contained newcomer programs or sites

that concentrate on delivering intensified English acquisition courses, comprehensible

content-area courses, and courses to help students adjust to the cultural norms of the

United States (Short & Boyson, 2004). Resource Center or Newcomer programs are an

29

alternative to the traditional ESL pull-out programs in which many secondary-level ELs

are placed upon entering the U.S. public schools.

Matas (2012) conducted empirical research comparing an ESL Resource

Center/Newcomer Center model to an ESL pull-out model in the San Diego Unified

School District and compared traditional ESL program placement and newcomer

program placement results in both a qualitative and quantitative design. Variables

studied included: student self-concept scale, academic self-concept scale, interviews and

focus groups with stakeholders and students attitudes, classroom observations, and

quantitative data related to student redesignation rates. The quantitative results show that

the redesignation rates for the ESL program were at a slightly higher rate than the

newcomer program, suggesting more successful language acquisition among ELs within

the ESL program. Matas (2012) hypothesized that the self-contained newcomer program

would far exceed the ESL program in terms of language acquisition, the attainment of

academic skills, and a higher overall student academic self-concept level, as well as by

utilizing students home cultures and languages in students daily activities (p. 300).

The conclusion, though, was that the newcomer program produced results similar to the

traditional ESL program which, according to Matas, is evidence of a movement towards a

monolingual English-only educational environment for ELs.

Sheltered English/Content-Based Instruction

Stoller (2004) wrote that Content-Based Instruction (CBI), when compared to

other ESL models, is distinguished by its dual commitment to language and content-

learning objectives (p. 261). CBI, in the last decade, has presented in practice in myriad

ways to meet the needs of both ELs and foreign language learners. Stoller explored the

general characteristics of and challenges of CBI by reviewing case studies that document

outcomes of CBI programs at elementary, secondary, and higher education levels and

curricular models that have been implemented in first and second language contexts. The

findings indicate that the CBI framework is an umbrella term that covers Cognitive

30

Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), Concept-Oriented Reading

Instruction (CORI), and Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) to name a few variations.

One form of Sheltered English or CBI is Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR).

CSR has also been the subject of empirical research. Klingner and Vaughn (2000)

investigated the frequency and means by which 37 bilingual and EL students in a 5th

grade elementary classroom helped each other while implementing CSR with science

textbook reading. Results indicated that ELs used about half of their time iden

a comparison of english and spanish assessment measures of readin

Documents