Law and Research 3

7/29/2019 Law and Research 3

1/91

LAW AND RESEARCH

IN REGARDS TO STUDENTS WHOARE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

Dr. Criselda Guajardo Alvarado

www.educationeval.com


2/91

LAW


3/91

Title VI

Civil Rights Act of 1964Sec. 2000d. Prohibition against exclusion fromparticipation in, denial of benefits of, and discriminationunder federally assisted programs on ground of race, color,or national origin.

No person in the United Statesshall, on the ground of race, color, ornational origin, be excluded from

participation in, be denied the benefits of,or be subjected to discrimination underany program or activity receiving Federalfinancial assistance.


4/91

Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974Title 20, Chapter 39, Subchapter I, Part 2, Section 1703

Denial of equal educational opportunity prohibited

No State shall deny equal educationalopportunity to an individual on account ofhis or her race, color, sex, or nationalorigin, by -


5/91

(a) the deliberate segregation byan educational agency of studentson the basis of race, color, ornational origin among or withinschools;


6/91

(b) the failure of an educationalagency which has formerly practicedsuch deliberate segregation to take

affirmative steps, consistent with part4 of this subchapter, to remove thevestiges of a dual school system;


7/91

(c) the assignment by an educational

agency of a student to a school, other thanthe one closest to his or her place ofresidence within the school district in whichhe or she resides, if the assignment results

in a greater degree of segregation ofstudents on the basis of race, color, sex,or national origin among the schools ofsuch agency than would result if such

student were assigned to the school closestto his or her place of residence within theschool district of such agency providing theappropriate grade level and type of

education for such student;


8/91

(d) discrimination by aneducational agency on the basis

of race, color, or national originin the employment, employmentconditions, or assignment to

schools of its faculty or staff,except to fulfill the purposes ofsubsection (f) below;


9/91

(e) the transfer by an educational

agency, whether voluntary orotherwise, of a student from oneschool to another if the purpose andeffect of such transfer is to increasesegregation of students on the basis ofrace, color, or national origin amongthe schools of such agency; or

(f) the failure by an educationalagency to take appropriate action toovercome language barriers thatimpede equal participation by its

students in its instructional programs.


10/91

Office of Civil RightsGuidance to Federal Financial Assistance RecipientsRegarding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination AffectingLimited English Proficient Persons

Recipients (of Federal financialassistance)are required to take

reasonable steps to ensuremeaningful access to their programsand activities by LEP persons.[Parenthetical information added]


11/91

Lau v. Nichols, 1968

Basic English skills are at the very coreof what these public schools teach.Imposition of a requirement that, beforea child can effectively participate in theeducational program, he must alreadyhave acquired those basic skills is tomake a mockery of public education.

We know that those who do notunderstand English are certain to findtheir classroom experiences whollyincomprehensible and in no way

meaningful.


12/91

Where inability to speak andunderstand the English languageexcludes national origin-minority groupchildren from effective participation inthe educational program offered by

a school district, the district must

take affirmative steps to rectify thelanguage deficiency in order to openits instructional program to these

students.


13/91

Executive Order 13166August 11, 2000

The Federal Government provides and

funds an array of services that can be

made accessible to otherwise eligible

persons who are not proficient in the

English language. recipients musttake reasonable steps to ensure

meaningful access to their programs and

activities by LEP persons.


14/91

RESEARCH


15/91

RESEARCH ON SPECIALLANGUAGE PROGRAMMING

S i l L P i


16/91

Students who are ELLs immersed in the

English mainstream because the parentsrefused bilingual/ESL services showedlarge decreases in reading and math

achievement by 5th grade. The largestnumber of dropouts came from this groupand those remaining finished 11th grade

at the 12th %ile (Thomas & Collier, 2001)Curiel et al in 1986 and Theobald in 2003also found that ELLs who do not receiveassistance from either ESL or bilingual

programs have higher dropout rates.

Special Language Programming

S i l L P i


17/91

Artiles et al. (2002 & 2005)report that ELLs in English

immersion classrooms werealmost 3 times more likely to beplaced in special education as

LD than ELLs in bilingualeducation.


S i l L P i


18/91

Initially, students who wereschooled all in English outperformthose who were schooled bilingually on

English measures. But, the bilinguallyschooled students reach the same

levels of achievement as those

schooled all in English by middle school.Then during high school, the bilinguallyschooled students outperform the

monolingually schooled students.(Thomas & Collier, 2001, National Literacy Panel, 2006).


S i l L P i


19/91

Bilingually schooled studentsoutperform comparable

monolingually schooledstudents in all academicachievement areas after 4 to

7 years of dual languageschooling (Thomas & Collier,2001).


Special Lang age P og amming


20/91

Native-language programs ofonly 1 to 3 years for studentswith no proficiency in English

yield poor results. The minimumlength of time it takes to reachgrade-level performance in the

second language is 4 years(Thomas & Collier, 2001).



21/91

RESEARCH ON THEBILINGUAL BRAIN

C iti


22/91

Learning a second languageincreases the density of greymatter in the left inferior parietalcortex, and the degree ofstructural reorganization ismodulated by the proficiencyattained and the age ofacquisition (Mechelli et al., 2004).

Cognitive

C iti


23/91

The process of language acquisitionduring childhood differs for certainlanguages. Valaki et al. (2004)investigated the cortical organizationof Chinese, English, and Spanishspeakers. English and Spanish

speakers showed a stronglaterization to the left hemisphere,while Chinese speakers presented

bilateral symmetry.

Cognitive

C iti


24/91

In alphabetic languages such asSpanish, phonological awarenessin the native language facilitates

understanding of the relationshipbetween sounds and symbols inthe second language (Snow et

al., 1998, August et al., 2002,Dickinson et al., 2004).

Cognitive

Cogniti e


25/91

Research of Korean (Kim & Davis,2004), Arabic (Abu-Rabia, Share,& Mansour, 2003), Latvian

(Sprugevica & Hoien, 2003), andChinese (McBride-Chang & Kail,2002) students revealed a strong

relation between phonologicalprocessing and readingperformance.

Cognitive

Cognitive


26/91

The research conducted by Tanet al. (2003) suggested thatChinese-English bilingual

subjects were applying thesystem of their native language(Chinese) to reading in English,

that is, that second languagereading is shaped by the firstlanguage of the bilingual.

Cognitive

Cognitive


27/91

The lack of letter-to-soundconversion rules in Chineseappears to lead Chinese readersto be less capable of processingEnglish by the analytic readingsystem on which Englishmonolinguals rely.

Cognitive


28/91

RESEARCH ON ORALLANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT


29/91

Students whose first languagehas many cognates with English,such as Spanish & Italian, have

an advantage in Englishvocabulary recognition, but oftendo not fully use this advantage

without targeted instruction(Cunningham & Graham, 2000,

August et al., 2002).Oral Language Proficiency


30/91

For example, a bilingualSpanish/English or Italian/Englishspeaker, using cognate

knowledge, can easily understandthe English term, campanologyas the study of bells

(campanas).

Oral Language Proficiency


31/91

Basic interpersonal communicationskills or conversational languageacquired in one language do not

appear to transfer to a secondlanguage, whereas skills that areacademically mediated such as

academic oral language or reading,do appear to transfer (Royer &Carlo, 1991).



32/91

.In studies of Spanish readers,the level of reading skills in

their first language predictedthe level of English readingskills.



33/91

RESEARCH ON DYSLEXIA &THE ENG LANG. LEARNER


34/91

Paulesu et al. (2001) found intheir research that there is a

universal neurobiological basis fordyslexia. Deficits in phonologicalprocessing appear to

fundamentally characterizedyslexia, regardless of language.

Dyslexia


35/91

The differences in the readingperformance among individualsfrom different countries, speaking

and reading different languages,who were identified as havingdyslexia was found to be due to

the level of adherence of thewritten system of the language tothe alphabet principal.

Dyslexia


36/91

More reading problems are seen instudents in opaque (aka deeper orirregular) orthographies; that

is orthographies that are highlyirregular such as English, French,Danish, and Portuguese. In opaque

orthographies, one grapheme canseveral phonemes and one phonemecan have several graphemes

Dyslexia


37/91

Reading difficulties in transparentorthographies, that is, orthographiesthat adhere to the alphabet-

principle, (i.e. Spanish, Italian,Turkish, Greek, and Finish) aremore often noticed in the students

reading speed and readingcomprehension and less noticed inthe students reading decoding.

Dyslexia


38/91

RESEARCH ON ENGLISHLITERACY OF ELL STUDENTS


39/91

Instruction that provides substantialcoverage in the key components ofreadingidentified by the

National Reading Panel (NICHD,2000) as phonemic awareness,phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and

text comprehension has clearbenefits for language-minoritystudents (National Literacy Panel, 2006).

EnglishLiteracy


40/91

Instruction in the key components

of reading is necessary but notsufficient for teaching language-minority students to read and write

proficiently in English. Oralproficiency in English is critical aswell but student performancesuggests that it is often overlookedin instruction (National Literacy Panel,2006).

EnglishLiteracy


41/91

Individual differencescontribute significantly to

English literacy development(National Literacy Panel,2006).

EnglishLiteracy


42/91

RESEARCH ON CROSSTRANSFER OF SKILLS &ABILITIES


43/91

Oral proficiency and literacy inthe first language can be used

to facilitate literacydevelopment in English.(National Literacy Panel, 2006).

Cross-Transfer


44/91

Native-language (if alphabetic-based) phonological awarenesstraining can facilitate students

ability to read in English.(Durgunoglu et al., 1993).

Cross-Transfer


45/91

Spanish word recognitionsignificantly predicts performance

on English word and pseudo wordreading tasks (Durgunoglu et al.,1993, August et al., 2002).

Cross-Transfer


46/91

Students who have developedgood meaning-making strategiesin their first language use those

strategies in their secondlanguage, even when they arenot as fluent in that second

language (Langer et al., 1990).

Cross-Transfer


47/91

A significant positive relationshipis found between Spanishpassage comprehension at the

end of second grade and Englishpassage comprehension at theend of fourth grade (August et

al., 2002).

Cross-Transfer


48/91

EVIDENCE-BASED

BILINGUAL EDUCATIONPROGRAMS

Unfortunately, language policyis highly politicized in the United States

and practice and policy sometimescontradicts research.


49/91

THANK YOU

Dr. Criselda Guajardo Alvarado

www.educationeval.com


50/91


51/91

Regarding Assessment


52/91

Most assessments do a poor jobof gauging individual strengthsand weaknesses (NationalLiteracy Panel, 2006).



53/91

Figueroa & Newsome (2006)studied 19 psychological reports ofEnglish Language Learners in a

small urban elementary schooldistrict in California. Resultsindicated that the reports seldom

adhered to existing legal andprofessional guidelines.



54/91

The examiners unfamiliarity with aminority group could also lead to bias intesting. Fuchs and Fuchs (1986) found

that examiner unfamiliarity with thestudents culture had a significant impacton standardized test performance. Thiseffect was even greater when the

students were of low socioeconomicstatus.



55/91

Klingner et al. (2003) conducted anethnographic study of the specialeducation identification processes of

ELLs in 12 schools. They found thatthe child study teams and the

ARD/IEP committees paid little

attention to information related tolanguage acquisition.



56/91

Ochoa et al (1997) conducted a survey of859 psychologists who had conducted

psychoeducational assessment ofbilingual students. Only 1% attempted todetermine whether a learning disabilityalso occurred in the students native

language.

Regarding Impact of Sociocultural


57/91

There is surprisingly little research on theimpact of sociocultural variables onliteracy achievement or development.However, home language experiences

can have a positive impact on literacyachievement (National Literacy Panel,2006).

and Socioeconomic

Regarding Impact of Sociocultural


58/91

Poverty has significant effects onchildrens cognitive and verbal skills(Koreman et al., 1995; Liaw & Brooks-Gunn, 1993; & Smith et al., 1997).

and Socioeconomic

Regarding Impact of Socioculturald i i


59/91

Brooks-Gunn et al, 1994 found that fiveyear olds living in chronic poverty hadadjusted mean IQs about of astandard deviation lower than children

who were considered nonpoor.

and Socioeconomic

Regarding Impact of Socioculturald S i i


60/91

Studies have shown that the negative life events

and adverse conditions faced by poor and low-SES children can place demands on them thatexceed their coping resources resulting inconduct problems (Carothers, et al., 2006;

Pryor-Brown et al., 1986; & Wadsworth et al.,2005).

and Socioeconomic


61/91

Effects of poverty on cognitivedevelopment and academicachievement appear to beparticularly strong in the earlieryears (birth through 5), butcontinue to be strong for the first

two decades of life (Axinn et al,1993 & Brooks-Gunn et al, 1999).


62/91

Poverty has significant effects onchildrens cognitive and verbal skills(Koreman et al., 1995; Liaw & Brooks-Gunn, 1993; & Smith et al., 1997).



63/91

Studies have found that children inpoverty have a higher prevalence ofemotional and behavioral problems thanchildren who are considered middle-

class (Koreman et al, 1995 and Liaw &Brooks-Gunn, 1993).

and Socioeconomic



64/91

Sherman (1994) and Zill et al. (1995)found that the chance of being retainedin a grade level or placed in specialeducation classes increases by 2-3% for

each year a child lives in poverty.

and Socioeconomic



65/91

Research has shown that teachersexpectations of poor children arelower than that of affluent children

(McLoyd, 1998). These loweredexpectations appear to be causedmostly by noncognitive

considerations, such as speechpatterns and dress.

and Socioeconomic

Regarding Impact of Socioculturaland Socioeconomic


66/91

Skiba (2005) found that in 259 schooldistricts, disproportionality was greater inthe judgment disability categories (LD,MR, & ED) than in the biologically based

hard disability categories (such asvisual impairment, etc.).

and Socioeconomic

Regarding Impact of Socioculturaland Socioeconomic


67/91

They also found that students living in ahigh poverty school district were:

More than twice as likely to be identified as

Mildly Mentally Retarded; Nearly twice as likely to be identified as

Moderately Mentally Retarded; and

Twice as likely to be identified as Emotionally

Disturbed as students who reside inwealthier school districts.

and Socioeconomic

RtI and The ELL


68/91

Research: RtI and the ELL

A handful of researchers have conductedRtI studies specifically with bilingual

students and/or ELLs. Most of thisresearch, however, ignores the issue oflanguage of intervention. Consequently,

these studies end up being of bilingualand limited English proficient studentsreceiving English only language RtI.

RtI and The ELL


69/91

The results are generally favorabletowards RtI, but it still leaves thequestion unanswered, regarding

how the student would haveresponded if the intervention hadbeen in a language the studentcould have more meaningfullyaccessed.


70/91

Additionally, many researchers of thesestudies do not control for the Englishlanguage proficiency levels of thestudents in their study, leaving educatorsuncertain on how to implement RtIappropriately for the myriad of variations

in their linguistically diverse studentpopulations.


71/91

Moore-Brown et al (2005) reporton a Tier 3 RtI program of 123

fourth and fifth grade students athigh-risk for special educationreferral in an urban school districtwhich had a 96% minority (mostly

Hispanic) student population.

RtI and The ELL


72/91

Out of the 123 students in thestudy, 79 students were identifiedas ELLs. The Tier 3 RtI was

conducted in English only byspeech-language pathologists andresource teachers.

RtI and The ELL


73/91

Students were given a 45 hour intensiveinstructional program based on theNational Reading Panels five buildingblocks of reading. The program was

systematic, intense, and given every dayover a 9 week period.

RtI and The ELL


74/91

Significant gains in overall reading scoreswere documented. Only 8 studentsrequired special education services withinthe two year follow-up of the study.

RtI and The ELL


75/91

Since the subjects of the study were 4thand 5th grade students, the ELLs in thestudy are assumed to have had at least 5to 6 years of English language exposure

in a Tier 1 setting.

RtI and The ELL


76/91

The students level of English mayhave been sufficient to meaningfullyaccess the Tier 3 RtI, but the

researchers did not evaluate Englishlanguage proficiency, only reportingthe school districts ELL

classification.

RtI and The ELL


77/91

The researchers recommendationsincluded:

At the end of the day, all students whosuccessfully participated in this Tier 3 RtIprogram, although not requiring specialeducation, still continued to have

learning needs that needed to beaddressed by general education.

RtI and The ELL


78/91

That the students made dramaticprogress in a short period of time in anon-prescriptive program indicated thatgeneral education had to make some

changes.

RtI and The ELL


79/91

Interdisciplinary teams composed ofResource Specialists and Speech &Language Pathologists can provide Tier 3intensive services.

RtI and The ELL


80/91

System structures will need tochange. Resource Specialists andSpeech & Language Pathologists

cannot be reasonably expected tocarry maximum caseloads ofidentified special education studentsand also provide prevention

activities as well.

RtI and The ELL


81/91

RtI is not an individualizedintervention specific to the studentsbeing served. All students received

the exact intervention protocol thattargeted all fives building blocks ofreading.

RtI and The ELL


82/91

Administrative support of RtI iscritical. It is the responsibility ofadministrators to create an

environment supportive of changingroles and developing understandingof the joint responsibility of generaleducation teachers and specialeducation interventionists.

RtI and The ELL


83/91

As part of a larger program projectinvestigating biliteracy and bioracy,Linan-Thompson et al (2006)

conducted a series of studies in thestate of Texas on the effectivenessof RtI for ELLs identified as at-riskin first grade.

RtI and The ELL


84/91

Of the 103 total students, 53 ELLs withreading difficulties were randomlyassigned to receive the intervention in

the Fall of their first grade (31 receivedSpanish-language RtI and 22 receivedEnglish-language RtI);

RtI and The ELL


85/91

50 ELLs also with reading difficultieswere randomly assigned to serve asthe comparison group (33 received

Spanish-language instruction and 17received English-languageinstruction).

RtI and The ELL


86/91

Students in the interventionprogram received supplementalreading intervention daily for 50minutes from October to April; whilestudents in the comparison groupreceived the existing school districts

instructional program for studentswith reading difficulties.

RtI and The ELL


87/91

The results (see Table 1) indicatedthat students receiving English-language RtI overwhelmingly met

the success criteria (91%) as didthe students receiving Spanish-language RtI (97%).

RtI and The ELL


88/91

A year later, 94% of the students whohad received English-language RtI and100% of the students who had receivedSpanish-language RtI still met the

criteria. However, only 40% of thestudents in the comparison group whoreceived English-language instructionmet the criteria at the end of the firstyear;

RtI and The ELL


89/91

while 70% of the students receivingSpanish-language instruction metthe criteria. Interestingly, at the one

year follow-up, an incredible 92% ofthe at-risk students who hadreceived Spanish-language

instruction (not RtI),

RtI and The ELL


90/91

now met the success criteria (goingfrom 70% to 92%), while studentswho had received English-language

instruction still showed a lowsuccess rate of 44% (going from42% to 44%). Thus, the results

appear to yield three conclusions.

RtI and The ELL


91/91

First, RtI appears to generallyoutperform traditional remedialreading programs. Second, native

language instruction & RtIoutperforms English only instruction& RtI for ELLs. Third, nativelanguage instruction, in the longrun, may be the sole interventionthat is needed for ELLs at-risk for

d d ff l

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ampicca
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Law and Research 3

Documents