The article provides an abridged version of a report prepared for the lawsuit, Williams v. State of California. The report first examines the achievement gap for English learners in California. Second, it reviews evidence in seven areas in which these students receive a substantially inequitable education vis-a-vis their English-speaking peers, even when those peers are similarly economically disadvantaged. Third, it documents the state's role in creating and perpetuating existing inequities. Finally, it describes a series of remedies that the state could pursue to reduce these inequities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing.Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
AnstromK. (1997). Academic achievement for secondary language minority students: Standards, measures, and promising practices.Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
3.
ArtilesA. J., RuedaR., SalazarJ.J., & HigaredaI. (2002). English language learner representation in special education: in California Urban School Districts (pp. 117–136). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
4.
BarrR., & DreebenR. (1983). How schools work.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1998). Standards of quality and effectiveness for multiple and single subject credentials: Handbook for teacher educators and accreditation team members.Sacramento, CA: Author.
California Department of Education. (2002). Easton releases Spring 2002 California High School Exit Exam Results. Retrieved January 23, 2003, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/news/releases2002/rel30.asp
8.
California Department of Education. (1999). Proposition 227 survey: Interim report.Sacramento, CA: Author.
9.
California Education Code Chapter, Sections 60850–60859. High School Exit Examination.
10.
California State University, Office of the Chancellor. (2001). First systemwide evaluation of teacher education programs in the California State University: Summary report.Long Beach, CA: Author.
11.
CarrollJ. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.
12.
CooperH., NyeB., CharltonK., LindsayJ. J., & GreathouseS. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66, 227–268.
13.
CornellC. (1995). Reducing failure of LEP students in the mainstream classroom and why it is important. The Journal of Education Issues of Language Minority Students, 15. Crawford v. Honig, No. C-89-0014 (N.D. Cal.). RFP
14.
Darling-HammondL. (2002). Access to quality teaching: An analysis of inequality in California's public schools. Expert report prepared for Williams v. State of California. Retrieved March 8, 2003, from http://www.mofo.com/decentschools/expertreports/darling-hammondreport.pdfDiana v. California Board of Education, No. C-70-37. (N.D. Calif. 1970). Diana v. California Board of Education, Complaint for Injunction and Declaratory Relief (Civil Rights), 1973.
15.
EpsteinJ. L., & KarweittN. (Eds.). (1983). Friends in school: Patterns of selection and influence in secondary schools.New York: Academic Press.
16.
FleishmanH. L., & HopstockP. J. (1993). Descriptive study of services to limited English proficient students.Arlington, VA: Development Associates.
17.
GamoranA. (1992). The variable effects of high school tracking. American Sociological Review, 57, 812–828.
18.
GándaraP., Maxwell-JollyJ., GarcíaE., AsatoJ., GutiérrezK., StritikusT., & CurryJ. (2000). The initial impact of Proposition 227 on the instruction of English Learners.Davis, CA: UC Linguistic Minority Research Center Education Policy Center.
19.
GándaraP., & RumbergerR. W. (2003). The inequitable treatment of English learners in California's public schools. Revised report prepared for the lawsuit, Williams v. State of California. Retrieved April 25, 2003, from http://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/williams
20.
GándaraP., RumbergerR. W., Maxwell-JollyJ., & CallahanR. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11. Retrieved November 19, 2003, from: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
21.
GoodladJ. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future.New York: McGraw-Hill.
22.
GottliebJ., AlterM., GottliebB. W., & WishnerJ. (1994). Special education in urban America: It's not justifiable for many. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 453–465.
23.
GuyB., HasaziS. B., & JohnsonD. R. (1999). Transition from school to adult life. In CoutinhoM. J., & ReppA. C. (Eds.), Inclusion: The integration of students with disabilities.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
HakutaK., ButlerY. G., & WittD. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (Policy Report 2000–1) Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
26.
HanushekE. A., KainJ. F., MarkmanJ. M., & RivkinS. G. (2001). Does peer ability affect student achievement? (NBER Working Paper No. w8502). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
27.
HanushekE. A., KainJ. F., & RivkinS. G. (2001). Why public schools lose teachers (Working paper 8599). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
28.
HarrisL. (2002). A survey of the status of equality in public education in California: A survey of a cross-section of public school teachers.San Francisco: Public Advocates, Inc.
29.
HaycockK. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Thinking, K-16, 3, 1–17.
HellerK. A., HoltzmanW. H., & MessickS. (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33.
HornbergerN. H. (1990). Creating successful learning contexts for bilingual literacy. Teachers College Record, 99, 212–229.
34.
HoxbyC. (2000). Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race variation (NBER Working Paper No. w7867). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
35.
HurdC. (2004). English proficiency limited: The interpersonal politics of learning English among Mexican-Descent students. In GibsonG. G., GándaraP. P., & KoyamaJ. P. (Eds.), School connections: Peers, achievement, and U.S. Mexican youth (pp. 63–86). New York: Teachers College Press.
36.
LoebS., & PageM. E. (2000). Examining the link between teacher wages and student outcomes: The importance of alternative labor market opportunities and non-pecuniary variation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82, 393–408.
37.
LucasT., HenzeR., & DonatoR. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino language minority students: An exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 315–340.
38.
MountsN. S., & SteinbergL. (1995). An ecological analysis of peer influence on adolescent grade point average and drug use. Developmental Psychology, 31, 915–922.
39.
National Research Council, Committee on Appropriate Test Use. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
OlsenL. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools.New York: New Press.
42.
OvandoC., & CollierV. (1998). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
43.
ParrishT. B., LinquantiR., MerickelA., QuickH. E., LairdJ., & EsraP. (2001). Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K—12. Year 1 Report.Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
44.
ParrishT. B., LinquantiR., MerickelA., QuickH. E., LairdJ., & EsraP. (2002). Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K—12: Year 2 Report.Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
45.
Ruiz-de-VelascoJ., & FixM. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools.Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
46.
RumbergerR. W., & ArellanoB. (2003). Understanding and addressing the Latino achievement gap in California.Berkeley, CA: UC Latino Policy Institute.
47.
RumbergerR. W., & GándaraP. (2000). The schooling of English Learners. In BurrE., HaywardG., & KirstM. (Eds.), Crucial issues in California education (pp. 23–44). Berkeley: Policy Analysis for California Education.
48.
SandersW. L., & HornP. (1995). The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS): Mixed model methodology in educational assessment. In SchinkfieldD. (Ed.), Teacher evaluation: Guide to effective practice (pp. 337–350). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
49.
SandersW. L., & RiversC. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement.Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
50.
ScarcellaR., & RumbergerR. W. (2000). Academic English key to long-term success in school. UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute Newsletter, 9, 1–2.
51.
SkirticT. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as a way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61, 148–206.
52.
StecherB. M., & BohrnstedtG. W. (Eds.). (2002). Class size reduction in California: Findings from 1999–00 and 2000–01.Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
53.
Suárez-OrozcoM., & Suárez-OrozcoC. (1996). Trans-formations: Migration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
54.
ThomasW. P., & CollierV. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement.Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz, Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
55.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Dropout rates in the United States: 2000.Washington, DC: Author.
56.
University of California Office of the President. (UCOP). (2002). Report to the legislature on California Professional Development Institutes.Oakland, CA: Author.
57.
WiseL. L., SipesD. E., DeMeyer HarrisC., GeorgeC. E., FordJ. P., & SunS. (2002). Independent evaluation of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE): Analysis of the 2001 administration.Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.
58.
Wong-FillmoreL. (1991). Second-language learning in children: A model of language learning in social context. In BialystokE. (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 49–69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
