According to U.S. Census figures, 11 million elementary and secondary students of immigrant families were enrolled in the public schools in October 2005, representing 20% of all students, and this figure is expected to grow in the coming years. Most of these students enter school as English learners (ELs), and most ELs have exceptionally low performance on measures of academic achievement and attainment.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
This article examines how language policy in the United States has shaped educational opportunities and outcomes for the nation's immigrant students. First, we examine the role of federal policy in shaping these students’ educational opportunities, showing how the changing political landscape in Washington has resulted in inconsistencies in funding and direction for states attempting to serve EL students. Then we focus on how two states with high concentrations of ELs— California and Texas—have responded to the needs of ELs, including the provision of bilingual education, the training and support of properly prepared teachers, and the assessments used to gauge their educational performance.
Research Design
The article uses secondary data sources. It draws on secondary data analysis to examine the growth of the immigrant and linguistic minority populations and their educational achievement; it draws on both historical analysis and secondary data analysis to review shifting federal policies; and it draws on demographic, achievement, and reclassification data in analyzing the education of ELs in California and Texas.
Findings/Results
We found that the changing political landscape in Washington has resulted in inconsistencies in funding and direction for states attempting to serve EL students. We also found that California and Texas appear to have different success rates with their EL students, with Texas reclassifying its ELs to fluent English status at higher rates and outperforming California with respect to National Assessment of Educational Progress scores for this same population.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The article concludes with the major recommendation that the federal government would do well to spearhead and fund a research agenda that addresses the truly important, and unanswered, questions around the education of ELs so that greater guidance can be given to the states in determining how to raise achievement and enhance the psychosocial development of these students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AcuñaR. (1988). Occupied America: A history of Chicanos. New York: Longman
2.
AugustD., & HakutaK. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Research Council, Institute of Medicine.
3.
AugustD., & ShanahanT. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
BaronD. (1992). The English-only question. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
BerlinerD. (2006). Our impoverished view of educational reform. Teachers College Record, 108, 949—995.
6.
BowlesS., & GintisH. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.
CallahanR., & GándaraP. (2004). On nobody's agenda: Improving English language learners’ access to higher education. In SadowskiM. (Ed.), Teaching immigrant and second language students (pp. 107—127). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
9.
CarterT. (1970). Mexican Americans in the Southwest: A history of educational neglect. New York: College Board.
10.
CrawfordJ. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.
11.
Darling-HammondL. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
12.
Darling-HammondL.BerryB., & ThoresonA. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 57—77.
13.
DayJ. C. (1996). Population projections of the United States by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1995 to 2050 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P25-1130). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
14.
DayJ. C., & NewburgerE. C. (2002). The big payoff: Educational attainment and synthetic estimates of work-life earnings. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
15.
Delgado-GaitanC. (1990). Literacy for empowerment. New York: Falmer Press.
16.
Delgado-GaitanC. (1991). Involving parents in the schools: A process of empowerment. American Journal of Education, 100, 20—46.
17.
DeweyJ. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
18.
Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974 (EEOA) Sec.1703 (f).
19.
FishmanJ. (1999). Sociolinguistics. In FishmanJ. (Ed.), Handbook of language and ethnicity (pp. 152—163). Cambridge, England: Oxford University Press.
20.
FullerB. (2004, February 1). Children are the losers in polarized debate over “No Child Left Behind” program. The Washington Post. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.washingtonpost.com
21.
GándaraP.Maxwell-JollyJ.StritikusT.CurryJ.GarciaE.AsatoJ., & GutiérrezK., The Initial Effects of Proposition 227 on English Learners. Santa Barbara: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Available on line at: http://www.lmri.uscb.edu
22.
GándaraP. (2000). In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the post-227 era. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 1—13.
23.
GándaraP. (2002). Learning English in California: Guideposts for the nation. In Suárez-OrozcoM., & PáezM. (Ed.), Latinos: Remaking America (pp. 339—348). Berkeley: University of California Press.
24.
GándaraP. (2005). Fragile futures: Risk and vulnerability among Latino high achievers. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
25.
GándaraP.MoranR., & GarciaE. (2005). Legacy of Brown: Lau and language policy in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 28, 27—46.
26.
GándaraP.RumbergerR.Maxwell-JollyJ., & CallahanR. (2003). English learners in California Schools: Unequal resources; unequal outcomes. Educational Policy Analysis Archives. Retrieved September 27, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
27.
GarciaE. E., & WieseA.-M. (2002). Language, public policy, and schooling: A focus on Chicano English language learners. In ValenciaRichard R. (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the New Millennium (pp.149—169). New York: Teachers College Press.
28.
GeneseeF. (1999). Newcomer programs. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Equity and Diversity in Education.
29.
GeneseeF.Lindholm-LearyK.SaundersW. M., & ChristianD. (2006). Educating English Language Learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
GoldN. (2006). The high schools English learners need (Policy paper). Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. http://www.lmri.ucsb.edu/publications/06_gold.pdf downloaded August 1, 2008.
31.
GoodladJ. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
32.
GreblerL.MooreJ., & GuzmánR. (1970). The Mexican American people. New York: Free Press.
33.
GroggerJ., & TrejoS. (2002). Falling behind or moving up? The intergenerational progress of Mexican Americans. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
34.
GutierrezK. (2002). Backlash pedagogy. In Suárez-OrozcoM., & PáezM. (Ed.), Latinos: Remaking America (pp. 321—338). Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
HarklauL.LoseyK., & SiegalM. (Eds.). (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
KaoG., & ThompsonJ. S. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417—442.
37.
KindlerA. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2000-2001 Summary Report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.
38.
Latino Eligibility Task Force. (1997). Ya Basta. Santa Cruz: Latino Eligibility Task Force, Office of the President, University of California.
39.
Lau v Nichols 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
40.
McDonnellL. M., & HillP. T. (1993). Newcomers in American schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
41.
MinicucciC. (2000). Effective use of time in the education of English learners. In GándaraP. (Ed.), The dimensions of time and the challenge of school reform (pp. 49—58). Albany: State University of New York Press.
42.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, •115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
43.
OlsenL. (2000). Made in America: Immigrant students in American schools. New York: Free Press.
44.
OrfieldG., & LeeC. (2006). Racial transformation and the changing nature of segregation. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
45.
ParrishT. B.MerickelA.PerezM.LinquantiR.SociaM.SpainA. (2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12: Findings from a five-year evaluation. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research and WestEd.
46.
PortesA., & RumbautR. G. (1990). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.
47.
PortesA., & RumbautR. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
48.
RolstadK.MahoneyK., & GlassG. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19, 572—594.
RothsteinR. (2004). Class and schools. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute
51.
RuizR. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8, 15—34.
52.
RumbautR. (1995). The New Californians: Comparative research findings on educational progress of immigrant children. In RumbautR., & CorneliusW. (Eds.), California's immigrant children: Theory, research, and implications for educational policy (pp. 17—69). San Diego: Center for U.S. Mexican Studies, University of California at San Diego.
53.
RumbergerR. W., & GándaraP. (2004). Seeking equity in the education of California's English learners. Teachers College Record, 106, 2031—2055.
54.
RumbergerR. W., & RodriguezG. (2002). Chicano dropouts: An update of research and policy issues. In ValenciaRichard R. (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the new millennium (pp.114—146). New York: Teachers College Press.
55.
RumbergerR. W., & TranL. (2008). Investigating State, District, and School Variability in the English Learner Achievement Gap. Final Report Submitted to the Institute for Educational Sciences. U.S Department of Education. Santa Barbara, CA: University of Californai, Santa Barbara.
56.
SacchettiM., & JanT. (2006, May 21). Bilingual law fails first test. Boston Globe. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from http://www.boston.com
57.
SchmidtR. (2000). Language policy and identity politics in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
58.
ShinH. B. (2005). School enrollment—Social and economic characteristics of students: October 2003 (P20-554). Retrieved August 1, 2008, from U.S. Census Bureau Web site: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
59.
ShortD. J. (2002). Newcomer programs: An educational alternative for secondary immigrant students. Education and Urban Society, 34, 173—198.
60.
SilverD.SaundersM., & ZarateE. (2008). What Factors Predict High School Graduation in the Los Angeles Unified School District? Policy Brief #14. California Drop Out Project, University of California, Santa Barbara.
61.
SlavinR. E., & CheungA. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75, 247—284.
62.
SpringJ. (2001). The American School: 1642–2000. New York: McGraw-Hill.
63.
Stanton-SalazarR.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 1—40.
64.
Suárez-OrozcoM., & Suárez-OrozcoC. (1995). Transformations: Immigration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). The condition of education. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/
76.
Univeristy of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute (UC LMRI). (2006). Tenth Grade Dropout Rates by Native Language, Race/Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status. EL Facts, Number 7. Santa Barbara, CA: UC LMRI. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from:
77.
ValdésG. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
78.
ValdésG. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
79.
VillalpandoO., & SolórzanoD. (2004). The role of culture in college preparation programs: A review of the research literature. In TierneyW.CorwinZ., & ColyarJ. (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 13—28). Albany: State University of New York.
80.
WestJ.DentonK., & Germino-HauskenE. (2000). America's kindergartners (NCES 2000-070). Retrieved January 10, 2006 from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000070.pdf
81.
WileyT. G., & WrightW. E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the “Age of Accountability.”Educational Policy, 18, 142—168.
82.
Wong-FillmoreL. (1991). Second language learning in children: A model of language learning in social context. In BialystokE. (Ed.), Language processing by bilingual children (pp. 49—69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
83.
Wong FillmoreL., & SnowC. E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics Special Report.
84.
WrightW. E. (2005). The political spectacle of Arizona's Proposition 203. Educational Policy, 19, 662—700.
85.
ZehlerA.FleischmanH.HopstockP.StephensonT.PendzickM., & SapruS. (2003). Descriptive study of services to limited English proficient students. Washington, DC: Development Associates.
