Group items tagged

School administrators and teachers grappling with the often confusing and contradictory premises of these popular initiatives can draw on three useful sources of information: (1) meta-analyses of research studies regarding program effectiveness and instructional practices that support and enhance achievement, (2) studies of the initiatives' effect on English language learners' English language acquisition and academic achievement, and (3) databases that compile language assessments administered to large populations of English language learners over time and across grade levels. Several myths about the instruction of English language learners do not stand up to scrutiny when examined through the lens of this research base.

The "One-Size-Fits-All" Myth

Schools throughout the United States use a variety and range of theoretically sound programs to meet the needs of their specific populations of English language learners, who vary in demographic and linguistic characteristics.

For instance, bilingual programs are appropriate and effective in schools that serve concentrations of students who use a common native language

In many schools, however, English language learners speak a number of different native languages; such schools often use English as the common language of content-area instruction. Therefore, some state agencies and language-minority educators advocate a mix of services and program types in response to each school district's demographic mix—an approach that contradicts the state laws requiring a default model of sheltered English immersion

The "Language of Instruction" Myth

But according to Education Week, 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 (Zehr, 2008, p. 10).

Proponents of the ballot initiatives mandating sheltered English immersion argue that bilingual education is the reason for low levels of English proficiency among immigrant students—especially Latinos, the group served by the vast majority of the bilingual programs.

(Parrish, Pérez, Merickel, & Linquanti, 2006). The study found that students participating in English-only education programs had no statistically significant advantage in terms of academic achievement over those in bilingual education programs that parents chose through the waiver process under the law.

Thus, ballot initiatives have not realized their goal of improving English language learners' academic achievement.

In denying the injunction against the implementation of Proposition 227, the U.S. District Court in Valeria G. v. Wilson (1998) ruled that structured English immersion was based on delivery of English language and content instruction that was "sequential" rather than "simultaneous."

This focus is based on the belief that the "problem" facing these students is essentially a "language problem.

K-12 Program Continuity and Coherence Programs for English language learners must be proven models with a demonstrated track record. Programs must have long-term goals and continuity in the curriculum as students move up through the grade levels. As students' listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills in English grow, the focus of instruction should shift, and instruction should be differentiated according to students' language levels (Mora, 2006). Differentiating the curriculum in this way requires monitoring students' progress toward performance benchmarks in English language proficiency, literacy, and content-area learning (Gottlieb & Nguyen, 2007)

Targeted Professional Development Educators must view the education of language-minority students as a shared responsibility. Teachers must have ample professional preparation in how to use appropriate curricular materials and teaching strategies to promote English language learners' achievement. Both new and experienced teachers need intensive professional development above and beyond the teacher education coursework required by the state credential and certificate programs. For example, teachers should be knowledgeable about second-language acquisition and cross-linguistic transfer so that students learning in their second language can capitalize on the commonalities in literacy with their native language, regardless of whether their instruction is in dual languages.

Local school districts must have the freedom and support to establish sheltered English immersion programs and/or bilingual education programs depending on community values, parental choice, and available resources. Policies must allow flexibility in use of students' native languages—especially for development of literacy skills. In states with anti-bilingual mandates, local jurisdictions should apply liberal and open interpretation of petition and waiver requirements to support parent empowerment and involvement in program selection.

Research-Based Policies to Replace Politically Based Policies

But in most situations, school administrators and teachers cannot prevent you from saying something just because it is controversial.

true threat A defamatory statement Obscene

True Threats Whether you are in school or not, online or in-person, the right to free speech does not protect speech that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of your desire and ability to harm him/her.

Defamatory Statements The right to free speech also does not protect false personal attacks against another person that are untrue, that harm someone's reputation, and that you knew, or should have known, were untrue when you said or wrote it.

Obscene Speech The right to free speech does not protect speech that deals with sex in a manner appealing to purely lustful interests in a patently offensive manner, and without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

For speech to be considered a "true threat," it must be something that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of an intention to harm him/her.

If the school provides students with an e-mail address, it can impose rules on its use. For example, it can require that the address be used only for school-related purposes and can prohibit using the account in a way that interferes with another student's learning, such as sending flames or bullying messag

It may also monitor what you view, send, or receive on school-provided computers or e-mail account

Your school may prohibit all access to the Internet on any computer. Or your school may prohibit using school computers to access the Internet, including sites such as Facebook or YouTube, or using Hotmail or Gmail accounts, if school officials believe access is disruptive to the schoo

When you are using the school's computer and Internet access, school officials can see what you are sending and receiving onlin

Check your personal e-mail or non-school-related websites outside of school, on your own time, with a computer that does not belong to the school.

But merely because you are off campus, you are not free to say just anything. Remember, state and federal laws make it illegal to post threats of violence against a person or to advocate certain illegal action

Posting information on the Internet can be like publishing it in the newspaper. If the website is public, anyone can look at i

Keep in mind that school officials, college admissions officers, and potential employers are free to look at it.

Other people could take your posting and copy it to another website where you can't delete it

What's more, what you put on a public website may stay on the Internet foreve