The Education of Language Minority Students
Testimony of Kenji Hakuta
(with the special assistance from Michele Bousquet Gutierrez)
to the United
States Commission on Civil Rights
April 13, 2001
This testimony is organized around the three prongs of Castañeda
v. Pickard (1981), which has been widely influential in policy
and civil rights enforcement in defining the appropriateness
of programs serving English Language Learners (ELLs). The standards
are (1) that the program is based on sound educational theory,
(2) that it is adequately implemented, and (3) that it is evaluated
for its effectiveness in meeting the needs of the students.
Standard 1: Is the program based on an educational theory recognized
as sound by at least some experts in the field?
Research findings on the effectiveness of bilingual education
are far from definitive. However, the best research (i.e., research
that investigates programs that are representative of their "bilingual" label
and that are properly implemented) suggests that bilingual education
is a successful model and does produce measurably better outcomes
in academic achievement. This finding has been supported by two
independent committees of the National Academy of Sciences, one
of which I chaired. In fact, it is often the studies with the weaker
research design that have reported negative findings on the success
of bilingual education. Several meta-analyses that combine findings
across independent studies have consistently supported bilingual
education over English-only alternatives (Greene, 1998 and Willig,
1985).
In addition to the evaluation findings just noted, a bilingual
education model is a necessary alternative to an English-only model
based on educational theories found in the literature about transfer
of knowledge, contexualized language, and affective and cognitive
variables. For example, cognitive theory supports the notion that
there is one common underlying proficiency for both a student’s
languages and that skills learned in a student’s first language
can be transferred to and accessible in the student’s second language.
By teaching a child in a language she or he already understands,
access to school subjects is accelerated and enhanced, and there
is an immediate context for the content being taught. We further
can assume, based on motivation theory, that when language minority
students’ native language is valued and utilized in the curriculum,
they are more likely to have increased self-esteem, less anxiety,
and greater self-efficacy of their performance in educational settings.
Finally, while there has been debate on the effectiveness of bilingualism
to improve a learner’s cognitive skills, the most conservative
conclusion would be that even if additive bilingualism does not
contribute to increased metalinguistic awareness and cognitive
flexibility, then it certainly does not detract from a person’s
innate capabilities in these areas.
Research also suggests that success in non-bilingual education
settings most likely occurs when children come from homes in which
there is a high degree of education, where second language only
programs are taught by teachers who have the skills to communicate
with the child in his or her first language, and where there is
a school-wide climate that supports high degrees of learning. However,
absent these conditions—as is usually the case, the research strongly
suggests that children are best taught at least to some degree
in their first language until they have acquired proficiency in
English. Because of this, native language instruction is one method
of teaching that educators must be free to use in constructing
effective programs for ELLs. Depriving educators of this method
summarily removes one of the many useful tools that can be used
to improve learning outcomes for these students.
There is no "formula" that can be used to determine
how long it takes for ELL students to learn English. A myriad of
factors contribute to ELL students’ rate of English acquisition,
including whether they are proficient in their first language upon
their arrival to the U.S. and at what age they enter U.S. schools.
In a recent paper I co-authored with Yuko Goto Butler and Daria
Witt, I outlined a study that showed the expected time it would
take for these students to learn English is between 4 to 7 years,
and that this time period varies considerably by the socioeconomic
status of the students as well as the aforementioned variables.
The study further showed that this estimate would hold both in
districts that have bilingual education as well as those that use
English-only and have intensive English as a Second Language instruction.
Basic research has corroborated my findings, showing that ELL
students are learning English at a rapid and natural rate of development
("at the speed limit"), regardless of relative amounts of exposure
to English vs. native language in school. It appears then that
a simplistic, "time on task" theory fails to predict English language
development, just as it fails to predict patterns in the acquisition
of a first language. It also appears unlikely that any further
intensifying of instruction in English would cause the rate of
acquisition to become much faster.
Summary for Standard 1: In order to be compliant with Standard
1 of Castañeda, programs for ELLs must include at least
some amount of native language support, and ELL students should
receive some form of special instruction and accommodations for
a period of at least 4 to 7 years.
Standard 2: Are the school district’s programs and practices,
including resources and personnel, reasonably calculated to implement
this theory effectively?
States need to think more broadly about ELL instruction, rather
than just in terms of program type with respect to the language
of instruction. What is critical is finding and communicating a
set of program components that work for the children in a given
community of interest, within the context of the goals, demographics,
and resources of that community. This set of components will (and
should) vary depending on factors that differ not only across but
within immigrant groups, such as students’ first language, SES,
previous academic experience, community and parental socio-linguistic
climate, learner styles, and goals for proficiency (additive v.
subtractive). Teacher availability and qualifications also play
a vital role (National Research Council, 1997). A set of generally
agreed upon "best practices" that can and should be found
across program types to encourage the success of language minority
students would include the following: some use of native language
and culture in the instruction of language minority students, a
balanced curriculum that incorporates both basic and higher-order
skills, explicit skills instruction, opportunities for student-directed
activities, use of instructional strategies that enhance understanding,
opportunities for practice, systematic student assessment, staff
development, and home and parent involvement. This important literature
has been reviewed and supported by the National Research Council
(1997).
Currently in typical programs for ELL students—regardless of program
type—high levels of academic learning are not promoted. It stands
to reason that if ELL students are going to have a chance at an
equal education, they need to be included in standards-based reform
movements in the various content areas and in academic measures
of competitiveness. Clear academic standards for ELL students must
be in place, confirming the need to set the same expectations for
this population as for mainstream students. Emphasis should be
placed on the integration of theory, standards, instruction, and
assessment.
When setting these standards for ELL students, the focus should
be on what ultimately matters most—their long-term performance
and success. It is unreasonable to expect ELLs to perform comparably
to their native English-speaking peers in their initial years of
schooling (hence the need for standards specific to ELLs) and holding
them to this expectation too early in their educational careers
can be detrimental to their academic progress, not to mention their
self-esteem. The problem enters when students are not pushed to
go beyond this stage over time, are presumed to be at an elementary
level, or are misdiagnosed as having educational disabilities by
teachers unfamiliar with the needs of ELLs.
Currently, there is a dearth of appropriate materials for ELLs.
Generally speaking what is needed are ELL textbooks and other instructional
materials that are aligned to states’ ELD and content standards
and that incorporate both basic and higher-order skills. Furthermore,
it is questionable whether the limited ELL material that does exist
is distributed equitably. Approximately 75% of all ELL students’ families
settle in high poverty, urban areas where schools are "disproportionately
poor, non-white, under-funded, and underachieving" (Crawford,
1997). The fact that lesser resources are available in many of
the classrooms where ELLs can be found may be responsible for the
fact that most ELL teachers do not use materials designed for ELLs.
In fact in a nationwide sample, 64% of ELL teachers used the same
reading materials for their English proficient students and their
ELLs, despite the great disparities between these two groups (Moss & Puma,
1995).
The success of ELLs does not hinge solely on the resources and
environment of the classroom but also on those of their school
in general. Therefore, criteria for effective school environments
for this population are important to identify as well. The following
are recommended school attributes: a supportive school-wide climate,
school leadership, a customized learning environment, articulation
and coordination between and among schools in the district, school-wide
coherence, rigorous standards for teaching and learning, assessment
and accountability, continuous evaluation, and research of program
effectiveness.
The academic success of all students rests in large measure in
the hands of their instructors, and research suggests that this
success is largely dependent upon teachers’ professional preparation
and certification (Darling-Hammond, 2000; The Report of the Proposition
227 Task Force, 1999). Approximately 42% of U.S. teachers have
at least one ELL in their classrooms (Moss & Puma, 1995). Proper
training is particularly critical for those who work with ELLs,
as members of the ELL population are not only vastly different
from the mainstream student population, but there is considerable
variability even within the population of ELL students. This heterogeneous
group of students comes to U.S. classrooms with varying degrees
of proficiencies in both their native language and English, differing
amounts of academic content knowledge, and from varying socioeconomic
and political circumstances, all of which affect learning readiness.
Instructors of these students need additional teaching skills and
theoretical knowledge beyond that which is taught to mainstream
teachers in order to effectively instruct this population.
Despite the availability of programs like California’s Crosscultural
Language and Academic Development (CLAD) & Bilingual CLAD (BCLAD)
certificate programs that train teachers in 1) second language
acquisition, 2) bilingual, ELD, and content instruction theories
and methodology, 3) culture and diversity, and 4) (for B-CLAD only)
proficiency in a target language, knowledge of the target culture,
and methodology for instruction in the target language, many instructors
of ELLs have not completed this training. In California alone,
for example, approximately 101,000 public school teachers teach
ELLs using English Language Development (ELD), Specially Designed
Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE), or some combination of
the two, yet only about half are certified to do so by the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Additionally, more than 16,000
teachers report that they use ELLs’ native language to offer content
instruction bilingually, but less than 11,000 have CCTC authorization
to do this (California Department of Education, Educational Demographics
Unit, Language Census, 1999, Number of staff members providing
primary language instruction to English learner students in California
public schools, by language of instruction, 1998-99). Note that
these numbers already reveal that a large portion of ELL teachers—in
the state responsible for the education of the most ELLs in this
country—are not trained to work with this population. Further magnifying
the issue, however, is that these data do not account for teacher
quality and availability in the other 49 states and the data only
include California’s teachers who utilize ELD, SDAIE, and/or bilingual
education approaches when teaching—not all of those teachers throughout
the state who potentially have ELLs in their classes that could
benefit from these types of instruction—potentially enlarging the
unqualified ELL teaching force even more.
Faced with a shortage of teachers, particularly in urban schools,
schools often make use of aides. While aides and paraprofessionals
are valued and necessary employees, they are not appropriate as
the primary (or only) instructors for ELLs (Proposition 227 Task
Force, 1999). The danger of over-reliance on classroom aides for
the education of ELL students can be seen at the national level,
where 58% of ELL students in high-poverty schools have aides delivering
their English/reading instruction, and less than 21% of nationwide
ELL students have aides who possess any education beyond high school
(Moss & Puma, 1995).
Beyond this, there is a larger problem of overall teacher qualification.
In California alone, almost 15% of all public school teachers are
working without a teaching credential. Ten percent of these un-credentialed
classroom teachers do not hold a bachelor’s degree and are teaching
on waivers (California Department of Education, Educational Demographics
Unit, Statewide classroom teacher credential and experience report
for the year 1999-00). ELLs in particular are greatly impacted
by this. In California, schools with 40% or more ELLs have 6 times
the percentage of teachers who are not fully credentialed than
do schools that have 7.49% or fewer EL students (Rumberger & Gandara,
2000). In other words, the schools that ELL students are most likely
to attend are the very ones in which qualified teachers are least
likely to be employed.
There is also a mismatch between the racial and ethnic breakdowns
of the nation’s teachers and students. In California for example,
the teaching force is relatively homogeneous when viewed against
the diversity of the state’s students. While minorities comprise
only 24% of the teacher workforce (California Department of Education,
Educational Demographics Unit, Number of teachers in California
public schools by ethnic designation and gender, 1999-00,), 63%
of the state’s students are minorities (California Department of
Education, Educational Demographics Unit, Statewide enrollment
in California public schools by ethnic group, 1999-00).
While it is critical that the ELL teaching force become more diverse
and trained in the methodological and affective accommodations
ELL students may need, having this group in place is just the beginning
of what needs to be done to serve this population. Professional
development is critical. Specifically, there is a need for continued,
career-long professional development. Unfortunately, too often
pre-and in-service programs provide superficial, cursory looks
at ELL-specific issues but do not allow time for substantial teacher
reflection (Walqui, 1997). Even completion of a program such as
California’s CLAD or BCLAD certificate is insufficient training
on its own when one is dedicating a career to ELL instruction.
The resources and support necessary to affect long-term change
are absent. Teachers need to have an opportunity for continued
discussion and reflection upon their practices as a group. These
discussions foster perpetual growth and enrichment of teachers’ skills
as well as provide a peer group network to allow teachers to better
manage their ever-changing student body populations and resulting
teaching methods (National Research Council, 1997).
The recently completed efforts of the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards to develop teaching standards for bilingual
and ESL teachers should be applauded as the "deluxe" model for
professional development, but the magnitude of the problem is staggering
when we look at the other elements of professional preparation
such as schools of education, professional development models,
and Title VII incentives. In addition, current knowledge about
the effectiveness of strategies for teacher education and the assessment
of teacher knowledge and skills is very limited. With respect to
teacher competencies, there has never been a study that analyzed
the kinds of teacher competencies that result in ELLs meeting high
skill levels. States should fund this type of research to allow
for the tailoring of credentials/certificates that are tied to
what we know about critical teacher competencies for ELLs. Policymakers
should demand a systematic inquiry into ways to understand, support,
and coordinate all of these efforts.
Summary for Standard 2: In order to be compliant with Standard
2 of Castañeda, districts need to ensure that the following
is accomplished: 1) ELL programs (regardless of type) are not seen
as "one size fits all", but rather are developed after
reflection of a particular program’s population and their needs;
2) language and content standards specific to ELLs are developed;
3) additional quality materials for instructing ELLs are developed
and equitably distributed; 4) more teachers are trained to work
with the ELL population; and 5) these teachers be offered on-going
professional development.
Standard 3: Does the district evaluate its programs and make adjustments
where needed to ensure language barriers are actually being overcome?
Program evaluation is often gauged in terms of student performance,
yet there are several key issues that are raised by assessing ELLs,
including 1) the need for inclusion of ELLs in the standards-based
reform process, 2) the difficulty in deciphering results of content
area assessments (i.e., are errors based on a lack of English proficiency
or a content area knowledge deficit?); 3) the testing accommodations
necessary for ELLs, particularly for high-stakes assessments; and
4) the need for English language assessments that more accurately
reflect the type of language that a classroom demands – often called "academic
English." Each concern has implications for states’ policies,
as assessments administered to ELLs are used for re-designation
purposes and have ramifications that extend far beyond the determination
of their language needs. In fact, because of the serious inadequacy
of ELL assessments, they have the potential to erroneously impact—and
subsequently render inequitable—state-provided educational experiences.
As mentioned previously, the state should develop academic standards
for ELLs and, through aligned assessments, illustrate compliance
with Castañeda’s requirement of comprehensive content area
instruction. The natural progression of these standards would be
to design research studies to test their validity, especially with
respect to policy-relevent junctures, such as identification and
reclassification.
Up to now, ELLs’ progress has been gauged almost exclusively by
their rate of English language development. However, instead of
looking simply at English language proficiency as a measure of
success, ELLs’ progress should also be determined based on their
achievement of academic content standards that are developed specific
to this population. Despite the need for evaluating ELLs’ progress
against content area standards that are tailored specifically for
that population, trying to capture ELLs’ comprehension of content
material when this is measured through an English language test
is a true challenge for ELL teachers. How can one separate out
the problems a student has that are related to his/her English
comprehension from those that reflect his/her difficulty in mastering
the content? Taken on its own, this dilemma does not bode well
for ELLs; however, the issue becomes even more critical when these
content area assessments are used for high-stakes purposes (i.e.,
for student grade promotion, etc.).
Using content area assessments for high-stakes purposes is precisely
what some districts in California are doing with the SAT-9, despite
the known difficulties in separating out content knowledge deficits
from problems of English language comprehension and despite the
fact that the SAT-9 was normed with a very different population
and was never intended to be used as an ELL assessment tool. Even
in districts in which the SAT-9 is not used as a determiner of
grade promotion, the test is still used as one of the primary measures
for determining whether or not a student is able to be "redesignated" from
an "English Language Learner" to a "Fluent English
Proficient" learner. While California has been singled out
here as an example, other states are guilty of the same behavior.
Given the previously mentioned concerns over the SAT-9, ELL advocates
have publicly questioned the validity of ELLs’ scores on the SAT-9
and sought to find ways to meaningfully interpret them. From a
civil rights perspective, ELLs are potentially being foreclosed
from a meaningful education if a state-administered assessment
(that they are required by the state to take) cannot provide an
accurate evaluation of their performance and thus prohibits their
grade promotion or places them in a class or academic track below
their true skill level. There needs to be an end nationwide to
the use of standardized tests like the SAT-9 as high-stakes tests
for ELLs and alternative assessments need to be developed for ELLs,
particularly ones to be used specifically for redesignation and
accountability purposes. In this vein, longitudinal research that
tracks the educational progress of former ELLs that have been deemed
English proficient could also prove useful in pinpointing areas
that are critical to assess prior to redesignating and ending specialized
instruction for an ELL (National Research Council, 2000).
It is clear, then, that assessing ELLs can be a double-edged sword.
By not including this population in assessments, one creates a
recipe for the provision of a sub-par education without accountability.
Yet, including ELLs in assessments that are invalid measures and
that could potentially be used against them is harmful to the very
students that the policies intend to serve (National Research Council,
2000). To mitigate this, states must acknowledge that when ELLs
are assessed (particularly in a potentially high-stakes context
like the SAT-9), consideration must be given to the appropriateness
of accommodations that might be made for this particular group
of students. Oftentimes on assessments like the SAT-9, the level
of English vocabulary reflected in both the reading and listening
passages is quite advanced and well beyond the beginning English
vocabulary that would typically be employed in materials in ESL
classes for students learning English as a new language. While
the advanced English vocabulary might reflect English language
arts as taught to native English speakers from kindergarten through
high school, that vocabulary would be much more difficult, indeed,
literally and figuratively foreign to ELLs. Research has illustrated
that, depending upon the age of the child, it can take up to seven
years before a majority of ELLs would have enough exposure to such
vocabulary to be able to understand the language used on assessments
(like the SAT-9) and to have a reasonable or fair chance to pass
it on an equitable basis as native English speakers (Hakuta, Butler, & Witt,
1999).
Translating the assessment into the student’s native language
is one potential accommodation that is frequently discussed, but
this is not as easy a solution as it might appear, since tests
that are translated into other languages often fail to preserve
the integrity of the original test (National Research Council,
1997). Another possibility that is currently being tested is the
use of dual language test booklets. With these booklets, students’ first
language can theoretically be used to scaffold, or provide support
for facilitating their understanding of the English version of
the test. Other possible accommodations are administering alternative
assessments with a reduced language load, awarding additional time,
allowing students to use dictionaries, and simplifying test instructions
(National Research Council, 1997), but one also needs to ensure
that accommodations do not merely introduce further problems (e.g.,
becoming distracted and thumbing through a dictionary) that could
take the focus off the task (National Research Council, 2000).
It is easy to see what a disadvantage ELLs are operating from without
viable testing accommodations. By not intervening, states are failing
to meet their legal obligation under Castañeda v. Pickard
to educate language minority students and are promoting inequitable
assessment environments in the nation’s schools.
In order to set realistic standards and appropriate testing accommodation
guidelines that will enable ELLs to both attain and demonstrate
their full potential, there is a continued need for objective assessments
of ELLs’ English language abilities in all four skills areas as
well, including reading and writing, which take considerably longer
to develop than oral English. Additionally, the validity of the
assessments currently used, for example in California schools,
to measure ELLs’ oral English language ability is questionable.
For instance, many of these assessments do not tap students’ academic
oral proficiency but rather solely their basic, daily language—or
even merely their grasp of fundamental grammar principles, therefore
not offering accurate information about students’ oral abilities
as they pertain to a classroom environment (National Research Council,
1997). As a result of their performance of these invalid measures,
ELLs can end up in a classroom that is inappropriate for their
level of instruction. In order to get an accurate picture of ELLs’ English
language proficiency level for classroom placement purposes, states
should support the supplemental use of more authentic assessments
of students’ academic language that more closely mirror classroom
demands.
Summary for Standard 3: In order to be compliant with Standard
3 of Castañeda, districts need to involve ELLs in the standards-based
reform process and assess them in both their content area knowledge
and in academic English performance. However, accommodations must
be available for ELLs and evaluations of their performance that
are gained by using assessments normed on native English speakers
cannot be used for high-stakes purposes.
An Additional Standard: Using data to make program improvements.
It is important to make explicit the point that the third standard
set by Castaneda is intended to trigger adjustments in either the
educational theory or in its implementation. This is itself a de
facto fourth standard, that the educational system, be it a local
or state agency, be prepared to use appropriate information on
program effectiveness to improve its programs. Local and state
system capacity for addressing the needs of ELL students based
on sound information should be a further requirement in addition
to the three standards.
References
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit,
Language Census, 1999. Number of staff members providing primary
language instruction to English learner students in California
public schools, by language of instruction, 1998-99 [On-line].
Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/demographics/reports/statewide/lctch99.htm
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit,
Number of teachers in California public schools by ethnic designation
and gender, 1999-00 [On-line]. Available: http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/NumTeachCo.asp?cChoice=StateNum&Radio2=T&cYear=1999-00&submit1=Submit
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit,
Statewide classroom teacher credential and experience report for
the year 1999-00 [On-line]. Available: http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/TchExp1.asp
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit,
Statewide enrollment in California public schools by ethnic group,
1999-00 [On-line]. Available: http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/StateEnr.asp?cChoice=StEnrEth&cYear=1999-00&submit1=Submit
Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir.
1981).
Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of the
Bilingual Education Act. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse
for Bilingual Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement:
A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
8(1). [On-line]. Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1
Greene, J. P. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of
bilingual education. Austin, TX: University of Texas, The Tomas
Rivera Policy Institute.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y.G., & Witt, D. (1999). How long does
it take English learners to attain proficiency? University of California
Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy Report 2000-1.
Moss, M. & Puma, M. (1995). Prospects: The Congressionally
mandated study of educational opportunity and growth: Language
minority and limited English proficient students. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
National Research Council. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority
children. August, D. & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Testing English-language learners
in U.S. schools. Beatty, A. & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Rumberger, R. & Gandara, P. (2000, October). The state of
education for English language learners in California. Presentation
at the University of California All Campus Collaborative, Outreach,
Research, and Dissemination (UC ACCORD) Conference, San Jose, CA.
The Proposition 227 Task Force. (1999). Educating English learners
for the twenty-first century. Sacramento, CA: California Department
of Education.
Walqui, A. (1997). The development of teachers’ understanding:
Inservice professional growth for teachers of English language
learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Willig, A.C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the
effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research,
55(3), 269-317.
|