Limited English Proficiency: A Growing and Costly Educational Challenge
Facing Many School Districts (Letter Report, 01/28/94, GAO/HEHS-94-38).
In 1990, the President and governments agreed on six goals for the
nation's education system, to be reached by the year 2000. They include
first-place standing for U.S. students in math and science
internationally and high student achievement in five core academic
subjects. At the same time, Congress has become increasingly concerned
about the ability of schools to teach the growing numbers of students
who speak little or no English. In the last decade, the number of
limited English proficient (LEP) students increased by nearly 26
percent. More than 2.3 million LEP students live in the United States,
representing a multitude of linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This
report answers the following questions: (1) What are the characteristics
of LEP students, nationally and in selected districts, and the
challenges districts face in educating these students? (2) How do
selected districts with LEP students from linguistically diverse
backgrounds educate these students, including the extent to which
academic subjects are taught in the students' native languages? (3) What
approaches have been identified as promising when the diversity of
languages spoken by students makes native language instruction
difficult? (4) Do key federal programs targeted to LEP students provide
the types of support that school districts need to implement programs
serving these students?
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: HEHS-94-38
TITLE: Limited English Proficiency: A Growing and Costly
Educational Challenge Facing Many School Districts
DATE: 01/28/94
SUBJECT: Public schools
Education program evaluation
Aid for education
Compensatory education
Educational programs
Immigrants
Disadvantaged persons
Demographic data
Secondary school students
Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER: Dept. of Education Chapter 1 Program for Educationally
Disadvantaged Children
Dept. of Education Bilingual Education Program
Dept. of Education Emergency Immigrant Education Act Program
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources
U.S. Senate
January 1994
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY - A
GROWING AND COSTLY EDUCATIONAL
CHALLENGE FACING MANY SCHOOL
DISTRICTS
GAO/HEHS-94-38
Limited English Proficiency
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AFDC - Aid to Families With Dependent Children
ACP - Alternative Certification Program
EIEA - Emergency Immigrant Education Act
ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act
ESL - English as a Second Language
LEP - Limited English Proficient
SAIP - Special Alternative Instructional Program
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-251268
January 28, 1994
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chairman, Committee on Labor and
Human Resources
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As the nation strives to achieve the national education goals,\1 the
Congress has become concerned about the ability of schools to educate
the increasing numbers of students who speak little or no English.
In the last decade, the number of limited English proficient (LEP)
students\2 increased by almost 26 percent. More than 2.3 million LEP
students live in the United States, representing many different
linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
In preparation for reauthorization of federal elementary and
secondary education programs, you asked us to study how the nation's
schools are educating these students. In response, we answered the
following questions: (1) What are the characteristics of LEP
students, nationally and in selected districts, and the challenges
districts face in educating these students? (2) How do selected
districts with LEP students from linguistically diverse backgrounds
educate these students, including the extent to which academic
subjects are taught in the students' native languages? (3) What
approaches have been identified as promising when diversity of
languages spoken by students makes native language instruction
difficult? (4) Do key federal programs targeted to LEP students
provide the types of support districts need to implement programs to
serve these students?
--------------------
\1 In 1990, the President and governors agreed on six goals for the
nation's education system, to be reached by the year 2000. They
include, for example, making U.S. students first in math and science
internationally and having all students achieving at high standards
in five core academic subjects.
\2 These data are based on the 1980 and 1990 censuses, which
collected data on children in specific age groups. For this
analysis, we included all school age children--those from 5 to 17
years of age--living in families. We included children as LEP if
they were reported as not speaking English only, or not speaking
English very well. Other definitions of LEP--for example, in some
federal programs--are broader; they include students who have
difficulty not only in speaking English, but in reading, writing, or
understanding it. Census provided no information on these other
skills. For ease of presentation, throughout the report we use the
term "students," rather than "children," when referring to Census
data, though some of these children may not be enrolled in school.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The nation's ability to achieve the national education goals is
increasingly dependent on its ability to educate LEP students. Yet
many districts--especially those with high numbers of LEP students
who are linguistically and culturally diverse--are struggling to
educate these students.
Although LEP students are heavily concentrated in a handful of
states, almost every state in the nation has counties that have
substantial numbers of LEP students. Districts with LEP students
face a multitude of challenges beyond the obvious one of the language
barrier. Almost half of all LEP students are also immigrants,
representing many cultures and speaking a variety of languages, and
in many cases come to this country with little or no education. LEP
students are often poor and have significant social, health, and
emotional needs.
Many LEP students in the five districts that we visited received
limited support in understanding academic subjects, such as math and
social studies. Districts could not provide bilingual--native
language--instruction to all LEP students. Districts reported
significant difficulties in obtaining sufficient numbers of bilingual
teachers and materials in most languages. This situation was
particularly true when student populations were diverse in terms of
language and age; one district, for example, had students from almost
90 different language backgrounds. In many cases, students spent
much of their time in subject area classes with teachers who did not
understand their native language and who had little or no training in
how to communicate with them.
Educators and researchers have developed approaches to provide
academic subject instruction to LEP students when native language
instruction is not possible, although the effectiveness of these
promising nonbilingual approaches has not been definitively
established. Useful approaches, for example, adapt curricula by
making it more visually comprehensible; rely less on the traditional,
language-
dependent, lecture format; and provide subject area teachers with
cultural diversity and language acquisition training to help them
relate to LEP students. Implementing these approaches, however, can
be difficult because they require substantial time, resources, and
expertise.
Federal programs targeted to LEP students provide important types of
services for improving the education of these students but limited
financial support. These programs provide technical assistance and
funds in support of district, state, and national efforts directed to
critical areas such as teacher training and student assessment. But
federal funding has not kept pace with the increase in the LEP
population; in the last decade, funding for the key federal program
directed to these students decreased, when inflation is considered,
by 40 percent, while the number of LEP students increased by more
than 25 percent.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Federal civil rights laws require that districts provide assistance
to help LEP students participate in educational programs. This
assistance varies, however. Often districts depend on English as a
Second Language (ESL), a grammatically based method used to help LEP
students learn English. Many experts are concerned that without
additional support in understanding academic subjects, these students
will fall well behind their English-speaking peers over the several
years\3 it takes to become fluent in English. One approach used to
help such students is bilingual instruction. This type of
instruction is intended to help ensure academic progress--by
providing instruction in key academic subjects in students' native
languages (for example, Spanish or Chinese)--as well as promote
proficiency in English. Many districts provide bilingual instruction
for at least some of their LEP students; some states require such
instruction for some LEP students. (See app. I for descriptions of
ESL, bilingual, and other basic instructional strategies for LEP
students.)
Several federal programs fund services for LEP students. The
Bilingual Education Act--Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended--is the key federal
legislation directed to these students. The stated policy of the act
is to support educational programs that help to ensure both English
language proficiency and academic achievement for students served.
The act provides about $192 million for (1) grants to districts and
(2) a variety of other national and state activities, such as
technical assistance. The act puts a priority on establishing and
operating bilingual projects, but also allows for projects using
nonbilingual approaches--called Special Alternative Instructional
Programs (SAIP)--when bilingual instruction is not practicable. Up
to 25 percent of the funds allocated to districts can be used for
SAIPs.
LEP students also receive services under other federal programs.
Chief among them are (1) Chapter 1 of ESEA, which provides
supplemental instruction in reading, math, and language arts to
educationally disadvantaged students; and (2) the Emergency Immigrant
Education Act of 1984 (EIEA), which provides about $30 million
annually to help districts meet the educational needs of immigrant
students, many of whom are LEP.
Recently, federal attention has focused on systemic educational
reform to improve the system for all students--not on reform for
specific at-risk students, such as LEP students. This type of reform
sets high standards for all students; ensures that curricula,
instruction, and assessment are appropriate for those standards; and
ensures that teachers are prepared to help each student meet those
standards. We recently reported on the experience of several
districts that had implemented this type of reform. We cautioned
that special efforts may be needed to help ensure that at-risk
students, such as LEP students, receive the assistance they need to
meet the new, higher standards of systemic reform.\4
--------------------
\3 Estimates for how long it takes to learn English vary, and the
time for each student depends on a variety of factors, including the
initial level of fluency and the quality of instruction. Overall,
estimates for the time it takes for an LEP student to become
sufficiently fluent in English to succeed in an all-English class
range from 3 to 7 years.
\4 See Systemwide Education Reform: Federal Leadership Could
Facilitate District-Level Efforts (GAO/HRD-93-97, Apr. 30, 1993).
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
To answer your questions, we analyzed 1980 and 1990 Bureau of the
Census data to determine (1) the characteristics and distribution of
LEP students nationally and (2) what changes have occurred in the
past decade.\5 To determine how selected districts were educating
these students, we visited five school districts--two in California,
and one each in Massachusetts, New York, and Texas--that had high
numbers of LEP students from many different language backgrounds. To
identify promising approaches for educating diverse groups of LEP
students, we reviewed literature, interviewed experts, and visited
five additional districts that were using these approaches. Finally,
we interviewed Department of Education officials and other experts to
discuss key federal programs and types of assistance they provided.
We focused our efforts concerning instruction of LEP students on the
extent to which bilingual instruction was provided because that type
of information was specifically requested. A substantial body of
research points to the effectiveness of bilingual instruction; many
educators believe it is preferable to nonbilingual instruction for
educating LEP students, both for teaching English and for teaching
academic subjects while the student is learning English. Others
strongly disagree, however, and research to determine the relative
merits of bilingual and nonbilingual approaches has not conclusively
resolved the debate. In our study, we did not attempt to address the
issue of which method is most effective, nor did we include a
comparison of program costs for bilingual and nonbilingual
instructional programs.
We carried out our work between July 1992 and July 1993 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------
\5 See also School Age Demographics: Recent Trends Pose New
Educational Challenges (GAO/HRD-93-105BR, Aug. 5, 1993).
MANY DISTRICTS HAVE HIGH
NUMBERS OF LEP STUDENTS AND
FACE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES
EDUCATING THEM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Although 72 percent of LEP students are concentrated in six states,\6
about one-sixth of the counties (533 out of 3,140) located in 47
states have substantial numbers of LEP students.\7 (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: More Than 500
Counties Have Substantial
Numbers of LEP Students
(See figure in printed
edition.)
.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Shaded areas indicate
the 533 counties in which at
least 5 percent or 500 students
were LEP, according to 1990
decennial Census data.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Districts with LEP students face a multitude of challenges; one key
challenge is language and cultural diversity. More than 40 percent
of all LEP students are also immigrants, representing many cultures
and speaking a variety of languages.\8 Educators face the daunting
task of communicating with students from many different language
backgrounds.
Census data show that in 1990, almost one-third of the 533 counties,
as well as 24 of the nation's 25 largest metropolitan areas, had 10
or more non-English languages represented. But Census data cannot
paint the complete picture of language diversity because Census
collects information on less than 15 non-English languages. Data
obtained in the districts we visited may be more illustrative of the
challenges posed by language diversity. For example, almost 90
different languages were represented in one of the districts. (See
app. II for a list of languages represented in the districts we
visited.)
Cultural diversity as well as linguistic diversity presented
challenges for the districts we visited. Officials noted that
failure to understand diverse student cultures often hindered
effective teacher-student communication. For example, one teacher
told us of an incident in which a student ran crying from the
classroom for apparently no reason at all. Finally, school officials
realized that a picture of an owl with the student's name on it had
scared her because the owl is the symbol of death in her native
country.
Districts faced other challenges, beyond the obvious one of
communicating with these students. For example, concentrations of
LEP students are often accompanied by concentrations of immigrant
students. Census data show that in 1990, about 43 percent of all LEP
students were immigrants. Both LEP and immigrant students are almost
twice as likely as other students to be poor; about 30 percent of
immigrant students and about 37 percent of LEP students were poor,
compared with about 17 percent of all students, Census data show. In
districts we visited, the poverty rate, as reported by the districts
for all students, ranged from 35 percent to 63 percent. Four of
these districts had experienced increases in the poverty rate in the
last 10 years, fueled largely, according to officials, by immigrant
and LEP students.\9
In addition, these students often have significant health and
emotional needs, especially those immigrants that had experienced the
trauma of war and life in refugee camps. They are highly transient,
making continuity in instruction and planning difficult, and they
often continue to arrive throughout the school year, contributing, in
many cases, to school overcrowding.\10
For example, in one district, a consequence of this overcrowding is
that some students must be graduated from ESL classes before they are
truly fluent in English to make room in the ESL classes for the new
arrivals. Another particularly difficult challenge is the recent
arrival of many immigrants, including those of high school age, who
have had little or no schooling and are illiterate even in their
native language.
Finally, officials in each district discussed the substantial
difficulties faced in getting parents of LEP students involved in
their children's education. Officials saw parental involvement as
important for student achievement. One major difficulty was that
many parents were illiterate in their native language as well as
English. Districts or schools reported a variety of efforts to
involve parents, including using interpreters (often community
volunteers), translating notices into a variety of languages,
providing parenting classes in a variety of subjects, and calling
parents directly, especially when the parents were known to be
illiterate and unable to read translated notices. Difficulties in
communicating with and involving parents continued, even after the
students themselves become fluent in English, officials said.\11
--------------------
\6 The states are California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New
York, and Texas. For purposes of this discussion, we include
Washington, D.C., as a state.
\7 We considered a county to have a substantial number of LEP
students if at least 5 percent--about the proportion of LEP students
nationwide--of the students were LEP or if it had at least 500 LEP
students. We chose 500 because this definition parallels EIEA, which
provides funds to districts if 500 or more (or 3 percent or more) of
the students are immigrants who have been attending U.S. schools for
less than 3 academic years.
\8 Data are based on the 1980 and 1990 censuses. We defined
"immigrant students" as those children who are (1) foreign born of
parents who are not U.S. citizens or (2) native born in families
with a mother who immigrated to the United States during the 10 years
before each census. Nationally, about 43 percent of those students
who were LEP were also immigrants, using this definition.
\9 Information on persons' poverty status in Census data is based on
the standard definition of poverty status prescribed by the Office of
Management and Budget as a statistical standard of federal agencies.
(See app. VI for a more detailed discussion of this definition.)
Poverty data from districts are based on the number of students that
(1) live in households that receive Aid to Families With Dependent
Children (AFDC) or (2) are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches
under the National School Lunch Program.
\10 A recent study by the RAND Corporation provides additional
evidence of the challenges districts face in educating immigrant
students. To help meet these students' needs, that study called for
changes, such as increasing the availability of bilingual teachers
and materials and improving coordination of health and social
services. (See Lorraine M. McDonnell and Paul T. Hill, Newcomers
in American Schools: Meeting the Educational Needs of Immigrant
Youth, the RAND Corporation (Santa Monica, CA: 1993).
\11 Census data show that in 1990 there were, nationally, almost
600,000 students who, though not LEP, were linguistically isolated.
That is, they lived in households where no one aged 14 or older spoke
only English, and no one aged 14 or older who spoke a language other
than English spoke English very well.
DISTRICTS VISITED OFTEN
PROVIDED LIMITED SUPPORT TO
HELP LEP STUDENTS UNDERSTAND
ACADEMIC SUBJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
In the five districts we visited, many LEP students received limited
support in academic subjects. Bilingual instruction was not possible
for many LEP students; in one district, for example, 3 percent of
about 21,000 LEP students received bilingual instruction. In this
and other districts, those students not in bilingual classes often
spent much of their time in academic subject classes with teachers
who had (1) little or no training in how to communicate with them and
(2) difficulty assessing these students' academic and language skills
on an ongoing basis.
In each district we visited, the number and mix of students made
providing bilingual instruction in academic subjects to some students
impractical. Groups of students who had common native languages were
spread across many grades and schools. For example, one district had
99 Romanian students located in 12 different schools and representing
six grade levels. This same district had several schools with
students from as many as 15 different language backgrounds, often
with fewer than 25 students in a given language group, spread across
many grades. Likewise, some schools at another district we visited
had students from at least nine different language backgrounds at a
given grade level.
School and district officials also consistently cited the shortage of
bilingual teachers and materials as a primary reason for not
providing bilingual instruction; many experts have pointed to a
national shortage of bilingual teachers. In each district, some
students spoke languages not historically represented in this country
in large numbers and for whom bilingual teachers and materials have
been especially hard to find. Although some districts have bilingual
teachers and materials in a few more common languages, especially
Spanish, bilingual teachers and materials are virtually nonexistent
in languages such as Hmong (Southeast Asia), Khmer (Cambodia), and
Korean. But even in districts where significant numbers of students
spoke the same language, such as Spanish, districts reported that
bilingual teachers were hard to find. For example, a few of the
districts we visited made rather extensive efforts to recruit Spanish
bilingual teachers--including going to Spain and Puerto Rico--but
still lacked adequate numbers of these teachers.
The districts generally provided LEP students with ESL instruction,
but often provided little support to help students not in bilingual
classes comprehend the academic instruction they received. In some
cases, assistance was provided by bilingual aides, but, officials
said, the aides seldom received much training in how to instruct
students and, in addition, these aides were usually not provided for
all of the languages represented in the class. In several districts,
even some ESL teachers had no special training and were not certified
as ESL instructors. Two examples illustrate this limited support.
District 1: More than 15,000 students--almost two-thirds of the
district's LEP students--received 60 minutes of ESL daily from
teachers who had not been certified as ESL teachers. In the
academic subject classes, few native language aides provided
assistance, and most teachers had received no extra training in
how to educate these students.
District 2: At one junior high school we visited, LEP students
were in ESL classes all day and had no instruction in math,
science, or social studies.
District officials frequently cited a lack of adequate resources as
the primary reason for not providing ESL and academic teachers with
special training for teaching LEP students. Officials in several of
the districts also emphasized that postsecondary programs to train
classroom teachers do not prepare them for dealing with the
substantial needs of the increasing LEP population in the nation's
schools. Department of Education officials echoed this concern.
Districts also had limited abilities to assess LEP students' language
proficiency and academic achievement levels. Experts generally
believe districts need to accurately assess both aspects of students'
abilities to provide LEP students with appropriate instruction. Many
districts use standardized achievement tests to determine student
needs for special services and to track overall district performance.
Standardized tests are available in Spanish to assess students'
Spanish language proficiency as well as achievement in certain
academic subjects. But students with native languages other than
Spanish must first achieve English proficiency before they can be
assessed on academic achievement tests.
PROMISING APPROACHES TO PROVIDE
INSTRUCTION IN ACADEMIC
SUBJECTS IDENTIFIED, BUT
IMPLEMENTATION DIFFICULT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Educators and researchers have developed promising approaches to
provide academic subject instruction to LEP students when native
language instruction is not possible. These approaches change
curricula and instruction to (1) focus on key concepts, (2) rely less
on language-dependent lecture and more on visual and hands-on
experiences, and (3) encourage students' use of their native
languages--for example by providing reading material in the native
language--even when teachers do not understand those languages. In
addition, to help them relate to LEP students, academic subject
teachers receive training in topics such as cultural diversity.
One study, funded by the Department of Education, identified
exemplary programs that use these promising nonbilingual
approaches.\12 This study suggests the potential effectiveness of
these approaches, but many experts--including one of the study's
authors--caution that these approaches should not replace bilingual
instruction if such instruction could otherwise be provided. Some
noted, for example, that, although these nonbilingual approaches can
help students meet high standards--for both English language
proficiency and academic achievement--bilingual instruction allows
for more detailed and richer coverage of academic subjects because it
facilitates a faster pace and allows more examples to be used.
The Department-funded study, as well as experiences in the districts
we visited, indicates that incorporating these nonbilingual
approaches could require substantial time and resources. Perhaps the
most critical and resource-intensive aspect of the programs that the
study describes is teacher training. The programs relied heavily on
academic subject teachers who had received extensive training in
English language acquisition, cultural diversity, and strategies for
instructing LEP students in academic subjects. Officials at one of
the exemplary programs noted that they provide an intensive week-long
staff development program, with follow-up during the next 2 years.
Districts may also need outside help in developing and implementing
promising nonbilingual approaches. The schools and districts with
exemplary programs used existing local and state funds, reallocating
scarce resources to support program implementation. Each of the
exemplary programs, however, also obtained outside funding to help
finance its efforts; several used consultants in designing and
implementing their programs.
Several of the districts we visited were trying to implement at least
some of these approaches, but had limited success. In some
districts, officials told us they had been slow to react to changing
student enrollments. By the time efforts got underway, these
districts were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem. One
district, for example, had more than 15,000 LEP students who were
taught by teachers not certified in ESL or bilingual instruction.
Districts we visited also said that they had insufficient resources
to train teachers and develop or modify curricula as necessary to
implement the promising approaches. Some officials noted, however,
that for both bilingual and nonbilingual approaches, having models,
better information about available instructional materials, and more
technical assistance could help in adopting programs to better meet
the needs of LEP students.
--------------------
\12 William J. Tikunoff and others, Final Report: A Descriptive
Study of Significant Features of Exemplary Special Alternative
Instructional Programs, The Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory
(Los Alamitos, CA: 1991). This study was a descriptive one and did
not assess program effectiveness. However, the nine programs
identified as exemplary by the researchers were chosen based on (1)
expert nomination; (2) evidence of positive student outcomes, such as
gains in English proficiency and time for students to be
mainstreamed; and (3) researchers' observations during visits to some
of the nominated programs.
FEDERAL PROGRAMS SUPPORT
IMPORTANT ACTIVITIES, BUT
LIMITED FUNDING IS PROVIDED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Title VII of ESEA and EIEA provide funds to districts to help meet
the needs of LEP students. Title VII also provides support at the
state and national levels for many important types of activities to
serve these students. Funding for these programs has not kept pace
with the increase in eligible populations, however.
More than three-fourths of the $192 million appropriated for Title
VII is used for grants to districts. The grants provide seed money,
on a competitive basis, to help districts develop the capacity to
provide programs for LEP students. About 1,000 projects were funded
in 1992; grants are for 3 years with a possible extension of up to 5
years.\13
Title VII also funds many national and state activities under nine
different programs. Activities funded under these programs range
from graduate teaching fellowships to research. The activities
address many of the difficulties districts face, including the
shortage of trained teachers, the need for technical assistance, and
the difficulties involved in making assessments, but the funding for
each of these activities is a relatively small part of program funds.
For example, less than 3 percent ($4.5 million) of Title VII's funds
are used for dissemination activities.\14
Funding for federal programs targeted to LEP students has not kept
pace with this increasing student population. For example, when
inflation is considered, the $192 million appropriated for Title VII
in 1990 is 40 percent less than the 1980 appropriation, though Census
data show the number of LEP students increased by more than 25
percent in those 10 years (see fig. 2).
Figure 2: Title VII Funding
Has Decreased, in Constant
Dollars, Since 1980
(See figure in printed
edition.)
The availability of federal funds for LEP students may increase,
however, if changes in Chapter 1, recommended by several study
groups, are implemented.\15 In 1993, about 35 percent of LEP students
received services under Chapter 1.\16 But LEP students are eligible
for Chapter 1 services only if their educational disadvantages stem
from causes other than language. Several recent studies of Chapter 1
have recommended removing that restriction. Further, while some
districts we visited provided Chapter 1 funds to some LEP students,
others interpreted the provision to mean LEP students could not be
served under Chapter 1. Department of Education officials have
indicated that the distinction between limited English proficiency
and other educational disadvantages is difficult, if not impossible,
to make. The Department's reauthorization proposal also recommends
removing that restriction. Eliminating the restriction should allow
more LEP students to be served under Chapter 1. Without increased
Chapter 1 funding, however, fewer non-LEP students might receive
Chapter 1 services.
--------------------
\13 Districts can receive more than one grant. For example, they
could receive grants for bilingual instructional programs and for
alternative (nonbilingual) instructional programs. One of the
districts we visited participated, or planned to participate, in
eight different Title VII projects.
\14 Some other Title VII activities, such as technical assistance,
also include the dissemination of information.
\15 See Federal Education Programs for Limited-English-Proficient
Students: A Blueprint for the Second Generation, Stanford Working
Group (Stanford, CA: June 1993); Providing Chapter 1 Services to
Limited English-Proficient Students, Westat (Rockville, MD: 1991);
and Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current Chapter 1 Program and New
Directions, U.S. Department of Education (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
1993).
\16 This figure compares to about 15 percent served under Title VII.
Some students receive services under both Chapter 1 and Title VII.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
It is difficult to see how many LEP students will achieve the high
standards being developed and adopted to reach the national education
goals given these students' educational and other needs and the
limited services available to them. Increasingly, classroom teachers
across the nation are facing the challenge of educating students with
whom they cannot easily communicate because of language and cultural
barriers. But districts will need substantial resources and
expertise to make the curricular, instructional, and assessment
changes that could help these students achieve high academic
standards. In many cases, the most critical aspect in successfully
implementing these changes will be training classroom teachers--whose
college training often does not prepare them to deal with today's
culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Therefore, we believe the nation needs to continue efforts to
effectively serve LEP students in nonbilingual as well as bilingual
settings, and developing a teaching force prepared to educate these
students should be a top priority. Other critical needs include
developing appropriate curricular and instructional models and
necessary assessment tools and assisting states and districts in
adapting them to local needs. Finally, efforts to improve education
for LEP students should be consistent with any systemic reform
efforts that districts and states implement to reach the national
goals.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
In its November 17, 1993, written comments on a draft of this report
(see app. III), the Department of Education indicated that the
report provides a broad overview of major issues related to LEP
students and key programs that serve them. The Department made
technical comments, and we incorporated them as appropriate. The
comments also raised questions about the report's discussion of the
cost of programs for LEP students. In addition, the agency suggested
providing information on its proposals to change Title VII.
The Department commented that the report does not fully develop the
costs of programs for LEP students. It suggested that the report
better link program costs to characteristics, such as variations in
intensity and type of services provided to LEP students with varied
age, grade, and past educational background. In discussions
concerning the draft, officials noted, for example, that, to fund
some services for LEP students, districts might reallocate existing
funds or increase efficiency in activities such as professional
training. As noted in our scope and methodology, we did not attempt
to compare the costs of bilingual and nonbilingual programs.
Further, because of differences in districts' resources, expertise,
and program scope and design, it is difficult to predict with any
certainty the cost of implementing the nonbilingual approaches
discussed in this report. However, we believe that evidence from the
Department-funded study of exemplary programs, as well as information
from the districts we visited, indicates that--especially when many
of the nonbilingual approaches are integrated into a comprehensive
program for which teachers are well trained--significant resources
may be required. Whether those resources can be reallocated from
existing funds or must come from outside sources depends, again, on
individual district circumstances.
The Department has submitted proposed ESEA legislation that includes
changes to Title VII. In discussions with officials about the
Department's written comments, they described the proposed changes
they see as most directly related to issues discussed in the report.
Those key changes, officials said, would link LEP students to
broader, systemic reform by (1) establishing schoolwide and
districtwide grants, (2) strengthening the role of states, (3)
allowing more flexibility in use of Chapter 1 funds, and (4)
broadening staff development.
The Department has proposed establishing new types of grants that
would replace the several different types of grants now available for
districts. The proposed grants include schoolwide and districtwide
grants which, over time, would predominate. To receive these grants,
provided for 5 years, grantees would have to show how they plan to
meet the needs of all LEP students, Department officials told us.\17
The state's role also would be strengthened. For example, the state
would have to review applications and determine if grantees' plans
are linked to the state's systemic reform plan. Linking LEP services
to broader, systemic reform should help assure that these students
participate in and benefit from such reform. At the same time,
however, absent increased funding for Title VII, the number of grants
probably will decline because the scope of schoolwide and
districtwide programs will be larger than the current typical Title
VII grant.
The Department also proposed removing the restriction on LEP
students' eligibility in Chapter 1 programs. Doing so provides
greater flexibility in using these funds for LEP students and would
allow more LEP students to participate in Chapter 1; but, as we
pointed out, if Chapter 1 funding is not increased, fewer students
who are not LEP may be served.
The final proposed change officials discussed would broaden the staff
development that could be funded from Title VII. Grantees would be
allowed to use funds for professional development of all staff, not
just bilingual and ESL teachers; training, such as multicultural
education, could be provided to mainstream teachers. This provision
is consistent with findings in the Department-funded study:
districts with exemplary programs for LEP students from many language
groups did not limit staff development to those directly responsible
for LEP student instruction. It is unclear, however, how the
Department's proposed changes would significantly improve the supply
of teachers trained to meet the needs of LEP students--whether in
bilingual or nonbilingual settings--especially in preparing new
teachers.
Appendix IV presents additional details on our observations.
Appendix V presents a description of the students and programs in
each of the five districts we visited. Appendix VI presents a
description of our analysis of the Census data.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate House and Senate
committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties.
Copies will be made available to others on request.
Please call me on (202) 512-7014 if you or your staff have any
questions. Other major contributors are listed in appendix VII.
Sincerely yours,
Linda G. Morra
Director, Education
and Employment Issues
--------------------
\17 The Department's proposed changes would require applications (1)
for schoolwide grants, to describe how they would ensure that "all
(or virtually all)" of the LEP students in the participating school
would be served and (2) for districtwide grants, to describe how they
would ensure that "a significant number" of LEP students in the
participating district would be served. Currently, grants can be,
and typically are, limited, for example, to specific grades or
subjects and do not address the needs of all or most of the LEP
students.
DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES
FOR INSTRUCTING LIMITED ENGLISH
PROFICIENT STUDENTS
=========================================================== Appendix I
Several basic strategies are used for instructing Limited English
Proficient (LEP) students. In practice they often are combined in a
variety of ways.
TRANSITIONAL BILINGUAL
EDUCATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.1
This is an instructional program in which subjects are taught in two
languages--English and the native language of LEP students--and
English is taught as a second language. Bilingual programs emphasize
the development of English-language skills as well as grade promotion
and graduation requirements. These programs are designed to enable
LEP students to make a transition to an all-English program of
instruction while receiving academic subject instruction in the
native language to the extent necessary. Transitional bilingual
education programs vary in the amount of native language instruction
provided and the duration of the program.
DEVELOPMENTAL BILINGUAL
PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.2
These are programs in which native-English-speaking and LEP students
receive instruction in both English and the native language of the
LEP students, with the goal of bilingual literacy for both groups.
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.3
This is a teaching approach in which LEP students are instructed in
the use of the English language. Their instruction is based on a
special curriculum that typically involves little or no use of their
native language and is usually taught only in specific school
periods. For the rest of the school day, the students may be placed
in regular (or submersion) instruction, an immersion program, or a
bilingual program.
IMMERSION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.4
This is a general term for teaching approaches for LEP students that
do not involve using a student's native language. Three variations
are the following:
SHELTERED ENGLISH
(SHELTERED SUBJECT MATTER
TEACHING)
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.4.1
This method is characterized by using simplified vocabulary and
sentence structure to facilitate understanding of the regular
curriculum for LEP students. Teachers use slower, more concise
speech, with increased wait time after posing questions. In
addition, teachers make instruction more visual by using "realia"
(objects and activities related to real life), manipulatives,
pictures, and charts to define and demonstrate to provide
comprehensible (visual/concrete) input.
STRUCTURED IMMERSION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.4.2
This involves teaching in English, but it has several differences
from submersion: the teacher understands the native language, and
students may speak it to the teacher, although the teacher generally
answers only in English. Knowledge of English is not assumed, and
the curriculum is modified in vocabulary and pacing, so that the
academic subjects will be understood. Some programs include some
language arts teaching in the native language.
SUBMERSION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.4.3
This involves placing LEP students in ordinary classrooms in which
English is the language of instruction. Students receive no special
programs to help them overcome their language barriers, and their
native language is not used in the classroom. Also called "sink or
swim," submersion was found unconstitutional in the Supreme Court's
decision in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
LANGUAGES SPOKEN BY LEP STUDENTS
IN FIVE DISTRICTS VISITED, SCHOOL
YEAR 1991-92
========================================================== Appendix II
Language/country of origin A B C D E
---------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- --
Albanian/Albania
Amharic/Ethiopia
Arabic/Saudi Arabia, Yemen
Armenian/Armenia
Assamese/India
Assyrian/Syria, Iraq
Bahaoa/Malaysia
Baluchi/Iran
Basque/Spain
Bengali/Bangladesh
Bulgarian/Bulgaria
Burmese/Burma (Myanmar)
Cantonese/China
Cebuano/Philippines, Cebu
Chinese (unspecified dialect)/China
Choctaw/American Indian
Croatian/Croatia
Czech/Czech Republic
Danish/Denmark
Dari/Afghanistan
Digueno/American Indian
Dutch/Netherlands
Efik/Nigeria
Ethiopian/Ethiopia
Ewe/Africa
Farsi/Iran
Finnish/Finland
French/France
French Creole/Haiti, United States
Fulani/Nigeria
Garfuno/Africa
German/Germany
Greek/Greece
Guamanian/Guam
Gujarati/India
Gypsy/Moldova, Hungary
Hainanese/China
Haitian Creole/Haiti
Hebrew/Israel
Hindi/India
Hmong/Laos
Hokkien/Taiwan
Hungarian/Hungary
Ibo/Nigeria
Ilocano/Philippines
Ilongo/Philippines
Indonesian/Indonesia
Italian/Italy
Iu Mien/China, Laos
Japanese/Japan
Khmer/Kampucea (Cambodia)
Khmu/Laos
Kimeru/Africa
Kiswahili/Africa
Korean/Korea
Kpelle/Liberia
Lahu/Thailand, Laos
Lao/Laos
Lao Lamet/Laos
Laotian-Mien/Laos
Lingala/Africa
Macedonian/Macedonia
Malay/Malaysia
Malaysian/Malaysia
Malayalam/India
Mandarin/China
Marathi/India
Mixtico/Mexico
Navajo/American Indian
Nepali/Nepal
Nigerian/Nigeria
Norwegian/Norway
Palavan/Indonesia
Pampango/Philippines
Pangosinan/Philippines
Pashto/Afghanistan
Philippino (Tagalog)/Philippines
Polish/Poland
Portuguese/Portugal
Puma/Burma (Myanmar)
Punjabi/India
Romanian/Romania
Russian/Russia
Samarena/Philippines
Samoan/Samoa
Sapoteco/Philippines
Seneca/American Indian
Serbian/Serbia
Serbo-Croatian/Yugoslavia
Seri/Mexico
Sindhi/Pakistan, India
Slovak/Slovenia
Somali/Somalia
Spanish/Mexico, Spain
Swahili/Ethiopia
Swedish/Sweden
Syrian/Syria
Taiwanese/Taiwan
Tamil/India
Telugu/India
Teo Chow/China
Thai/Thailand
Tigre/Ethiopia
Tigrinya/Ethiopia
Tongan/Samoa
Turkish/Turkey
Ukranian/Ukraine
Urdu/Pakistan, India
Vietnamese/Vietnam
Visayan/Philippines
Yonba/Nigeria
Yoruba/Africa
============================================================
Totals 7\ 12 88 57 37
a \b \c
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: We designated the districts as A, B, C, D, and E.
\a District A reported having 60 other languages, but documents
specifying those languages were not easily retrievable, district
officials reported. About 94 percent of the district's LEP
population spoke Spanish. About 2,400 LEP students spoke other
languages.
\b District B reported having students that spoke one other language
but could not identify it.
\c District E reported an unknown number of other languages,
including dialects from the Philippines.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION
========================================================== Appendix II
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
INCREASING NUMBERS OF LEP STUDENTS
POSE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES FOR
MANY DISTRICTS
========================================================== Appendix IV
The following sections provide details concerning the (1) numbers and
characteristics of LEP students, (2) instructional programs for LEP
students in the districts we visited--focusing on the extent of
bilingual instruction, (3) promising nonbilingual approaches that
have been used to educate LEP students, and (4) key federal programs
targeted to LEP students.
NUMBERS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
LEP STUDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1
Census data show that 72 percent of all LEP students are from six
states--California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and
Texas--and in the last decade, 41 states experienced an increase in
the number of LEP students. Almost every state has local
concentrations of LEP students.
LEP students are also concentrated in selected counties--533 counties
in 47 states have substantial numbers of LEP students--and in large
metropolitan areas. In 1990, the 533 counties accounted for about 64
percent of all students but more than 91 percent of all LEP students.
Likewise, the nation's 25 largest metropolitan areas accounted for
about 20 percent of all students but about 42 percent of all LEP
students. (See fig. IV.1.)
Figure IV.1: LEP Students Are
Concentrated in Selected
Counties and Metropolitan Areas
(See figure in printed
edition.)
These students are culturally and linguistically diverse.
Nationally, more than half of the counties with substantial numbers
of LEP students had at least five languages represented. In the
districts we visited, the numbers were even higher, with between 13
and 88 languages represented among the student populations. In many
cases, students from many different language backgrounds were in the
same classroom.
Census data also show that in 1990 about 43 percent of all LEP
students were immigrants. In the 533 counties, on average, 8 percent
of students were immigrants, compared with the national average of
about 5 percent. These counties accounted for 95 percent of all
immigrant students nationally. Likewise, the 25 largest metropolitan
areas accounted for 46 percent of all immigrant students.
LEP students represent a growing proportion of students. Nationally,
in 1990, LEP students made up about 5.2 percent of all students, up
from about 3.9 percent in 1980. In the 533 counties, however, the
proportion was greater; LEP students represented, on average, about
7.4 percent of students in 1990, up from 5.8 percent in 1980.
Likewise, in the 25 largest metropolitan areas, LEP students made up
about 11 percent of the population, up from about 9 percent in 1980.
The growth in numbers and proportion of LEP populations was more
dramatic in the districts we visited. For example, in one district,
the percentage of LEP students increased from 7 to 28 percent during
the 1980s. Fueled mostly by immigrants, overall student enrollment
rose by almost 60 percent. The number of Asians increased from
approximately 1,600 in 1982 to more than 15,000 in 1992, accounting
for 21 percent of total student enrollment.
INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS FOR LEP
STUDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2
The districts we visited were often unable to provide full bilingual
instruction in academic subjects for many of their LEP students.
(See fig. IV.2.) The percentage of students in such programs ranged
from 3 percent in one of the largest districts we visited to about 81
percent in the smallest. In the smallest district, however, an
additional 14 percent of LEP students were in pullout bilingual
programs and received native language support for only a small
portion of the day; further, in that district, about half of the
bilingual teachers did not meet all state certification requirements.
Figure IV.2: Bilingual
Instruction Was Provided to
Varying Portion of LEP Students
in the Five Districts Visited
(See figure in printed
edition.)
One major difficulty in providing bilingual instruction was the many
low-incidence languages, that is, languages spoken by relatively few
students dispersed across a district. Limited availability of
bilingual teachers and materials was also a problem, however, even
for high-incidence languages, that is, languages spoken by many
students.
MANY LOW-INCIDENCE LANGUAGES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.1
In each district we visited, the number and mix of students made
providing bilingual instruction in academic subjects to some students
impractical. As many as 88 languages were represented, many of which
were low-incidence languages. Students from any one language could
be spread across many grades and schools; these students could
significantly differ in English language proficiency, native language
literacy, and academic subject knowledge. For example, one district
had more than 900 Vietnamese LEP students enrolled in many grades in
71 schools. In another district, one school had 56 Vietnamese
students enrolled in seven different grades and an additional 38 LEP
students who spoke 11 other languages.
One way of overcoming the problem of low-incidence languages might be
to consolidate the students in a single school, allowing more
efficient use of the limited number of bilingual teachers. However,
comments by some district officials indicate that this solution may
not always be possible. For example, students may be too
geographically spread out, or parents may object to busing students
across town. This approach could make it more difficult to involve
parents also, since families would not necessarily live near their
child's school.
BILINGUAL TEACHERS HARD TO
FIND
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.2
School and district officials consistently cited the shortage of
bilingual teachers as a primary reason for not providing bilingual
instruction. Although estimates vary on how many additional
bilingual teachers are needed to meet the current nationwide demand,
many experts agree that a shortage exists. The National Education
Association estimates that 175,000 additional bilingual teachers are
needed. Likewise, a recent California Department of Education study
cites the need for about 22,000 bilingual teachers in California
alone and predicts significant difficulty in filling that need.
Many reasons exist for the shortage. In some cases, students speak
languages not historically represented in this country; teachers
speaking these languages have been especially hard to find. For
example, one district we visited had more than 7,000 Hmong students,
but it could not provide bilingual education for any of these
students. According to a state official, only one certified Hmong
bilingual teacher lived in the state. Some of the districts noted
that one source of bilingual teachers could be immigrants who were
teachers in their native countries. However, these immigrants
sometimes could not be fully certified to teach because they could
not pass the English portion of a state teacher certification test or
lacked a U.S. college degree. At one district we visited, some of
these immigrants were teaching under a waiver of state requirements.
Difficulties in providing instruction exist even for the
high-incidence languages. For example, some districts made rather
extensive efforts to recruit Spanish bilingual teachers--including
going to Spain and Puerto Rico--but still lacked adequate numbers of
these teachers. In addition, in one district we visited, more than
90 teachers who had been certified in bilingual instruction had opted
not to teach in a bilingual program. This circumstance may have been
because the district could not pay stipends to bilingual teachers;
some teachers said that they were not being sufficiently compensated
for what they considered to be the considerable extra workload faced
in the bilingual classroom.
Department of Education officials pointed to other difficulties in
finding bilingual teachers. They noted that in some cases districts
do not have the funds to pay for the teachers who are available or do
not have open teaching positions available. They also noted that,
even if districts are successful in recruiting bilingual teachers
from other countries, these teachers must receive training in areas
such as U.S. culture and teaching approaches for them to be
effective in U.S. schools.
BILINGUAL INSTRUCTIONAL
MATERIALS HARD TO FIND
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.3
Officials said that finding quality instructional materials in most
languages was very difficult. District and school officials noted
that only recently have quality Spanish materials become available.
For example, in one state, Spanish textbooks that parallel the
state's curricula are now available. However, numerous officials
said that obtaining textbooks in some high-incidence languages,
particularly the Southeast Asian languages, is very difficult.
Officials believe that publishers do not develop materials in the
Southeast Asian languages because there is not a big enough market to
make it cost effective.
Several of the districts have adapted or developed their own native
language materials. One district obtained Spanish materials from
Puerto Rico and Cuba and modified them to meet its curricula. At
another district, officials told us that the Khmer (Cambodian)
students use ditto sheets developed by the Khmer staff. These
materials, however, do not look as appealing as published textbooks
in English and, officials believed, this lesser quality was
detrimental to students' self-image. Officials in another district
with many Southeast Asian students noted that, although some
districts with similar student populations have developed materials
in Southeast Asian languages, these materials sometimes have limited
usefulness because information presented is not always relevant to
the district's curricula.
ASSESSMENT OF LANGUAGE
PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT WAS LIMITED
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.4
The districts were also limited in their ability to assess LEP
students' language proficiency and academic achievement. Many
experts believe that districts need to accurately assess both aspects
of students' abilities to provide LEP students with appropriate
instruction.\1
Assessment of English language proficiency is important for
determining the appropriate level of English language assistance.
Experts say that it is necessary to assess English language
proficiency frequently so that activities involving the appropriate
degree of language difficulty are used. These assessments also
determine when students are considered sufficiently fluent to succeed
in an all-English class and be "graduated" from ESL and other special
programs. Several of the districts we visited assessed students only
annually to determine program eligibility. In addition, to allow
room for new arrivals, one district sometimes graduated students from
ESL before they were proficient in English. Native language
proficiency, as well as English language proficiency, may affect
students' ability to learn both academic subjects and English, many
experts believe. Districts had limited ability to assess native
language proficiency, however. Several made attempts to do so,
especially to test oral proficiency, if teachers or community
volunteers who spoke the languages were available.
Assessment of academic achievement is needed for placing students in
appropriate academic instructional settings and for monitoring
progress in academic subjects. For languages other than English and
Spanish, written, standardized tests are not available to assess
achievement in academic subjects. Some districts used community
members who spoke a student's native language to conduct oral
assessments in academic subjects when the student first enrolled, but
little or no additional assessment could be done until the student
became sufficiently proficient in English to take the standardized
tests used for English-speaking students. Although several districts
were looking to new types of assessments that rely less on language,
such as teacher observations and portfolios that contain a variety of
student work, the districts had not yet implemented them.\2
--------------------
\1 Recommendations for Improving the Assessment and Monitoring of
Students with Limited English Proficiency, Council of Chief State
School Officers, State Education Assessment Center and Resource
Center on Educational Equity (Washington, D.C.: 1992).
\2 These new types of assessments are expected to play a large role
in systemic reform, even where there are no LEP students. Developing
these assessments and training teachers to use them effectively, both
to measure individual student achievement and overall program
success, can take time, however.
PROMISING NONBILINGUAL
APPROACHES USED TO PROVIDE
ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3
KEY NONBILINGUAL APPROACHES
INCLUDE CHANGES IN
INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULA
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.1
To teach LEP students, several approaches have been developed.
Instruction is changed to (1) include the use of pictures, charts,
and realia (objects and activities related to real life); (2) check
frequently for student comprehension and, if necessary, slow the
pacing of questions and answers; and (3) allow a variety of student
response modes--written, pictorial, and translation by other
students. Often, teachers also use other instructional techniques,
such as cooperative learning and peer tutoring, in which students
help each other.
Curricula for academic subjects are also modified to make them more
comprehensible. For example, a district's existing curricula would
be modified to focus on the major concepts involved in each subject
or lesson. One official cited, for example, a class on Native
American cultures. This class would cover all of the major concepts
included in the state and district curricula, but might do so by
using the histories and customs of only a few tribes as examples, as
opposed to mainstream classes, which would cover many more tribes.
Another type of modification might be to provide vocabulary
development for the major concepts early in each lesson.\3
Another approach is encouraging the students to use their native
languages, even when teachers do not speak these languages. For
example, groups of students who speak the same language can work
together on a project, supporting each other in understanding
concepts; students can be encouraged to read books in their native
languages;\4 and instructional aides fluent in students' native
languages can provide assistance.
Figure IV.3 is an outline of key activities in a fourth grade
life-science lesson, designed for a class with LEP students from many
language backgrounds. The lesson is part of a series that (1)
identifies key topics organized around main themes and (2) uses
"student-centered" techniques, for example, hands-on activities,
allowing students to respond in their native languages and allowing
time for students to interact before responding.
During the lesson, the teacher also uses a variety of techniques to
make the discussion more comprehensible, including clear enunciation,
controlled vocabulary, and limited use of idiomatic speech. In
addition, the teacher uses contextual clues--such as gestures, facial
expressions, visuals, and props. Finally, the teacher checks
frequently for understanding through questions or other
student-teacher interaction.
Figure IV.3: Lesson Using
Promising Nonbilingual
Approaches
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\3 Many of these instructional curricular approaches are associated
with the Sheltered English model of instruction--also called
Sheltered Subject Matter Teaching. Department of Education officials
noted that these approaches may also be used with other instructional
strategies, such as ESL, or instruction in the student's native
language.
\4 One expert we spoke to emphasized the importance of students'
reading such materials to develop literacy, but noted that often LEP
students are poor and do not have reading materials available to them
in their homes.
STUDY IDENTIFIES EXEMPLARY
NONBILINGUAL PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.2
A study by the Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory suggests
that these nonbilingual approaches hold promise for instructing LEP
students, although the study does not assess program effectiveness.
Researchers identified nine districts nationwide with exemplary
Special Alternative Instructional Programs--programs that are
alternatives to traditional bilingual programs because instruction is
delivered primarily in English. Researchers identified these nine
exemplary programs through a rigorous process that started with
expert nominations and included a review of outcome data. Each SAIP
provided evidence of success, including evidence of students'
acquired English language proficiency and, in some cases, evidence of
academic success in the specific subjects that the program focused
on. Researchers' site visit observations identified other evidence
of success, for example, high levels of student activity and
involvement in the instructional program, a factor research has
associated with academic success.
The study was designed to be descriptive, however, and did not
directly address the question of program effectiveness. For example,
it did not use control groups, that is, it did not compare outcomes,
such as achievement test scores, of students in these SAIPs with
those for similar students not enrolled in such programs. Also, the
study concluded that more research is needed to determine if specific
features found to be common among the exemplary SAIPs can operate
effectively without the others. Some of the program and
instructional features common among the exemplary SAIPS included
coordination of services, extensive use of students' native languages
(usually by students), small class size (generally below 20), and
wide use of instructional practices found in research literature to
be characteristic of effective instruction--generally for all
students and specifically for LEP students. The study report
specifically noted that the features operated interactively in the
exemplary SAIPs and cautioned against focusing on individual
features.
IMPLEMENTING PROMISING
APPROACHES MAY BE DIFFICULT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.3
The findings of the study of exemplary SAIPs, as well as experiences
in the districts we visited, indicate that implementing the promising
nonbilingual approaches may require significant effort.
STUDY SUGGESTS
SIGNIFICANT EFFORT NEEDED
TO IMPLEMENT PROMISING
APPROACHES
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3.3.1
The key instructional practices employed by the exemplary SAIPs were
consistent with the promising nonbilingual approaches discussed
above. In addition, though the exemplary sites varied, they all had
characteristics common to the districts we visited, including student
populations speaking diverse languages. The experiences of these
SAIPs, therefore, may provide significant insights into difficulties
that districts such as those we visited might have in implementing
similar programs.
Teacher training was a critical feature in all of the SAIPs. Each
recruited experienced bilingual and ESL teachers to help develop the
instructional program and teach in it. However, academic teachers
taught the academic classes. The study indicated that training for
these teachers was extensive. Finding time for teachers to be
trained, providing follow-up support and coaching by more experienced
teachers, and employing substitutes for teachers in training is
expensive. Yet, officials at one of the exemplary SAIPs said that,
without significant amounts of training, teachers will not be
adequately prepared for, and may not support, the necessary
instructional changes.
Districts may also need outside help in developing and implementing
the promising approaches. Each of the SAIPs, for example, obtained
outside funding to help finance its efforts. In addition, officials
at the two exemplary SAIPs we visited noted that outside consultants
were an important factor in designing and implementing the programs.
Districts may also need models and technical assistance to implement
programs efficiently. Study findings and conclusions suggest that
each district must design a program unique to its circumstances and
cannot directly adopt one of the exemplary program models. But
having a model--a place to start--can be very useful, according to
officials that we spoke to in other districts. These districts had
implemented programs based on those of other districts, including one
of the exemplary SAIPs. Having both the model and the on-site
technical assistance provided by the exemplary SAIP staff, the
officials said, was extremely valuable in expediting program
implementation.
The study also identified other characteristics that were common to
the exemplary SAIPs that may not exist in some other districts.
Chief among them are strong leadership, a history of prior programs
for LEP students, and a history of extensive staff development
efforts.
DISTRICTS VISITED MAKING
ONLY LIMITED PROGRESS
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3.3.2
Districts we visited were aware of the promising nonbilingual
approaches but had not been able to implement them very extensively.
In some cases, the districts had thousands of LEP students in need of
educational support. In one district, for example, the number of LEP
students had been increasing rapidly throughout the decade; in 1992,
72 percent--about 15,000--of the LEP students were taught by teachers
not certified in ESL or bilingual education. Changing curricula and
training teachers to serve that many students could take considerable
time.
One district, at one of its high schools, had recently developed and
implemented a Sheltered English curriculum for science, history, and
math. Doing so, however, took considerable effort and time.
Although the officials hoped to implement similar programs at other
schools, they were uncertain about when they would have sufficient
resources to do so. Another district, to help meet the needs of LEP
students, had begun providing training to academic subject teachers.
The district planned to give each teacher about 15 hours of training
during 1 school year, covering a variety of subjects, including
language acquisition and cultural sensitivity. After 1 year, most of
the elementary teachers had been trained, and the teachers in the
secondary schools were to be trained next. But this training is
significantly less intensive than the study of exemplary SAIPs
suggests is necessary.
Districts we visited also said that they had insufficient resources
to train teachers and develop or modify curricula as necessary to
implement new approaches. Officials in some of these districts
echoed the comments of the districts assisted by the exemplary SAIPs
and other districts, noting that having models and better information
about available instructional materials--for both bilingual and
nonbilingual approaches--as well as more technical assistance, could
help them adapt programs to better meet the needs of their LEP
students.
FEDERAL PROGRAMS TARGETED TO
LEP STUDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:4
Funding for federal programs targeted to LEP students has not kept
pace with this increasing student population. For example, when
inflation is considered, 1990 funding for Title VII was 40 percent
less than 1980 funding. Likewise, although annual appropriations
have remained relatively constant since passage of the Emergency
Immigrant Education Act in 1984, when adjusted for inflation, funding
has declined while the number of immigrants has grown (see fig.
IV.4). Average funding per student under the program has decreased
from $86 in 1984 to $29 in 1992.
Figure IV.4: EIEA Funding
Declined, in Constant Dollars,
While Number of Immigrants
Increased Since 1984
(See figure in printed
edition.)
In addition to grants to help districts meet local needs, Title VII
funds many national and state activities under nine different
programs. Activities funded address many of the difficulties
districts face, including the shortage of trained teachers, the need
for technical assistance, and the problems involved in doing
assessments, but the funding is limited. The following are examples
of important types of activities funded under Title VII that receive
relatively limited levels of funding:\5
Training for teachers, administrators, and parents: Funds are
provided for graduate teacher fellowships; for institutions of
higher education to train teachers to teach LEP students; and
for resource centers to provide training and technical
assistance to those participating, or planning to participate,
in programs for LEP students. These activities account for
about 19 percent ($36 million) of Title VII funding.
Dissemination: Funds are provided, for example, under the Academic
Excellence Program, to districts identified by the Department of
Education as having exemplary programs for LEP students; these
districts then provide information and technical assistance to
help other "adopter" districts implement similar programs.
Funds are also provided for a clearinghouse to collect, analyze,
and disseminate information about bilingual education and
related programs. These activities account for less than 3
percent ($4.5 million) of Title VII's funds.
Evaluation assistance: Funds are provided for two centers
responsible for developing methods for identifying and
evaluating the academic achievement and educational progress of
LEP students in the federal grant projects. These centers have
about 15 staff to assist more than 850 Title VII projects
nationwide. The centers' staff typically assist districts by
giving information at technical conferences and by providing
telephone assistance in place of directly visiting all districts
receiving Title VII funds. Funding for the centers is about
$1.5 million, less than 1 percent of Title VII funds.
--------------------
\5 The list is not a full description of Title VII state and national
activities, and, in some cases, activities could overlap. For
example, resource centers can disseminate information as part of
training and technical assistance. Districts may also use some of
their grant funds for related activities, especially teacher
training.
LEP STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL
PROGRAMS IN THE FIVE DISTRICTS GAO
VISITED
=========================================================== Appendix V
INTRODUCTION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1
We visited five school districts, which we designated as Districts
A-E, that served relatively high numbers of LEP students from
numerous language backgrounds. Through these visits, we obtained
detailed information on (1) how the districts were educating these
students and (2) what challenges they faced in doing so. We selected
districts that had high numbers or percentages of LEP students from
at least 10 language backgrounds. Each district we visited was
located in an urban area with a large concentration of immigrant and
LEP students. The districts were geographically dispersed, and they
differed in the ethnic mix of their immigrant students and in the
size of their total enrollment (ranging from 12,000 to 200,000
students).
HOW WE SELECTED DISTRICTS
AND GATHERED DATA
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1.1
We selected the districts using a database on immigrant and LEP
students from our earlier study on how school districts use Emergency
Immigrant Education Act funds.\1 In that study, we surveyed districts
that received EIEA funding to determine, among other things, the
number of immigrant students enrolled in the nation's schools, the
number of those students who were LEP, and the language backgrounds
represented. We identified more than 500 districts nationwide that
either had immigrant students that made up at least 3 percent of
total enrollment or had at least 500 immigrant students--the
criterion for receiving EIEA funding. We found that 40 percent of
these districts had students from at least 15 diverse language
backgrounds.
At each of the five districts in this study, we spoke to the
superintendent or the assistant superintendent, the director of the
program for LEP students, and other district officials, such as the
director of the finance office and those responsible for managing
federal programs. We also visited several schools in each district,
including both elementary and secondary schools. Although we
observed selected classes and spoke with some teachers in each
school, our observations were insufficient (1) to confirm or deny
that teaching practices paralleled those described by district
officials or (2) to assess the quality of instruction.
--------------------
\1 Our earlier report, in accordance with EIEA, defined an "immigrant
student" as one who was foreign born and had attended school in the
United States for less than 3 years. We defined "LEP student" to be
consistent with Title VII, which defines an LEP student as one who
(1) is foreign born or has a native language other than English; (2)
comes from an environment where a language other than English is
dominant; or (3) is an American Indian or Alaskan Native and comes
from an environment in which a language other than English has
significantly affected his or her English proficiency, and,
therefore, may have difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or
understanding English that would deny the student the opportunity to
learn in a class where English is the language of instruction. These
definitions are not those used in our analysis of Census data, as
described in appendix VI. See Immigrant Education: Information on
the Emergency Immigrant Education Act Program (GAO/HRD-91-50, Mar.
15, 1991).
TYPE OF DATA WE GATHERED AND
PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1.2
We requested data from district officials in several key areas,
including immigrant enrollments; LEP enrollments; number of LEP
students served by each type of instructional program, for example,
bilingual and Sheltered English; average time it took students to be
reclassified to fully English proficient; drop-out rates; number of
certified ESL and bilingual teachers; type and extent of staff
development and teacher training; and district poverty rates. Data
were requested for selected school years between 1981 and 1982 and
1991 and 1992, but districts often did not have data readily
available or in a format that allowed comparison of LEP students with
other students. In addition, district data varied, for example, in
the time periods covered. In some cases where data were not
available, estimates were obtained. We did not independently verify
the data.
For each district, we describe the (1) changing demographics in the
last 10 years; (2) challenges posed by immigrant and LEP students;
(3) services provided, including (a) extent to which native language
instruction and nonbilingual instruction are provided and (b) methods
used to assess the language proficiency and achievement levels of LEP
students; and (4) major federal funding sources targeted specifically
to immigrant and LEP students. Much of this information was based on
discussions with district officials, school officials, and teachers.
LEP STUDENTS AND PROGRAMS IN
DISTRICT A
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2
DEMOGRAPHICS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.1
From 1982 to 1992, this district's student population remained
relatively constant, going from 193,701 to 197,413 students.
However, student ethnicity changed dramatically during the same
period. For example, Hispanic students replaced African-American
students as the largest ethnic group, almost doubling in number. The
number and percentage of white and Asian students decreased.
According to the District Superintendent, immigrant Asian families
have moved to the suburbs. (See table V.1 for these changes.)
Table V.1
Changes in Ethnicity of District A
Population
Percen Percen
Ethnicity Number t Number t
------------------------ -------- ------ -------- ------
White 44,551 23 26,848 14
Hispanic 46,488 24 91,797 47
African American 85,229 44 73,240 37
Asian 5,811 3 5,330 3
American Indian 1,936 <1 198 <1
Other\a 9,686 5 0 0
============================================================
Total 193,701 100 197,413 100\b
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Ethnicity data not available.
\b Over 100 percent due to rounding.
In 1991-1992, foreign-born students represented 11 percent--more than
22,000 students--of District A's total population. These students
came from approximately 115 different countries, but the majority
were from Mexico. During the last 4 years, approximately 12,000
Mexican-born students entered District A's schools annually. The
district also had a large number of students from El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, and Vietnam.
During the last decade, District A's LEP population grew from 12
percent to 20 percent. The district's LEP students were
predominately Spanish speaking, with 37,194 Spanish speakers out of a
total 39,569 LEP population. Since 1982, the number of
Spanish-speaking LEP students increased by 80 percent. The remaining
LEP students were linguistically diverse, representing 66 different
languages. However, the number of these non-Spanish-speaking LEP
students decreased by 21 percent during the 10-year period. (See
table V.2 for the number and percentage of LEP students by language.)
Table V.2
Languages Spoken by LEP Students in
District A
Percen Percen
Language Number t Number t
------------------------ -------- ------ -------- ------
Spanish 21,018 87 37,194 94
Vietnamese 1,007 4 847 2
Chinese 168 \ <1 79 <1
Khmer (Cambodian) 223 <1 33 <1
Laotian 156 <1 12 <1
Other\a 1,449 6 1,404 4
============================================================
Total 24,021 100\b 39,569 100\c
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Data on the number of other languages in 1982 are not available.
In 1992, the district reported 62 other languages.
\b Under 100 percent due to rounding.
\c Over 100 percent due to rounding.
During the last decade, the district reported that the students
receiving free or reduced-price lunches increased from 41 percent to
55 percent. Several school officials noted that most LEP and
immigrant students were poor and received such lunches. According to
a school principal, many poor immigrant and LEP students also lived
in crowded, multiple-family dwellings that were not conducive to
studying.
CHALLENGES POSED
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.2
District A administrators, school officials, and teachers described
several challenges faced in educating immigrant and LEP students, as
well as ways in which the district was attempting to meet some of
these challenges.
Many immigrant students arrived with limited schooling and were often
illiterate in their native languages. Students represented many
levels of academic preparedness and proficiency in both their native
languages and in English. One sixth grade teacher said, for example,
that in the last 2 years, a few of his students were illiterate in
both English and Spanish.
Many immigrant and LEP students were highly transient. Immigrant
students of all ages entered District A throughout the year. About
five new immigrant students, one elementary school principal noted,
enrolled in the school every month. She also stated that many
immigrant and LEP children were poor, and their families tended to
move frequently, sometimes monthly. In addition, according to a
school principal, a few of these families returned to their homelands
for extended visits, disrupting students' education.
Involving parents in the education of their children has proven
difficult. Whenever possible, District A provides interpreters: At
four assessment centers, where immigrant students were registered and
tested for enrollment, a Spanish interpreter was on staff to assist
parents; interpreters in Chinese, French, Khmer, Laotian, Spanish,
Vietnamese, and Urdu may be obtained from local volunteer groups on
an on-call basis. At the schools, interpreters may be obtained from
local volunteer groups.
Some schools reported making progress in involving parents. At one
school, parents volunteered to work at a student store where students
purchased rewards for good attendance and good grades. This school
held an annual awards ceremony to thank parents who volunteered
during the year. Another school held a parent involvement day four
times a year. This school notified parents of upcoming events by
having students call them at home, printing notices on local stores'
grocery bags, and broadcasting the news on Spanish radio and
television stations. When possible, the school obtained Laotian and
Vietnamese translators from the community to help communicate with
parents, but translators were not provided to many Asian parents
because few bilingual Asian translators were available.
According to district and school officials, many parents who were
illiterate and uneducated need ESL, parenting, and self-help classes.
One school held a meeting to teach parents how to help their children
in school. Two schools GAO visited offered classes that teach
parents life-coping skills, such as how to use public transportation,
the bank, and the post office. School officials noted that more
parent training was needed.
INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.3
BILINGUAL INSTRUCTION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.3.1
A state regulation required that bilingual education be provided to
elementary school LEP students whenever 20 or more students of the
same language are present at any one grade level in the district.
LEP students representing four language groups--Spanish, Vietnamese,
Chinese, and Khmer (in order of number)--met this requirement in
District A. Bilingual instruction was only offered in Spanish,
however. District A received state waivers of the bilingual
requirement for Vietnamese, Chinese, and Khmer because bilingual
teachers in these languages were not available. Secondary school LEP
students were not required to receive bilingual instruction, but had
to be provided ESL instruction.
Overall, about three-quarters of the elementary LEP students--about
50 percent of all students--received bilingual instruction. The
district had difficulty providing bilingual education to its large
Spanish-speaking LEP population, officials said, because of a
shortage of Spanish bilingual teachers. According to a district
official, the district had tried recruiting Spanish bilingual
teachers from Argentina, Mexico, and Peru. Another official said
that only half of the teachers found could provide transcripts from
their native countries to document their academic training.
Bilingual teachers who were available were concentrated in
kindergarten through third grade. The state required that bilingual
instruction be provided to LEP students beginning in the earliest
grades when the number of bilingual teachers was insufficient to
offer a prekindergarten through sixth grade program. Additionally,
several hundred Spanish-speaking elementary school students were
receiving a pullout bilingual instructional program that provides 45
to 90 minutes of Spanish reading and language arts each day. During
the rest of the day, these several hundred students received ESL and
academic instruction from a teacher certified in ESL and trained in
nonbilingual instructional approaches.
According to District A, a shortage of bilingual teachers in other
languages, such as Vietnamese, was the primary reason why bilingual
education was not offered in any language other than Spanish. A
district official also cited the large geographic distribution of the
district as a reason why bilingual education was not provided in any
language other than Spanish: Students would have to be bused from
their neighborhood schools to a single location to concentrate
sufficient numbers for bilingual education. In addition, LEP
students who spoke a particular language may have been in several
different grades. In one school we visited, for example, 56
Vietnamese LEP students were in seven different grade levels,
according to the school principal. Since this school also had
another 38 LEP students representing 11 other language backgrounds,
it offered an ESL program.
ESL AND NONBILINGUAL
ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.3.2
In 1991-1992, 28 percent of District A's elementary school LEP
students, both Spanish and non-Spanish speaking, were assigned to an
ESL program, rather than to a bilingual program. According to a
district official, most of these students were taught ESL and
academic subjects by teachers certified, or pursuing certification,
in ESL and trained in nonbilingual instructional approaches.
However, almost one-fourth of these students were taught by ESL
teachers who had been granted waivers of state certification
requirements. This official said that these teachers generally had a
minimum of 2 hours to a maximum of 8 hours of training in cultural
sensitivity and nonbilingual instructional approaches. In addition,
several hundred elementary school LEP students only received 90
minutes of ESL a day from a certified ESL teacher; for the remainder
of the day, they were taught by teachers with no training in how to
teach LEP students.
In most cases, District A could not provide bilingual aides to assist
its LEP students. District A had 102 bilingual classroom aides, all
of whom were Spanish speaking. According to a district official,
classroom aides were not available at all grade levels.
The instruction provided to secondary school LEP students varied by
school. About 10 percent, or approximately 875, of the secondary
school LEP students were taught by ESL teachers who were not
certified in ESL, and, according to a district official, had received
less than 1 day of training in ESL. In addition, this official said
that most secondary school LEP students received academic instruction
from teachers who have had less than 1 day of training in how to
teach LEP students. Although District A encouraged secondary school
academic teachers to become certified in ESL, these teachers had no
incentive to become certified and continue teaching academic
subjects, because only ESL teachers received a stipend. At one high
school we visited, a more comprehensive program for LEP students was
offered. At this school, in addition to ESL instruction, LEP
students received academic support using nonbilingual approaches in
science and history. However, the school was not able to offer a
math class incorporating nonbilingual approaches, and, a school
official noted, more of these classes in math, science, and history
were needed.
OBTAINING AND TRAINING
TEACHERS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.3.3
District A has made several efforts to obtain additional bilingual
and ESL teachers. It has (1) recruited from Mexico, (2) offered a
$3,000 stipend to bilingual teachers and a $1,000 stipend to ESL
teachers, and (3) offered an Alternative Certification Program (ACP)
to people in the private sector who want to become teachers and
already have degrees in other subjects. According to District A's
ACP director, ACP participants were required to take college courses
in four subjects--linguistics, language acquisition, ESL methodology,
and cultural sensitivity. These courses included nonbilingual
approaches for instruction in academic subjects. The district also
trained participants in a variety of teaching skills, such as lesson
planning and classroom management. Participants become certified
after completing the college and district training requirements,
passing a state certification exam, and teaching for 1 year in the
subject they will teach. Although these efforts have helped District
A obtain some of the bilingual and ESL teachers needed--more than 300
participants pursued bilingual certification and more than 50
participants pursued ESL certification in the ACP program from 1985
to 1992--a shortage of bilingual and ESL teachers remained, and
District A had to obtain waivers of teacher certification from the
state.
In addition, district ESL/bilingual supervisors and outside
consultants were available to provide teachers with training in
cultural diversity or language acquisition approaches. However,
school personnel cited limited resources and time as obstacles to
providing additional training to teachers on how to teach LEP
students. The extent of training the teachers received in cultural
diversity and methods for teaching LEP students was also limited by
the extent to which teachers request such training. All District A
teachers had to obtain 20 hours of in-service training a year, but
this training could be in any subject, for example, math, science,
social studies, or methods for teaching LEP students. Several
ESL/bilingual supervisors noted that teachers needed more training in
how to teach LEP students.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.3.4
District A assessed the oral English proficiency of all new students
and the oral Spanish proficiency of Spanish-speaking students. In
addition, the district used a standardized achievement test in
English to test the reading, language, math, science, and social
studies skills of students who achieved a district-specified degree
of proficiency in English. For Spanish- speaking LEP students in a
bilingual program, a Spanish standardized achievement test was also
used to assess reading and math skills, but similar assessment
instruments were not available for non-Spanish-speaking LEP students.
District A's primary assessment instrument for exiting LEP students
was not administered until at least third grade. However, officials
said, based on teacher recommendations and grades, LEP students could
be administered another assessment instrument in first and second
grades.
FEDERAL FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2.4
Federal funding for immigrant and LEP services in 1991-1992 came from
three programs: Chapter 1, EIEA,\2 and Even Start; the district did
not receive Title VII funds. According to District A's
Superintendent, many immigrant students continued to need specialized
language and academic instruction, such as intensive English and
academic instruction, after they were no longer eligible to receive
EIEA funds.
--------------------
\2 In District A, all EIEA immigrants are LEP, according to a
district official.
LEP STUDENTS AND PROGRAMS IN
DISTRICT B
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3
DEMOGRAPHICS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.1
During the last decade, this district's student population decreased
by just over 7 percent, from approximately 13,000 in 1982 to almost
12,000 in 1992. During this same time period, student ethnicity
changed considerably. For example, the number of Asians increased by
more than 1,000 percent, and the proportion increased from 1 percent
of the population to 10 percent; the number of Hispanics more than
tripled, and the proportion increased from 5 percent of the
population to 17 percent. The white student population decreased by
more than one-third during this period (see table V.3 for these
changes).
Table V.3
Changes in Ethnicity of District B
Population
Percen
Ethnicity Number t Number Percent
-------------------- -------- ------ ---------- --------
White 11,259 87 7,277 61
Hispanic 630 5 1,984 17
African American 963 7 1,557 13
Asian 98 1 1,153 10
Other 13 <1 27 <1
============================================================
Total 12,963 100\a 11,998 100\a
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Over 100 percent due to rounding.
The bilingual program director estimated that about 800 to 1,000
immigrant and Puerto Rican students were enrolled in the district
each year. In 1992, the immigrant population eligible under the EIEA
program represented 7 percent of the total student population: these
immigrant students came primarily from the Dominican Republic; Haiti;
Russia; and the Southeast Asian countries of Cambodia, Laos,
Thailand, and Vietnam.
Although the total district enrollment decreased during the last
decade, the number of LEP students more than tripled, going from 432
in 1982 to 1,427 in 1992. In 1982, the LEP population represented 3
percent of the total population; in 1992, the LEP population
increased to 12 percent. Since 1988, the earliest year for which the
district had the required data on specific languages spoken, most of
the growth in LEP students occurred in the Spanish-speaking student
population, but LEP students came from 13 language backgrounds in
1992 (see table V.4).
Table V.4
Languages Spoken by LEP Students in
District B
Percen Percen
Language Number t Number t
------------------------ -------- ------ -------- ------
Spanish 566 45 910 64
Khmer (Cambodian) 452 36 263 18
Russian 33 3 69 5
Greek 64 5 65 5
Vietnamese 47 4 42 3
Laotian 56 4 37 3
Other\b 38 3 41 3
============================================================
Total 1,256 100 1,427 100\c
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Data not provided for 1982.
\b In 1988, the district had eight other languages; in 1992, the
district had seven other languages. The district did not provide the
number of languages for 1982.
\c Over 100 due to rounding.
The poverty rate of students' families in District B has decreased
slightly during the last decade; 40 percent of the students received
free or reduced-price meals in 1982, and 35 percent received these
meals in 1992. According to a district official, more than 85
percent of immigrant or LEP students received such meals. Aid to
Families With Dependent Children data could not be provided.
CHALLENGES POSED
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.2
Officials and teachers in District B pointed to several challenges
posed by immigrant and LEP students as well as ways in which the
district was attempting to meet some of these challenges.
A growing number of immigrant and LEP students who entered secondary
schools had limited education. Many were illiterate in their native
languages. Secondary schools were challenged to educate these
students in English and the required academic subjects in a limited
time so that they could graduate from high school.
High transiency among immigrant and LEP students presented a barrier
to instruction. This situation has been a problem especially during
the district's winter break, when the students visited family in
their native countries and did not return to school until well after
the break had ended. This circumstance was particularly disruptive
to students' education, teachers said, because these students were
already generally behind academically. In some cases, students
missed so much school, officials said, that they could not be
promoted to the next grade or graduate from high school, causing some
of these students to become discouraged and drop out of school.
Cultural differences presented barriers to instruction. Because
immigrant and LEP students came from cultures different from that of
many teachers, officials said, teachers needed training to learn more
about these cultures. Without such training, cultural
misunderstandings can be a barrier to instruction: for example, one
teacher stated that a student ran crying from the classroom for no
apparent reason. School officials later realized that a picture of
an owl with the child's name on it scared her because the owl is the
symbol of death in her native country. District B did not have any
bilingual school psychologists to help address the nonacademic needs
of the immigrant and LEP students.
Involving parents in the education of their children has proven
difficult. The district provided some assistance to the parents of
immigrant and LEP students: for example, all schools translated
notices into the parents' native languages. Bilingual teachers also
telephoned parents to relate school information since many parents
were illiterate in their native languages and could not read the
notices. In addition, the district maintained a Parent Advisory
Council for every language group with a sizeable concentration of
students. Currently, it has councils in Greek, Khmer, Laotian,
Russian, and Spanish. At council meetings, parents receive
information ranging from how to help a child learn to what
constitutes child abuse. However, parent participation at the
district is limited. For example, one ESL teacher held a special
meeting for the parents of 180 LEP students, but only 15 parents
attended.
INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.3
BILINGUAL INSTRUCTION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.3.1
The state that District B is located in required that a bilingual
program be provided whenever a district had 20 or more students of
the same language. About 80 percent of the district's LEP students
were in a full bilingual program in Khmer or Spanish in 1992. In
addition, the district provided pullout bilingual programs in
Russian, Greek, Lao, and Haitian. About half of all the bilingual
teachers, however, have not met all state certification requirements.
The state has temporarily waived some staff because of the shortage
of certified bilingual teachers in all languages, including Spanish.
In addition, some of the Cambodian LEP students did not participate
in the bilingual program because parents did not want their children
to be bused to the school that provided the program.
The Khmer and Spanish bilingual programs provided native language
instruction in most academic subjects. For example, in one
elementary school we visited, 75 Cambodian students received native
language instruction for half of the day in math, science, social
studies, and native language arts; for the other half of the day,
these students received ESL instruction. As students became more
English proficient, they received greater amounts of academic subject
instruction in English. This school's Khmer bilingual program had
three bilingual teachers, one bilingual aide, and two ESL
instructors. However, the three bilingual teachers were under
waivers of state certification requirements because they did not have
U.S. college degrees, though two of the three instructors had been
teachers in Cambodia.
A high school we visited had a Spanish bilingual program. Spanish
bilingual classes were offered in general math, algebra I and II,
geometry, U.S. history, world history, geography, physics I, basic
physical science, and health. School officials noted that they would
like to provide Spanish bilingual classes in biology and chemistry,
but could not do so because of a lack of qualified and certified
staff.
The Russian bilingual program, located at one elementary school, was
a pullout program for elementary school students. The students
typically spent 45 minutes a day with the Russian bilingual teacher
and were in mainstream classes the rest of the day. Unlike
traditional bilingual instruction, however, the Russian bilingual
teacher taught the students in English, using Russian only when
clarification was needed.
School and district officials were dissatisfied with available native
language materials, particularly textbooks. They said that Spanish
bilingual materials, while becoming more plentiful than in the past,
were not as academically challenging as materials in English. In
addition, officials cited a lack of native language materials for
languages other than Spanish. For example, the principal of the
school with the Khmer bilingual program stated that students use
ditto sheets developed by the staff because no textbooks in Khmer
were available. These ditto sheets, he said, lacked colorful
pictures and did not look as inviting or substantial as the published
textbooks that the mainstream students used. According to the
officials, the market for native language materials in languages such
as Khmer was not large enough to provide publishers with a financial
incentive to publish them.
ESL AND NONBILINGUAL
ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.3.2
The approximately 20 percent of LEP students who were not in a full
bilingual program generally received a minimum of 45 minutes of ESL
instruction a day. Typically, the LEP students were pulled out of
class to receive this instruction. In addition, some of the LEP
students in a full bilingual program received ESL instruction from an
ESL teacher or a bilingual teacher. Approximately 77 percent of the
ESL instructors were not certified, but had been grandfathered into
these positions, and most had not received training on instructing
LEP students. The district recognized that additional training was
needed. During the rest of the day, most of these LEP students were
in class with English-only students. The LEP students received no
additional academic support in class, and most of the mainstream
instructors had not received training on instructing LEP students.
The district budgeted only one-tenth of 1 percent of the total
district budget on staff development in 1992.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.3.3
District B did an informal (not standardized) initial assessment of
the oral, reading, and writing proficiency levels of LEP students in
English, Greek, Khmer, Lao, Russian, and Spanish. After a student
was placed in the school, the school tested the student annually,
using a standardized test in English that covered language, math, and
reading. LEP students must have obtained a certain degree of English
proficiency before they were given this test. The district had a
similar standardized test in Spanish, but this test was only for
students up to the eighth grade.
FEDERAL FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3.4
District B did not provide funding documentation. However, the
district bilingual program director described how the district used
federal funds for LEP students: Although the district had not
directly received Title VII funds for several years, it did get some
training services from a neighboring district that received these
funds. The district also received EIEA funds.\3 The district did not
use Chapter 1 funds for LEP support, such as bilingual aides, though
LEP students could receive Chapter 1 services after achieving a
certain level of English proficiency.
According to the bilingual program director, the district received
substantially fewer funds for immigrant and LEP students in recent
years than in the past, even though these populations had increased
significantly. At one point, the district got $140,000 in funds,
mostly from the federal government, for immigrant and LEP students.
The funds were used to hire staff and buy materials to help instruct
immigrant and LEP students. At the time of our visit, the district
received about $29,000 for these students, mostly from the federal
government.
--------------------
\3 In District B, most immigrant students are LEP, according to the
bilingual program director.
LEP STUDENTS AND PROGRAMS IN
DISTRICT C
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4
DEMOGRAPHICS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4.1
This district's student population grew dramatically in the last
decade, from approximately 47,000 in 1982 to approximately 74,000 in
1992. During this same period, ethnicity changed considerably: for
example, the number of Asian students increased by 870 percent, from
3 percent of the total district population to 21 percent; the white
student population became a minority population, surpassed by an
emerging Hispanic population (see table V.5 for these changes).
Table V.5
Changes in Ethnicity of District C
Population
Percen Percen
Ethnicity Number t Number t
------------------------ -------- ------ -------- ------
White 24,192 52 23,058 31
Hispanic 15,069 32 26,829 36
African American 5,360 12 7,526 10
Asian 1,584 3 15,359 21
Other 547 1 875 1
============================================================
Total 46,752 100 73,647 100\a
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Under 100 percent due to rounding.
Of the approximately 3,000 new students enrolled at the district each
year during the decade, 90 percent were immigrants. They came
primarily from Mexico and several Southeast Asian countries,
including, in order of immigrants' arrival, Vietnam, Laos, and
Cambodia. The Hmong--who came from a mountain region that
encompasses Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand--were the last to arrive; in
District C, the Hmong now make up the largest immigrant group from
Southeast Asia.
In 1982, the LEP population made up a small percentage, 7 percent, of
the total district population and consisted primarily of Spanish
speakers. However, by 1992, the LEP population soared to 28 percent,
becoming increasingly diverse as well. In 1992, LEP students came
from almost 90 diverse language backgrounds. Although the
Spanish-speaking LEP population continued to grow, this growth was
overshadowed by that of the Southeast Asian population (see table V.6
for the number and percentage of LEP students by language).
Table V.6
Languages Spoken by LEP Students in
District C
Percen Percen
Language Number t Number t
------------------------ -------- ------ -------- ------
Spanish 2,213 72 7,857 38
Hmong 519 17 7,471 36
Laotian 25 1 2,619 13
Khmer (Cambodian) 10 <1 1,673 8
Vietnamese 136 4 346 2
Other\a 189 6 971 5
============================================================
Total 3,092 100 20,937 100\b
------------------------------------------------------------
\a The number of languages is not available for 1982. In 1992, the
district had more than 80 other languages.
\b Over 100 percent due to rounding.
During the last decade, District C's student families' poverty rate
has increased dramatically, largely because of the increase in
immigrant and LEP students, according to officials. The number of
students receiving AFDC increased by 165 percent, from 12,316
students to 32,636. Since 1984, the number of students receiving a
free or reduced-price meal increased by 81 percent, from 24,377
students to 44,088. In 1992, 46 percent of the student population
received AFDC, and 62 percent received a free or reduced-price meal.
CHALLENGES POSED
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4.2
Officials and teachers in District C pointed to several challenges
posed by immigrant and LEP students as well as ways that the district
was attempting to meet some of these challenges.
Large increases in the number of immigrant and LEP students have
contributed significantly to the overcrowding at most schools. In
addition, because of the families' poverty, some of these students
lived in crowded apartments with other families, contributing to
school overcrowding by increasing the number of students living in
individual school attendance areas. To address the problem of
overcrowding, the district implemented a year-round schedule at
approximately one-third of the schools. The year-round schedule
helped to alleviate overcrowding since, at any given time, about 25
percent of the student population was on break and not attending
class. In addition, the district bused students to schools that were
not filled to capacity.
A growing number of immigrant and LEP students who entered secondary
school had limited education. Many were illiterate in their native
languages. Secondary schools were finding it difficult, in the
limited time these students were enrolled, to teach them English and
the academic subjects required for graduation.
The district developed a "newcomer school" for secondary school
students with little previous education. Students attended this
school to learn the survival skills needed in the U.S. high school
environment. The skills ranged from learning English and
understanding school rules to becoming familiar with class schedules
and opening locker combinations. Students must leave the newcomer
school too soon, some officials stated, because it has limited
capacity and more immigrants continue to enroll. The school was
designed for students to attend for 1 year, but they generally stayed
for only one semester. Once these immigrant students entered a
conventional high school, they had a domino effect on existing LEP
students. That is, these newer immigrant students displaced LEP
students already in the high school ESL programs because these
programs could not accommodate both the new immigrant students and
existing LEP students. As a result, officials said, LEP students
were forced to move to the next level of ESL before they were ready,
and some of them were forced into mainstream classes before they were
ready.
Cultural differences presented barriers to instruction. Without
training in students' cultures, a principal said, misunderstandings
can arise. For example, a principal noted, teachers might pat
students on their heads to encourage or console them; however, the
Hmong are offended if they are touched on their heads since the head
is considered a spiritual part of the body. The district gave
approximately 12 hours of cultural awareness training to teachers
during the mid-1980s, but had trained only about 30 percent of its
teachers.
Emotional needs of students also presented barriers to instruction.
District C was attempting to establish greater awareness and
sensitivity to the emotional needs of immigrant and LEP students.
The emotional needs of these students were significant: many had
experienced war trauma and life in refugee camps. Many needed
counseling services, district officials said. However, the district
has had difficulty finding counselors that speak the students' native
languages.
Involving parents in the education of their children has proven
difficult. Many immigrant and LEP parents were embarrassed to take
active roles at their children's schools because they frequently did
not speak English or had limited schooling. Some principals in
District C talked about the importance of parental involvement; they
described how they tried to alleviate the embarrassment of immigrant
and LEP parents by encouraging them to participate in activities they
were comfortable doing. The more comfortable parents are with the
school, principals felt, the more likely parents can contribute to
school decisions. One principal encouraged any parental
involvement--from parents helping with the school's gardening to
sharing cultural information in the classroom, such as telling
stories or showing dances from their native countries.
District C had taken several steps to involve parents. For example,
translators were available to facilitate the schools' communication
with parents. In addition, the district employed translators when
members of a family could not communicate with each other; this
situation may happen because students, as they become proficient in
English, may lose their ability to communicate in their native
languages. For immigrant and LEP parents, the district also offered
parenting classes on raising children in the United States. These
classes dealt with issues that the parents may not have had to be
concerned about in their home countries, such as gangs and drugs.
INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4.3
BILINGUAL INSTRUCTION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4.3.1
The state that District C is located in had no requirements for
providing bilingual instruction, but the district provided it to some
of its students. Overall, 3 percent of all LEP students were in
bilingual programs, which were only offered in Spanish; 8 percent of
the Spanish-speaking LEP population received this instruction.
Although the number of Spanish-speaking LEP students had more than
tripled during the last 10 years, the district served fewer Spanish
speakers through its bilingual program than 10 years ago.
In District C, bilingual instruction was difficult to provide to all
the LEP students because these students came from almost 90 diverse
language backgrounds. Sometimes, groups of students who spoke the
same language were dispersed over a number of schools and grade
levels so that bilingual instruction was difficult. For example,
District C had more than 1,600 Khmer-speaking students, but they were
dispersed over 59 schools and in different grade levels.
Even when certain schools had large concentrations of LEP students,
District C had difficulty providing bilingual instruction. For
example, the district had large concentrations of (in order of
number) Spanish, Hmong, and Laotian LEP students, but bilingual
instruction was provided only to some Spanish speakers. A number of
district officials cited a shortage of Spanish, Hmong, and Laotian
bilingual teachers as the primary reason for providing little or no
bilingual education. According to district officials, the shortage
of bilingual Spanish teachers was caused, in part, by some having
chosen not to teach in the bilingual program. These teachers
perceived their workload to be much greater than the workload of
mainstream teachers because they had to deliver the same curriculum
in two languages. In addition, officials noted, District C did not
offer any stipends to bilingual teachers as compensation for the
extra work. Among the Hmong and the Laotians, there was another
reason for the shortage of bilingual teachers: Most of the Hmong and
Laotians who were teachers in their home countries were unable to
receive state teaching certificates because they could not pass the
English reading and writing portions of the certification test.
ESL AND NONBILINGUAL
ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4.3.2
Among the LEP students, 97 percent received ESL services and did not
participate in bilingual programs. Of this 97 percent, about 11
percent received some other type of support in academic classes:
about 1 percent received such support from bilingual instructional
aides, and about 10 percent received Sheltered English instruction,
in addition to ESL instruction.
LEP students received a minimum of 1 hour of ESL instruction a day.
An LEP student was typically pulled out of class to receive this
instruction. Most of the ESL instruction was provided by teachers
who were not ESL certified. During the rest of the day, most LEP
students were in class with English-only students. The LEP students
received no additional support in academic classes.
At one high school, the district recently established a Sheltered
English curriculum for LEP students that covered science, social
studies, and math. Implementing this model took considerable effort
and resources. For example, a noted expert on Sheltered English
techniques conducted training for teachers at the school.
District C recently opened a new elementary school, located in an
area with many immigrant and LEP students, designed to be a model
school for education reform. This school had special strategies for
educating its students. For example, teachers learned the curriculum
for two grade levels, such as grades 1 and 2, thereby enabling the
teacher and students to spend more time together and enhance
continuity. In addition, students stayed at least 1 hour beyond the
normal school day. During this time, students worked in groups of
three, from different grades, collaborating on projects; older
students tutored younger students, including providing English and
native language assistance and academic subject support. The
principal conducted an extensive search to hire 37 teachers who
shared her philosophy of (1) promoting native cultures and (2)
ensuring that academic subjects were provided through Sheltered
English strategies with native language assistance. The school
provided 180 hours of professional development in language
acquisition and provided additional training on cultures represented
at the school. Most teachers at the school were ESL certified.
OBTAINING AND TRAINING
TEACHERS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4.3.3
The district was working on ways to obtain Spanish, Hmong, and
Laotian bilingual teachers. For example, the district was paying
half of the college tuition for 40 bilingual teacher aides so they
could become bilingual teachers. District C also went to other
countries to recruit teachers from diverse language backgrounds.
Many of the teachers providing services to immigrant and LEP students
were inadequately trained. About 72 percent of the LEP students were
not served by certified ESL and bilingual teachers. Most mainstream
teachers had not been given training in areas such as Sheltered
English and cultural sensitivity. According to district officials,
since the district eliminated the Bilingual Education Director
position a few years ago, no official was responsible for tracking
the number of teachers receiving training or overseeing the quality
of the training.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4.3.4
The district conducted standardized testing of its students for a
variety of reasons, for example, to determine students' class
assignments and eligibility for programs such as Chapter 1. District
C formally assessed LEP students' English proficiency and, if the LEP
student was Spanish speaking, Spanish proficiency. Elementary school
LEP students must have achieved a certain level of English
proficiency before they were given a standardized test in math, but
high school LEP students' math proficiency was assessed with a
standardized test regardless of English proficiency. The district
did little or no assessment of the literacy or proficiency levels of
LEP students in other languages.
FEDERAL FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4.4
The district received federal funds specifically targeted to LEP
students through Title VII and EIEA in 1992.\4 The Title VII grant
funded instructional approaches and materials for language
development and cultural sensitivity at three elementary schools;
1993-94 will be the last year of funding for this 5-year grant.
District C did not use Chapter 1 funds for LEP educational services.
--------------------
\4 In District C, all immigrants were LEP, according to a district
official.
LEP STUDENTS AND PROGRAMS IN
DISTRICT D
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5
DEMOGRAPHICS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5.1
In 1982, this district's student population was 28,877; in 1992 it
was similar--28,739. However, student enrollment fluctuated in the
middle of the decade and dropped to a low of 23,776 in 1988 before
increasing. The Hispanic population increased by 30 percent from
1988 (the earliest year for which the district had data on ethnicity)
to 1992 and continued to be District D's largest ethnic group. (See
table V.7 for these changes.)
Table V.7
Changes in Ethnicity of District D
Population
Percen Percen
Ethnicity Number t Number t
------------------------ -------- ------ -------- ------
White 7,945 32 7,921 28
Hispanic 10,462 43 13,610 47
African American 1,774 7 1,812 6
Asian 4,366 18 5,383 19
Other 18 1 13 1
============================================================
Total 24,565 100\b 28,739 100
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Ethnicity data were not available for 1982.
\b Over 100 percent due to rounding.
The immigrant population in District D more than doubled since 1988
and accounted for 23 percent of the total population. District D had
many students from China, the Dominican Republic, and Korea and had
increasing numbers of students from countries such as India,
Pakistan, Poland, Romania, and the former republics of the USSR. In
1992, District D's immigrant students were from 94 different
countries.
From 1988 to 1992, the LEP population in District D grew from 18
percent to 25 percent, mostly because of an increase in
Spanish-speaking LEP students. Although the majority of District D's
7,108 LEP students were Spanish speaking, the number of students
speaking other languages had grown by more than 48 percent since
1988. In 1992, District D's LEP students represented 60 diverse
languages. More than half of District D's schools had LEP students
speaking more than 15 languages. Two schools had students speaking
at least 30 languages and more than 450 LEP students. Each of these
two schools had large numbers of Spanish, Chinese, and Korean (in
order of number) LEP students but relatively smaller numbers (1 to
13) of LEP students speaking other languages. (See table V.8.)
Table V.8
Languages Spoken by LEP Students in
District D
Percen Percen
Language Number t Number t
------------------------ -------- ------ -------- ------
Spanish 2,689 61 4,578 64
Chinese 505 11 745 10
Korean 359 8 462 6
Romanian 102 2 169 2
Urdu 89 2 112 2
Other\a 651 15 1,042 15
============================================================
Total 4,395 100\b 7,108 100\b
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Data on the number of languages in 1988 were unavailable.
However, in 1986 the district reported LEP students speaking 52 other
languages. In 1992, the district reported LEP students speaking 54
other languages.
\b Under 100 percent due to rounding.
More than half of District D's students were poor. During the last 3
years, students living in poor families--those receiving AFDC or free
or reduced-price lunches--increased from 42 percent to 54 percent.
According to school officials, many immigrant and LEP students'
families received AFDC and lived in single-parent households.
CHALLENGES POSED
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5.2
District D administrators, school officials, and teachers described
several challenges faced in educating immigrant and LEP students as
well as ways in which the district was attempting to meet some of
these challenges.
A growing number of immigrant students with limited schooling were
entering all grade levels throughout the school year. Some students
had a limited education because they missed schooling while
traveling--
sometimes for 2 years--to reach the United States. According to one
teacher, the task of getting students with a limited education ready,
in a short time, to go to the next grade can be overwhelming,
because, in addition to not speaking English, these students often
lacked a prior formal education.
Large increases in the number of immigrant and LEP students have
contributed significantly to the overcrowding at most schools. The
schools in District D were so cramped for space that, at one junior
high school, ESL classes were held in a hallway that was converted
into makeshift classrooms. The district capped admissions to
kindergarten, established an annex site for kindergarten classes, and
bused students 5 to 7 miles away to another district. Numerous
kindergarten students were bused there each day, many of whom were
immigrant and LEP. To address the problem of overcrowding, the
district is building two new schools; however, district officials
noted that the overcrowding will continue even after the schools are
completed.
Involving parents in the education of their children has proven
difficult. Many immigrant and LEP parents were uneducated and
illiterate in their native languages as well as in English. District
D sent home written notices and report cards in Chinese, Hindi,
Korean, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, and Spanish, but if parents were
illiterate, schools found it necessary to call parents at home to
communicate important information. However, because many different
languages were represented, schools still had difficulty
communicating with parents. Interpreters were available in Chinese,
Korean, and Spanish, but when parents spoke other languages, parents
had to provide their own interpreters.
District D's efforts to encourage greater parent involvement ranged
from providing cultural sensitivity training to all school
secretaries and administrators, because they interacted with parents
daily, to holding parent fairs at schools, at which parents learned
about their childrens' academic programs and participated in cultural
activities. One school had a parent volunteer program. In addition,
some schools offered training workshops to parents on a variety of
issues, including health, nutrition, and parenting skills.
INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5.3
BILINGUAL INSTRUCTION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5.3.1
According to District D's bilingual supervisor, state regulations
required that schools provide bilingual education to LEP students
whenever 20 or more students speaking the same language were present
in the school in a single grade. District D provided bilingual
education to half of its LEP students, including bilingual programs
in Spanish, Chinese, and Korean (in order of number). About 2,000
Spanish, Chinese, and Korean LEP students were not in bilingual
programs because (1) their parents chose not to enroll them in the
programs or (2) there were inadequate numbers present in a single
grade at a single school. LEP students who spoke other languages
were dispersed across many schools in the district; the number of
these students at any one school speaking any one language was
insufficient to require bilingual education under the state criteria.
According to district officials, these LEP students would have to be
bused to one location to have a sufficient concentration of LEP
students for bilingual education. District D has not chosen this
option.
According to district officials, instructional materials for the
Chinese and Korean bilingual programs were difficult to obtain and
were of poor quality. In most cases, bilingual teachers had to
develop materials themselves. District officials reported having
little difficulty hiring bilingual teachers in Spanish, Chinese, and
Korean because the district was located in a neighborhood that was
more economically vital and, therefore, more attractive than others
nearby. However, the district had found obtaining bilingual teachers
in other languages very difficult.
ESL AND NONBILINGUAL
ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5.3.2
District D's LEP students who were not provided with bilingual
education received ESL instruction. State guidelines required that,
at a minimum, LEP students receive 180 minutes per week of ESL
instruction from a certified ESL teacher. In general, District D's
students were pulled out of an English-only classroom daily for 35 to
45 minutes of English and academic subject instruction by a certified
ESL teacher; all but 1 of the 66 teachers who provided this
instruction were certified in ESL. Generally, however, District D
could not provide native language aides to LEP students; with the
exception of bilingual aides for some kindergarten classes, District
D had only been able to provide native language aides through its
Title VII grants.
District D tried to provide LEP students with academic instruction
incorporating Sheltered English or other nonbilingual instructional
approaches. Not all such students received this instruction,
however. We visited one middle school in which LEP students received
no specialized academic assistance beyond a 45-minute period of ESL
language instruction. Some students did not receive any academic
instruction at all, but received ESL language instruction for the
entire day.
OBTAINING AND TRAINING
TEACHERS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5.3.3
To obtain some of their Spanish bilingual teachers, District D has
recruited teachers from Spain and Puerto Rico. District D did not
offer a stipend to its bilingual or ESL teachers.
District D developed a language arts program for all students that
used a number of integrated language acquisition methods, similar to
instructional methods frequently used with Sheltered English. During
school years 1990-1991 and 1991-92, District D provided all
mainstream elementary school teachers with 15 hours of training in
these methods; the district planned to train mainstream secondary
school teachers as well by June 1993. According to District and
school officials, these methods were useful for instructing all
students, including LEP students. According to one elementary school
mainstream teacher, the district training had helped her integrate
both LEP and English-only students during instruction.
The language diversity and large number of LEP students in District
D's state prompted the state to require that, during school year
1992-93, all mainstream teachers receive 7.5 hours of training in
cultural diversity and instructional approaches for LEP students.
District D received permission from the state to apply the training
provided for the language arts program to the state training
requirement.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5.3.4
District D assessed the English language proficiency--listening,
speaking, and reading--of all LEP students with a standardized test
each spring. Hispanic students were also tested for their Spanish
language proficiency--listening, speaking, and reading--with a
standardized test each spring. Students could not exit a bilingual
or ESL program until they had achieved sufficient English language
skills, as measured by these tests; generally, students exited after
3 years. In addition, students participated in citywide testing of
their reading, math, and science skills. Citywide reading
tests--which were developed locally--were also available in Chinese
and Spanish, as well as English. However, students who had lived in
the United States for less than 2 years were exempt from citywide
testing.
FEDERAL FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5.4
According to District D's finance officer, federal funding for
immigrant and LEP programs came entirely from Title VII and EIEA\5
funds. District D participated or planned to participate in eight
different Title VII projects for LEP students. Current projects
included a computer-based Spanish language development program and a
Spanish math achievement program. Planned projects included an
English program to improve students' math and science skills and a
professional development program for teachers. According to the
district finance officer, this district did not use Chapter 1 funds
for LEP educational services.
--------------------
\5 In District D, approximately 60 percent of immigrants were LEP,
according to a district official.
LEP STUDENTS AND PROGRAMS IN
DISTRICT E
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6
DEMOGRAPHICS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.1
This district's student population grew dramatically in the last
decade, from about 57,500 in 1982 to about 74,000 in 1992. During
this same period, ethnicity changed considerably: for example, the
number of Asian students increased by more than 140 percent, from
5,300 to almost 13,000 students. Although the district population
grew, the number of white students decreased by almost one-third (see
table V.9 for these changes).
Table V.9
Changes in Ethnicity of District E
Population
Percen Percen
Ethnicity Number t Number t
------------------------ -------- ------ -------- ------
White 28,076 49 19,215 26
Hispanic 11,382 20 24,674 33
African American 11,138 19 14,362 19
Asian 5,295 9 12,841 17
Other 1,607 3 2,992 4
============================================================
Total 57,498 100 74,084 100\a
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Under 100 percent due to rounding.
A large number of immigrant students enrolled at the district each
year; officials estimated that during 1992 approximately 20 immigrant
students enrolled each school day. During 1992, the immigrant
population represented 10 percent of the total student population.
These immigrants came primarily from Mexico; Latin America; the
Philippines; and the Southeast Asian countries of Cambodia, Laos, and
Vietnam. Most students from Southeast Asia came from Cambodia.
In 1982, the LEP population represented about 14 percent of the total
student population. This LEP population was diverse, speaking more
than 11 languages, although the majority of them spoke Spanish. By
1992, the LEP population soared to about one-third of the total
student population, speaking more than 40 languages (see table V.10
for the number and percentage of LEP students by language).
Table V.10
Languages Spoken by LEP Students in
District E
Percen Percen
Language Number t Number t
------------------------ -------- ------ -------- ------
Spanish 4,515 58 15,433 64
Khmer (Cambodian) 1,336 17 5,213 22
Vietnamese 723 9 903 4
Tagalog (Philippino) 200 3 797 3
Laotian 443 6 449 2
Other\a 598 8 1,298 5
============================================================
Total 7,815 100\b 24,093 100
------------------------------------------------------------
\a In 1982, the district had at least 5 other languages; in 1992, the
district had more than 35 other languages.
\b Over 100 percent due to rounding.
During the last decade, District E's poverty rate of student families
has increased, largely due to the increase in immigrant and LEP
students, district officials said. Since 1984, the number of
students receiving AFDC increased by more than 55 percent, from
14,986 students to 23,259. In 1992, 63 percent of the elementary and
junior high school students (33,940) received free or reduced- price
meals. (District officials could not provide these data for high
school students or for earlier years.) Many immigrant and LEP
students came from poor families, officials noted, and frequently
arrived at school hungry because they did not eat regular meals at
home. The breakfast and lunch the students received at school may
have been the only regular meals they ate, a school official stated.
CHALLENGES POSED
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.2
Officials and teachers in District E pointed to several challenges
posed by immigrant and LEP students as well as ways in which the
district is attempting to meet some of these challenges.
A growing number of immigrant and LEP students entering secondary
school had limited education. Many were illiterate in their native
languages. Secondary schools were finding it difficult, in the
limited time these students were enrolled, to teach them English and
the academic subjects required to graduate.
The district has developed programs at four schools--two middle and
two high schools--geared to serve older LEP and immigrant students
who are illiterate in their native languages. Students in these
programs received specialized instruction in basic concepts of
English, math, science, and social studies; typically students stay
in the program for 1 year. At one of the middle schools we visited,
where students came primarily from Mexico and countries in Latin
America and Southeast Asia, these classes had no more than 30
students and two instructors: one taught only in English, using
Sheltered English techniques; the other taught primarily in Spanish.
Large increases in the number of immigrant and LEP students have
contributed significantly to overcrowding at many schools. Some
schools had approximately four or five times more students living in
their enrollment areas than the schools could serve. To address the
problem of overcrowding, the district bused students, many of whom
were immigrant or LEP, from the inner city to schools in more
suburban areas of the district that were not filled to capacity.
The district has established a centralized assignment center to
enroll the large and diverse number of LEP students. The district
was better able to accommodate the diversity of languages and large
number of students, officials said, by centralizing its resources
rather than by having these resources dispersed among different
schools. For example, the center's staff collectively spoke 14
languages, which would be difficult to have at a single school site.
Staff at the assignment center registered LEP students and assessed
their English proficiency, provided immunizations, and gave free
medical exams to kindergarten and first-grade students. In addition,
the assignment center staff, using parents' native languages (if 1 of
the 14), informed parents about district policies and procedures
relating to homework, discipline, academic expectations, dress codes,
bus rules, and resources.
High transiency among some immigrant and LEP students presented a
barrier to instruction. This situation has been a problem,
especially during the district's winter break. The break was 2 weeks
long, but it was not uncommon for some immigrant and LEP students to
take up to 6 weeks to travel long distances to visit family in their
home country or for family emergencies. This travel was especially
disruptive to students' education, officials said, because these
students were already generally behind academically. In addition,
since parents frequently did not notify the school about the extended
leave, the school did not know whether the student was coming back.
School officials sometimes had to give the absent student's seat to a
new student because of the continuous influx of students. When the
student returned from the extended break, he or she sometimes had to
go to another school in the district because the former class was
filled to capacity.
Cultural differences presented barriers to instruction. Without
training in students' cultures, officials said, misunderstandings can
arise. For example, some teachers thought their Southeast Asian
students were being abused by their parents when the students came to
school with marks on their foreheads. These teachers subsequently
learned that the families practice "coining," in which heated coins
are applied to the child's body to cure illness and release evil
spirits. The district provided 30 hours of cultural sensitivity
training to teachers obtaining ESL certification, but not to teachers
of academic subjects.
Emotional needs of students were a barrier to instruction. District
E was attempting to address what officials cited as significant
emotional needs of immigrant and LEP students. The district has
tried to provide counselors who spoke the students' languages to
address students' emotional needs. However, in 1992, the district
had only five bilingual counselors--four who spoke Spanish and one
who spoke Samoan.
Involving parents in the education of their children has proven
difficult. When funds were available, the district hired translators
to facilitate the schools' communication with parents. This effort
included situations in which students could not communicate with
their parents because, district officials said, students, as they
become proficient in English, may lose their ability to speak their
native languages. For immigrant and LEP parents, the district also
offered some parenting classes on raising children in the United
States. For example, these classes may show what parents can do to
encourage their children to read more at home.
It was difficult for many immigrant and LEP parents to take active
roles at their children's schools because their children were
frequently bused to schools on the other side of the city.
Frequently, the parents did not have transportation to the school.
In addition, one child may be at a different school from another
child, sometimes both far from home. To help parents attend an open
house meeting, one principal rented buses to transport the parents to
the school. However, this event was a one-time effort. Parents
still had a difficult time visiting the school on an as-needed basis.
INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.3
BILINGUAL INSTRUCTION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.3.1
The state that District E is located in had no legislative
requirements for providing bilingual instruction, but the district
provided such instruction to some of its students. Overall, 12
percent of all LEP students were in bilingual programs. Bilingual
instruction was only offered in Spanish, and 19 percent of the
Spanish-speaking LEP population received this instruction.
In District E, bilingual instruction was difficult to provide to all
the LEP students because they came from about 40 different language
backgrounds. Sometimes, even when the language background was the
same, the students were dispersed over a number of schools and grade
levels so that bilingual education was difficult. For example, in
1992, this district had more than 900 Vietnamese LEP students, but
they were dispersed over 71 schools and were in different grades.
District E had difficulty providing bilingual education even when
given schools had large concentrations of LEP students. For example,
there were large concentrations (in order of number) of Spanish- and
Khmer-speaking LEP students, but bilingual instruction was provided
only to Spanish speakers, on a limited basis as a result of limited
funding. A number of district officials cited a shortage of Spanish,
Cambodian, and Vietnamese bilingual teachers as the primary reason
for providing little or no bilingual instruction. District E did not
offer any stipends to bilingual teachers. Among the Cambodian and
Vietnamese, there was another reason for the shortage of bilingual
teachers: Most of the Cambodian and Vietnamese who were teachers in
their home countries had been unable to receive state teaching
certificates because they could not pass the English reading and
writing portions of the certification test. In addition, it was
difficult to document the college credits these teachers received in
their home countries, often due to the political circumstances
surrounding their departure.
ESL AND NONBILINGUAL
ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.3.2
The district provided ESL instruction for the 88 percent of students
who were not in bilingual programs. Generally, the students were
pulled out of mainstream classes for a minimum of 30 minutes of ESL
daily; during the rest of the day, most were in classes with
English-speaking students. In addition, 22 percent of the district's
LEP students received support in academic subjects, either through
Sheltered English instruction or bilingual aides.
The district's written plan for serving LEP students raised questions
about the qualifications of its teachers. The plan noted that many
had not been fully trained to meet LEP students' needs. District
records showed that about half of the LEP students in the district
were taught by teachers not certified in ESL and bilingual
instruction in 1992. A district official noted that a shortage of
qualified staff resulted in the district's hiring bilingual interns
who were proficient in their native languages but had not had teacher
training. These interns received emergency credentials, and the
district provided training. The district had also hired college
students and, in a few cases, parents to serve as instructional
aides. The district did not provide training to teachers of academic
subjects in how to teach LEP students.
OBTAINING AND TRAINING
TEACHERS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.3.3
The district was working on ways to obtain bilingual teachers. For
example, the district was trying to recruit new teachers, retrain
current staff, and encourage bilingual high school students to pursue
teaching as a future career. The district was also trying to
initiate a career ladder program that would (1) groom certain
bilingual students and aides for college and (2) fund tuition and
expenses for them. However, according to district officials, the
outlook for this program was not hopeful because of a lack of funds.
In addition, district officials stated that the universities were not
preparing teachers to instruct LEP students. The district recognized
that teacher training was a problem and was working on remedying this
situation. For example, one school offered a 4- hour, in-house
training session on LEP teaching strategies to all of its teachers.
In addition, all new teachers hired at the district had to obtain ESL
or bilingual certification.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.3.4
District E assessed the English proficiency of all LEP students
initially at the district's assignment center. In addition, the
assignment center staff assessed native language oral, reading, and
writing proficiency in Chinese, Khmer, Samoan, Spanish, Tagalog
(Philippino), and Vietnamese. The district developed the
nonstandardized tests used for these assessments for initial
screening purposes only. For Spanish-speaking LEP students served by
bilingual programs, the district used a standardized test in Spanish
to assess math and reading ability. Such tests were not available
for students who spoke other languages; these students were tested,
using English-language tests, once they had achieved a certain level
of English proficiency.
FEDERAL FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.4
The district received federal funds for LEP students through the
EIEA\6 program. The district had not received Title VII funding
since 1987. Although federal funds specifically targeted for LEP
students were limited, almost one-third of the LEP students received
educational services through Chapter 1 in 1992. At some of its
schools, the district used Chapter 1 funds for bilingual aides and
other instructional services for LEP students.
--------------------
\6 In District E, most immigrant students were LEP, according to a
district official.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF CENSUS
DATA ANALYSIS
========================================================== Appendix VI
Our analysis of Census data used a special tabulation provided by
Census for our earlier study on demographics of school-age children.
Our report on that study provides a detailed description of the data
tabulation. Key factors related to this study of LEP students are
described in the following sections.
THE SPECIAL TABULATION OF 1980
AND 1990 DECENNIAL CENSUS DATA
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:1
In October 1992, we contracted with the Bureau of the Census to
obtain a specially designed tabulation of 1980 and 1990 decennial
census data. This tabulation is a subset of the 1980 and 1990
Decennial Census Sample Edited Detail Files containing
characteristics of the population of specific geographic units.
Census created the tabulation from its detailed sample files
containing individual records on the population of the entire United
States. Census's 1990 detailed files represent a 15.5- percent
sample of the total U.S. population and a 16-percent sample of all
U.S. households. Census's 1980 detailed files represent an
18.2-percent sample of the total U.S. population and an 18.4-percent
sample of all U.S. households.
CONTENTS OF THE SPECIAL
TABULATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2
The tabulation contains detailed information on the economic, social,
and demographic characteristics of the U.S. population, with a
particular focus on children--persons aged birth to 17--living in
families.\1 The tabulation contains this information for certain
geographic units and age groups, and generally includes comparable
data for both 1980 and 1990.
--------------------
\1 Census defines a family as consisting of a householder and one or
more other persons living in the same household who are related to
the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. A household
includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit--a house, an
apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is
occupied as separate living quarters. All persons in a household who
are related to the householder are regarded as members of his or her
family. A household can contain only one family for purposes of
census tabulations. Not all households contain families, since a
household may consist of a group of unrelated individuals or one
person living alone.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:2.1
The tabulation includes detailed characteristics on the population of
every county or county equivalent\2 in the United States, including
Alaska and Hawaii.\3 Counties can be aggregated into states, regions,
or the nation.
--------------------
\2 In Louisiana, the county equivalent is the parish. In Alaska,
county equivalents are organized as boroughs and census areas. Some
states--like Maryland--have "independent cities," which are treated
as counties for statistical purposes.
\3 Our tabulation does not include information on the population of
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, or other outlying areas of the United
States.
AGE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:2.2
For both 1980 and 1990, the tabulation contains information on
populations by single year of age for persons from birth through age
7. It also includes information on persons in age groups 8 to 11, 12
to 17, 18 to 24, 25 to 64, and 65 years and older.
POVERTY STATUS/INCOME
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:2.3
The tabulation contains information on household income and poverty
status for all persons for whom the Census can determine a poverty
status.\4 Census derives information on income and poverty status
from answers to census questions concerning income received by
persons 15 years and older during the calendar year before the census
year. Thus, the 1990 decennial census contains information on
persons' 1989 calendar year income. Information on persons' poverty
status in the tabulation is based on the standard definition of
poverty status used by Census and prescribed by the Office of
Management and Budget as a statistical standard for federal
agencies.\5
--------------------
\4 Census does not determine poverty status for institutionalized
persons, persons in military group quarters and in college
dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years of age. These
persons are excluded from the denominator when Census calculates
poverty rates--the percentage of persons in poverty.
\5 Census determines poverty thresholds on the basis of family size
and the corresponding poverty level income for that family size. The
Census and GAO tabulation classifies the family income of each family
or unrelated individual according to their corresponding family size
category. For example, for the 1990 census, the poverty cut-off for
a family of four was a 1989 income of $12,674. Census counts an
individual or family and its members as poor if its annual before-tax
cash income is below the corresponding poverty threshold for that
size of family.
RACE AND ETHNICITY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:2.4
The tabulation contains information on 22 separate racial and ethnic
classifications. (See table VI.1.) The tabulation's racial/ethnic
classifications are based on the census question regarding Hispanic
origin. Thus, the non-Hispanic classifications--white, black, and so
on--are for non-Hispanic members of those racial groups only. The
Hispanic categories include Hispanic persons of all races. The
tabulation includes racial and ethnic classifications that are
comparable in definition for 1980 and 1990, except for the categories
"Central/South American" and "Other Hispanic." Census calculated the
"Central/South American" classification for 1990 but not for 1980,
when it included these persons in the "Other Hispanic"
classification.
Table VI.1
Contents of the Special Tabulation:
Racial and Ethnic Characteristics, 1980
and 1990 Decennial Censuses
Not of Hispanic origin Hispanic origin
----------------------------- -----------------------------
Total white Mexican
Total black Puerto Rican
Asian and Pacific Islander: Cuban
Chinese Central/South American
Japanese Other Hispanic
Filipino
Asian Indian
Korean
Vietnamese
Cambodian
Hmong
Laotian
Thai
Other Asian
Pacific Islander, except
Hawaiian
Hawaiian
American Indian, Eskimo, or
Aleut
Other races
------------------------------------------------------------
IMMIGRANT STATUS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:2.5
The tabulation's immigrant variable includes information on those
persons who are foreign born and not of U.S. parents. It also
includes a separate "first generation" or "recent arrival" category
for those persons who are native born but who have a foreign-born
mother\6 who came to the United States during the 10 years before the
census.\7 In this report, we typically define the foreign born and
first generation categories as "immigrant."
This variable places people aged birth to 17 who are not in a family
in a separate category.
--------------------
\6 Although somewhat more narrow, this definition is consistent with
research definitions of the foreign stock population. The foreign
stock population is considered crucial to understanding that segment
of the population with the strongest foreign language and cultural
experience.
\7 For 1980, the recent arrival category includes native-born
children with a foreign-born mother who immigrated to the United
States during the previous 10 years (back to 1970). For those
children who have no mother, the question examines the father's place
of origin. Children without either parent are classified as
nonimmigrant.
LANGUAGE CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:2.6
The tabulation also contains information on the language spoken by
the householder and on English proficiency. (See table VI.2.) Except
where noted, the tabulation has comparable data for these variables
for both 1980 and 1990.
ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2.6.1
The tabulation includes information on persons 5 years of age and
older on the basis of their ability to speak English. Categories
include people who "speak English only," "speak English very well,"
"speak English well," "do not speak English well," and "do not speak
English at all."
LANGUAGE SPOKEN OTHER
THAN ENGLISH
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2.6.2
For those households in which one or more persons aged 5 years or
older speak a language other than English, the tabulation includes
information on the language spoken by the householder. The
tabulation distributes such persons among 16 different language
classifications. The language spoken by the householder may not be
spoken by all other members of the household. Thus, persons who
speak only English may have a non-English household language assigned
to them.
Table VI.2
Contents of the Special Tabulation:
Linguistic Characteristics, 1980 and
1990 Decennial Censuses
Language spoken at home:\a
----------------------------- -----------------------------
English spoken only Language spoken other than
English:
Spanish
Portuguese
French/Creole
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Tagalog/Philippino
Asian Indian/Pakistani
Korean
Vietnamese
Other Asian language
American Indian or Eskimo
Italian
Arabic
Other languages
Ability to speak English:\b
------------------------------------------------------------
Speaks only English Does not speak only English:
Speaks English very well
Speaks English well
Speaks English not well
Speaks English not at all
------------------------------------------------------------
\a This variable places persons aged birth to 17 who are not in a
family in a separate category.
\b This variable places persons aged 5 to 17 who are not in a family
in a separate category. It excludes all persons under 5 years of
age.
VARIABLES CREATED FROM THE
SPECIAL TABULATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:3
GAO DEFINITION OF CHILDREN
WITH LIMITED ENGLISH
PROFICIENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:3.1
Using the special tabulation data for 1980 and 1990, we created a
variable classifying children by their English proficiency. In
general, LEP children have difficultly speaking, reading, writing, or
understanding English. However, currently, no nationally accepted
definition of LEP exists, and consensus is lacking on the criteria
for determining LEP. This lack is particularly true regarding the
level of language skills that constitutes limited proficiency in
English.
Following the definition used by the Congressional Research Service
when it uses Census data to estimate the LEP population, we defined
as LEP children all persons aged 5 to 17 living in families whom
Census reported as speaking English "well," "not well," or "not at
all."\8 Current estimates by the Department of Education, the Council
of State Chief School Officers, and other sources place the number of
total school-age LEP students at between 2.3 million and 3.5 million.
Our definition yields an estimate of slightly more than 2.3 million
children.
--------------------
\8 Several reasons exist for defining a person who speaks English
"well" as LEP. First, analysis by Census performed on adults during
the early 1980s suggested that the "speaks English well" category had
considerable variation in actual English-speaking ability--many who
said they spoke English well did not do so--and such variation may be
just as large among children. In addition, there are other
dimensions of LEP--some may speak English well but may be unable to
read it or understand it.
GAO ANALYSIS OF 25 LARGEST
CITIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:3.2
The tabulation contains detailed information on counties and
metropolitan areas but not cities. Thus, we analyzed detailed data
for the 39 counties the Census identified as containing a part or all
of the 25 largest cities as determined by their total population in
1990 (see table VI.3). For some cities, such as New York or San
Francisco, the county or counties are exactly contiguous with the
city's boundaries. For other cities, such as Detroit (Wayne County)
or Cleveland (Cuyahoga County), the counties contain other
jurisdictions besides the city. For some cities, such as Chicago,
most of the city is within one county (Cook), although parts of it
are also in other counties.
Table VI.3
Census Designations of Counties
Containing 25 Largest Cities in Total
Population in 1990, Special Tabulation
of Census Data, 1990
City Counties
------------------ ----------------------------------------
New York City Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, Richmond
Los Angeles Los Angeles
Chicago Cook, Dupage\a
Houston Fort Bend, Harris, Montgomery\a
Philadelphia Philadelphia
San Diego San Diego
Detroit Wayne
Dallas Collin, Dallas, Denton, Kaufman,
Rockwall\a
Phoenix Maricopa
San Antonio Bexar
San Jose Santa Clara
Baltimore Baltimore
Indianapolis Marion
San Francisco San Francisco
Jacksonville Duval
Columbus Fairfield, Franklin\a
Milwaukee Milwaukee, Washington, Waukesha\a
Memphis Shelby
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
Boston Suffolk
Seattle King
El Paso El Paso
Cleveland Cuyahoga
New Orleans Orleans Parish
Nashville Davidson
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Most of the city is located in one county: Chicago is in Cook,
Houston is in Harris, Dallas is in Dallas, Milwaukee is in Milwaukee,
and Columbus is in Franklin.
SAMPLING ERRORS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:3.3
Because the tabulation is based on the 1980 and 1990 Decennial Census
Sample Edited Detail Files, which contain a sample of individual
population records, each reported estimate has an associated sampling
error. The size of the sampling error reflects the precision of the
estimate: the smaller the error, the more precise the estimate.
Sampling errors for estimates from the tabulation were calculated at
the 95-percent confidence level. This level means that the chances
are about 19 out of 20 that the actual number or percentage being
estimated falls within the range defined by our estimate, plus or
minus the sampling error. For example, if we estimated that 30
percent of a group has a particular characteristic and the sampling
error is 1 percentage point, a 95-percent chance exists that the
actual percentage is between 29 and 31.
Generally, the sampling errors for estimated characteristics for the
nation, the 533 county group, and the 25 largest metropolitan areas
did not exceed 0.5 percentage points at the 95-percent confidence
level.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix VII
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND HUMAN
SERVICES DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ruth Ann Heck, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7007
Wayne M. Dow, Senior Analyst, Computer Science
Laurel H. Rabin, Reports Analyst
Beatrice F. Birman, Adviser
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
Revae E. Steinman, Regional Assignment Manager
Jill F. Norwood, Evaluator-in-Charge
Carolyn Marie Black, Evaluator
Cheryl L. Gordon, Evaluator
BIBLIOGRAPHY
============================================================ Chapter 0
Berman, Paul, and others. Meeting the Challenge of Language
Diversity: An Evaluation of Programs for Pupils with Limited
Proficiency in English. BW Associates. Berkeley, CA: February
1992.
School Success for Limited English Proficient Students: The
Challenge and State Response. Council of Chief State School
Officers. Washington, D.C.: February 1990.
Crawford, James. Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory,
and Practice. Los Angeles, CA: 1991.
Gold, Norman C. Solving the Shortage of Bilingual Teachers: Policy
Implications of California's Staffing Initiative for LEP Students.
Sacramento, CA: August 12, 1992.
Hakuta, Kenji, and others. Federal Education Programs for
Limited-English-Proficient Students: A Blueprint for the Second
Generation. Stanford Working Group. Stanford, CA: June 1993.
Krashen, Stephen D. Bilingual Education: A Focus on Current
Research. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Washington, D.C.: September 1991.
McDonnell, Lorraine M., and Paul T. Hill. Newcomers in American
Schools: Meeting the Educational Needs of Immigrant Youth. The RAND
Corporation. Santa Monica, CA: 1993.
Meyer, Michael, and Stephen E. Fienberg. Assessing Evaluation
Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Washington,
D.C.: 1992.
Olsen, Laurie. Bridges: Promising Programs for the Education of
Immigrant Children. California Tomorrow. San Francisco, CA: 1989.
Providing Chapter 1 Services to Limited English-Proficient
Students--Final Report. Westat, Inc., under contract with the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Planning and Evaluation Service.
Rockville, MD: 1991.
Ramirez, J. David, and others. Final Report: Longitudinal Study of
Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit
Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language-Minority
Children. Aguirre International, under contract with the U.S.
Department of Education. San Mateo, CA: February 1991.
Recommendations for Improving the Assessment and Monitoring of
Students with Limited English Proficiency. Council of Chief State
School Officers. Washington, D.C.: 1992.
A Revised Analysis of the Supply of Bilingual and ESL Teachers: An
Analysis of Schools and Staffing Survey Data. Pelavin Associates,
Inc., under contract with the U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: September
1991.
Tikunoff, William J., and others. Final Report: A Descriptive Study
of Significant Features of Exemplary Special Alternative
Instructional Programs. The Southwest Regional Educational
Laboratory, under contract with the U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs. Los
Alamitos, CA: October 1991.
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 1
School Age Demographics: Recent Trends Pose New Educational
Challenges (GAO/HRD-93-105BR, Aug. 5, 1993).
Systemwide Education Reform: Federal Leadership Could Facilitate
District-Level Efforts (GAO/HRD-93-97, Apr. 30, 1993).
Immigrant Education: Information on the Emergency Immigrant
Education Act Program (GAO/HRD-91-50, Mar. 15, 1991).
Bilingual Education: Information on Limited English Proficient
Students (GAO/HRD-87-85BR, Apr. 30, 1987).
Bilingual Education: A New Look at the Research Evidence
(GAO/PEMD-87-12BR, Mar. 10, 1987).