Reflection #4 ~ Texas Education Agency’s ESL Policies

TEA Policies for ESL Aligned with ELL Best Practices

Are the Texas Education Agency (TEA) policies for English as a Second Language (ESL) aligned with ELL best practices, or are they not? That is the question! Since school districts are required to implement English language proficiency standards into each subject of the curriculum and to provide for the social and academic language proficiency of English Language Learners (ELL), the reader is led to believe that alignment with best practices for ESL does exist. The standards delineate that classroom instruction should integrate high quality instruction in the content areas with the acquisition of the second language as the ELL students learn the knowledge and skills related in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) so that these learners reach their full potential academically. Expectations for appropriate instruction involve opportunities for the ELL child to listen, speak, read, and write at their current levels of English proficiency while making gradual progress with the complexity of English as they hear, speak, read, and write. While this sounds good on paper, the next question involves whether or not these practices actually are implemented. To provide for the success of ELLs, academic language proficiency is emphasized to help the learners develop critical thinking, the understanding of new concepts, the ability to process complex academic material, and to learn to interact and communicate in academic settings (19 TAC Chapter 74, Subchapter A).

Identification of the English language learner’s proficiency with English is the first step in providing for the further language acquisition. Then the provision of instruction in a manner linguistically accommodated that is communicated, sequenced, and scaffolded to differentiate the learning for the ELL student is intended to ensure that the knowledge and skills are learned. A foundation of English language vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and English mechanics are mandated as responsibilities of the school districts. It would be assumed that there must be alignment with best practices in bilingual education and English as a second language programs for the state policy to require these programs to be “integral” parts of the comprehensive education. Expectations for the instructional methods to be designed in such a manner as to meet the needs of the ELLs through program content based on the TEKS would necessitate the highly effective strategies aligned with current empirically-based practices (19 TAC Chapter 89, Subchapter BB).



¡Aha! TEA Policies for ESL

While idealistic words are written into the policies for English as a Second Language programs, the question is whether there is specificity of application and implementation with suggested strategies for the attainment of the lofty goals set forth for English language learners. Subsection 74.4 English Language Proficiency Standards, Section (c) provides the specifics of second language acquisition across the curriculum related to the essential knowledge and skills with the extended list of learning strategies and the breakdown of requirements related to listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Surprising were the detailed expectations and guidelines provided. Subsequently, in the next section of the proficiency standards, descriptors of the levels of English language acquisition are provided for the appropriate accommodation of instruction. It was surprising to read the leveled descriptors (beginning, intermediate, advanced, and advanced high) for each specific element of language acquisition (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). Differentiating Kindergarten-Grade 1 from Grades 2-12 is another explicit provision to guide school districts and teachers in meeting the needs of the ELL students. It was not known that a school district could ask for an exception or waiver for bilingual or ESL programs, but that makes sense why the policy in §89.1205 (f) allows “districts [to] join with other districts to provide bilingual education or English as a second language programs.” The summer school program for entering kindergarten and first grade limited English learners was a nice surprise and would certainly provide these students with an effective jump-start prior to beginning kindergarten or first grade (§89.1250).

Desired Changes

One desired policy change would be to §89.1201. Under section (a), (3), I would like to have it be “require” rather than “‘seek’ certified teaching personnel to ensure that limited English proficient students are afforded full opportunity to master the essential skills and knowledge required by the state.” Without proper training, it seems to be an impossibility to properly serve ELL students. In fact, I would like to see added to the policy that certified ESL teachers maintain annual update training. More than likely, most school districts require such professional development, but knowing that I am ESL certified certainly does not make me highly qualified to teach the ELL children. I studied and passed the EXCET test to get my ESL certification, but I honestly do not feel I could do a very good job of helping new immigrants adequately acquire the English language. When I taught in the small Sweetwater ISD, I was designated as the second grade ESL teacher for the year. All employees were required to get their certification within two years of being hired, because there was not any pull-out ESL program. I pretty much held my breath all that year hoping a second language learner in second grade would not move to Sweetwater. The small school district definitely did not have adequate training or support for teachers within the district. While Region 14 Education Service Center provided much training across the board, it was a 45 minute drive to Abilene for any training. Surely, they would have been available to help, but all this is to say that just because I passed the ESL certification test did not mean I would have been an effective teacher using best practices. The fact that some school districts are allowed to staff teachers in bilingual and ESL programs based on emergency teaching permits or special assignment permits is down right scary, but having worked in a small rural school district it is understandable that there may be no other option. This would be a desired change in policy, though I cannot realistically think of another option in certain circumstances. A final change that would definitely be effective would be for the summer school program option to be extended to learners beyond the first grade. While it might be necessary to cluster grade levels, the prime focus of language learning would be a great asset to these students by extending their learning and language building skills without the gap of time occurring over the summer months.
______________________________________________________________

While the policies of TEA do not explicitly dictate percentages of time or definitively label the type of bilingual or ESL programs, it would be assumed that the policies are based on best practices. Noting the vast diversity of school districts and their populations, the policies were obviously written to encompass the many different scenarios related to limited English language learners. Thus, many specific practices related to empirical evidence are left up to the local education agencies. The guidelines are provided, and hopefully, the school districts will hire highly qualified individuals to incorporate those guidelines in a manner that correlates to best practices.

Reflection #3 – Title I / NCLB / ARRA

Secondary and elementary education has been the responsibility of the state and communities since the inception of the public school system with policies and funding coming from the cities, counties, and school districts for which they serve. The role of the federal government evolved gradually, but with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society,” programs to benefit schools were newly developed. Most notable was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (http://lobby.la.psu.edu/061_ESEA_Title_1/summary_esea.htm).

Title I

The Commissioner of Education, Francis Keppel, wrote the Elementary and Secondary School Act which was passed by the legislature on April 9, 1965. Considered by some to be “the most important educational component of the ‘War on Poverty,’” the special funding of Title I provided large amounts of money for the needs of “educationally deprived children, especially through compensatory programs for the poor” (Schugurensky, 2002). Developed to help students from low socio-economic status, the legislation stated, "In recognition of the special educational needs of low-income families and the impact that concentrations of low-income families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs, the Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance…to local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations of children from low-income families to expand and improve their educational programs by various means (including preschool programs) which contribute to meeting the special educational needs of educationally deprived children” (Section 201, Elementary and secondary School Act, 1965).

Title 1 allocated 1 billion dollars yearly to schools with at least 40% population of low socio-economic status. With Title 1 funds the initiation of Head Start, a pre-school program for disadvantaged children, began with the intent of preparing young children for first grade through equity of opportunity. Grants to schools were provided through Title I funding to aid economically and disadvantaged children through various programs such as Head Start. President Johnson believed that this legislation would provide hope to children from poor families whose greatest barrier was poverty itself. He stated, “for every one of the billion dollars we spend on this program will come back tenfold as school dropouts change to schoolgraduates” (http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/).

NCLB

In 2001 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Affecting almost every school district and charter school in Texas, the main goal of NCLB was “to close the achievement gap between groups of students by requiring greater accountability and offering increased flexibility and choice (http://www.tea.state.tx.us). Signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002, this legislation evolved to include federal education funding programs commensurate with increasing the performance of public schools, requiring accountability of states and local school districts while promoting parental choice. Certain conditions must be accepted for the states to receive the federal funding including Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), empirically based teacher practices, flexible local control of spending, expanded parental choice, and highly qualified teachers. As the heart of NCLB, Title 1 sets the goal of guaranteeing that “all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and State academic assessments” (Alexander & Alexander, 2009).

ARRA

President Obama authorized the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 on February 17th of that year. Along with other measures to stabilize the U.S. economy, provide relief from high unemployment, and provide for other challenges in this country, this was also a reauthorization of Title I to enhance educational opportunities. Providing about 100 billion dollars for education and the other components of this legislation, the purpose of ARRA is to promote educational reforms and improvements to promote results of a lasting nature for students from pre-school through post-secondary levels. The principles directing the distribution and use of ARRA funds are based on the goal of stimulating the economy and investing in education along with other necessary services to strengthen the overall economic well-being in our country. With this act, funds are intended to be spent quickly with the intent to eliminate unemployment. School reform and improvement are intended to strengthen student achievement by helping students from all backgrounds. Rigorous reporting and accountability procedures are required with ARRA funds to document proper use of the funds. With the temporary nature of the ARRA funds, the means of investment should not be of an unsustainable nature after the funding has expired. Funds related to Title 1 ($10 billion) are distributed through local educational agencies. ARRA has given funding quickly to states and local educational agencies while providing time for a planned, thoughtful use of these monies. As of May 2010, there have been about 84 billion dollars in grants awarded through the Department of Education Recovery Act with $948 million having been awarded to Texas (http://www2ed.gov).


Because of Title I and the reauthorization programs over the years, disadvantaged students at-risk of failure or dropping out of school have decreased. Student achievement has improved due to the funding that has provided special programs to help students make progress toward academic achievement. The Title I, Part A funds to those schools with high concentrations of children living in poverty have the opportunity to apply for these monies “in order to help improve teaching and learning for students most at risk of failing to meet state academic achievement standards” (http://www2ed.gov) through creating educator opportunities to incorporate creative teaching strategies to provide for better learning. Using these funds, teachers can be identified and trained to be highly effective, early childhood programs can be strengthened and expanded, and the use of high-quality supplemental math and science online software for secondary schools can be purchased. In addition funding is also authorized for the purchase of longitudinal data systems to help guide improvement focus, professional development services can be covered, reading/math coaches can be paid to provide training to teachers, and extended learning opportunities for before/after school and during the summer can be funded. These are a few examples of how the funding through Title I as delineated in ARRA are currently functioning to eliminate the achievement gap by enhancing the learning for disadvantaged children in our school systems with a high poverty rate.