Collection of Papers On English As A Second Language

Comprehensive Collection of Papers on English as a Second Language
Dr. Patricia A. Alvara
June, 2003
Table of Contents
QUESTION 1 3
Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research 5

Action Research 11
Case Studies 13
Experimental Designs 17
Surveys 20
The Crawford-slip Method 24
Cross-Impact Analysis 25
Scenario Planning 27
The Delphi Technique and Survey 29
Morphological Analysis 30
Trend Exploration 32
Conclusion 32
References 36
QUESTION 2 43
Funding Newcomers Programs 54

Federal Regulations 56
Additional Research 59
Exemplar Newcomers Programs 60
Kenosha Unified School District 66
Conclusion 71
References 74
QUESTION 3 80
The Bilingual Movement 80

Program Effectiveness 87
Conclusion 107
References 111
QUESTION 4 121
Standardized Assessments 122

Advantages and Limitations 124
Standardized Tests and LEP Students 126
LEP Students and Language Levels 133
Alternative/Authentic Assessments 138
Conclusion 143
Appendix A 146
References 147
QUESTION 5 152
Brain Research 153

The Brain and Language Acquisition 156
Classroom Instruction and Language Acquisition 161
SDAIE 177
CALLA 181
Conclusion 183
References 186
QUESTION 6 191
Technology-based Learning Inception 194

Internet/Intranet-based Training 196
Web/Computer-based Training 198
Technology-based Learning and Education 200
Technology-based Learning Effectiveness 202
Technology-based Learning Limitations 204
Conclusion 206
Model Course Rationale 209
Model Course Access 211
References 212
QUESTION 1
Compare action research, case studies, experimental designs, surveys, Crawford-slip method,
cross-impact analysis, scenario planning, Delphi techniques and surveys, morphological
analysis, and trend exploration, which have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of language
assistance programs during the last decade. What methodologies are most effective for teachers’
usage? What methodologies might best be used for research in developing a comparative
analysis of effective Sheltered English programs?
Bilingual programs are currently being closely examined by many sectors of society, due
in large part to the criticisms being directed at them from the media and several influential
organizations. Effective bilingual programs require leadership to find answers to the calls for
greater accountability. Obtaining adequate research on bilingual and English as Second language
(ESL) educational programs has been a long, arduous process due to the vast differences in these
programs. Bilingual and ESL educational research is often skewed due to the wide range of
latitude among Federal requirements, which allow states to select the most effective programs for
their limited English proficient (LEP) student population. State officials, educational agencies,
and courts have further established mandated guidelines on educating, governing, and managing
LEP students. The actual programs being offered can vary from state to state, district to district,
school to school, and classroom to classroom (Amrein & Pena, 2000; Hakuta, 2002).
While the efficacy of language programs remains a widely debated topic

in educational discourse, researchers agree that language programs do not
exist within a vacuum, and that the benefits accrued by participating in
these programs are likely to differ for individual students. (Amrein &
Pena, 2000, p.2)
Comprehensive Paper for (Patricia A. Alvara) 4
Educational researchers, linguists, and bilingual educators such as Cummins (1999), Freeman
(1996), and Hakuta (2002) have different perspectives on bilingual programs and their
effectiveness. Bilingual research is often tainted with program bias; this bias depends on the
program of preference and study (Amrein & Pena, 2000).
Limited English Proficient (LEP) is the legal term used to identify students who were not
born in the United States, or whose native language is not English, and those students who
cannot participate effectively in regular classrooms because they lack fluency in spoken and
written English (Department of Education-OCR, 1999). LEP is the term recognized by the
Office of Civil Rights (OCR), and the term used throughout this comprehensive paper to refer to
these students (Department of Education-OCR, 1999). Bilingual is a generalized term that refers
to all programs other than English as a Second Language (ESL). In this paper, the term bilingual
includes all Language Assistance Programs (LAP) offered within the Kenosha Unified School
District: Dual Immersion, Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE), English as a Second
Language (ESL), and Sheltered English Immersion (SEI). Although ESL and SEI are not
commonly referred to as bilingual programs, they are the most commonly used methods of
instruction for LEP students nationwide.
“Bilingual education was initially implemented to address political, social, economical,
and educational injustices; it instead remains a powerful instrument of mainstreaming minority-
language students” (Akkari, 1998, p.1). These programs were created to address various issues
and to help bridge the educational gap. The definition of “bridging the achievement gap” in this
comprehensive paper refers to increasing LEP students’ achievement in English language
proficiency-orally, in reading, and in writing, so that these abilities are shown to be more
comparable to those of mainstreamed native English speaking students. Today, in virtually all
grade levels in all subjects, African American, Latino, and American Indian students perform far
behind others. As the Hispanic and LEP student populations continue to increase rapidly, the
achievement gap continues to widen; this gap is due to the complexity of the issues surrounding
these students. “The gaps are so pronounced that in 1996, several national tests found African-
American and Hispanic 12th graders scoring at roughly the same levels in reading and math as
white 8th graders” (Johnston & Viadero, 2002, pp. 18-19).
To clearly understand the future of bilingual education, researchers should examine the
current research and methodologies pertaining to SEI. Sheltered English Immersion can be
broken down into four types of programs: Submersion, ESL, Sheltered Immersion, and
Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE). Today, available research on Sheltered English
Immersion (SEI) is minimal; however, it is now beginning to surface due to the passage of new
laws in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts and with the federal "No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001.” These laws call for an organized effort to educate all children, regardless of their
ability to speak and understand English. Limited data on SEI are due to the restrictions and
limitations placed on these programs by the federal government, which has made it rather
difficult to implement SEI programs (Gersten, Taylor, Woodward, & Wite, 1997). Despite the
challenges, SEIs programs have become increasingly common in the United States, and
particularly in Canada, where the federal restrictions are absent (Gersten et al., 1997).
Multiple research methodologies have been utilized in bilingual education as tools to
understand this overwhelming process and even to bring about changes within the bilingual
education arena. In this realm of education, the pendulum continues to swing and is continually
being inundated with seemingly endless changes. The focus of this paper is to provide a brief
overview of the various types of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies that can be
used in the development of a comparative analysis which will determine the effectiveness of
Kenosha Unified School District’s SEI and Transitional Bilingual Educational programs (K-5) in
meeting its LEP students’ English language needs. More specifically, this paper will examine
action research, case studies, experimental designs, surveys, Crawford-slip method, cross-impact
analysis, scenario planning, Delphi techniques and surveys, morphological analysis, and trend
exploration as methods of identifying the District’s Language Assistance Programs’(LAP)
strengths and weaknesses.
Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research
Qualitative research incorporates a variety of methodologies that are often combined
and/or overlapped, as in action research and case studies. Qualitative research is usually
contrasted with quantitative research. The focus of qualitative research is not on numbers but on
words and observations; stories, visual portrayals, meaningful characterizations, interpretations,
and other expressive descriptions (Zikmund, 2000). Alternately, the purpose of quantitative
research is to determine the quantity or extent of some phenomenon in the form of numbers
(Burnaford, Fischer, & Hobson, 2001; Gall, Borg, Walter, & Gall, 1996; Kerlin, 1999; Mc Bride
& Schostak, 2000; Meloy, 2002; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis, 2003; The
Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate, 2003).

Qualitative analysis is a process that is often the precursor to quantitative,

statistical work; a process to make the tacit underpinnings of an issue
explicit; a process you can use to deepen your understanding of complex
social and human factors that cannot be understood with numbers; a
process that helps you figure out what to count and what to measure.
(Kerlin, 1999 p. 1)
The focus of qualitative research is on words and observations, and may include
stories, visual portrayals, meaningful characterizations, interpretations, and other
expressive descriptions. Interviews are often used in qualitative research. Alternatively,
quantitative research is used to determine the extent of some phenomenon in the form of
numbers. Researchers Miles and Huberman, in Qualitative Data Analysis (2003), stated
the following:
Qualitative data involve words and quantitative data involve numbers;

there are some researchers who feel that one is better (or more scientific)
than the other. Another major difference between the two is that
qualitative research is inductive and quantitative research is deductive. In
qualitative research, a hypothesis is not needed to begin research.
However, all quantitative research requires a hypothesis before research
can begin. (p.1)
Qualitative research uses a combination of strategies to collect data: field observations,
focus groups, intensive interviews, and/or case studies. In a qualitative study, the researcher
conducts studies in the field, in natural surroundings, and tries to capture the normal flow of
events without trying to control extraneous variables. Theories emerge as part of the research
process, evolving from the data as they are collected (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall et al., 1996;
Hill, 2000; Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000; Meloy, 2002; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative
Debate, 2003; Wimmer & Dominick, 1994). The design of a study evolves during the research
and can often be adjusted or changed as it progresses, which is not a characteristic of quantitative
research. It may be an exploratory research study or a quantitative descriptive study. A
descriptive study seeks to answer those “what is?” or “what are?” questions, and data are
collected through numbers, words or both (Zikmund, 2000).
In quantitative research, researchers conduct experiments, classify data, and construct
more complex statistical analysis in an attempt to explain what was discovered; although, a
researcher may conduct non-controlled quantitative studies such as descriptive, correlational, ex
post facto, and evaluation. Findings are generalized to a larger population, and direct
comparisons are also made. This is one of the main disadvantages of using qualitative research;
the results are not often extended to wider populations with the same degree of certainty as in
quantitative analyses. The results of the research are not usually tested to determine if they are
statistically significant or due to chance (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall et al., 1996; Kerlin, 1999;
Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000; Meloy, 2002; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis, 2003;
The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate, 2003).
It could be argued that the quantitative researcher is more precise, but the
response would be that with people it is not possible to be so precise,
people change and the social situation is too complex for numerical
description…Quantitative research has a tendency to clarify where
clarification is not appropriate. (Mc Bride& Schostak, 2000, pp. 1-2)
Quantitative data can determine when students have achieved or failed a task, and they can
provide national ranking, percentiles, and allow researchers to conduct comparison analyses.
Nevertheless, they cannot provide the “total” picture of why a particular student has either
succeeded or failed (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall et al., 1996; Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000;
Meloy, 2002; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis, 2003; The Qualitative Versus
Quantitative Debate, 2003).
Qualitative research has a phenomenological focus that can provide an enriched and
detailed description of the participants’ actions and/or viewpoints (Veronesi, 1997). Qualitative
research tends to incorporate a more humanistic approach. When conducting qualitative
research, one is often interested in determining the ‘whole’ picture; he/she is in search of
answering the “why” questions (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall et al., 1996; Kerlin, 1999; Mc Bride
& Schostak, 2000; Meloy, 2002).
The role of the researcher is also different when comparing qualitative and quantitative
research. In quantitative research, the researcher neither participates in nor influences what is
being studied; thus, he/she examines the circumstances objectively. In some qualitative research,
the researcher may play a more subjective role and participate by being immersed in his/her
research. That is, the observer may be the teacher or the facilitator. This role is often the case
with when action research, case studies, and focus groups are used in educational research.
In qualitative research, we seek to minimize the impact of our

interventions, but also recognize that there are other ways in which we
intervene…. Yet, we can have a pretty good idea that these may be helpful
to us in certain situations. More importantly, we endeavor to ‘build
theory’ from the ground of experience or practice. For qualitative
researchers, the context in which practices takes place has important
bearing upon that practice and research should be rooted accordingly. (Mc
Bride & Schostak, 2000, p. 2)
Therefore, both qualitative and quantitative research studies are valuable in the field of
education. Both may be utilized to understand the effectiveness of the various programs in place.
In conducting a comparative analysis of Sheltered English Immersion programs, researchers may
select a multi-method or mixed methods methodology by collecting quantitative and qualitative
data to be better able to identify the “total” picture of the research problem. A qualitative
observation may be used to watch the teachers in action, while a quantitative survey may be
given to teachers to assess effectiveness. For the purpose of this comprehensive paper, each type
of assessment examined will be identified as qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of both.
Action Research
Action research is a powerful qualitative research tool utilized in education. Educators
who use this method of research observe carefully and reflect systematically. Observational
techniques are used to improve their practice. Researchers then generate potential solutions to
original problems, implement a chosen intervention, assess the outcomes, and/or modify the
solution(s). Action implies the need for change and research implies a need to clarify or increase
understanding. Action research is an iterative research process in which the researcher develops
policy, brings about change, and/or promotes quality improvement within the educational realm.
This type of research is a cyclical process that allows educators to create projects within their
classrooms and modify them as needed (Burnaford et al., 2001; Knezevik, 2003; Mc Bride &
Schostak, 2000).
A group of English as Second Language (ESL) teachers may seek a collaborative change
and implement their research. The process may include a general plan of action needed for
implementation, the collection, and analysis of the data, and monitoring of these steps. The data
may be reported using a variety of methods including: direct observation, surveys, ethnographic
questionnaires, journals, or various other artifacts. Researchers must check for the validity of
their information, and determine whether the information gathered is transferable to the general
population, or if it is limited to the practices studied (its external reliability). In addition to
external reliability, researchers must examine the internal consistency of the methodology to
ensure that the research is free from bias and is ethical. In the area of data analysis, researchers
need to explain how data will be coded, will be identified, and/or determine how themes will be
tracked (Burnaford et al., 2001; Knezevik, 2003; Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000).
A team, comprised of eleven teachers within the New York School District PS24/District
15, collaborated with the Development and Dissemination Schools Initiative to conduct action
research. The team investigated how to improve instruction and other services for its LEP
students by integrating its low-proficiency second language students into Interactive Read Aloud
activities. During its initial meetings, the team created and identified several possible
adjustments and described how it would begin to implement these strategies in its ESL
classrooms. The PS24 Action Research Team arrived at a consensus to implement six
instructional strategies. Each teacher chose one new strategy to use in his/her classroom. The
principal then assigned a team liaison to observe and support the teachers during the
implementation. Additionally, the teachers were expected to keep a response journal. The
teachers met twice a month, after school, to report their progress; they discussed reading
selections and reflected upon what was working or not working. During these meetings, they
also determined how they would display the data. They agreed to use a written response in the
form of journals to document their findings as a performance assessment. The final outcome of
their action research left teachers still pondering how to improve instruction for their LEP
students. The team discovered the strategies implemented in the classroom worked, but did not
meet the students' immediate instructional needs. They felt their time would have been better
spent researching and investigating the following: How do classroom teachers get their LEP
students to pass the state and district exams (D&D School Initiative, PS24, 2000)?
Out of the eight action research projects generated through the Development and
Dissemination Schools Initiative website, not one project generated nor documented extensive
conclusions to warrant policy or strategic changes. In conducting a comparative analysis of
Sheltered English Immersion programs, action research may be utilized to understand teachers’
perceptions and attitudes towards their LAPs' strengths and weaknesses. By collaborating,
teachers may be able to identify the critical areas that need to be addressed, create a plan,
implement the plan, and monitor it. Most importantly, the current research further speculates
that for action research to be an effective and valid model of research for LAP improvement
there must be a critical analysis of the full results. Otherwise, a project's reliability and validity
cannot be guaranteed (Burnaford et al., 2001 D&D School Initiative, PS24, 2000; Knezevik,
2003; Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000). Careful planning and critical analysis of action research
may result in a practical application of policy and strategic changes. The research design must
be flexible enough to change directions or plan future research that addresses the needs of the
LEP student population.
Case Studies
Case studies are one of the most widely used forms of qualitative research in education.
“Researchers generally do case studies for one of three purposes: to produce detailed
descriptions of a phenomenon, to develop possible explanations of it, or to evaluate the
phenomenon” (Gall et al., 1996, p. 549). Robert Kirk and Jerome Miller define this type of
research as “watching people in their own territory and interacting” (cited in Gall et al., 1996, p.
547). Case studies often involve a scientific approach, in which a hypothesis is studied, as a
reaction to a perceived limitation of qualitative research.
Kimberly Hill (2000), author of Beyond the Numbers: A Case Study of the 1990 Census
Promotion Program and the Implications for Census 2000, stated that “Case studies are best
suited for ‘how’ and ‘why’ research questions, when the researcher has no control over
behavioral events and wants to focus on contemporary events” (p.1). These types of qualitative
studies can investigate any phenomenon that interests the researcher within the participant’s
natural setting; they are often conducted from the perspective of the participants. The
phenomenon under study can be identified as: a role, a process, an event, a concept, a person(s),
a program, and/or a curriculum (Gall et al., 1996; Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000).
“In conducting case studies, researchers collect intensive data about a particular instance
of a phenomenon, and they seek to understand each instance on its own terms and in its own
context” (Gall et al., 1996, p. 541). According to these authors, case studies have four
characteristics:
(1) the study of phenomena by focusing on specific instances, that is, cases;
(2) an in-depth study of each case;
(3) the study of a phenomenon in its natural context; and
(4) the study of emic [participant’s viewpoint] perspective of case study

participants (p. 545).
In a case study, data are collected and analyzed. The data collected can be in any form
gathered over a given period of time and may include words, images, physical objects,
quantitative data, narratives and/or interview transcripts. Kimberly Hill (2000) explained that a
case study may use “as many data sources as possible to systematically investigate individuals,
groups, organizations, or events, and is the best method when a researcher seeks to understand or
explain a phenomenon” (p.1). The methodology employed to examine the data vary according to
the needs of the researcher. “Case study researchers might begin a case study with one method
of data collection and gradually add or shift to other methods. Use of multiple methods to collect
data…can enhance the validity of case study findings through triangulation” (Gall et al., 1996, p.
557).
Researchers conducting case studies could use descriptions and explanations to attempt to
build, describe, and conceptualize the phenomenon. Researchers may conduct a single–site
phenomenological case study by examining the attitudes and perceptions of an ESL teacher,
his/her LEP students, colleagues, and principal towards an integrated curriculum or thematic
teaching in an ESL classroom as a method of building LEP students’ academic content
knowledge. This single-site case study might examine the experiences, perceptions, and
interactions between the ESL teacher and his/her LEP students. The study may contribute to the
understanding of why ESL teachers should use integrated curriculum to build academic content
knowledge and may provide an in-depth analysis of how an ESL teacher would implement and
perceive teaching thematically. Data may be produced from interview transcripts, observations,
journal entries, language assessments, and other documents to monitor and track the progress of
the LEP students. Based on the data presented, researchers would search for themes and/or
patterns, which could be used to determine significant characteristics featured throughout the
case (Gall et al., 1996; Mc Bride & Schostak, 2000; Veronesi, 1997).
A good depiction will provide a thick description…statements re-create a

situation and as much of its context as possible, accompanied by the
meanings and intentions inherent in that situation. The term thick
description originated in anthropology and is referenced as a complete,
literal description of a cultural phenomenon. (Gall et al., 1996, p. 541)
Peter Veronesi (1997) conducted a case study called A Case Study of Alternative
Assessment: Student, Teacher, and Observer perceptions in a Ninth Grade Biology Classroom.
In his qualitative descriptive case study, he examined the perceptions of a veteran biology
teacher and his ninth grade biology students towards alternative science assessments strategies.
The methodology used was from a phenomenological perspective that described the experiences
of the participants within their own “complex, cultural setting” (p. 3). The purpose of the study
was to contribute to the understanding of implementing alternative science assessments by
providing an in-depth analysis of how the teacher implemented and perceived alternative
assessments. Data were derived from various sources such as interview transcripts, observations
and other artifacts.
Analysis of the data was not intended to support or refute claims made in
the name of alternative assessment. Rather, this study was intended to
provide a vivid description of the situation studies and delineate potential
implications for using alternative science assessments. (p. 2)
Veronesi’s use of descriptions allowed him to be an “outside” observer; his descriptions mirrored
those of the participants rather than the researcher. The results described in this case study were
not conclusive, nor were they ever compared to those of other science teachers and/or classes.
Experimental Designs
Experimental designs are the most powerful quantitative research method used in
education. This type of design is used to establish cause-and-effect relationships among two or
more variables. In order to be classified as an effective experiment, the research must be
conducted in a rigorous manner in which the researcher tries to control confounding factors that
threaten its internal and external validity. Controlled experiments in bilingual education are
almost impossible to conduct and often produce undesirable results (Meyers & Feinberg, 1992;
Ramirez, Ramey, & Yuen, 1991). LEP students are seldom placed randomly in their language
programs; all too often, these students have various language and academic abilities.
The attrition rate contributes to the ineffectiveness of controlled experiments (Amselle &
Chavez, 1997; Garcia, 2002; Kerper Mora, 2002; Meyers & Feinberg, 1992; Ramirez et al.,
1991). “Attrition rates are high due to academic and behavioral difficulties. By sixth grade 43%
to 68% of students transfer from the regular L1 [primary language] program. About 75% of
students who transfer out will repeat a grade” (Kerper Mora, 2002, p. 1). LEP students tend to
be transient; their high mobility rate may be due to the mere fact that LEP students are often
placed in bilingual classrooms until they reach a level of fluency; they are then reclassified or re-
designated and placed into a mainstreamed classroom (Garcia, 2002). Once LEP students are
reclassified or re-designated as fluent English proficient (FEP), school districts tend to halt the
monitoring process of their FEP students (Amselle & Chavez, 1997).
In bilingual education, researchers using experimental design will often disseminate a pre
and post language assessment and/or have a controlled group. Most often, this design method is
used for used by the researcher to draw a specific causal conclusion. “If one concludes that
when a school follows approach X to bilingual education, the performance and achievement of
students will be Y…that X causes Y” (Meyers & Feinberg, 1992, p.19). Interventions may or
may not be controlled by the researcher. A critical problem encountered when implementing this
type of research is determining whether a change in the post-test is due to the treatment and not
to extraneous variables. Confounding variables thus weaken the experiment (Gall et al., 1996;
Meyers & Fienberg, 1992; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate, 2003).
Quasi-experiments are very much like the true experiment with the exception of subject
assignment; they are used when the effects of the secondary variables are not known but are
assumed, such as the lack of random sampling in education because of legal and ethical issues
presented when working with students. That is, subjects have been found to be in certain groups
and are then studied; they are not assigned to different groups. Quasi-experiments use theory to
determine which factor needs to be ruled out as a possible alternative explanation for the effects
observed. The design allows for more causal inferences than uncontrolled qualitative
observational studies. Control is a critical factor in experimental design; experimental control
determines the quality of the experiment, and can have a direct impact on the conclusions.
Random assignment of treatments is used to control the validity of the study. In experimental
studies (true vs. quasi-), the researcher attempts to tightly control the internal validity to the
extent that he/she attempts to tightly control the circumstances of an experiment, thus limiting
the conditions to which he/she can generalize the study’s findings (Gall et al.,1996; Meyers &
Fienberg, 1992; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate, 2003).
In 1990, the U.S. Department of Education commissioned the Governing Board of the
National Research Council to conduct a thorough investigative review of two major evaluation
studies of bilingual education. The project assignment was to review and assess the
methodologies of data collection and analysis of the study entitled, The National Longitudinal
Study of the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Services for Language Minority Limited-English
Proficient Students (nicknamed "The Longitudinal Study"). In 1983, researchers were asked to
study the effectiveness of instruction for LEP students and compare the effectiveness of three
different instructional strategies in bilingual education. The three programs evaluated under the
study were immersion, early exit, and late exit programs (Cummins & Genzuk, 1991; Meyer &
Feinberg, 1992; Ramirez et al., 1991).
The study revealed that LEP students’ services were not evenly distributed geographically
across states and districts. LEP students tended to be classified as “at-risk” and were from lower
social economical backgrounds than monolingual students were. The results indicated that LEP
students performed below grade level as early as the first grade, yet in Mathematics, their skills
were superior. Most of the instruction was conducted in English or in a combination of the LEP
student’s primary language (L1) and English. Program entrance and exit procedures were
inconsistent among various school districts within the same state; there were relatively no time
limits on the amount of time a student could participate in bilingual programs. Lack of qualified
instructional staff was a critical problem as well (Cummins & Genzuk, 1991; Meyer & Feinberg,
1992; Ramirez et al., 1991). The most significant result from this study supporting SEI was that
when a LEP student is ready to learn in English and instruction is provided in English language
arts, he/she showed greater achievement. The results of the study also affirmed that LEP
students receiving ESL services exited their programs at a faster rate than those in primary
language programs (Cummins & Genzuk, 1991; Meyer & Feinberg, 1992; Ramirez et al., 1991).
The second study was entitled the Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion
Strategy, Early Exit, Late-Exit and Transitional Bilingual Programs (nicknamed The Immersion
Study) and Ramirez, Ramey, and Yuen (1991) conducted it. The study compared the
effectiveness of two alternative programs- Structured English Immersion and late-exit
Transitional Bilingual Education programs. The programs’ ultimate goal was to teach LEP
students English. The panel reviewing this study suggested that the Immersion Study contained
many biases. The comparison groups were not from the same social economical groups,
numerous parents received AFDC, and a marginal number received some form of preschool
education. The results of the study determined that the programs and students studied were not
comparable (Meyer & Feinberg, 1992; Porter, 2000; Ramirez et al., 1991).
One of the negative attributes addressed in this study was the high attrition rate of LEP
students. The high attrition rate is not new in the educational realm. This is a critical area that
needs to be addressed and is a major challenge to consider when conducting any type of study in
bilingual education. A percentage of LEP students left the study once they were reclassified as
Fluent English Proficient or FEP; however, some students left not being fully proficient and
others transferred to other classes, schools, states, or even countries. Nearly one-half of the
students left the study; therefore, the attrition rate was relatively high (Ramirez et al., 1991). No
further research was conducted to monitor the achievement of those LEP students who left the
programs (Meyer & Feinberg, 1992). Experimental design can be very rigorous and does show
promise for use by the Kenosha Unified School District to assess its Language Assistance
Programs utilized now and those of the future. Any proposed research study must be feasible,
affordable, and ethical.
Surveys
Surveys are one of the most frequently used methods of gathering data for research in
education. When used appropriately, surveys have many advantages. Surveys can play a
significant part in an organization’s comprehensive needs assessment by identifying areas for
improvement and issues that need to be explored. Surveys can be complex, time consuming and
expensive; yet, they allow one to gather critical data rapidly (Witkin & Altschuld; 1995).
Schools utilize surveys because they are relatively easy to administer; they can easily be
disseminated in a variety of settings, and they offer additional opportunities for gathering
relevant data. Surveys can be distributed in the classroom or sent home with students; they can
be returned in the same manner. Often, administrators will disseminate surveys to teachers,
parents, and students as an alternative method of gathering information about the strengths and
weaknesses of the school and/or a specific program (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Meyers &
Feinberg, 1992; Gall et al., 1996).
“When the purpose of a study is to provide a systematic description of a large number of
programs, institutions, or an individual, a case-study approach will simply not do… one way to
reach the generalization is through sample surveys” (Meyers & Feinberg, 1992, p. 22). Surveys
are a form of observational study in that they capture a collection of many cases (Witkin &
Altschuld, 1995). “Observational studies are most naturally suited to drawing descriptive
conclusions or statements about how groups differ” (Meyers & Feinberg, 1992, p. 25). In
observational studies, the researcher does not attempt to control the treatments but rather
observes the treatments in a natural setting, and this can be true of surveys. Surveys are analyzed
in a quantitative manner.
When constructing a survey, researchers must carefully plan some critical aspects of the
design before it can be considered valid. Researchers must consider the following: target
population, sampling, and method of distribution, questionnaire design, item content, item
format, scales, and data analysis (Meyers & Feinberg, 1992). Based on the consensus of the data
collected from the survey, the researcher is able to identify themes, trends or patterns and set
his/her research agenda as needed. Feedback is measured through computation of the central
tendency of these themes or patterns (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Fienberg & Meyers, 1992; Gall
et al., 1996).
One major drawback of implementing surveys as a mechanism for gathering data is that
they have become so commonplace. Often people will discard them without responding which
leads to a high attrition rate (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Gall et al., 1996; Meyers & Feinberg,
1992). Because of the high cost of conducting surveys, Kenosha Unified School District began
using enGauge, a web-based survey program, as a more effective way to survey its community
(staff, parents, and students). EnGauge (2000) was designed to help school districts plan and
evaluate their systemwide use of educational technology. Kenosha Unified hired enGauge to
survey its community to determine if its technology integration is currently functioning well
within the District. Data gathered will help the District to formulate its technology goals in order
to improve student learning (Kenosha Unified School District, 2003).
An example of a research study in which a survey was utilized as a viable method of
gathering information about the strengths and weaknesses of a specific program was illustrated
by a study conducted in Massachusetts (2000). The survey was used to study the participation in
and performance of Massachusetts’ LEP student population on the Massachusetts
Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). This study was the first reliable study to be
conducted or published on LEP achievement in Massachusetts. In 1999, Massachusetts
mandated that all students educated in the United States for three years or more participate in the
MCAS assessment. This pioneer study compared LEP students’ achievement by district; it also
reported on LEP participation and achievement (Beals, Peladino & Porter, 2000).
The results of the survey concluded that the data collected by the Massachusetts
Department of Education were flawed, and the results were very difficult to interpret. The data
reported were said to be contradictory and inconsistent with the number of LEP students tested,
and further investigation was required in order to determine the accurate results. LEP students
who were in the United States less than three years were allowed to take their assessments in the
Spanish/English version in Mathematics and Science. Eligible LEP students did not participate
in the math and science portion of the assessments in more than half of the districts surveyed; in
other cases, no scores were recorded. The assessment forms were not even properly marked to
identify whether or not these students tested in English and/or in Spanish (Beals et al., 2000).
The results also indicated that Massachusetts’ schools must, in the future, analyze the
LEP student population in the area of participation and performance. The Massachusetts
Department of Education survey concluded that the department must do a better job at tracking
the progress of those school districts that have high academic performances and test
participation. The results also indicated a need to further conduct qualitative studies of
classrooms and observe those schools that have a higher participation in order to identify
effective instructional strategies. In this case, qualitative assessment preceded the quantitative
assessment (Beals et al., 2000). Surveys will continue to play an important role in educational
research. KUSD is expected to continue to use the software program enGauge to assess the
effectiveness of its educational programs.
The Crawford-slip Method
The Crawford-slip method is much like the nominal group technique (NGT) utilized in
education. It is a method utilized in strategic planning and is an effective way to establish
consensus on a specific topic or agenda from a group or committee desiring a way to gather
information on the future of educational institutions, educational programs, or policies
(Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Koalaty Kid, 2002). Educational institutions employ this type of
strategic planning in order to cope with a rapidly changing system. Due to the nature of changes
in bilingual education, the Crawford-slip method is a valid method of obtaining information.
This type of data collection is a group technique in that it is a highly structured method of
collecting data from a group or committee when the group has reached a consensus. The use of
groups to gather critical information is the most widely used method for gathering facts, opinions
and data needed for meeting an organization’s agenda. Groups are ideally comprised of six to
ten people such as key members of organizations, experts, members of the community and/or
parents. The purpose of these groups is to produce and prioritize a vast number of ideas
generated by the topic, allowing the researcher(s) to identify easily recurring trends. It can also
be used to brainstorm research ideas or as a tool in conducting a thorough needs assessment
(Altschuld & Witkin, 1995).
Utilizing the Crawford-slip method as a type of brainstorming process entails a group of
committee members responding to a question posed by the researcher(s). The questions are
usually determined by carefully examining internal and external features of the educational
organization. Rather than stating the groups’ ideas, members of a selected committee record
their thoughts on slips of paper or sticky notes. The slip of paper has neither a number nor a rank
recorded on it, and each idea is recorded on a separate piece of paper to facilitate analysis. The
final product reveals a common set of themes and/or patterns to further to be investigated
(Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Koalaty Kid, 2002).
The Kenosha Unified School District created a Five-Year Long Range Committee for its
Language Assistance Programs to explore the educational services offered to its LEP students.
Using the Crawford-Slip method, the committee brainstormed ideas on how the District can
begin to comply with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Compliance Action Plan, and how to
meet future needs of the District’s growing LEP student population. These processes led the
team members to explore further other research methods such as Cross-impact analysis and
scenario development in order to strategically plan for the future trends.

Cross –Impact Analysis
Cross-impact analysis attempts to reveal the conditional probability of an event, given
that various events have or have not occurred (Hackett, Morrison, & Teddlie, 1982). This
method allows researchers to build an understanding of the vast amounts of information gathered
and helps them analyze the trends and/or patterns that determine how they affect one another.
Using cross-impact analysis allows researchers to incorporate various trends or variables, both
qualitative, and quantitative in the analysis. This type of research relies on few assumptions and
is relatively easy to comprehend (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Cross Impact Matrix,
http:www.iit.edu; Hackett et al., 1982).
Cross-impact analysis may be conducted in four steps. First, the committee uses
brainstorming techniques to identify approximately twenty key concepts or themes that may
affect the future of an organization. Then the committee or facilitator places these trends or
themes in a matrix that is predetermined. Third, the matrix is then compared by each row entry
and column entry. Finally, the matrix is analyzed to determine new trends. When analyzing the
data, the committee and researchers investigate patterns or events that may affect areas positively
or negatively. This process should be conducted several times in order to assure its validity
(Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Cross Impact Matrix, http:www.iit.edu; Hackett et al., 1982).
Developing trends that will have a high probability of affecting the original concerns are singled
out. A cross-impact analysis may reveal future trends or themes. The limitation of using a cross-
impact analysis is that it may produce isolated themes or trends (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995;
Cross Impact Matrix, 2002; Hackett et al., 1982).
In a study called Developing Public Education Policy through Policy Impact Analysis
(1982) the authors, Hackett, Morrison & Teddlie, attempted to illustrate how cross-impact
analyses can be developed to create or change policies to attain outcomes for the future of
education in Louisiana. This research was conducted with a four-step process: monitoring,
forecasting, goal setting and cross-impact (policy analysis) implementation. The created policies
were ranked to determine their impact. Those trends that were ranked as priorities were
implemented and evaluated. The process was repeated to further refine policies.
In the monitoring stage, the variables were determined and a database was created. In the
forecasting stage, exploratory techniques were used to analyze trends and themes. Qualitative
and quantitative techniques were used to gather information necessary during this stage. The
qualitative and quantitative data gathered were obtained from school enrollment forms and were
used to project enrollment trends. In the goal-setting stage, exploratory forecasting was
converted into desirable futures, which lead to the construction of new schools and
implementation of new programs. Matrices were created in the policy analysis and
implementation stage, thus allowing the local school boards to evaluate, implement new policies,
and/or change old policies (Hackett et al., 1982).
Scenario Planning
Scenario planning is both a qualitative and a quantitative approach that empowers
participants to break traditional barriers and stereotypes often found in research and creates an
organization’s vision in the future. Scenario planning originated nearly thirty years ago from
Royal Dutch Shell, a company that experienced tremendous success in foreseeing the Arab oil
embargo (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Katz, Genesee, Gottlieb, & Malone, 2001). Scenario
planning creates a vision that expresses a multifaceted perspective of complex events and
facilitates ongoing learning and strategic conversation, which supports effective growth and
change. “A good scenario planning project expands leaders; peripheral vision and forces them to
challenge their own assumptions” (College of Marian, 2002, p. 1). This methodology can be an
intellectually challenging exercise that promotes dialogue among colleagues who want to
collaborate to create a vision, an analysis, and/ or a plan of action that allows them to work more
effectively together (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Katz et al., 2001).
Scenario planning provides an opportunity for futuristic planning in and predicting
precisely how the future will play out. An excellent decision or strategy is one that plays out
well across several possible scenarios. These scenarios identify trends, which have an infinite
number of possibilities, or situations that may lead to attaining better decisions and/or outcomes.
“The careful analysis of a particular scenario often allows for a rich contextual picture of
surrounding of some activity or event of interest” (Meyers & Feinberg, 1992, p. 21). Once these
trends have been identified, quantitative data are analyzed to address various situations
portrayed, including social, economic, political and technological issues (Altschuld & Witkin,
1995; Katz et al., 2001).

Every field has its own pattern for these types of studies, and bilingual education is no
exception. Because the future of education is unpredictable, scenario planning provides an
alternative method to reach a qualitative research goal by providing a common vocabulary and
effective ways for communicating complex ideas and/or concepts. In education, it is utilized as a
way to define a vision statement, an instrument for instruction, and/or an assessment (Altschuld
& Witkin, 1995; Borjesson, 2002; College of Marin, 2002; Katz et al., 1997; Smith, 1996;
Wilkinson, 1998).
Kenosha Unified School District (2003) created its vision statement for its LAPs by
incorporating the Crawford-slip method and cross-impact analysis; this process led to scenario
planning. Themes or patterns that emerged from these sessions allowed the committee to
formulate a five-year action plan, and enabled the District to plan more effectively and adapt
more readily to what was actually happening within the District’s LAPs. The five-year plan
enabled the District to investigate areas needing improvement. The committee wanted to
anticipate what could happen in the future; as a result, it created proposals through scenarios to
test their resiliency. Members voted on the ranking of the scenarios and brainstormed tactics to
improve the programs. The committee suggested developing new programs to better serve its
LEP students as well as explore viable alternative program options (KUSD Five-Year Long
Range Committee, 2003).
The Delphi Technique and/or Survey

The Delphi technique and/or survey are common data collection tools suitable for
gathering pertinent data for a variety of dimensions in educational research. The Delphi
technique was developed in the 1950s by researchers from The Rand Corporation. “The Delphi
operates on the principle that several heads are better than one" (Ludwig, 1997, p. 1). The
Delphi technique and survey utilize a methodology that combines qualitative and quantitative
data to explore futuristic designs in order to make appropriate and reasonable changes within an
organization. The Delphi technique and survey are two different approaches to data collection.
In the 1980s, the Delphi technique continued to grow and was implemented in most
educational realms, particularly in the area of defining curriculum and instruction. The Delphi
technique is used repeatedly to seek answers to pertinent educational issues. The Delphi
technique is implemented within a group setting and the goal is to reach group consensus. The
researchers must determine the purpose of the Delphi Technique. They then identify the
participants or panel, which is typically comprised of fifteen to twenty participants but usually no
more than fifty. Then the researcher proceeds to contact participants. In this Delphi group
process, people provide written responses to questionnaires. Using the Delphi technique in
group settings requires many modifications and also requires the researcher to score and process
the results rapidly. It is not used as often as the mailed Delphi survey (Altschuld & Witkin,
1995; American Policy Organization, 2003; Ludwig, 1997; Rosenbaum, 1991).
The Delphi survey is a prediction tool that uses an iterative survey process over a
specific time frame (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; American Policy Organization, 2003; Ludwig,
1997). Like other data collection techniques, the Delphi survey has three steps: planning,
carrying out the survey, and following up with the data collected. In the planning stage of the
survey, the committee must repeatedly review and rate items; this is a unique feature of the
Delphi process, which makes it a complex design to implement. The survey is developed,
mailed, and the data are collected. After the data are collected, the researcher analyzes the data
or creates another survey based on the responses of the first survey; then a second survey is
mailed to participants. This cyclical process is repeated to determine the need for further data
collection. Based on the consensus of the data collected from the survey, the researcher is able to
identify themes, trends or patterns and set his/her research agenda as needed. Feedback is
measured through computation of the central tendency of these themes or patterns. In the
educational setting, a Delphi survey would be easy to administer (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995;
American Policy Organization, 2003; Ludwig, 1997; Rosenbbaum, 1991). The Kenosha Unified
School District’s KUSD Five-Year Long Range Committee (2003) is currently using the Delphi
survey process to request pertinent data from staff members to evaluate and improve its language
assistance programs.
Morphological Analysis
Morphological analysis is often used in conjunction with a relevance tree, which is an
analytic technique that allows one to subdivide trends into smaller topics. In education, it is used
to identify new program opportunities and involves the mapping of overall solutions and
constructing scenarios. This method is a systematic approach to seek structure out of current and
future states of a particular organization, creating new alternatives to bridge the gaps that are
present in the programs. By mapping the researcher’s perspective and future possibilities, a
formulation of the problem is created. The researcher defines and examines all the
characteristics of the problem. He/she proceeds to construct a multidimensional matrix that
combines patterns to illustrate the possible solutions. Based on the information gathered, an
evaluation of all possible outcomes is conducted and the researcher conducts an in-depth analysis
of the best possible solutions. The primary purpose of the morphological analysis is to organize
relevant information in an orderly way (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995; Gordon, & Raffensperger,
1973; Mind Tools, 2002).
Morphological analysis is also an identification process used in Applied Linguistics, in
which the researcher seeks to derive meaning of a word-stem from a full word; this is referred to
as the identification of syntactic of a stem of a word. To effectively utilize this form of analysis,
the researcher must be able to manipulate spelling rules for affixes. In the past fifteen years,
applied linguists have made further advances in the area of morphological analysis by bridging
the gap between real-life applications in natural language and processing through technology.
Because this is not a historical comparison analysis comparing various languages, there will be
no further inquiries into these types of methodologies (Gazdar, 1989).

Trend Exploration
Trend exploration is a method of determining alternative futuristic outcomes by graphing
extended data in relation to their influences on one another; it is often utilized in strategic
planning in conjunction with cross-impact analyses and scenario planning. The data gathered are
derived from existing historical documents readily available in which the researcher analyzes and
investigates historical trends or themes. He/she then proceeds to compare the historical data to
the organization’s concerns in order to interpret the information and draw conclusions. “In
education, there is a strong movement to use educational indicators and to link them in a way
that they show the complexity of schooling so that they can be used to form policy making”
(Altschuld & Witkin, 1995, p. 232). Trends are plotted and placed in a matrix where
assumptions can be illustrated to show underlying trends. If trends are evident, the researcher
then must evaluate the data to determine if there are enough historical data that may define this
trend. The researcher proceeds to plot the trend; this action is carried out with descriptive
statistics (Altschuld & Witkin, 1995).
Conclusion
Regardless of one’s opinion regarding bilingual education, clearly more research is
needed in this field. “Real studies are needed on the effectiveness of English language
instruction” (Porter, 1997, p.31). Linguistic experts contend that it is now time to begin to put
aside difference amongst LAPs (Amrein & Pena, 2000). Schools are continuously failing to
meet various LEP students’ academic needs. The previously discussed research methodologies
(qualitative and quantitative) provide school districts with sufficient ways to collect data in order
to determine the effectiveness of their language assistance programs. Districts are required to
take “appropriate action” to ensure their LEP students have equal access to the curriculum. The
programs must be based on “sound educational theory” and be adequately staffed. School
districts are mandated to evaluate their programs and to ensure that they are meeting the needs of
LEP students, while complying with federal mandates. However, the guidelines are minimal and
vague; districts are granted the freedom to adopt any evaluation approach.
Action research and case studies provide school districts and researchers a way to reflect
upon what is working within the schools and use data to implement changes that have been
proven effective in meeting the needs of LEP students. It can be a starting place to help
predetermine what changes need to take place immediately. School districts can use action
research and case studies as a way to examine effective teaching strategies and/or innovations in
bilingual education. Educators and researchers recognize the need to have an in-depth
understanding of the policies, programs, and practices that lead to successful innovations in
bilingual education. Further, they desire a greater understanding of how these innovations in
programs, policies, and practices are implemented in different school districts. Approaches to
reforming bilingual education in one school district may be very helpful to educators elsewhere
(Burnaford et al., 2001).
School districts and researchers must begin to conduct quantitative comparative
longitudinal studies within their schools. They need to conduct these studies by comparing the
language programs offered to its LEP students and evaluate the programs’ effectiveness.
Because the available research tends to compare school districts against school districts, and
programs against programs, it is often irrelevant due to the mere fact that each school district has
its own unique circumstances. One program is not the answer because every state and school
district has its own set of standards and benchmarks.
Language programs need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis as their

success is largely affected by the context in which the language program is
developed. Further, researchers indicate that micro-level and macro-level
issues related to planning and implementation must be examined to
understand how the sociopolitical context of schools may favor or
impede…language programs’ success…. (Amrein & Pena, 2000 p. 2)
The National Research Council concluded after reviewing programs of the past 25 years, “There
is little evidence to support which program is best. The key issues are not finding a program that
works for ALL children and localities, but finding a set program that works for the community of
interest” (Crawford, 1997, pp. 27-28). A one-size-fits-all curriculum does not take into account
the variations of the LEP student population within a community; stipulating set conditions on
what programs to teach and what to implement disregards the individual needs of LEP students
such as age, maturity, language skills, previous home-country schooling, learning styles, and
other issues unique to LEP students. Through observational studies and quantitative analysis,
school districts can monitor their LEP students who have left the program, those who have been
re-designated as fluent English proficient, and those students who are refused services. This
information may lead to a better understanding of the education life of LEP students after they
are mainstreamed into general education classes (Legge, 1998).

Today, researchers are in agreement that the decision to implement which of type of
bilingual programs should be left up to the community, the parents of the LEP students, the
school districts, and the states to decide. Districts can use surveys, the Crawford-slip method,
cross-impact analysis, scenario planning, Delphi technique and/or survey, morphological
analysis, and trend exploration as methods of identifying their district’s language assistance
programs’ needs and to determine their programs’ individual strengths and weaknesses. These
processes will allow the educational community to share practices and to seek ways to improve
LEP students’ opportunities.
The trends developed from these qualitative and quantitative techniques allow the
researcher to emphasize what needs to be changed, while building on the experiences, insights,
and sound educational practices. By incorporating these research techniques, the researcher is
able to reflect upon the immediate needs of the community. Despite the outside educational
sources that may be plaguing our schools, every school district, school, administrator, teacher,
student, and parent must be held accountable for their LEP students’ progress. Districts who do
not evaluate their LAP’s are in direct violation of limited English proficient students’ civil rights
(Crawford, 1997, pps. 27-28). Not only is it the ethical thing to do, but it is also illegal not to
evaluate the programs and make appropriate changes. Only through evaluations can appropriate
changes can be instituted; this process will lead to a better education for all LEP students.
References
Akkari, A. (1998, Fall). Bilingual education: beyond linguistic instrumentalization. Bilingual

Research Journal, 22(2-4). Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://brj.asu.edu/v22234/articles/ar2.html.
American Policy Organization. The "Delphi technique" and how it robs parents of control over
their child's education. American Policy Center. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from
http://www.americanpolicy.org/educ/thedelphi.htm.
Amrein, A. & Pena, R. (2000). Asymmetry in dual language practice: Assessing imbalance in a
program promoting equality. Retrieved April 4, 2003 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n8.html.
Amselle, J. & Chavez, L. (1997, February). Bilingual education theory: Its effectiveness and
parental opinions. NASSP Bulletin. 81(586).
Beals, R., & Pedalino Porter, R. (2000, August). Bilingual students and the MCAS: Some bright
spots in the gloom. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://www.ceousa.org/html/mcas.html.
Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (2001). Teachers doing research. A power of action
through inquiry. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Capella University (2002, July). Summer sessions handouts. July Colloquia Presentations.
Available on CD.
Center for Equal Opportunity. (1996, August). The importance of learning English: A national
opinion survey of Hispanic parents.
College of Marin. Scenario planning. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from

http://marin.cc.ca.us/scenario/what_is.htm.
Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of Bilingual Education Act.

Retrieved October 25, 2002, from http://www.ncborgwu.edu.
Crawford, J. (1998, Winter). Rethinking schools-does bilingual education work? 13(2).

Retrieved October 25, 2002, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/Archieves/13-
02/biside.htm.
Creating the future: What is scenario planning? Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://edie.cprost.sfu.ca/~idea/scenarios.html.
Cross impact matrix method of forecasting: Definition and historical background. (2002).
Retrieved October 25, 2003, from http://iit.edu/~it/cross.html.
Cummins, J., & Genzuk, M. (1991, March). Analysis of final report longitudinal study of
structured English immersion strategy, early exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual
education programs for language-minority children. The California Association for
Bilingual Education Newsletter.
Cummins, J. (1999, February 22). Research, ethics, and public discourse: The debate on
bilingual education. Paper presented at the National Conference of the American
Association of Higher Education.
Cummins, J. Educational research in bilingual education. Educational research thoughts.

Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://http:audiotap.addr.com/cummins/educatioanlresearch.html.
Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (1999). Retrieved October 22, 2002 from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/ELL/index.html.
Development & Dissemination Schools Initiative. Identifying effective practices for English
language learners (ELLs) in D&D schools. Effective practices for ELLs. Retrieved
October 23, 2002, from http://http:www.alliance.brown.edu/dnd/ep-for_ells.shtml.
enGauge (2000). Retrieved on April 4, 2003, from engaugewww@contact.ncrel.org.
Freeman, R.D. (1996). Dual-language planning at Oyster Bilingual School: It’s much more than
language. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), 557-582.
The Futures Group. (1994). Relevance tree and morphological analysis. AC/UNU Millennium
project. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from http://www.futurovenezuela.org/_curso/12-
tree.pdf.
Garcia, A., & Morgan, C. (2002). A 50 state survey of requirements for the education of
language minority children.
Garcia, D. (2002). Family English literacy program. Department of foundations and

professional studies, Florida International University. Retrieved November 2, 2002, from
http://www.cgcs.org/promise/whatworks/parental/part07.html.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R. & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research. An introduction. (6th ed.).
White Plains, NY: Longman.
GBN's Scenario Tools. GBN publications on the web. Retrieved October 24, 2002, from
http://www.gbn.org/public/gbnstory/scenarios/.
Gersten, R., Taylor, R., Woodward, J., & Wite, W. (1997, Summer). Structured English
immersion for Hispanic students in the U.S.: Findings from the fourteen-year evaluation
of the Uvalde Texas program. Retrieved October 10, 2002, from
http://www.adihome.org/esp/v16n3/struct_imm_tex.pdf.
Gonzalez, G., & Maez, L. F. (1995, Fall). Advances in research in bilingual education.
Directions in language & education, 1(5). Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/05.htm.
Hackett, R., Morrison, J. L., & Teddlie, C. E. (1982). Developing public education policy
through policy impact analysis: The role of the educational planner. Retrieved October
24, 2002, from http://horizon.unc.edu/bios/morrison/papers/2.html.
Hardin, V. (2001, Fall). Transfer and variation in cognitive reading strategies of Latino fourth-
grade students in a Late-Exit bilingual program. Bilingual research journal, 25(4).
Retrieved September 25, 2002, from http://brj.asu/edu/v254/articles/art7.html.
Hotwired. How to build scenarios: Planning for "long fuse, big bang" problems in an era of
uncertainty. Retrieved October 24, 2002, from
http://http:www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/build.html.
Hakuta, K. Improving education for all children: meeting the needs of language minority
children. Retrieved August 6, 2002, from http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Aspen.html.
Hakuta, K. (2002, August 22). Points on SAT-9 performance and Proposition 227. Retrieved
September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/.
Hakuta, K. (2002, August 29). What can we learn about the impact of Proposition 227 from
SAT-9 scores. Retrieved September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/.
Hakuta, K. (2001, April 13). The Education of language minority students. Paper presented at
United States Commission on Civil Rights. Retrieved September, 2002, from
http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Docs/CivilRightsCommision.htm
Hancock, Charles R. Alternative assessment and second language study: What and why? Eric
Digest. Retrieved October 23, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/.
Hill, Kimberly (2000). Beyond the numbers: A case study of the 1990 census promotion
program and the implications for census 2000. Retrieved April 2, 2003, from
http://www.asu.edu/cronkite/thesis/kimhill/index.html.
Johnston, R. C. & Viadero, D. (2002, March, 15). Unmet promise: Raising minority
achievement. Education Week, 19 (27), 1-19.
Katz, A., Genesee, F., Gottlieb, M., & Malone, M. (2001). Scenarios for ESL standards-based
assessment. Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Kerlin, B. (1999). Qualitative research. Analysis without numbers. Retrieved April 2, 2003
from http://kerlins.net/bobbi/research/myresearch/chifoo/.
Kerper Mora, Jill. (2002). Sheltered Immersion contrast and controversy. Retrieved July 30,
2002, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Pages/SEIvCanadian.htm.
Knezevik, B. (2003). Teacher as classroom action researcher. TESOL Program Presentations.

TESOL 37- Annual Convention and Exhibit. Baltimore, MD.
Koalaty Kid. Nominal group technique. Retrieved October 24, 2002, from
http://homepage.risd41.org/koalatykid/stories/story.
Krashen, S. (1999). Structured immersion falls short of expectations: An analysis of Clark

[Special issue]. NABE.
Krashen, S. (1985). Insights and inquires. Hayward: Alemany Press.
Krashen, S. Why bilingual education? Eric Digest. Retrieved October 23, 2002, from
http://gophewracl.org/eric/digests/edorc968.html.
Kenosha Unified School District, (2003). En gauge survey. Phase II. Retrieved on April 3,
2003, from http://www.kusd.edu/.
KUSD Five-Year Long Range Committee (2003). Kenosha Unified School District No. 1,
Kenosha, WI.
Legge, C. (2000, June). Federal Court Decision. In Decision by Judge Charles Legge:
Refusing to delay the effective date of Proposition 227 by U.S. District Judge Charles A.
Legge. San Francisco: Federal Court Decision. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID-7776.
Littlejohn, J. (1998, November). Federal control out of control" The Office for Civil Rights'
hidden policies on bilingual education. Retrieved October 12, 2002, from
http://www.ceousa.org/READ/ocr3.html.
Ludwig, B. (1997). Predicting the future: Have you considered using the Delphi methodology?
Journal of Extension, 35(5). Retrieved October 24, 2002, from
http://http:www.joe/1997october/tt2.html.
MALDEF. (1997, September). Preliminary section-by-section of analysis of Unz Initiative. In

MALDEF. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from One Nation:
http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=5112.
MALDEF. (1997, November). MALDEF Questions and answers on the Unz Initiative. In
MALDEF. Retrieved September 6, 2003, from
http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=511155
Marcos, K., & Rennie, J. (2001). The effectiveness of bilingual education. ERIC/CLL Resource
Guides Online. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/faqs/rgos/bi.html.
Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Gandara, P. Report review. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://bjr.asu.edu/archives/23v21/articles/gandara.html.
Meloy, Judith M. (2002). Writing the qualitative dissertation. Understanding by doing.

London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meyer, M. M., & Feinberg, S. E. (1992). The case for bilingual education strategies.
Retrieved October, 2003, from
http://www.ulib.org/webRoot/Books/National_Academy_Press_Books/bilingual_educati
on/bilingual.htm.
MindTools. Attribute listing, morphological analysis & matrix analysis-Tools for creating new
products & services. In MindTools Bookstore. Retrieved October 27, 2002, from
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/articles/newCT_03.htm.
Morphological Analysis. What is morphological analysis? Morphological Analysis. Retrieved

October 27, 2002, from http://comp.leeds.ac.uk/nti-kbs/ai5/Misc/morphemes.html.
Morphological analysis. Sub-Sentential Processing. Retrieved October 27, 2002, from

http://cslu.cse.ogi.edu/HLTsurvey/ch3node4.html.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Title I sec. 1111(b)(3)(C)(x).
Porter, R. (1997, September-October). The politics of bilingual education. Pedalino Society.
Porter, R. (1998, May). The case against bilingual education: Why even Latino parents are
rejecting a program designed for their children's benefit. READ Institute. Retrieved
October 18, 2002, from READ Institute:
http://lmri.ucsb.edu/resdiss/2/researchreports.htm.
Porter, R., & Rossell, C., & Tamayo, L. (2002, June). An initiative petition for a law: An act
relative to the teaching of English in public schools. English for the Children of
Massachusetts. English for the Children of Massachusetts. Retrieved September 6,
2002, from http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=4257.
The qualitative versus quantitative analysis (2003). Retrieved April 5, 2003, from
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/monkey/ihe/linguistics/corpus3/3qual.htm.
The qualitative versus quantitative debate ( 2003). Retrieved March 20, 2003, from
http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/gentrans/pop2f.cfm.
Ramirez, J., Ramey, D. R., & Yuen, S. D. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of
structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual
education programs for language-minority children. [Executive Summary] Retrieved
October 21, 2002, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ramirez/.
Reese, D. (1997, March). The controversy over bilingual education. Parent News. Retrieved
October 25, 2002, from http://npin.org/pnews/1997/pnew397/pnew397h.html.
Rieley, J. (1997, March). Understanding scenario planning in higher education. In The Center
for Continuous Quality Improvement: Milwaukee Area Technical College. Retrieved
October 25, 2002, from http:///www.boardrush/jbrieley/6d1.htm.
Rosenbaum J. (1991, July). The pedagogic Delphi. The Pedagogic Delphi. Retrieved October
21, 2002, from http://ithaca.edu/johnrosenbaum/writing/dephi.htm.
Rossell, C. H. Mystery on the bilingual express: A critique of the Thomas and Collier study.
The READ Institute. Retrieved October 12, 2002, from
Rossell, C. H., Ph.D. (2000, June). Different questions, different answers: A critique of the
Hakuta, Butler, and Witt report, "How long does it take English learners to attain
proficiency?" The READ Institute. Retrieved October 19, 2002, from
Scenario Planning Resources. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from

http://www.crt.se/~mb/scenario/Scenario-planning-resources-9htm.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. Effects of success for all on the achievement of English language
learners. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from
http://www.successforall.net/resource/research/englanlearn.htm.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness for language
minority students' long-term academic achievement. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
CREDE: http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research.
Tucker, G. (1999, August). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education. ERIC
Digest. Retrieved October 18, 2002, from
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed435168.html.
Veronesi, Peter. (1997). A case study of alternative assessment: Student, teacher and observer
perceptions in a ninth grade biology classroom. Retrieved April 3, 2003, from
http://www.ed.psu.edu/ci/Journals/97pap39.htm.
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002). Legal responsibilities when serving
limited-English -proficient (LEP) students in K-12 public schools. Retrieved September
5, 2002, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/equity/biling.html.
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2002). Best practices considerations when
serving limited-English Proficient (LEP) students in K-12 public schools. Retrieved
September 5, 2002, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/equity/biling.html.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Alternative assessment. Retrieved September 5,

2002, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/html.
Zikmund, W. G. (2000). Business Research Method. (6th ed.). New York City: Harcourt.
QUESTION 2
Analyze how Newcomers programs are funded and supported (local, state and/or federal). What
theoretic constructs can be drawn from these funded programs in developing a Newcomer
Center Program for the Kenosha Unified School District?
Currently the United States population is estimated to be 287 million people, and foreign-
born immigrants represent over 10 % of the entire population (Krashen, 2001; World Population
Data Sheet, 2003). Forty percent of new immigrants are children; one out of five children in the
United States is either an immigrant or a child of immigrants (Viadero, 2000).
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, since the founding of

the United States, more than 55 million immigrants from every continent
have settled in the U.S. Indeed, with the exception of Native Americans,
everyone in the nation is either an immigrant, or the descendent of
voluntary or involuntary immigrants. (Pathways, Immigrant Education,
2002, p.1)
Within a decade, this student population has nearly doubled (Hakuta, 2001). In the
1990s, the number of children of immigrants exceeded 5 million, representing over 150 different
languages (Friedlander, 1991). The 5 most prominent language groups being serviced in U.S.
public schools are: Spanish (72.9%), Vietnamese (3.9%), Hmong (1.8%), Cantonese (1.7%) and
Cambodian (1.6%) (ELLKBase, 2002). Seventy-five percent of all immigrants and/or limited
English proficient (LEP) students come from highly impoverished areas (Hakuta, 2001).
Limited English Proficient (LEP) is the legal term used to identify students, who were not
born in the United States, or students whose native language is not English, and those students
who cannot participate effectively in regular classrooms because they lack fluency in spoken and
written English(Department of Education-OCR, 1999). LEP is the term recognized by the Office
of Civil Rights (OCR), and the term used throughout this comprehensive paper to refer to such
students (Department of Education-OCR, 1999). Non English Proficient (NEP) is the legal term
used to identify students who are recent arrivals (immigrant-status) and have been in the United
States less than one year. NEP students' native language is not English, and they cannot
participate effectively in regular classrooms because they lack fluency in spoken and written
English. NEP is the term recognized by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), and the term used
throughout this comprehensive paper to refer to such students (Department of Education-OCR,
1999). Bilingual is a generalized term that refers to all programs other than English as a Second
Language (ESL). In this paper, the term bilingual includes all Language Assistance Programs
(LAP) offered within the Kenosha Unified School District, and unless otherwise stated, it
includes the following programs: Dual Immersion, Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE),
English as a Second Language (ESL), and Sheltered English Immersion (SEI). Although ESL
and SEI are not commonly referred to as bilingual programs, they are the most commonly used
methods of instruction for LEP students.
“Over the past two decades, America’s classrooms have undergone an unmistakable
metamorphosis” (Friedlander, 1991, p. 1). There is seldom a school district, whether rural or
urban, that has not been affected by this influx of newly arrived immigrant students (Crawford,
1997; Hakuta, 2001; Krashen, 2001). “More than 40% of LEP students in the United States are
enrolled in rural schools” (Berube, 2002, p. 1). Today, there are over 8.6 million children
enrolled in U.S. schools, and nearly 40 % require English language assistance, including the
following subgroups: 3.2 million students identified and/or classified as being LEP; 1.3 million
LEP students enrolled in state and local bilingual programs nationwide; and 900,000 LEP
students receiving language services funded by federal, state, and local bilingual education
programs and/or through Title VII funding (Krashen, 2001). Title VII helps to ensure that LEP
students have an equal opportunity to learn challenging content and high-level skills that are
expected of all students (Crawford, 1997). However, there remain over 640,000 LEP students
who are not being serviced through any type of language programs (Krashen, 2001).
Large states, such as California, Florida, Texas, and New York, have historically absorbed
the brunt of the immigration expansion. Smaller states, such as North Carolina, are also
experiencing tremendous growth (Berube, 2002). The LEP population of California represents
50% of all LEP students in the United States (Hakuta, 2001). In 1980, the Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD) reported about 110,000 students with 87 different languages, costing
the district $46 million to educate. In two decades, that number increased to over 1.4 million
LEP students and/or NEP students reported by LAUSD (Hakuta, 2001). Recently, New York
City public schools enrolled more than 176,000 LEP students, of whom 90% were recent
immigrants (Brown, 2000). In Princeton, New Jersey, 99 % of its newly arrived immigrant
students are Hispanics and come from agricultural backgrounds. In St. Louis, Missouri and Des
Moines, Iowa, school officials are enrolling immigrant LEP students from countries as divergent
as Vietnam, Iraq, Haiti, and Mexico. Many school districts are enrolling students from Bosnia
and Somalia who have never attended school before (Brown, 2000; Crawford, 1997; Duignan,
2001; Hakuta, 1998, 2001; Legge, 2000; Midwest Equity Assistance Center, 1997).
Hawaii’s public schools are experiencing an increase in the enrollment of

students from Micronesia. The latest data from the Hawaii Department of
Education’s (HIDOE’s) English for Second Language Learners (ESLL)
Program show that 13 % of the state’s total English as a Second Language
(ESL) student population, or 1,671 students, come from the Freely

Associated States (FAS): the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM –
Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei, and Yap), the Republic of the Marshall Islands
(RMI), and the Republic of Palau (ROP). They represent a region that is
not well known but that is vastly diverse linguistically, culturally, and
geographically. (Heine, 2003, p. 1)
Wisconsin public schools have also experienced a drastic expansion of LEP students
(Pabst, 2001). As of 2001, Wisconsin public schools provided an education for over 27,000 LEP
students in 170 school districts, with Spanish and Hmong speakers accounting for the largest
number of new students (Wisconsin DPI, 2001). Milwaukee Public Schools, the largest school
district in the state, has had an increase of LEP students, while their monolingual student
population decreased (Pabst, 2001). In 2002-2003, Kenosha Unified School District, also known
as "the District", the third largest school district in Wisconsin, enrolled over 21,000 students.
The District’s LAPs consist of a Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) program (K-5), a pull-out
English as a Second Language (ESL) program (6-12), Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE)
program in K-12, and a Dual Immersion Program (Spanish/English) in K-5 (KUSD, 2003). The
District offered its LAP services to over 1,300 LEP students at all grade levels. Enrollment data
were retrieved from Wisconsin’s “Third Friday in September Enrollment Count.” As of March
2003, the District identified and assessed an additional 700+ LEP students due to the "No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001.” The District has continuously enrolled ten to fifteen new LEP
students per month (KUSD, 2003).
School districts, administrators, and teachers are facing a multitude of barriers when
dealing with this influx of immigrant NEP students, when compared to past immigrants, and are
struggling to meet their student population’s unique needs. “Every individual and new group of
immigrants bring with them their own sets of needs or priorities that must be taken into
consideration in a case-by-case manner by school districts, administrators and teachers”
(Friedlander, 1991, p. 3). Today, most of the nearly 27 million new immigrants come from Latin
America, Asia, the Caribbean, and the Middle East. Additionally, most of the newcomers speak
Spanish, but native speakers of many other languages, including Mandarin, Pilipino, Russian,
Haitian Creole, Polish, Punjabi, Vietnamese, Hmong, and Hindi, are also prevalent. In fact, over
half of the language programs enroll students from four or more different native language
backgrounds (Short, 1998).
This new wave of immigrant students is generally having a more difficult time adjusting
to regular school settings. Today’s new immigrants are coming from a variety of educational
realms. Some come from well-educated families with great expertise and knowledge, while
others come from areas where they received little to no educational support. A large percent of
these immigrants are from non-English speaking countries where access to formal education is
limited. Numerous newly arrived immigrant students are virtually illiterate and/or have received
less than their age-appropriate education in their native language (Friedlander, 1991).
Regardless of the conditions that brought them to this land, almost all
newcomers have in some way been affected by the immigrant experience.
Most of these young people have felt alienation, loneliness or an
undermining of their sense of self-confidence in the face of a strange new
world. (Friedlander, 1991, p. 3)
Many immigrants have never attended school in their home countries, and/or may have
had limited schooling that may have been interrupted by traumatic events in their lives.
Immigrants flee their countries for several reasons: religious/political conflicts, extreme poverty,
and/or lack of opportunity. Immigrant students may have experienced hardships that most
American students have never experienced and may bring unforeseen emotional "baggage" to the
classroom. This knowledge requires that the students' new home schools, administrators, and
teachers be equipped with additional resources to help their immigrant students overcome their
often horrific past experiences (The Midwest Equity Assistance Center, 1997; Viadero, 2000).
Meanwhile, other immigrant students may experience some difficulties in understanding the U.S.
grading system(s), social customs, and other complexities of the American school system. All
new immigrants experience some degree of "culture shock." Culture shock describes the anxiety
a person feels when he/she moves to a different place; the term expresses the lack of direction, or
feeling of not knowing “what” or “how” to do things in a new environment. Newcomer students
who experience culture shock may not know what is appropriate or inappropriate inside and
outside the classroom (Guipana, 1998).
Older NEP immigrant students at the middle and high school levels are experiencing
greater difficulty adjusting to U.S. public schools in comparison to elementary students
(Schwartz, 1996). Newcomer students at the secondary level range in age from ten to twenty-
two years and come from many language backgrounds (Short, 1998). They face greater
challenges when learning a second language due to neurological developmental periods, which
favor quick language acquisition by younger children (Schwartz, 1996). The older students are
expected to read and comprehend textbooks, and to learn complex subject matter that requires a
more sophisticated use of the English language (termed "academic English"). Further, they are
subjected to high stakes assessments, which can play a major role in determining graduation
completion requirements (Schwartz, 1996; Short, 1998).

Seldom do older immigrants with deficient academic preparation ever successfully
transition to fluent English proficiency; they most often remain several years below normal grade
levels, and/or drop out (Johnston & Viadero, 2002; Schwartz, 1996). “Achievement gaps are so
pronounced that in 1996, several national tests found Hispanic 12th graders scoring at roughly
the same levels in reading and math as white 8th graders” (Johnston & Viadero, 2002, pps. 18-
19). This achievement gap will continue to widen as the LEP student population increases
because school districts continue to provide less language support and resources for these older
students (Schwartz, 1996). Some older NEP and/or LEP students are placed in watered down,
remedial classes, even if their education in their native language was superior. This practice
impedes academic growth and decreases NEP/LEP students’ chances to attend universities
(Schwartz, 1996). In KUSD’s Five-Year Long Range Committee’s Action Plan (2003), it listed
the lack of additional language support at the middle and high school levels as a major concern
for its LEP student population. Currently, the District only has one ESL teacher who services its
LEP students at each of the middle and high schools (KUSD, 2003).
Consider the following fictitious scenarios that describe the experiences of typical older
immigrant students entering U.S. public schools. Jose is a 14-year-old immigrant Spanish
speaker who has just arrived in New York City. Jose left his native country of Angola during a
time of war, where he witnessed the execution of his father, uncles, and two older brothers. Jose
has less than four years of formal education and lacks literacy skills in his native language.
Jose’s mother enrolls him in his local neighborhood public school, and he is placed in 9th grade
due to his age, not because of his academic abilities. Jose’s school district does not offer a
Newcomers program; therefore, he is then placed into an overcrowded mainstreamed classroom,

and possibly serviced by an ESL or bilingual teacher once or twice a week. When Jose does
receive ESL services, he is pulled out of his language arts class or mathematics class; thus, Jose
falls further and further behind (Katz, Genesee, Gottlieb, & Malone, 2001).
Or just imagine being a young vibrant teenaged girl named Sarah, from Afghanistan.
Sarah recently relocated to Kenosha, Wisconsin and was enrolled in the local neighborhood
middle school. She has never attended a formal school and has experienced only a few years of
schooling secretly conducted in her home. With Sara’s experiences in mind, she is expected to
attend school in the U.S., and meet all the same rigorous academic standards and expectations as
any other English speaking American student, which are mandated and measured by the school,
the school district, the state and now by the federal government (Midwest Equity Assistance
Center, 1997). Without a Newcomers program Jose, Sarah, and other immigrant students in
similar situations may become lost, overwhelmed, frustrated, and/or even drop out (Brown,
2000).
The variety of cultures and languages present many challenges not only for the NEP
student, but for all parties involved. School districts, administrators, and teachers are not
effectively prepared nor equipped to handle newly arrived NEP students. More specifically, they
have not been adequately trained with respect to how to address immigrant NEP students’ unique
cultural, language, and academic needs. Because of this lack of training, teachers are becoming
overwhelmed and frustrated as they teach immigrant LEP students (Midwest Equity Assistance
Center, 1997). School districts, including KUSD, are desperately investigating alternative
educational programs to assess their new arrivals. School districts across the nation have
developed a variety of methodologies for assessment and instruction, including Newcomers

programs (ESL Mini Conference, 2002; Friedlander, 1991, Igoa, 1995; Short & Boyson, 2002;
Short, 1998: Castro, 1980).
If linguistically and culturally diverse students are to gain long-term

personal, social and academic success in the United States, their school
community must be ready to help them become productive through a
comprehensive, challenging, and enriching educational program in the
mainstream learning environment—this cannot be done in isolation, but
must be part of a coordinated district effort. (ESL Mini Conference, 2002,
p 2)
Newcomers programs were specially designed to cater to the diversified needs of school
districts’ NEP students and their families. Newcomers programs originated in the 1970s, when
California began to pilot special programs catering to its new arrivals. “Newcomers programs
were developed as a response to the local needs of the individual school districts, not as the result
of an integrated state or federal educational policy” (Friedlander, 1991, p. 6). During the 1990’s,
California identified seventeen Newcomers programs; Illinois, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania and Massachusetts followed with similar programs (Friedlander, 1991).
Today, Newcomers programs are located in eighteen states; most of these

have high rates of immigration, such as New York, California, and New
Jersey. Over three fourths of the programs are in urban-metropolitan
settings; the rest are in suburban areas and rural locales. More than half
of the programs operate at the high school level. About one-third serve the
middle school level, and the remainder offers a combination of middle and
high school services. Most of the schools draw from several attendance
areas in one school district. (Short, 1998, p. 1)
Newcomers programs differ from one another in relation to their general structure,
program design, curriculum, standards, duration, and language of instruction, and entry and exit
procedures. These programs operate as schools within schools, as self-contained schools or
classrooms, or as a separate site altogether. Some Newcomers programs include reception or
intake centers. They operate full day, half day and at different times, such as the case with after-
school programs (Castro, 1980; ESL Mini Conference, 2002; Friedlander, 1991, Igoa, 1995;
Short & Boyson, 2002). Newcomers programs share a common vision, which includes the
flowing components: having high academic expectations, and developing English proficiency in
their students. They also provide a new student orientation. Newcomers programs strive to
develop understanding in a multicultural environment, foster communication, inspire lifelong
learning, increase self-esteem, and provide for the optimum professional development of their
staff (Friedlander, 1991).
Newcomers programs are designed to function as temporary “stopovers" for NEP
students, until they are ready to be transitioned into their district’s other programs including:
ESL, bilingual, and/or mainstreamed general education classrooms. NEP students enrolled in
Newcomers programs have limited to no English language abilities and have fewer than three
years of schooling in the United States. Newcomers programs foster the development of NEP
students’ English language proficiency. NEP students attend specialized sheltered English
classes that are adapted to meet their individual needs. English is offered as a necessary skill for
achieving academic success, and for assimilating into an English-speaking community.
Newcomers programs may serve as a centralized resource center for administrators,
teachers, students, and parents. The program's staff is comprised of school personnel, language
teachers, counselors, community liaisons, interpreters, and office personnel; all staff members
are specially trained to deal with NEP students. Oftentimes, these staff members are willing to
"go beyond the call of duty" to provide for its NEP students' success (Friedlander, 1991, p. 3).
By providing a centralized resources center, staff is better equipped to cater to the needs of its
NEP students. Furthermore, the students are able to have equitable access to resources during
the most critical period, or their first few months and years after arrival. Staff members receive
training in the effects of students’ native culture with regard to their values, beliefs, perspectives,
priorities, and behavior. They understand that their students’ educational experiences, home
culture, value systems, belief systems, and other factors in their upbringing can all influence
learning. This understanding may help to ease their students’ fears and allow for a smoother
transition period, as they become accustomed to their new home country.
New arrivals attend orientation classes that introduce the American school systems and its
culture. Orientation classes also introduce the following amenities that are available to the
students: 1) specially designed academic curriculum; 2) counseling services tailored to the
individual needs of the newcomers; 3) parent education and resources; 4) referral services; 5)
access to bilingual support services and community liaisons; 6) transportation available to and
from the centers; 7) extracurricular activities; and 8) tutoring. Many newcomer centers even
offer health services and immunizations (ESL Mini Conference, 2002; Friedlander, 1991; Igoa,
1995; Short & Boyson, 2002).

Funding of Newcomers programs
One of the most critical issues facing Newcomers programs today is funding. In order to
operate successfully, Newcomers programs require funding from the federal government, states,
school districts, and private sources. Kathleen Ponze, an assistant principal of New York City’s
Junior High School 190, wrote a grant and received $50,000 to create a Newcomer after-school
program. The following year, the after- school program had to reduce its costs; therefore, the
program went from having a staff of four English as a second language (ESL) teachers to only
having one ESL teacher twice a week. Ponze believes her school's situation is not unique and
that there are numerous school administrators who have expressed concerns regarding the lack of
continued program funding (Brown, 2000).
In 1989, the Federal government mandated the Emergency Immigrant

Education Act (EIEA) that allotted money for teacher training, books,
study aids, and other instructional expenses for immigrant students.
However, immigrant policies in the 1990s cut Federal funding for
immigrant school districts almost by 50% while the number of immigrant
students has increased by nearly 50%. (Pathways, Immigrant Education,
2002)
A large percent of the programs in operation today have received funding from federal,
state, local, and private sources. The amount of financial support a program receives depends
upon the state. Other sources of funding for Newcomers programs include: educational reforms,
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Title I, Title III, Title VII, Emergency
Immigrant Education Programs (EIEP), and Economic Impact Aid. Aid also comes from literacy
funds and tuition from non-resident and out-of- state students (Boyson, 2002; Short & Boyson,
2002).
The success rate of a program is also related to support from the school district and the
community. Beverly Boyson (2002) from the Center of Applied Linguistics stated Newcomers
programs fail because they are not supported by the district and/or community and rely solely on
the federal government and/or state for funding. Furthermore, she added that successful
programs were the ones that were maintained and financially supported by their local school
districts and communities. According to Boyson, the majority of Newcomers programs
established in the 1980’s and early 1990’s were started with federal and/or state "seed" money,
but now are primarily relying on operational financial support from their districts and
communities. Most of the Newcomers programs established since the fall of 1998 still rely on
federal and state aid to subsidize the majority of their funds; however, this funding may be short
lived (Boyson, 2002; Short & Boyson, 2002).
Berkley Public Schools' Bilingual Education Program/Newcomers program, located in
Berkley, Mississippi, established its Newcomers program in 1976. During the school year of
1999-2000, the program was able to receive some federal emergency immigrant funds and state
bilingual funds; however, it relies mainly on its school district for most of its funds. County
Public School’s METS program is located in Rockville, Maryland, established its program in
1994; it receives 5% of its funding through federal reimbursement and state per pupil- funding;
and the district generates 90% of its funds. Miami-Dade County Public Schools’ Project New
Beginning’s program was established in 1993. Its funding is primarily by its school district.
Green Bay’s Area Public Schools’ Newcomers program is located in Wisconsin. The program
was established in 1992 and is fully funded by its district. Wausau School District, also in
Wisconsin, offers its new arrivals placement in its Family Newcomers Center. The program is
funded by Title VII and district funds (Short & Boyson, 2002).
The lesson for those who would develop a Newcomers program is clear. At the onset,
applying for federal funds is prudent. However, the staff should also garner the support of the
school district and the surrounding area, whose funds may become necessary when federal funds
are not available.
Federal Regulations
Bilingual programs are being closely examined by many sectors of society, due in large
part to the criticisms being directed at them from the media and several influential organizations
(Amrein & Pena, 2000). Proponents of English-only instruction criticize bilingual programs for
newly arrived immigrants in public schools. Many of these critics believe that extensive
instruction in the students' native language may lead to dependence and a delay of appropriate
grade level instruction (Amrein & Pena, 2000; Hakuta, 2002). For bilingual programs to be
effective and successful, school districts, school administrators, and teachers must respond to the
calls for greater accountability.
Obtaining adequate research on Newcomers programs has been a long, arduous process
due to the vast differences in these programs. The research is often skewed due to the wide
range of latitude among Federal requirements, which allow states to select the most effective
programs for their limited English proficient (LEP) student population (Amrein & Pena, 2000).
State officials, educational agencies, and courts have also established mandated guidelines on
educating, governing, and managing LEP students. The actual programs being offered can vary
from state to state, district to district, school to school, and classroom to classroom (Amrein &
Pena, 2000; Hakuta, 2002). Therefore, comparing these programs is difficult.
However, school districts are not free from federal and state laws that dictate specific
approaches when designing special programs for newcomer immigrant students. Some federal
laws have addressed the issue of how to best educate LEP and NEP students. A Supreme Court
case (Lau v. Nicholas, 1974) required that schools provide special language aid to students from
families in which English was not spoken. In Guadalupe v. Temple, 1978, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals clarified the issues of language assistance raised in Lau v. Nichols. The
Appelate Court explicitly stated that “bilingual education” was not required under the US
Constitution or the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and that providing extra support in English was
meeting districts’ obligations by adequately satisfying the requirements of Lau v. Nichols
(English for the Children, 2002; ELLKBase, 2002; NCLEA, 2002).
This issue of bilingual versus English-only instruction continues to be heavily debated
today. Federal law requires school districts to take every available legal action necessary to
assure its NEP/LEP students are offered the same educational opportunities as native-born
students. The law does not dictate how districts are to implement programs; school districts are
able to implement changes that are guided by their local and demographic needs (English for the
Children, 2002; ELLKBase, 2002; NCLEA, 2002). School districts receiving federal funding of
their Newcomers programs must adhere to and comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Those school districts receiving federal funding are prohibited from engaging in
discriminating in programs or activities on the basis of race, color, or national origin (English for
the Children, 2002; ELLKBase, 2002; NCLEA, 2002). In 1990, the OCR investigated a
Newcomer School and determined the school to be in compliance with Title VI based on
numerous factors:
The District was not under a court or administrative order to desegregate

its schools. The program was a voluntary program. The District offered
enrollment to their immigrant students in either their home school or their
Newcomers school. These students’ home schools offered language
assistance. The Newcomer school student population make-up was
multicultural and multilingual. Students were from a variety of different
countries and spoke different languages. Attendance was limited to more
than one year. Eligibility was based on a need for language and cultural
assistance. The Districts programs offered were made available for all
students enrolled at the Newcomers school and were comparable to those
offered throughout the District’s other schools. (NCLEA, 2002, p. 20)
Congressional policies are affecting the outcome of Newcomers programs by having an
impact upon both content and funding. The “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” dictated certain
requirements that schools must address; however, it failed to clarify which language programs
will best educate immigrant students. In the case of Kathleen Ponze from NYC Junior High
School 190, an initial grant ran its course and was not replaced by additional federal funding.
Stringent federal guidelines on funding have made it rather difficult for the majority of school
districts to qualify for additional funding, causing school districts to drastically cut and/or
restructure their districts’ language programs. Today the vast majority of programs are funded
from the school district’s general education or bilingual education funds (Pathways, Immigrant
Education, 2002).
Additional Research Needed
Obtaining adequate research on Newcomers programs is rather difficult.
Despite the growing interest in Newcomers programs, no comprehensive

national study of them had been undertaken prior to this 4-year CREDE
project (1996-2000), neither for evaluating their impact, nor for providing
guidance to school districts considering establishing a Newcomers
program. (Short & Boyson, 2002, p.1)
The majority of Newcomers programs are in their infancy stage; they are continuously evolving
and are difficult to monitor and/or track. Gathering statistical information on Newcomers
programs is also difficult to obtain because the participants are NEP, and they are often exempt
from taking state and/or district mandated standardized assessment(s) (ESL Min Conference,
2002; Friedlander, 1991; Igoa, 1995; Short & Boyson, 2002). This target population is often
transient, and its attrition rate is high. The high attrition rate is due to the fact that NEP students
are not housed in Newcomers programs for their entire academic careers. School districts have
set mandates and established specified time limits on how long their NEP students can be housed
in its Newcomers programs. On average, NEP students can be enrolled for no longer than two
academic quarters and/or one to two years depending on the program's goals and objectives
(Friedlander, 1991).
Additional academic research is needed on Newcomers programs. School districts and
researchers must begin to conduct quantitative comparative longitudinal studies and qualitative
case studies on Newcomers programs in order to evaluate the programs' effectiveness and to
determine if they are meeting the immediate educational needs of their NEP students (NCLEA,
2002). The Center for Applied Linguistics (2000) began summarizing data on 115 secondary
Newcomers programs operated in 29 states and the District of Columbia. The 115 programs
mentioned in the study operate in 196 areas, meaning that some programs have multiple
locations within a district. The result was the creation of a directory that reports on the basic
operation of Newcomers programs. Over fifty percent of the exemplary programs are located in
California, New Jersey, New York, and Texas (Short & Boyson, 2002). Other than the
aforementioned directory, there is a lack of research published on the Newcomers programs
operating nationwide. This is fertile ground for future educational research.
Exemplar Newcomers Programs
In South Sioux City, Nebraska, Newcomers classrooms are located offsite at two
elementary schools. Newcomers classrooms were designed for its district’s NEP newly arrived
students (with less than one year in the U.S.) who have little or no English proficiency, and/or
low literacy skills in their primary language. Sixteen NEP students attend the program in half-
day increments; elementary NEP students (Grades 3-5) attend in the afternoon, and secondary
NEP students attend the morning session. A waiting list is created when the classroom is full.
Students may be exited from the Newcomers classroom when they reach a predetermined
language level and academic proficiency to participate in regular ESL classes at their home
schools (determined by the LAS assessments). LAS is the acronym for the Language Assessment
Scales published by CTB McGraw Hill; it is used by some school districts to assess oral, reading
and writing skills of non-native English-speaking students. Secondary students are only exited at
the end of a term, but no longer than one academic year or less. This Newcomers program offers
a specialized curriculum in English language development, and an introduction to the district’s
schools, its policies, the communities it services, and the United States. The program offers a
multicultural education, which encourages NEP students to maintain pride in their culture; it
offers equitable access to the district’s programs and resources (www.helpforschools.com, 2002).
The staff of the Newcomers classroom includes an ESL teacher and a bilingual
paraprofessional. Communication between the staff and the home school is critical. The
communication helps to ensure the NEP student's placement in an appropriate academic program
and assists in effective transitioning for the student. The mainstream teacher is accountable for
his/her students' academic progress, although they are housed only part-time at the Newcomers
classroom. It is imperative to note that the Newcomers classroom does not replace the home
school curriculum; it only enhances the English Language development of the LEP student
(www.helpforschools.com, 2002).
The South Sioux City School District also has an Orientation Center. The primary
function of this center is to provide additional educational resources for the district’s NEP/LEP
students, families, and staff. The Orientation Center registers and assesses any student who
indicated a language other than English on the District’s Home Language Survey. The staff
collaborates with other district staff on appropriate placement for its NEP/LEP students.
Referrals are made for the families, and translators are provided in this center. The center acts as
a liaison for the students and families between their classrooms and home schools; it also aids in
Student Assistant Teams and/or staffings. The staff provides teachers with classroom support,
modifications, additional assessments, and training on various topics. The center also acts as a
liaison to local colleges to help develop training for teachers in ESL (www.helpforschools.com,
2002).
The South Sioux City School District’s LEP kindergarten students are serviced in its
traditional Kindergarten classroom with a paraprofessional, and if needed, these students receive
access to all the District’s resources. The LEP students who score at Level 1 or 2 on the LAS
assessment are offered additional help and placement in the extended day Kindergarten to
receive additional language support with the District’s ESL teacher and the ESL
paraprofessional. The Kindergarten program emphasizes socialization and English proficiency
(www.helpforschools.com, 2002). Once the LEP students exit their Newcomers classrooms, they
are placed into the mainstreamed classroom and are pulled out for additional ESL support in
grades 1-12 (www.helpforschools.com, 2002).
Cesar E. Chavez Multicultural Academic Center is a Newcomers program located in
Chicago, Illinois and established in 1996. The program is funded by Federal Title VII funds,
private funds, and small grants from the educational reform. The center offers its new arrivals
(fewer than 3 years of enrollment in a U.S. school) a year round, full-day (also after-school)
academic program in bilingual education or in ESL. The new arrivals must have large
educational gaps in their formal schooling and speak little to no English. Currently there are
sixty NEP students enrolled in the Newcomers program, and all of them qualify for free or
reduced lunches. NEP students can attend the Transitional Bilingual Educational (TBE) program
at the middle school, which was designed for older immigrant and refugee students who
traditionally have more difficulty adjusting to their new environment and language. TBE does
not maintain the goal of the students to be bilingual. Ideally, the students’ native language is
used in the classroom only until NEP/LEP students acquire enough English, and then they are
transitioned into English-only classes. NEP/LEP students are housed in the program throughout
their middle school years. To exit the program, students must meet certain criteria in English
and/or Spanish and in mathematics. The Cesar Chavez Newcomers Program offers specially
designed academic classes to enhance its students' English language development, and an
orientation class to the Chicago Public School system. As of the 1999-2000 school year, all
NEP/LEP students attending were from Latin America and Poland. The staff is comprised of
teachers who loop all three years with their students; in addition, there is one full-time teacher
who works directly with the parents, handles discipline, facilitates individual student support,
registers and tests students, and gives general education support (Short & Boyson, 2002).
The International Newcomer Center is located at Taft High School, in Chicago, Illinois
(1998). This full-day immigrant program houses NEP high school students from the ages of
fourteen to seventeen years who are new arrivals (less than 12 months in the U.S.), have limited
English proficiency, and low literacy skills in their primary language. The average class size is
fifteen, with students representing twenty-four different countries and fifteen non-English
languages. The International Newcomer Center Taft High School is funded through state and
district funds as well as a private grant. The International Newcomer Center has the same
primary goals and objectives as other Newcomers programs, with one unique attribute: it
incorporates the arts into learning English. After being enrolled for two semesters, students are
expected to return to their home schools (Short & Boyson, 2002).

Project Great Start Community Consolidated School District 15 Newcomers Interim
Service Center (NISC) is located in Rolling Meadows, Illinois. Developed in 1997, the center is
an intake center that assists its district in the assessment and placement of newly arrived
NEP/LEP students. The program offers placement for its NEP students in two classes. The
Newcomers Class I provides an intensive survival English language development class, a variety
of academics, U.S. culture, and an orientation to U.S. schools; this program houses its NEP
students for no more than two months. Participation in the Newcomers Class II lasts for up to
four months and is a continuum of the first course, but it focuses more on skill development in
English (Short & Boyson, 2002).
Irvine Unified School District is located in Orange County, California; the District offers
its Newcomers an opportunity to participate in their Magnet Newcomers Program - English
Language Development (ELD) classrooms (1984). The primary goal of its program is to provide
a nurturing environment and language support for the District’s NEP/LEP students. The
eligibility requirements are similar to other Newcomers programs. The program is now available
at all grade levels (K-12). The enrollment period is for a minimal period of one semester. NEP
students are released to their home schools once they have made academic progress on the
California English Language Development Test (CELDT). Parents are able to waive their child
out of attending this program and may opt to enroll their child in their home school or other
schools offering ESL support. In 1998, the District surveyed program participant parents, and
ninety-five percent of the parents indicated they were satisfied with the program’s success (Irvine
School District, 2002).

Folsom Cordova Unified School District is located in Folsom, California. Its Newcomers
program is offered to NEP students in grades 1-12; Kindergarten students are placed in regular
educational classrooms and are serviced by the ESL staff. The NEP immigrant student
population has grown immensely. In the early 1980’s, there was an influx of political refugees
from China and Vietnam. Immigrant students make up about one percent of the total student
population of Irvine. As of 1999, the predominant language groups were from the former Soviet
Union: Russian, Ukrainian, Armenian, Moldvan, and Belarus. These NEP/LEP students, along
with Spanish speaking students, represent a total of 16 % of Folsom Cordova Unified School
District’s student population, or an estimated 900 students. These students are classified as
recent arrivals with fewer than three years of schooling in the U.S. The District has about sixty
different languages represented in its language programs. Folsom’s success rate is excellent;
two-thirds of its LEP students are reclassified as fluent English proficient (FEP) within five years
of U.S. entry. On standardized assessments, about one half of these students perform at or above
grade level in reading comprehension and in math. Between the years 1994-1998, its LEP
students superceded growth by two normal curves equivalents for reading and seven normal
curves for math (Folsom Cordova USD, 1999).
In Emporia, Kansas, the Literacy Center, also known as Dos Puente’s Newcomer
Literacy Center, provides instruction for its NEP students who are new arrivals (less than 12
months in the U.S.), have limited English proficiency, and low literacy skills in their primary
language. The entry criteria for NEP students in grades K-3 are those who scored below a 2 on
the English Pre-LAS or LAS. The district's new students are identified, tested, and referred to
the Literacy Center within four weeks of their enrollment in their home school. The center
utilizes a variety of instructional strategies including: whole language, writing process, thematic
interdisciplinary designs, cooperative centers, learning centers, multiple learning styles,
mathematics with manipulatives, performances based learning, scientific inquiry, technology, and
portfolio assessments (Emporia Unified School District, 2002).
Kenosha Unified School District
The Kenosha Unified School District needs to implement a centralized Newcomers
intake center. In 2002-2003, Kenosha Unified School District, (the District), the third largest
school district in Wisconsin, enrolled over 21,000 students, and offered its Language Assistance
Program (LAP) services to over 1,340 LEP students at all grade levels. This count was
according to Wisconsin’s “Third Friday in September Enrollment Count.” However, due to the
“No Child Left Behind Act of 2001”, and Wisconsin DPI’s new English language levels and
“cut” scores, more students are now being classified or redesignated as being NEP/LEP in the
District. As of March 2003, the District identified and assessed an additional 700 NEP/LEP
students. The District is averaging ten to fifteen new arrivals per month (KUSD, 2003). There
are nearly thirty different languages represented in the District’s language assistance programs
and its schools. The majority of LEP students housed within the District’s LAPs are Spanish and
Arabic speakers.
Like other school districts, KUSD is facing some major dilemmas. First, the district is
being scrutinized by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The District’s LEP students are not being
identified and assessed within the ten-day timeframe as indicated in its OCR Action Plan. Its
LEP students are left to “sink or swim" in its mainstreamed classrooms, with non-certified
Bilingual/ESL teachers. Its LEP students are often housed for weeks or months before they are
even identified or offered placement in the District’s language programs. Once the District offers
placement to its 700+ newly identified NEP/LEP students, it will not have the facilities or the
staff to adequately service these students. The District’s LAPs are overcrowded, and its facilities
are limited.
The number of students served by the Newcomers programs ranges from

14 at one site in Connecticut to over 740 at a high school in New York
City. Almost half of the programs enroll 50 or more students, and 12
programs serve over 200 students. Because of limited resources, not all
Newcomers programs are able to serve all eligible students in the district.
(Short, 1998, p. 1)
The District’s LAPs are understaffed and/or overburdened. The turnover rate for its LAP
staff is rather high; one program had two teachers out of six (or thirty-three percent) resign
during the first week of school. The District’s LAP classrooms are the only classes within the
District to have split grade level classes (K/1, 2/3 and 4/5). Some classes are filled to capacity
and are conducted in inadequate classrooms. These factors affect the quality of the education
that is being provided to LEP students. The District’s LAP staff members are working overtime,
often without additional remuneration. LAP staff members give up their prep and lunch periods
to help out with the language assessments, placements, and the monitoring of transitional
students. The LAP staff assists with translations, adult ESL education, and staff development. In
addition, the staff addresses the diverse needs of its LEP students such as making referrals to
government agencies, seeking food and clothing, and arranging for transportation.
Throughout the U.S., teachers are struggling to find resources to meet the educational
needs of their LEP students, and Kenosha Unified is no different. Like other teachers nationally,
the District’s teachers are feeling overwhelmed and pressured because of all the implications of
the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” and the high stakes standardized assessments that are
required. LEP students are faced with rigorous assessments that measure their academic
proficiency in English. Schools in Wisconsin are being put on the “Watch-Lists” and are being
subjected to closure or restructuring if their students do not meet the state's rigorous standards
(Brown, 2000).
By adopting the best practices of the exemplar programs studied, KUSD can best serve
its large NEP/LEP student population. If KUSD had a centralized Newcomers program, officials
would be able to administer new and annual language assessments. By properly identifying and
assessing its LEP students in a timely manner, students will no longer be misidentified or simply
neglected. Newly arrived NEP students could be housed for a minimum of two semesters, or
until they would reach a level of fluency (Level 2), and they are able to successfully transition
into the District’s other language assistance programs (Sheltered English Immersion, Transitional
Educational Bilingual, and/or ESL). By educating NEP students in the district's language
assistance programs or mainstreamed classes, the success of its NEP/LEP students may be
sacrificed.
NEP students do not have the language skills necessary to function in traditional
Sheltered English Immersion, Transitional Educational Bilingual, and/or ESL classrooms. These
students are in the pre-productive stage of second language acquisition. In this stage of
development, NEP students will often use their home language to communicate. When everyone
around them is speaking a different language, such as English, they will stop speaking entirely
out of frustration, or they will speak only their native language. After receiving no response,
these students will quit speaking in their native language. Then, students may go through a
period of not talking at all; this period is referred to as the "Silent Period.” This phase may be
brief or it may last up to a year. Even though they are not talking in English at this time, they are
absorbing the language and will attempt to communicate through non-verbal gestures or mimes
(Wisconsin DPI, 2000). Obviously, this process makes educating these students in a variety of
required subjects very difficult to accomplish.
Having a centralized Newcomers program allows the District’s resources to be readily
available to the staff, student, and families. The Newcomers program team members could be
comprised of the following: the Bilingual Community Liaison, translators, bilingual social
workers, bilingual guidance counselors, and nurses, as well as other community outreach
personnel. The District’s immigrant NEP students would be able to receive an educational
opportunity that is individualized and tailored to meet their own diverse needs.
Students would be referred to the center during registration. Parents complete the
PHLOTE (Primary or Home Language Other Than English) form, which indicates whether their
child speaks a language other than English, is new to the country, or is unable to converse in
English. The school site secretary would notify the District’s Newcomers center administrator of
the students who meet these qualifications. At the District’s Newcomers center, NEP/LEP
students would be assessed within ten working days of enrollment. The Newcomers staff would
be responsible for completing all the assessments and paperwork for each newly arrived student.
The LAP team would then decide on appropriate program placements, send parental notifications
of placement, and arrange placement and /or transportation for students. At the elementary
school, the Newcomers staff and principal would be able to discuss the appropriate grade
placement and academic schedule of the NEP/LEP student, taking into account the student’s
academic history, English language proficiency, and native country school records. At the
middle and high school level, the intake language assistance staff and bilingual guidance
counselor would be able to discuss the appropriate grade placement and academic schedule of
the LEP student. All LEP students would be offered placement in the District’s LAPs based on
whether or not they meet the requirements of the DPI and the District. The District’s LAPs
would continue to be completely voluntary. Parents may request to withdraw or deny services
for their LEP child at anytime during the program. If this request to withdraw happens, the
parents must complete a waiver of services (or withdrawal) form.
In addition, the Newcomers program staff would be responsible for teaching the District’s
NEP (Level 1) students, and completing Individual Language record Plans (ILRP), as well as
monitoring its mainstreamed DPI (Level 4-7) students. Students who are identified as Levels 2-3
would be offered placement in the District’s language assistance programs: Sheltered English
Immersion, Transitional Educational Bilingual, and/or ESL. Levels 4-5 would remain at their
home schools and continued to be monitored and serviced by the District’s language assistance
staff. The staff would utilize a variety of instructional strategies to include the following: whole
language, writing process, thematic interdisciplinary designs, cooperative centers, learning
centers, multiple learning styles, mathematics with manipulatives, performances based learning,
scientific inquiry, technology, and portfolio assessments. Teachers and other classroom staff
would receive initial and regular training in the viable methodologies from the center’s staff.
The center would act as a liaison for its students' families between their classrooms and home
schools; staff would also aid in Student Assistant Teams and/or staffing. The staff would provide
administrators and teachers with classroom support, modifications, additional assessments, and
staff training on various topics as well as act as a liaison to local colleges to help develop training
for teachers in English as a second language (helpforschools.com, 2002).
Conclusion
Whether or not KUSD adopts a Newcomers program is truly not the issue. The reality of
the problem is that 700+ NEP/LEP students’ educational needs are not currently being met. The
District must do a better job of addressing unique needs of its newly arrived immigrant students.
Having students waiting in mainstreamed classrooms for weeks and/or months for placement in
the District’s language assistance programs is not acceptable.
The Wisconsin Constitution (Article X. 3) states that every Wisconsin

student has the fundamental right to an equal opportunity for a sound basic
education, which is defined as ‘one that will equip students for their roles
as citizens and enable them to succeed economically and personally.’
(Wisconsin DPI, 2002, p. 9)
The challenges facing school districts are not insurmountable as long as school districts
do not become complacent. School districts must take their responsibilities seriously and
educate all immigrant students effectively regardless of their English language abilities and/or or
content area knowledge limitations. States, administrators, and teachers must recognize that
there are outside determining factors that play an integral role in the success of immigrants’
attainment of English. These factors include the student's age upon arrival and educational and
personal background; these factors are especially true of secondary students, who face greater
challenges, and higher dropout rates. District officials must take appropriate action to educate
every immigrant student within their realm.
Newcomers programs are just one of many language programs designed to aid school
districts in meeting their newly arrived immigrants students’ needs, by placing recent immigrant
students who have limited English proficiency and limited educational experience in their native
countries into a specialized academic environment separate from native English-speaking
students for a limited period of time (usually from six months to two years). These programs
have encountered many challenges, including the following: locating sources of funding, helping
students who have had interrupted education and/or little or low literacy skills, integrating
students into their home schools and into their communities; and transporting eligible students to
the program site (Short & Boyson, 2002). In spite of the inherent challenges, school districts
who have adopted Newcomers programs are building culturally responsive schools with
classrooms that are flexible in that they are able to accommodate its students with academic,
linguistic, and cultural differences. Despite these differences, these students attending
Newcomers programs are beginning to build trust, take risks, and appreciate their peers and adult
role models, particularly those who respect and treat them fairly. These programs employ
sensitive and tolerant teachers who understand the diverse immigrant cultures at play. At the
classroom level, teachers and mainstreamed students get to know these new students and
appreciate the assets they bring to school. Newcomers programs help immigrant NEP students to
learn the skills needed to become proficient in English and fully participate in commerce,
government, and education in the United States. Society benefits from the skills and abilities
that these new residents bring, as their choice of future occupations widens dramatically thanks
to the superior education that they receive upon their arrival.
It is important to understand that these students are going through difficult adjustment
periods, linguistically and socially, in addition to the typical pre-adolescent and adolescent
developmental stages. Additionally, family members provide an anchor for the students, but they
are also adjusting to a new country. The more open, understanding, and encouraging teachers
and schools can be toward these families, the better off the students and schools will be in the
long run. These students are not likely to succeed unless they feel accepted and respected, even
if they sometimes do not fit the expectations of their classrooms, schools, and larger
communities. Through tolerance and acceptance, educators can facilitate these newcomers'
ultimate transition into American society.
References
Amrein, A. & Pena, R. (2000). Asymmetry in dual language practice: Assessing imbalance in a
program promoting equality. Retrieved April 4, 2003, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n8.html.
Andrade, Rosi, Civil, Marta et al (2002). Linking home and school: A bridge to many faces
mathematics. A final report. Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
Retrieved September 1, 2002, from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/md/4.2es.html.
Avila, O. (2002, February 26). New centers try to soften immigrants’ school shock. Critics say
concept isolates students. Chicago Tribune.
Berube, B. (2002, September/October/November). Three Rs for ESL instruction in U.S. rural

schools: A test of commitment. TESOL Matters, 12(4).
Boyson, B. Center for Applied Linguistics. 4646 40th Street NW. Washington, DC 20016-1859.
Tel. 202-362-0700. Personal communication, October 16, 2002.
Brown, K. (2000). Newcomers learn English. Education News for an Educated Public.
Education Update Online. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from
http://www.educationupdate.com/may00/Newcomers.html.
Castenada v. Pickard, 648 F 2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).
Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE) (2001, September). Some
program alternatives for English language learners. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from
CREDE: http://www.cal.org/crede/pubs/PracBrief3.htm.
Crawford, J. (1997, March). Best evidence: Foundations of the Bilingual Education Act.
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved November 2, 2002, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/bestevidence/research.htm#M.
Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of Bilingual Education Act. Retrieved
November 2, 2002, from http://www.ncborgwu.edu.
Crawford, J. (1998, Winter). Rethinking schools- Does Bilingual Education work? Retrieved
November 2, 2002, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/Archieves/13-02/biside.htm.
Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights –OCR (1999). Retrieved October 22, 2002
from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/ELL/index.html.
Duignan, Peter. (2001). Hoover essay. Bilingual education: A critique. Retrieved September 6,
2002, from http://www.hooverstandfordedu./publications/he/22/22d.html.
ELLKBase- The English Language Learner Knowledgebase. A Framework for Alternative

Language Programs [Data file]. Region VII Comprehensive Center. Retrieved
September 4, 2002, from
http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/practitionerstips/Framework_ALP.shtml.
Emporia Unified School District: EUSD (2002). Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
http://www.usd253.org/.
English for the Children (1998, February). Falsehoods and facts about "English for the
children." In English for the Children. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
The English Language Learner Knowledgebase. A framework for alternative language

programs [Data file]. Region VII Comprehensive Center. Retrieved October 22, 2002,
from
ESL Mini Conference. Building inclusive elementary school communities for ELLs. New
Jersey's HELP program wins "Best Practices" award. Retrieved September 4, 2002 from
http://www.eslminiconf.net/june/story24.html.
Ethnic groups in Wisconsin: Historical background. Retrieved on October 26, 2002, from
http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/mkilibrary/ethn-his.html.
Farmington Public Schools. Farmington Public Schools curriculum. Retrieved October 26, 2002,
from http://www.farmington.k12.mi.us/district/curriculum/bilingual.html.
Folsom Cordova USD (2002). Folsom Cordova Unified School District, 125 East Bidwell Street,
Folsom, CA 95630 Retrieved September 3, 2002 from http://www.fcusd.k12.ca.us/.
Friedlander, M. (Fall, 1991). The Newcomers program: Helping immigrant students succeed in
U.S. schools. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, No. 8. Retrieved November 1,
2002, from http://ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig8.htm;
http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/refernces/NEWCOMERPROGRAMTableCo.
Genesee, F. (1998). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. Retrieved November
1, 2002, from Center for Applied Linguistic: http://www.cal.org/crede/newcomer.htm.
Guipana, C. (1998). Culture shock. Department of Counseling and Psychology. San Diego State
University.
Hakuta, K. (2001, April 13). The Education of language minority students. Paper presented at
United States Commission on Civil Rights. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Docs/CivilRightsCommision.htm.
Hakuta, K. (2002). Improving education for all children: meeting the needs of language
minority children. Retrieved August 6, 2002, from
http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Aspen.html.
Hakuta, K. (2002, August 29). What can we learn about the impact of Proposition 227 from
SAT-9 scores. Retrieved September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/.
Heine, H. (2003). Culturally responsible schools for Micronesians immigrant students. Retrieved
on April 11,2003, from http://www.prel.org/teams/culturally-responsive.asp.
Hispanics, Asians gain in Census. (2001, March 9). The groups' populations surge as new figures
for four states show a blurring of racial and ethnic lines. Tucson Citizen. Retrieved October
26, 2002, from http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/local/census/3_9_01n_census.html.
Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Irvine School District (2002). Retrieved on November 1, 2002, from ISD: www.iusd.k12ca.us.
Johnston, R. C. & Viadero, D. (2002, March 15). Unmet promise: Raising minority
achievement. Education week, 19(27), 1-19.
Katz, A., Genesee, F., Gottlieb, M., & Malone, M. (2001). Scenarios for ESL standards-based
assessment. Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Kenosha Unified School District Five-Year Long Range Committee (2003). Kenosha Unified
School District No. 1, Kenosha, WI.
Krashen, Stephen. (2001). Term limits. Class dismissed. Retrieved October 21, 2002, from
http://www.americas.org/News/Features/200112-
_Blingual_Education/2001110_letters.htm.
Legge, C. (2000, June). Federal Court Decision. In Decision by Judge Charles Legge: Refusing
to Delay the Effective Date of Proposition 227 by U.S. District Judge Charles A. Legge.
San Francisco: Federal Court Decision. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID-7776.
Midwest Equity Assistance Center (1997). Variety of programs helps newcomers adjust to U.S.
Schools. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from MEAC:
http://mdac.educ.ksu.edu?MDAC/resource/horizons/AugSept97/articles/newcomers/html.
Moyers, S. (1993, January). Bridging the culture gap. Instructor, 31-33.
The National ClearingHouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction
Educational Programs (NCELA) (1991/92-2001/02). The growing number of limited
English proficient students. Retrieved November 26, 2002, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu./states/stateposter.pdf.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, NCLEA (2002), retrieved September
4, 2002, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu./ .
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Title I sec. 1111(b)(3)(C)(x).
OnWisonsin.com. State Hispanic population. Retrieved November 3, 2002, from

http://www.jsonline.com/news/census2000/mar01/LATINO10g2.asp.
Pabst, G. (2001, March 9). Hispanics find that state has a winning formula good economy, jobs,
family ties help lure many Latinos here. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved
November 26, 2002, from
http://www.jsonline.com/news/census2000/mar01/latino030901gx.asp#top.
Pathways, Immigrant Education (2002). ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. Retrieved

November 27, 2002, from http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/path.asp.
Resource VIII-Overview of key ESEA Programs. Retrieved on September 6, 2002, from

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Idea_Planning/resource_8.html.
Schwartz, W. (1996, November). Immigrants and their educational attainment: Some facts and
findings. Eric Clearinghouse on Urban Education, 116. Retrieved December 12, 2002,
from http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/digests/dig116.asp.
Short, D. & Boyson, B. (2000). Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence
(CREDE). Summary of data in secondary newcomer directory. Center for Applied
Linguistic. Retrieved July 29,2002 from http://www.cal.org/crede/newsummary.htm.
Short, D. & Boyson, B. (2002) Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence
(CREDE). Newcomers: Language and academic programs for recent immigrants. Center
for Applied Linguistic. Retrieved July 29, 2002 from
http://www.cal.org/crede/newsummary.htm.
Short, D. (1998). Secondary Newcomers programs: Helping recent immigrants prepare for
school success. ERIC Digest (ED#411703). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics, from http://www.cal.org/crede/newcomer.htm.
Short, D. J. (2002). Newcomers programs: An educational alternative for secondary immigrant

students. Education and Urban Society 34(2), 173-198. Retrieved July 29, 2002 from
http://www.cal.org/crede/newcomer.htm.
United States Department of Education, Office of Civil rights Programs for English Language
Learners. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/ELL.html.
United States Census 2000. Wisconsin Latino population, by community. Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel. March 9, 2001 Retrieved November 26, 2002, from
http://www.jsonline.com/news/census2000/mar01/latino030901gx.asp#top.
West Bloomfield School District, West Bloomfield, MI. Retrieved November 26, 2002, from
http://www.westbloomfield.k12mi.us/newcomer.html.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) Retrieved November 26, 2002, from
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/title1/index.html.
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002). Legal Responsibilities when serving
Limited-English -Proficient (LEP) students in K-12 public schools. Retrieved from
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/equity/biling.html.
World Population Sheet. (2003). Retrieved on April 11, 2003 from http://www.prb.org/.
QUESTION 3
Analyze how bilingual education has developed and changed during the last decade.
Explore the impact of bilingual education on meeting the needs of Hispanic students.
Has bilingual education successfully addressed the various issues of limited English
speakers? What areas need to be addressed by bilingual educators in order to
successfully meet the needs of limited English speakers, in particular, Hispanic students?
The Bilingual Movement
The Bilingual Movement began in the 1960s as a part of the Civil Rights
Movement. Prior to early 1960s, bilingual education waned because the U.S. educational
system was recovering from the effects of two World Wars. Immigrants during this time
came primarily from European nations and were more economically affluent. Their
children had more access to formal education in their native countries. Historically, the
principle motivators for foreigners relocating to the United States were economic,
political, and/or familial. Assimilation into larger society was necessary in order to gain
employment and to survive. To this day, immigrants tend to settle in neighborhoods that
are representative of their language, culture, and/or socioeconomic status (Duignan,
2001; Education World, 1998; Spring, 1996).
In the 1950s and early 1960s, major international events helped to renew an
interest in language instruction, particularly after the Soviets launched their first artificial
earth satellite, called the Sputnik, in 1958. Throughout the nation, curriculum reform
efforts resulted in a renewed interest in foreign language instruction. During this time,
the Cuban Revolution caused many to flee to the U. S. These new residents settled
Southern Florida. These Spanish-speaking residents caused bilingual educational
programs to be introduced into U.S. public schools. Bilingual programs
(English/Spanish) also began to emerge and set precedence throughout the Southwestern
part of the U.S. (California, New Mexico, and Texas) (Duignan, 2001; Education World,
1998; Spring, 1996).
Congressional Acts and judicial rulings of the 1960s and 1970s served to increase
interest and support of bilingual programs. Throughout this time, the immigration
population began to increase with the largest number of emigrants arriving from Mexico,
and countries in Central and South America. Minorities in the 1960s demanded equal
rights as part of the Civil Rights Movement. Minorities and others fought forced
segregation, and discrimination in housing and employment. Many Hispanic community
members were outraged by the inequality of the educational system. The educational
system had far fewer Hispanic educators, and Hispanics began to demand more
representation in education (and in the government), so that their issues would be
addressed (Castellanos, 1983; Duignan, 2001; Education World, 1998; Spring, 1996).
During this time of civil unrest, Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas was in fear of
losing the election of 1970, and desperately needed the Hispanic vote to win; it would be
a critical factor in his victory. In order to win the Hispanic vote, Yarborough was
appointed to a special subcommittee for bilingual education, which was part of the larger
Senate Committee of Labor and Public Welfare. This committee launched a series of
hearings in many Hispanic communities. Yarborough spearheaded support for programs
that advocated the need for bilingual education, for Spanish speakers. Legislation was
also introduced to fund educational programs that encouraged knowledge and pride for
the Hispanic culture and language. The federal programs sought to train more Hispanic
teachers. Because of the efforts of Senator Yarborough and others, the 1968 Bilingual
Education Act passed, giving birth to the Bilingual Educational Movement. With the
passing of the 1968 Title VII-Bilingual Education Act, which was a provision of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Congress authorized funding for
bilingual programs in school districts. School districts were encouraged by Title VII to
develop bilingual educational programs. By 1968, fourteen States had enacted statutes on
behalf of bilingual programs in public schools, and thirteen other States passed legislation
that mandated these laws be initiated (Castellanos, 1983; Duignan, 2001; Education
World, 1998; National Clearinghouse, 1986; Spring, 1996).
In the early 1970s, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
(USDHEW) began implementing guidelines for school districts to set up bilingual
programs nationwide. Congress addressed the issue of bilingual education by enacting
“The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974” (EEOA). The EEOA of 1974 stated
in part that, “No state shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual because
of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin” (Castellanos, 1983; English for the
Children, 1998; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998). The USDHEW
interpreted the law to mean bilingual programs were required for all children who were
from homes where English was not their primary language. Critics noted that even a
child who spoke perfect English might be required to take bilingual classes if their
parents preferred to speak Spanish or Chinese at home (Duignan, 2001, English for the
Children, 1998; Legge, 1998; Unz, 2002).
At the same time, there were complicated court decisions concerning how to
educate LEP students. The most prominent was Supreme Court case Lau v. Nichols
(1974) which required school districts to provide special language aid to students from
homes in which English was not spoken. The ruling found that school programs for LEP
students conducted exclusively in English were denying students equal access to a
meaningful education. The Court mandated that school districts with LEP students had a
legal and moral responsibility to help LEP students overcome their language barriers in a
meaningful way; however, the Court never mandated bilingual education an absolute
requirement. Some have compared the significance of the ruling in Lau v. Nichols to that
of Brown v. Board of Education, which ended forced segregation in public schools. Lau
v. Nichols gave some recourse from discrimination to students who spoke languages other
than English (Castellanos, 1983; Duigan, 2001; English for the Children, 1998;
ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998; Spring, 1996).
The Supreme Court, in Guadalupe v. Temple (1978), further interpreted the
decisions pertaining to language assistance and explicitly stated that “bilingual
education” was not required under the U.S. Constitution or the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The Court declared that providing extra support in English was adequately meeting
school districts' obligations as satisfying the requirements of Lau v. Nichols (English for
the Children, 1998; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998).
Then, in the 1980s, the Bilingual Movement came under fire once more with the
passing of Castaneda v Pickard (1981). Based on this court case, Congress ruled that
States and school districts servicing LEP students were to meet and address the following
four substantial mandates. They must state how they will address the language barriers of
their LEP population and provide information on how a school is pursuing a sound
educational program grounded in theory recognized by some experts. States and school
districts must explain how programs and practices actually used by schools are being
effectively implemented, and based upon the educational theory adopted by the school.
Finally, they must address how the programs produce results indicating that the language
barriers confronting students are actually being overcome (English for the Children,
1998; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998).
In 1985, the Secretary of Education, William Bennett, publicly expressed his
concerns regarding the failures of bilingual education. He stated that LEP students in
bilingual educational programs were educated exclusively in their native languages to the
detriment of English, thus providing fuel to the "English-only movement.” The
movement for making English the official language in the United States was presented by
Senator Hayakawa (Republican of California) in 1981; however, it was never ratified into
law. In 1986, President Reagan’s administration increased political activities with the
National Association of Bilingual Education, thus quieting down the “English-only
movement.” However, by the late 1980s, fourteen States passed English as the official
language legislation (Crawford, 1997; English for the Children, 1998; ELLKBase, 2002,
2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998; Spring, 1996).
In 1998, nearly 30 years after the passing of the Bilingual Education Act along
with an explosion of mass immigration, the Bilingual Movement was negatively affected
when California voters passed the Unz Initiative with a majority (60%) of the vote. This
initiative ended Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) programs and mandated that LEP
students be taught in English in California. This again set precedence in the English-only
movement and shocked supporters of the Bilingual Movement nationwide. California
housed more that half of the national LEP population, and Proposition 227 forced school
districts and educators there to adopt English-only programs for their LEP students
(English for Children, 1998).
Today, proponents of bilingual education are seeking court actions to stop the
English-only legislation. In 1998, bilingual proponents filed a lawsuit in California to
stop the English-only laws, such as the Unz Initiative. In the Courts’ decision, Judge
Legge (1998) referenced Castaneda v. Pickard (1981) and reiterated that states and
districts are not mandated to implement bilingual programs. Judge Legge (1998) cited
the fact that Congress, under the EEOA 1974, intended to leave state and local
educational authorities a substantial amount of freedom in choosing the programs they
desire while meeting their obligations. Judge Legge (1998) outlined specifics and stated,
“This Act orders states and educational agencies to take appropriate action to overcome
language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional
programs” (p. 7). This Act does not mention nor mandate any language assistance
program requirements.
The constitutions of some states also clarify these previous court rulings. The
Wisconsin Constitution (Article X.3) affirms that all Wisconsin students have the
fundamental right to an equal opportunity for a sound basic education, which is defined
as “one that will equip students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed
economically and personally" (Vincent v. Voight, The Legal Responsibilities, 2001, p. 9).
The EEOA allows school districts officials freedom to adopt any approach to educating
LEP students, provided they take “appropriate action” to ensure their students have equal
access to the curriculum. The program implemented must be based on “sound
educational theory," staffed with adequate personnel, and evaluated for effectiveness in
overcoming the students' language barriers. Failure to comply with the Wisconsin
Constitution is a violation of the LEP students’ civil rights (The Focus, 2002).
The Bilingual Movement has faced major setbacks by the recent successes of the
English-only movement. However, bilingual programs continue to be in practice in states
where no English-only laws have been passed. Faithful supporters contend that
instruction in more than one language benefits the students, the teachers, and the
community (Hakuta, 2002).

Program Effectiveness
Some researchers (Hakuta, 2001; Thomas & Collier, 2001) have found that when
implemented correctly, bilingual instruction can be successful and can produce greater
academic achievement. Still others (Hakuta, 2001; Thomas & Collier, 2001) argue that
after nearly 30 years of bilingual education in the U.S., Hispanic students have remained
in the lowest scoring group of any ethnic group on standardized assessments. Hispanics
also have the highest average national dropout rate (40%) (Netkin, 1997). Schools with
large numbers of poor, immigrant, or migrant children have higher turnover rates of
transient LEP students. This target population is often transient, and its attrition rate is
high. The high attrition rate is because LEP students are not housed in their bilingual
programs for their entire academic careers (Friedlander, 1991). In addition to switching
programs, students who jump from school to school find it hard to keep up. Research
(Viadero, 2000) has also shown that instruction slows for all students in schools with high
rates of turnover.
In a San Francisco study, in which over fifty effective bilingual classrooms were
evaluated and observed, researchers arrived at some universal effective characteristics of
bilingual programs. These universal characteristics included the following: 1) teachers
gave students clear expectations and identified their expectations for completing a task;
2) teachers used a sense of efficacy; and 3) the teachers used two languages, and 60% of
the instruction time was in English, while the remaining time was in the native language
of the LEP students. Teachers have a strong sense of efficacy when they believe that they
can affect the learning of their students. Building efficacy can help teachers create
an environment in which change and improvement can flourish (ELLKBase, 2002, 2001;
Howard, 1998; NCREL, 2002).
Often, LEP parents are not given a choice in the placement of their child. Simply
put, some rural and smaller districts cannot afford to create and implement bilingual
programs and hire bilingual teachers who are qualified to teach various languages. With
the vast number of languages represented in the U.S., the type of bilingual programs
available will all too often depend on how many students speak the language and the
feasibility of hiring support personnel. Some schools districts and/or schools have 20 or
more different languages. It is clearly not feasible for School Districts to be required to
offer over 120 different bilingual programs, nor is it logical for a smaller district to hire a
bilingual teacher for just a few students (Crawford, 1997; Legge, 1998). Like bilingual
educational programs, the success of alternative English programs also depends on
resources, availability of qualified ESL teachers, and feasibility. School districts are
opting for ESL programs because it is very costly to hire the support personnel required
for instruction in so many different languages. Teachers trained in ESL are able to
provide specialized English instruction for the LEP students whose native tongue is any
language.
It is likely that most LEP parents want their children to participate and learn
English as quickly as possible. Many people believe that by educating LEP students in
English, one is providing an education that fosters and promotes an equitable chance at
economic opportunity in the future (Education World, 1998). LEP parents, particularly
Hispanic parents, are eager to have their children fully participate in society by learning
English. For the parents who do want their children to learn English as quickly as
possible, there are alternatives to placing their children in a bilingual educational program
(Ayala & Mendoza, 1999; English for the Children, 1998; Netkin, 1997). A study
conducted by the American Institutes for Research in Palo Alto, California (1977-1978)
revealed that bilingual students' scores in reading and math were not significantly higher
than students in English-only programs. Participation in these programs did not dictate a
change in academic attitude or increased participation in school related activities (Castro,
1980). In 1998, the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) conceded,
“perhaps 10 percent or fewer of the state’s (California) bilingual programs are well
implemented” (p. 2). CABE also cited that a shortage of bilingual teachers is a main
factor in programs failing (Rodriguez, 1998). Bilingual proponents are quick to offer
justifications for these failures, placing blame on various factors other than the program
itself.
“The federal government pushes 3 out of 4 dollars to transitional bilingual
programs … The reason you have schools continuing to use failing bilingual educational
programs is that they receive federal funds for doing so" (Zehr, 2001, December, p. 2).
According to Unz, the failure of bilingual educational programs is due not to the theory,
but to the practice. The theory behind bilingual education is sound, but lack of
administration, parental, and community support hinders the program's success
(Rodriguez, 1998; Unz, 2001).
Lack of resources also contributes to the failure of bilingual programs. There are
considerable socioeconomic elements plaguing many LEP students, which may impede
their language development and cause them to drop out of school.
Minority children have less access to good preschool and day-care

programs. The New York City-based College Board notes that in 1996
only 63 percent of African American parents with young children enrolled
them in preschool. The figure was only 36 percent for Hispanic parents.
(Viadero, 2000, p. 30)
Consider the following: LEP families represent about 60% of all high school dropouts
having incomes of less than $15,000 annually; many LEP students drop out to support
their families (Sosa, 1990). Three quarters of immigrants are from lower socioeconomic
strata, and live in poor, urban neighborhoods (Crawford, 1997; Hakuta, 2001). “Poverty
is a big contributing factor to Latinos' academic deficiency” (Netkin, 1997, p. 2). Often
LEP students lack parental language support: 28% of LEP students live in homes where
no one over fourteen speaks English well (Crawford, 1997). Many LEP students are
living in neighborhoods where their native language is the spoken language. Numerous
students speak English only at schools and have no access to books in English (Hakuta,
2001; Netkin, 19971).
In Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol (1991) discussed the atrocities of many
schools in urban areas and linked these conditions to school spending per pupil ratio and
the quality of education available. Kozol found links between students' educational
achievement and their socioeconomic class. Kozol discovered that schools in minority-
majority areas were at the bottom of the education and socioeconomic scale because the
communities were full of families at or below the poverty level. Out of the 550
sophomore students enrolled at Woodrow Wilson High School, in Camden, New Jersey
200 were expected to graduate from the twelfth grade. Kozol continued his illustration
by describing the dismal facility conditions of the auditorium; the ceiling had an
enormous hole. While on the other hand, wealthy Caucasian students attend nearby
Bronx High School of Science where the educational conditions are excellent and most of
the students attend college prep courses.
Along with buildings that should have been condemned years ago, Kozol
discovered many tools (such as textbooks and lab equipment), amenities (such as heating,
and air conditioning) and all sorts of supplies (such as toilet paper) lacking in poor urban
area schools. Another aspect affecting poor urban schools Kozol depicts is the lack well-
educated and enthusiastic teachers. The officials of these schools cannot afford to hire
the highly motivated teachers, and many settle for mediocre or second-rate teachers.
Kozol further commented that "to a real degree, what is considered 'adequate' or
'necessary' or 'sufficient' for the poor … is determined by the rich or relatively rich … in
accord with their opinion of what children of the poor are fit to become, and what their
social role should be"(p. 216). Many of the student's teachers that were spoken of in this
book were part-time subs or permanent subs who did not want to teach and to add to that
had no idea of what to do or how to teach subjects.

While many professionals in the field agree that objections to bilingual education
are warranted, research findings on the effectiveness of programs continues to remain in
debate; this debate will continue as long as the achievement gap of LEP students persist.
Results of longitudinal language studies are beginning to surface demonstrating what
works with language assistance programs. Regardless of the data surfacing, people from
each side of the issue can manipulate data gathered from test scores and surveys to
benefit their cause Most of the experts have reached the consensus that they should put
aside their theoretical differences and focus on what works with language assistance
programs. Bilingual proponents and English-only advocates have agreed that having a
multitude of language programs is the best avenue in order to educate all LEP students
There is arguably a core group of components that language assistance programs require
in order to be successful; these core components will be explored next (August, 1994;
ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998; Nevin, 1993; Short, 1999; Thomas &
Collier, 2001).
Effective Program Components
Linguistic experts have produced a list of specific effective components that any
language assistance program must have in order to meet the needs of LEP students. The
ideal solution may be a mixture of highly effective program components including the
following (August, 1994; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998; Nevin, 1993;
Short, 1999; Thomas & Collier, 2001):

1) Strong leadership;
2) High standards;
3) Entrance and Exit Procedures;
4) Authentic assessments;
4) Qualified and Credentialed Staff;
5) Staff development; and
6) Parental component and community support.
Strong Leadership
Researchers and educators have long agreed that school administration officials
are key members of the leadership team, enabling and mandating the development of
language policies and program practices, which nourish the success of LEP students
(Effective Instructional Strategies, 2002).
Long-term leadership with high expectations is also important. ‘At the low
end, districts give up and blame the environment,’ Mr. Meier said. ‘You
never see that in good districts. Their attitude is, 'We can teach anybody to
learn.’ (Johnston & Viadero, 2002, pp. 18-19)
Public school administrators, including principals, vice principals, student counselors,
and school psychologists, must recognize the need for effective language assistance
programs for their LEP students. They also must take responsibility for the success of
their language assistance programs. Administrators must take a leadership role in
investigating the various language assistance programs that are available. They must be
aware of the unique attributes of their community, including demographics, such as
countries of origin and languages spoken. Administrators need to conduct research or be
in a partnership with universities who are conducting research in field of linguistics and
second language education. They must address other needs that are specific to their
community, such as the need for transportation, food, and clothing. Finally, they must
choose language assistance programs that complement and fulfill the needs of their LEP
student population (Effective Instructional Strategies, 2002; ELLKBase, 2002; Johnston
& Viadero, 2002).
High Standards
To be an effective language assistance program, it must be well organized and
structured. LEP students are entitled equal access to a high quality education and equity
in resource distribution. Setting high expectations and standards for all students may help
to ensure educational equity.
Study after study has shown that compared to whites, a disproportionately

small number of African American and Hispanic students take challenging
academic courses. The reasons vary. Some schools rigidly track kids into
such courses, using test scores or grades to winnow students and ensure
that only the best [students] get in. Other schools open tough courses to
anyone, but minority students choose not to enroll. In some urban schools
with predominantly minority enrollments, there are only a handful of
Advanced Placement offerings—if any. (Viadero, 2000, p. 30)
With the passing of the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001," states and their
public schools must commit to high standards for all students, including LEP students.
LEP students need to be held to the same high expectations as mainstream students.
Therefore, the academic content needs to be structured around high standards. Content
standards should incorporate multicultural and real-life experiences of the students.
Creating a program with high standards helps not only LEP students, but all students to
acquire the necessary skills needed to be successful in school. State and district
supplemental assessment standards and teaching standards for ESL and bilingual teachers
must be developed. These standards must acknowledge the importance of the language
abilities and the inherent language limitations of LEP students. Furthermore, they must
provide accommodations as needed according to the language proficiency level of each
student (ELLKBase, 2002; Wisconsin DPI, 2002).
When teachers expect less of students, they get less—and that can skew
standards from school to school. Data from the U.S. Department of
Education suggest, for example, that and A student in a big-city school is
achieving at about the same level as B and C students in suburban
districts. (Johnston & Viadero, 2002, p. 18)
In 1994, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act created mandates
for states and school districts to create and implement high standards and expectations.
According to the law, schools must help all students meet the new challenging standards.
They must implement effective instructional strategies and provide an enriched and
accelerated program of study. The "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001" has upped the
ante for states and public school districts by providing a structure they can employ. It
further mandates that schools assess the progress of all students, including LEP students.
When LEP students are held to the same high standards as mainstream students, they may
rise to the challenge (AFT, 2001; August, 1995; Anstrom, 1997; Hakuta, 2001; Nevin,
1993; Short, 1999).
Entrance and Exit Procedures
As the name suggests, entrance procedures are those that are used to place LEP
students in specialized programs, including Newcomers programs, ESL, bilingual,
Sheltered English Immersion. Exit procedures are those used to transition LEP students
from the aforementioned language assistance programs, to mainstream classrooms. Exit
procedures include assessing the readiness of each child to make the move out of the
program (ELLKBase, 2002).
Language assistance programs must have entrance and exit procedures in place
that must be followed by district personnel. Clearly stated expectations and criteria need
to address how a child is identified as an LEP student. Further, these criteria must assure
the appropriate placement in language assistance programs. Usually, if the student were
identified as a non-English speaker based on the home language survey, they would next
be required to take an administered language assessment. These assessments identify
their level of English and/or native proficiency level. To accurately identify and quantify
the LEP student’s individual needs, assessments should be conducted in English as well
as the home language of the child. The tests most often used for identification are the
Language Assessment Scale (LAS) or the Idea Proficiency Test (IPT). These tests assess
oral, reading, and writing abilities. Program information should also be available to the
LEP student’s family, in their native language, if possible. Interpreters should also be
made available to communicate with the LEP student and family (ELLKBase, 2002;
Wisconsin DPI, 2002).
Programs fail when they do not have effective exit procedures in place and,
consequently, students are removed from the LEP program prematurely. Experts agree
and research has shown that oral proficiency in English can be obtained in less than 2
years. However, academic English, which is more complex and is required for course
content beyond a certain level, cannot be attained by most LEP students in less than 4 to
5 years, unless there are other exceptional conditions present. Prescribing strict time
limits is thus setting students up for failure, and contributing to the achievement gap. If
LEP students receive only a foundation in English, they will fall behind their
monolingual (English–only) peers in reading, writing, and in other academic content
areas at some point. This creates a "floundering effect" and ultimately puts LEP students
at risk of being placed in remedial academic programs, or even worse, dropping out of
school (AFT, 2001; Anstrom, 1997; August, 1995; Crawford, 1997; Duignan, 2000;
Legge, 1998; Nevin, 1993; Short, 1999; Thomas & Collier, 2001).
Authentic Assessments
There are there alternative ways in which educators can measure their LEP
students’ knowledge, without subjecting their students to failure. Many LEP students
cannot complete or understand these standardized tests without help. “In spite of the high
status of tests in our society, the perception of tests as objective, scientific, and useful are
not consistent with language minority students” (McLaughlin, 1992, p. 1). The use of
standardized assessments is not an effective way to measure what LEP students have
learned due to their limited language ability and comprehension limitations. Research in
ESL suggests the most effective way to assess language minority students is through
authentic or alternative assessment (Crawford, 1997; Duignan, 2000; McLaughlin, 1995).
Authentic assessment (A.A.) is another name used for alternative assessment.
“Authentic assessment refers to any type of evaluation that requires a student to use their
talents to express their understanding in a way that allows the evaluator to determine how
deep that understanding is” (Garvin, 1996, p. 1). Authentic assessment encourages a
student to use higher-order thinking skills by conducting some type of performance; it
allows educators to adapt traditional methods and integrate assessments into their
instructional approaches. Rather than focusing on factual recall, A.A. aims to evaluate
students’ abilities in a real world setting. Authentic assessment allows ESL teachers to
focus on students’ analytical skills and their ability to share what they have learned in a
more creative fashion. All LEP students can benefit from authentic assessment (Garvin,
1996).
Teachers should use alternative assessment when considering the learning styles,
language proficiencies, cultural and educational backgrounds, and grade levels of their
students. “Alternative assessment is an ongoing process that involves the student and the
teacher making judgments about the students’ progress in language using non-
conventional ways” (Hancock, 1994, p. 2). It includes a variety of measurements that can
be altered for different educational situations. Alternative assessment is by definition
criterion-referenced which is an authentic approach based on classroom
activities that represent student progress towards instructional goals (Garvin, 1996;
Hancock, 1994; Mc Laughlin, 1995).
Because LEP students are often limited orally, authentic assessment allows them
to express what they know in a variety of ways. Students can demonstrate physically
what they know. They can be asked to perform hands-on types of activities, act out
specific vocabulary, or give non-verbal signs to specific “yes or no” questions. When
working cooperatively, LEP students can demonstrate their oral skills and develop the
language skills that are necessary for development. ESL teachers can assess their
students on how their students have developed in a similar manner. Through authentic
assessment, teachers can integrate their assessments into various classroom activities;
authentic assessment is best when it is intrinsically linked to the goals of the programs
and objectives of the teacher (Garvin, 1996; Hancock, 1994; Mc Laughlin, 1995).
Performance assessment is an authentic assessment that is designed by the
teacher. Performance assessments assess a specific skill and/or competency in relation to
an agreed upon standard. Often the performance assessment reflects a specific task and
requires the rater to judge whether the student accomplished the activity that he or she
was asked to perform. A rubric is usually used to establish a performance scale expected
by the student. In some cases, students are required to work cooperatively, and they must
apply their skills and concepts to a specific problem or task. Some teachers may require
students to perform a short investigation to assess the skills they have mastered. This is
often seen in mathematics and in writing (Epstein, 2000; Garvin 1996; Hancock, 1994;
Miles, 1991; Pearson Education Development Group, 2000; Wiggins, 1990).
Authentic assessments also come in the form of open-ended questions.
Depending on the language level of the LEP student, he/she may respond by any means
possible to the posed question. They can respond orally, by written communication, by
drawing, or by other means. Answers may be brief; a simple as "yes" or "no" may be
appropriate in some cases (Epstein, 2000; Garvin 1996; Hancock, 1994; Miles, 1991;
Pearson Education Developmental Group, 2000; Wiggins, 1990).
The most popular method of A. A. used is known as a "portfolio.” Portfolio
assessments can be implemented at any developmental stage. They are an ongoing
assessment involving the student and the teacher selecting numerous work samples or
artifacts. The primary purpose is to show the progress made by the LEP student.
“Portfolios allow teachers to see the student as an individual, each with his or her own
unique set of characteristics, needs and strengths" (Epstein, 2000, p. 1). Portfolios may
include the teacher's observations of the student in the classroom interacting with his/her
peers. The teacher follows predetermined checklists in the observation. They may also
include journal entries and writing samples of the students. The language assistance
teacher can include the student speaking and reading, recorded over a specific time to
show growth and development of their language skills. Students can place artwork,
diagrams, charts, and graphs inside the portfolio. Reports and the student's notes may
also be placed in portfolio. Portfolio artifacts should be accompanied by the teacher's and
the student's personal reflections, answering the question, "Why was this artifact chosen
to be part of the portfolio?" Performance based assessment and portfolios may be used as
documentation when considering the re-designation of a student from LEP to Fluent
English Proficiency (FEP). “Performance assessment and portfolios are typically seen as
sources of teacher and student empowerment because control over assessment shifts from
the administrators to those linked most closely to the instruction” (Epstein, 2000; Garvin
1996; Hancock, 1994; Pearson Education Development Group, 2000; Valdez & O'Malley,
1992, p. 2).
Scoring is also a necessary part of assessment. Teachers should establish criteria
for scoring according to developmental levels of English: Non-English Proficiency,
Limited English Proficiency and Fluent English Proficiency. The levels are used for the
original identification and placement of students into the program. The scoring needs to
be holistic and focusing on students’ ability and effort. “Holistic scoring procedures
evaluate performance as a whole rather than by its separate linguistic or grammatical
features” (Valdez & O' Malley, 1992, p. 5). A rubric may also be developed to determine
learning outcomes. They should be specific and kept short. Every rubric should focus on
a specific skill and only evaluate certain, identified measurable criteria. The rubric may
focus on how a student develop and express their learning. The rubric may be a numeric
scale ranging from 1- 5 (Pickett, 1999).
Implementing A. A. allows language assistance teachers a wider range of
evidence to support whether or not their students are meeting their academic goals and
objectives. Language assistance teachers who use meaningful authentic assessments will
hold high academic expectations for all of their LEP students. Using authentic
assessment, language assistance teachers are demanding academic excellence from their
LEP students. To reach the ultimate language goal of fluency and mainstreaming,
teachers must be able to use alternative means of assessments and instruction, so their
students can have a creative manner in which to display what they have learned. Using
A. A. allows teachers to meet the individual needs of their language students and value
their diversity. When States, school districts and teachers fail to accommodate the
assessment needs of their LEP students, they are hindering their students’ progress, thus
giving their LEP students with an ineffective education, resulting in failure, low self-
esteem and halting of learning. Alternative assessment provides an effective way to
improve instruction and learning, which in the end will promote lifelong learning.
Qualified and Credentialed Staff
School Districts must make a conscientious effort to hire credentialed teachers
who are highly trained in language assistance programs, whether bilingual or ESL.
School districts and universities are failing to meet this need for trained teachers. States
or districts who do not hire credentialed language assistance teachers to service bilingual
or ESL students are in direct violation of the Equal Education Opportunities Act. In the
state of Wisconsin, districts are mandated to hire certified bilingual or ESL teachers. “No
LEP student may spend all or even a large part of their day within a self contained
classroom where the instruction is provided by an unlicensed staff member” (Wisconsin
DPI, The Legal Responsibilities, 2001, p. 6). In Wisconsin, districts that do not provide
enrollment opportunities for their LEP students into a language assistance program,
administrators, and other certified staff must create a unified plan of service indicating
how the school district will educate these students. An Individual Record Plan (IRP)
must be implemented, so that instruction is tailored to the student's unique needs
(Wisconsin DPI, The Legal Responsibilities, 2001).
The U. S. continues to benefit from a near constant influx of immigrants from all
over the world; therefore, language assistance education is a growing field and a rich
field of study for educators and positions for elementary and secondary teachers.
Teachers can learn a great deal from the field of brain research, which is providing
information on how people process first and second language acquisition. Because
research is always developing, teachers benefit from ongoing learning. The rewards are
great, for teachers witness and facilitate students learning English (August, 1994;
ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Legge, 1998; Nevin, 1993; Short, 1999; Thomas &
Collier, 2001).
Staff Development
Staff development is another critical component of an effective language
assistance program. In order for educators to have high expectations for their students,
they too, must be held to the same high standards. When teachers lack specific training
in the needs of their student population, they tend to dilute the curriculum and simplify
the materials and language to the essentials (The Focus, 2002).
New research indicates that children in schools with many minority and
poor students are more likely to be taught by under qualified teachers.
Those findings are emerging just as other studies are beginning to quantify
the damage that an ineffective teacher can do. Research by William
Sanders and his colleagues at the University of Tennessee suggest that
three consecutive years of bad teachers can significantly hamper a child’s
learning over the long run. (Viadero, 2000, p. 30)
LEP students’ needs are constantly changing and evolving over time, which may
interfere with their academic progress. Staff training opportunities allows time for
coaching, reflection, exploration of new techniques and strategies utilized to solve
problems that are unique to teaching LEP students. The stress of continually adapting,
creating, and modifying the curriculum and addressing the holistic LEP students’ needs
tend to cause additional pressures that are also unique to language assistance teachers
(ELLKBase, 2002).
Teachers are taught to believe that all children can learn, but their
classroom experiences sometimes convince them otherwise. According to
some experts and parents, veterans of teaching low-achieving minorities
eventually come to expect less of these students than others and
discourage them from taking advanced classes. Research, however, is thin
on whether teacher expectations create a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy
for minority students. (Viadero, 2000, p. 30)
Nevertheless, the biggest problem teachers’ face may be a simple lack of time -- time to
gather materials, develop lesson plans, assess student performance, maintain contact with
parents, and keep up with advances in teaching and in academic subjects (Hakuta, 1998).
Staff development and training may help reduce the high turnover rates typical of
language assistance teachers. In 1998, according to the California Department of
Education, there were only 14,965 certified bilingual teachers, and only 9,188 were in
training at that time (Hakuta, 1998). California determined it would need an estimate of
20,000 bilingual teachers in order to meet the needs of its large LEP student population.
Other states including Wisconsin lack a sufficient amount of trained ESL teachers.
Throughout the U.S., LEP students are now are in general education classes with
mainstreamed content teachers who are not trained in meeting their needs (Hakuta, 1998).
Without adequate training, the needs of LEP students are inadvertently being ignored.
This is especially true in content courses, and it leads to the students' failure and
increased drop out rates. Therefore, staff development should be a priority for school
districts nationwide. Proper allocation of resources for staff development should be a
part of all school districts’ budget planning. If this need is ignored, all students suffer. If
the need is met, all students, especially those who are LEP, will be better able to meet
their full potential (AFT, 2001; Anstrom, 1997; August, 1995; Duran & Slavin 1996;
ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 1998; Ortiz, 2001; Short, 1999).
Family and Community Involvement
Family and community involvement is an added assurance of LEP students’
success. Current research indicates that students’ academic success is related to
variations in parenting.
Anecdotal evidence suggests, for example, that (white) parents may

interact with their young children in ways that had better support school
success. They might, for example, ask children more questions or to
justify their requests. Moreover, as children get older … Hispanic parents
may be less inclined to pressure them to do well in school or to push for
their placement in advanced classes. (Johnston & Viadero, 2002, p. 1)
Schools must find ways to reach the LEP parents early and establish avenues of
communication. If administrators and educators fail to communicate with their LEP
parents, they may be hindering the success of their LEP students and the future of their
language programs as well. Bilingual education has played a vital role in increasing
parental involvement. Creating ESL classes for parents at the school site is also an
effective way to communicate with LEP parents and to get them involved in the
educational process (August, 1995; ELLKBase, 2002; Johnston & Viadero, 2002; Short,
1999).
More research is needed on the extent of the impact of LEP parental involvement
and LEP students’ success. There appears to be no negative effect of reaching out to the
parents. Regular communication with parents throughout the school years may increase
the effectiveness of language assistance programs. Regular parent-teacher conferences,
with interpreters on hand if necessary, will increase the communication. Parents can also
be informed of upcoming course content, perhaps in flyers printed in their native
language, if feasible; this will enable parents to be better prepared to help their children
with their assignments (August, 1995; ELLKBase, 2002; Johnston & Viadero, 2002;
Short, 1999).
Another way to get the community involved is to enact a tutoring program
involving older LEP and/or FEP students in the area. If tutors can be found that speak the
native language of the younger children, they can help the teacher to communicate with
the younger kids. This is especially vital when the students are new arrivals to this
country. It benefits the older children because they can feel a sense of pride and
accomplishment after helping the younger students (August, 1995; ELLKBase, 2002;
Johnston & Viadero, 2002; Short, 1999).
Conclusion
States, school districts, and schools have made tremendous progress in closing the
achievement gap. During the 1970s and 1980s, Hispanics and other LEP students made
greater strides in narrowing the academic gap when compared to their monolingual
counterparts. For example, from the year 1970 to 1990, the gap between minority and
majority groups declined by nearly half (Johnston & Viadero, 2002). Nevertheless,
advancement in this area is still required because the gap continues to persist.
Various linguistic experts agree that it is time to put aside debates about the
various language assistance programs. For many students today, especially students who
are poor and have limited English proficiency, both equality and excellence in education
remain out of reach. The reality is that U.S. schools are continuing to fail to meet the
academic needs of LEP students. A solitary program is not the solution because every
state has its own set of standards and benchmarks, which vary from district to district and
sometimes, from school to school. The decision on how to “best” educate LEP students
(bilingual or ESL) should be left up to the school districts. These officials should have
knowledge of their student population and their unique needs. The U.S. does not have a
national curriculum established as of yet, therefore why should states and school districts
have a "one size fits all" national curriculum for their LEP students? The National
Research Council concluded after reviewing the language assistance programs of the past
25 years, “There is little evidence to support which program is best. The key issue is not
finding a program that works for ALL children and localities, but finding a set program
that works for the community of interest” (Crawford, 1997, pps. 27-28). A "one size fits
all" curriculum disregards the variations of the LEP student population within a
community. Setting conditions on which programs to teach and which programs to
implement disregards the individual needs of LEP students such as age, maturity,
language skills, previous home-country schooling, learning styles and other unique
attributes (Legge, 1998).
Poverty, while a big factor, does not account for all of the differences. Nor
does family structure. All other things being equal, young children
growing up in single-parent homes score just as high on preschool
vocabulary tests as children from intact families. (Johnston & Viadero,
2002, p. 1)
School districts need to listen to the needs of the community. Texas A&M
University researchers studied the best schools for educating minorities in their state, and
found that solid, consistent implementation of the programs was the most important
factor (Johnston & Viadero, 2002). Despite the issues plaguing our LEP students, every
school district, school, administrator, teacher, parent, and student must be held
accountable for LEP students’ progress. Some of the statistics are striking:
Nearly half of New York City's teaching force in the 1997-98 school year
had failed certification tests in math—compared with a little over a fifth of
teachers in the surrounding suburbs and less than a quarter of the teachers
throughout the rest of the state … From birth to high school graduation,
the average child in New York City will see about $25,975 less spent on
his or her education than the average child elsewhere in the state,
according to a recent report by the Council of the Great City Schools, a
Washington-based organization of urban districts. (Johnston & Viadero,
2002, p. 1)
There can be no more excuses! Everyone involved in the education of LEP
students must do a better job at teaching these LEP students the English skills they need
to be successful. The federal government, States, and school districts must do a better job
at funding districts' language assistance programs (bilingual/ESL) for all students of
limited English. States and school districts must continue to evaluate their language
assistance programs for effectiveness. If school districts can prove their LEP students are
meeting their district and state’s grade level goals and objectives, then they should be
allowed to maintain their programs of choice. According to Castaneda v Pickard (1981),
if a district’s LEP student population is not meeting the state or school district’s level of
English language proficiency targeted projected growth, school districts will then need to
revamp their curriculum and seek alternative programs.
Limited English students remain "at risk." Even a solitary LEP student should
have equal access to a trained, certified teacher. Schools that have just one LEP student
are under the same obligation to provide their LEP student with a comprehensive English
language program. All too often, LEP students are just "pushed aside" and their
educational needs are ignored. Regardless of the program selected, whether bilingual or
ESL, these students need attention. Educators must do their part to make sure these LEP
students’ needs are met, now, and in the future.

References
Alcala, A. (2000). Practical assessments, research, and evaluation. Eric Digest.

Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/databses/EricDigests.
Addison, A. ESL Strategies for Content Teachers. Research Paper. Retrieved July 29,
2002, from http://www.shsu.edu/~lib_jeo/anneaddisonresearch.htm.
Anstrom, K. (1997, September). Academic Achievement for Secondary Language

Minority Students: Standards, Measures, and Promising Practices. Retrieved
September 6, 2002, from National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education:
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/acadach.htm#Overview.
August, D., Carlo, M., & Calderon, M. (2000). Transfer of reading skills from Spanish to
English: A study of young learners. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from
http://www.cal.org/projects/obemla.html.
August, D. (1995, Fall). For all students: Limited English proficient students and goals.
Retrieved September 3, 2003, from
http://http:www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/focus/focus10.htm.
Ayala, H... & Mendoza, M. (1999, January). Text of Proposition 203. In English for the
children of Arizona. English language education for children in public schools.
Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development: The
self as source. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Bailey, K. M., Curtis, Andy. &. Freeman, D. (2001). Goals-based evaluation

Procedures: How students perceive what teachers intend. TESOL Journal Winter,
10(4), 5-9.
Baker, C. (2000). The care and education of young bilinguals: An introduction for
professionals. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Barnhardt, S., Chamot, A., El-Dinary, P et al. The learning strategies handbook. White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Becker, J. A. (2002). Teaching language by previewing lessons. TESOL Journal, 11(2),

38.
Boston Globe Editorial. (2002, August 6). Bilingual breaththrough. Boston Globe.
Section: A14. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
http://boston.com/dailyglobe2/218/editorials/Bilingual_breaththroughP.shtml.
Bousquet, M, Butler, Y. G., Hakuta, K., & Orr, J. E. (2002, August 15). What can we
learn about the impact of Proposition 227 from Sat-9 scores? Retrieved
Brown, J. (1998). New ways of classroom assessment. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Calderon, M., & Slavin, R. (2001). Effective programs for Latino students. Mahwah,
N.J.: TEASELED.
Calderon, M., & Duran, R., Fashola, & O. S., Slavin, R. E. CRESPAR Report No. 11-
Effective programs for Latino students in elementary and middle schools
[Program 5: Language Minority Studies]. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from
CRESPAR: http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/Reports/reports11entire.htm.
Castellanos, D. (1983). The best of two worlds: Bilingual-bicultural education. Trenton,

NJ: New Jersey State Department of Education.
Castro, F. (1980, January 5). Bilingual education at a crossroad. Los Angeles Times.
Center for Applied Linguistics. CAL. Retrieved July 26, 2002, from CAL:
http://www.cal.org/schoolservices/.
Center for Law and Education. What does it take? Title I school wide programs.
Retrieved September 6, 2002, from http://www.cleweb.org/t1.htm.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive
academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Chavez, J., & Montero, R. (2001, June). Text of Colorado’s Initiative. In English for the
Children of Colorado. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
Costello, M. (1996). Critical issue: Providing effective schooling for students at risk.
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at600.htm.
Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of Bilingual Education Act.

Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.ncborgwu.edu.
Crawford, J. (1998, Winter). Rethinking schools-Does bilingual education work? 13(2).

Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/Archieves/13-
02/biside.htm.
Cromwell, S. (1999, January 19). The bilingual education debate: Part 1. Education
World. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from http://www.education-
world.com/a_curr/curr047.shtml.
Cummins, J. (1999, February 22). Research, ethics, and public discourse: The debate on
bilingual education. Paper presented at the National Conference of the American
Association of Higher Education.
Cummins, J., & Genzuk, M. (1991, March). Analysis of final report longitudinal study of
structured English immersion strategy, early- exit and late-exit transitional
bilingual education programs for language-minority children. The California
Association for Bilingual Education Newsletter.
Duff, P. A. (2001). Learning English for academic and occupational purposes. TESOL
Quarterly, 35(4).
Duignan, Peter. Hoover essay. Bilingual education: A critique. Retrieved July 29, 2002,
from, http://www.hooverstandfordedu./publications/he/22/22d.html.
Duran, R., & Slavin, R. Program 5 highlights: Effective bilingual education. Retrieved
September 6, 2002, from http://http;//www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/prog5hi.html.
Effective instructional practices for language minority students. MAEC. Retrieved July
29, 2002, from http:www.maec.org/instprac.htlm.
Children.” In English for the Children. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
English for the Children of Arizona (2003). Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.angelfire.com/az/english4thechildren/body.html.
ELLKBase- The English Language Learner Knowledgebase. (2002) A framework for

alternative language programs [Data file]. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/practitionerstips/Framework_ALP.sht
ml.
The English Plus Alternative. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/EPIC.htm.
Epstein, A. (2000). Assessment: Portfolio assessment: Checklists. Retrieved September 6,

2002, from http://www.teachervision.com.
Educational resource Information Center (ERIC) (1998, July). Qualities of effective

programs for immigrant adolescents with limited schooling. Retrieved September
5, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/databases/Eric_Digests/ed423667.html.
Estrada, P. (2002). Patterns of instructional activity in culturally and linguistically

diverse classrooms: Excellence, inclusion, fairness, and harmony. Retrieved
September 5, 2002, from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/tier/intro5_8.shtml.
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. Sheltered English instruction. Retrieved June 29, 2002, from
ERIC Digest: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed301070.html.
Friedlander, M. (Fall, 1991). The newcomers program: Helping immigrant students

succeed in U.S. schools. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, No. 8.
Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http://ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig8.htm;
http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/refernces/NEWCOMERPROGRAMT
ableCo.
Garcia, E. E. (1988, Winter). Effective schooling for language minority students (1st Ed.)
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/classics/focus/01effective.htm.
Garvin, I. (1996). Authentic-alternative assessment. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from

http://iteachnet.org.
Genesee, F., Gottlieb, M., Katz, A., & Malone, M. (2001). Scenarios for ESL standards-
based assessment. Alexandria,VA: TESOL.
Gentry, M. L. Promoting student achievement, and exemplary classroom practices

through cluster grouping: A research-based alternative to heterogeneous
elementary classrooms [Special issue]. The National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented.. Retrieved August 3, 2002, from
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/gentry.html.
Gonzalez, J. (1979). Coming of age in bilingual education: A historical perspective. In H.

Trueba & C. Barnett-Mizrahi (Eds.), Bilingual-multicultural education and the
professional. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hakuta, K. (2001, April 13). The education of language minority students. Paper
presented at United States Commission on Civil Rights. Retrieved September 26,
2002, from http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Docs/CivilRightsCommision.htm.
Hakuta, K. (2002, August 22). Points on SAT-9 performance and Proposition 227.
Retrieved September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/.
Hakuta, K. (2002, August 29). What can we learn about the impact of Proposition 227
from SAT-9 Scores. Retrieved September 8, 2002, from
http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/.
Hakuta, K. & August, D. (1997). Improving education for all children: meeting the Needs
of Language Minority Children. Retrieved August 6, 2002, from
Hayward, E. (2002, September 5). On opening day, Schools tackle bilingual ed issue.
Boston Herald.
Howard, E. R., & Loeb, M. I. (1998, December). In their own words: Two-way
Immersion teachers talk about their professional experiences. Retrieved
September 5, 2003, from ERIC Digest:
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/intheirownwords.html.
Howard, E. R., & Sugarman, J. (2001, March). Development and maintenance of two-
way immersion programs: advice from practitioners. Retrieved September 5,
2002, from CREDE: http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/11aa/pb2.shtml.
Howard, E. R., & Sugarman, J. (2001, March). Two-way immersion programs: Features
and statistics. Retrieved September 5, 2003, from ERIC Digest:
http://www.cal.org/ericcl/digest/0101twi.html.
IPT Testing Retrieved July 29, 2002, from http://www.ballard-

tighe.com/catalog/ipt03.htm.
Issues in U.S. language policy-bilingual education (2001). Retrieved July, 29, 2002,
from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/biling.htm.
Johnston, R. C, & Viadero, D. (2002, March 15). Unmet promise: Raising

minority achievement. Education Week, 19(27), 1-19.
Kayser, H. (2000). From the heart. Retrieved July, 29, 2002, from
http://www.bilingualtherapies.com/Dr.says/.
Katz, A., Genesee, F., Gottlieb, M., & Malone, M. (2001). Scenarios for ESL
standards-based assessment. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Kerper Mora, J. (2000, October 10). Philosophical assumptions. Comparison of

philosophical assumptions of English-only l2 instruction versus bilingual
education. Retrieved July 26, 2002, from
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Prop227/AssumptionsEOvBE.htm.
Kenosha Unified School District (2002). Four-year graduation rate- Cohort analysis.
Office of Educational Accountability.
Ketterer, K. A.. Language immersion resources. Retrieved July 26, 2002, from
http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/watch/watch2/html.
Kitao, K., & Kitao, S. (2002, August 29). Language testing. Retrieved August 6, 2002,
from http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/visitors/kenji/test.htm.
Krashen, S. (1985). Insights and Inquires. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Krashen, S. (1997). Why bilingual education? Retrieved August 6, 2002, from

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/bil-new.htm.
Krashen, S. (1999). Structured immersion falls short of expectations: An analysis of

Clark. NABE.
Krashen, S. (2002, August 26). Focus on the library, not the playground [Letter to the
editor]. Arizona Republic.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. Children in American schools. New York:

Perennial.
Lachat, M. (1999). What policymakers and school administrators need to know about
assessment reform for English language learners. Brown University: LAB.
Lachat, M. A. (2000). Standards, equity, and cultural diversity [Brochure]. Brown

University: LAB.
Lam, W. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: Case study of a teenager writing
on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3).
Language acquisition. Retrieved September 1, 2001, from

http://earthrenewal.org/secondlang.htm.
Legge, C. (2000, June). Federal Court decision. In Decision by Judge Charles Legge:
Refusing to delay the effective date of Proposition 227 by U.S. District Judge
Charles A. Legge. San Francisco: Federal Court Decision. Retrieved September 6,
2002, from http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID-7776.
Lokon, E. (2002). Reconsidering basic ESL/EFL Terms. TESOL Journal, 11(2).
Lu, M. (1998). English-only movement: Its consequences on education of language

minority students. Retrieved July 30, 2002, from
http://www.ed.gov/databses/EricDigests.
McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning:

What Every Teacher needs to Unlearn. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from
http://www.bilingualprek.org/dl/myths.pdf.
McQuillian, J. (1998, 22 August,).Response: Los Angeles Times. Is 99% failure a

success? Orange Unified's English immersion program [Letter to the editor].
California State University, Fullerton.
Maguire, M. H., & Graves, B. (2001). Speaking personalities in primary school children
L2 writing. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4).
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.- MALDEF (1997, September).
Preliminary section-by-section of analysis of Unz initiative. Retrieved September
6, 2002, from One Nation: http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=5112.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund MALDEF. (1997, November).
Questions and answers on the Unz initiative. In MALDEF. Retrieved September 6,
Miles, T. (1991). Criteria for complex performance-based assessments. Retrieved

September 6, 2003, from http://vmsgophercua.edu.
Milloy, M. (2002, September). To learn a language. NEA Today, 22.
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. (1986, March). The status of state
statutes for language minority students. Forum, pps. 1-3.
NeilESL@aol.com. (2002, September 5). Email: The UNZ Initiative. Message posted to
electronic mailing list, archived at http://NeilESL@aol.com.
Netkin, H. (1998, May). An assessment of Bilingual Education. In Letter. Retrieved

September 6, 2002, from http://onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=4032.
Nevin, A., Neciichea, J., & Cline, Z. Using data-based instruction to improve the learning
outcomes of students who are difficult to teach. CSUSM College of Education.
Retrieved July 29, 2003, from http://www.csusm.edu/thousand/necochea.html.
Nunan, D. (2001). English as a global language. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4).

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Title I sec. 1111(b)(3)(C)(x).
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory- NCREL. (2002). Retrieved March 23,
2003, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le5effic.htm.
One Nation. (2001, August). STAR: Test scores and gains for elementary grades in
selected districts, 1998-2000. In English for the Children. Retrieved September 6,
Ortiz, A. (2001, December). English language learners with special needs: Effective
instructional strategies. ERIC Digest. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from ERIC
Digest: http://www.cal.org/ericcll/gisgest/0108ortiz.html.
Pearson Education Development Group. Authentic assessment overview. Retrieved

September 6, 2003, from http://www.teachervison.com.
Pickett, N. (1999). Guidelines for rubric development. Retrieved September 6, 2003,

from http://edweb.sdsu.edu.
Porter, R., & Rossell, C., & Tamayo, L. (2002, June). An initiative petition for a law: An
act relative to the teaching of English in public schools. In English for the
Children of Massachusetts. English for the Children of Massachusetts. Retrieved
September 6, 2002, from http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=4257.
Rennie, J. (1993, September). ESL and Bilingual program models. Retrieved September
5, 2003, from Eric Digest: http://http;//www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/rennie01.html.
Reyhner, J., & Stiles, D. (1997). Teaching indigenous languages. In Four Successful
Indigenous Language Programs (Ch. 21). Retrieved August 6, 2002, from
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/TIL_21.html.
Ruelas, R. (2002, August 26). Adios to Spanish got lost in the translation. Arizona
Republic The School News, L. (2002, August). Implementing "No Child Left
Behind" With Adequate Yearly Progress Provisions, 7(1), 1-2.
Snow, C., & Unz, R. (2001, October 14). Bilingual education: A necessary help or a
failed hindrance? Paper presented at Harvard Educational Forum. Retrieved
September 6, 2003, from http://www.onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=4250.
Snow, M. A. (2000). Implementing the ESL standards for Pre-K-12 students through
teacher education. Alexandria,VA: TESOL.
Sociology Project 338. Retrieved from:

http://www.princeton.edu/~sociolog/syllabi/centeno_teachers.html.
Sosa, A. (1990). Making education work for Mexican-Americans: Promising

Community. Retrieved September 12, 2002, from
http://npin.org/library/pre1998/n00316/n00316.html.
Spring, J. (1996). American education (7th Ed.) New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
Tannenbaum, J. (1996) Practical ideas on alternative assessment for ESL students. Eric
Digest. Retrieved September 12, 2002, from
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/.
Tench, M. (2002, September 5). School panel eyes bilingual education. Boston Globe
Section: B5.
Teachers of English to Students of Other Languages- TESOL. (2001, July 18). Summary
of Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (Elementary and Secondary
Education Act). TESOL. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.tesol.org/advocacy/articles/00-5-esea.html.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness for
language minority students' long-term academic achievement. Retrieved
September 5, 2002, from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research.
Total number of English language learners in California grades 2-11 [Data file].
Available from http://star.cde.ca.gov/.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights: Programs for English language
learners. Part IV: Glossary of Terms [Data file]. Online: U.S. Department of
Education Office of Civil Rights. Available from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/ELL/glossary.html.
Unz, R. (2002). Lau v. "Lau". UnzColumn. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from

Vaishnav, A. (2002, September 4). Seeking the right course on bilingual education despite
criticism, Lawrence schools try a different approach. Boston Globe.
Valdez, L. & O’Malley, M. (1992). Performance and portfolio assessment for language
minority students. Retrieved September 12, 2002, from
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs.
Vargas, M. (2001). Learning English in structured English immersion programs.

Retrieved July 26, 2002, from
http://www.bilingualeducation.org/2000_2_33_01.htm.
Vasquez., J. A. (1996, December). Instructional strategies for teachers of limited-

English-proficient students: A Bibliography. Retrieved July 28, 2002, from
http://www.ncbe.we.edu/miscpubs/lists/strats.htm.
Viadero, D. (2000, May). Bridging the gap. Teacher Magazine, 11(8).
Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Retrieved July 28, 2002, from
Wilson-Allam, D. (2001, December). The professional development committee: Waking

up to the needs of English language learners. TESOL Matters, 12(1).
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002). Best practices considerations

when serving limited-English Proficient (LEP) students in K-12 public schools.
Retrieved July 28, 2000, from
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002). Legal responsibilities when

serving limited-English -proficient (LEP) students in K-12 public schools.
Retrieved December 21, 2002, from
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002) Alternative assessment. Retrieved

July 28, 2002, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002) Graduation rates. Retrieved on

January 19, 2003, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/een/sip1d.html.
Zehr, M. A. (2001, February) Bush plans alter bilingual education. Education Week.
Retrieved September 5, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org .
Zehr, M. A. (2001, April) Immigration spawns bills similar to Proposition 227. Education
Week. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org.
Zehr, M. A. (2001, June) ESL students pose a special challenge for rural schools.
Education Week. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org.
Zehr, M. (2001, September). English-language learners post improved Calif. test scores.
Education Week. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=011ep.h21.
Zehr, M. (2001, December). California's English-fluency numbers help fuel debate.

Education Week. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
http://edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=14biling.h21.
QUESTION 4
Standardized tests are the conventional criteria for measuring student learning. Evaluate the
concept that standardized tests are the most effective and accurate measurements for LEP
learners versus alternative assessments.
The trend toward basing large scale assessments on performance standards challenges practices
… have dominated public schools for more than a half century (Mary Ann Lachat, 1999).
Standardized assessments (or standardized tests) were designed by test publishers to give
a common measure of students’ performances; these tests measure a broad range of students’
abilities or skills, which are considered important when determining students’ success in school.
They can measure verbal ability, mechanical ability, creativity, clerical ability, and/or abstract
reasoning. Ideally, the results are utilized to help teachers plan instruction, develop programs,
and tailor instruction that suit students' achievement levels in each subject area, including
reading, math, language skills, spelling, and science (Lachat, 1999). This comprehensive paper
discusses the implementation of standardized assessments, such as high-stakes testing, during the
accountability movement in education in three sections in order to determine if they are the most
effective and accurate measurements for LEP learners. First, standardized testing, along with its
advantages and limitations will be examined. Second, there is a detailed look at language level
abilities of LEP students. Finally, this paper will address authentic (or alternative) assessments
as an effective way to measure limited English proficient (LEP) students’ academic achievement.
Limited English Proficient (LEP) is the legal term used to identify students, who were not
born in the United States, or whose native language is not English, and those students who
cannot participate effectively in regular classrooms because they lack fluency in spoken and
written English (Department of Education-OCR, 1999). LEP is the term recognized by the
Office of Civil Rights (OCR), and the term used throughout this comprehensive paper to refer to
such students (Department of Education-OCR, 1999). Non English Proficient (NEP) is the legal
term used to identify students who are recent arrivals (immigrant-status) and have been in the
United States less than one year. NEP is the term recognized by the Office of Civil Rights
(OCR), and the term used throughout this comprehensive paper to refer to such students
(Department of Education-OCR, 1999). Bilingual is a generalized term that refers to all
programs other than English as a Second Language (ESL). In this paper, the term bilingual
includes all Language Assistance Programs (LAP) offered within the Kenosha Unified School
District, and unless otherwise stated, it includes the following programs: Dual Immersion,
Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE), English as a Second Language (ESL), and Sheltered
English Immersion (SEI).
Standardized Assessments
Throughout educational history, standardized assessments have been popular instruments
to measure accountability and reform. They lead to changes in curriculum and changes in
teaching that have traditionally been difficult to legislate. Over the past 15 years, legislators
have created educational reform, creating the standards-based reform movement. Legislators
developed Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the 1994 Reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (Improving America’s Schools Act, 1994), and now the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001. These Acts mandated states to adopt challenging academic content
standards, develop assessments, and align the assessments with their standards (ELLKBase
2002; Testing Resource, OCR, 2000).
By the year 2000, every state, except Iowa, implemented at least one form of
standardized assessment. The majority of Iowa school districts voluntarily administered the
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, which is a standardized assessment. President George W. Bush made
educational accountability part of his agenda, as he aimed to close the achievement gap, with the
"No Child Left Behind Act" of 2001. Congress also passed a Revised Version of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
Under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, states are
now required to develop content standards, performance standards, and
assessment systems that measure the progress that schools and districts are
making in educating students to the standards established by the state. If
educators and policy-makers consider using the same test for school or
district accountability purposes and for individual student high-stakes
purposes, they need to ensure that the test score inferences are valid and
reliable for each particular use for which the test is being considered.
(Testing Resource, OCR, 2000, pp. 13-14)
Today, in order for teachers to raise the academic achievement of their students,
numerous states have created rigorous academic standards for their students at all grade levels.
To measure whether or not students were meeting these standards, states have created and
implemented a system of accountability that is measured through standardized assessments.
States and school districts are now using standardized assessments to make high-stakes decisions
regarding their student body that not only will affect their students’ ability to move on to the next
grade level, they will also be used to determine whether or not their students will be able to
graduate from high school. These types of tests are called high-stakes testing because of the
decisions they influence can lead to serious consequences for the students and for the schools.
Some examples of high-stakes decisions include the following: student placement in gifted and
talented programs; student placement in programs for students with limited English proficiency;
determinations of disability and eligibility to receive special education services; student
promotion from one grade level to another; graduation from high school and diploma awards;
and scholarship awards. Based on students’ test scores, students may be retained, enrolled in
summer school or remedial classes, or be denied access to a preferred high school or college. In
some cases, teachers’ and principals’ salaries also rise and fall based on their students’ scores. It
is important to note that high-stakes testing do not include teacher created exams or quizzes that
are used for individual classroom purposes (Hass, 2002; Hernandez, 2002; Lachat, 1999).
Advantages and Limitations of Standardized Assessments
Standardized assessments serve many practical uses in schools (Bagin & Rudner, 1996).
The best utilization of standardized assessments include the following: evaluating programs,
reporting students' progress, diagnosing students' strengths and weaknesses, selecting students
for special programs, placing students into special groups, and measuring students’ achievement.
Because a large number of students throughout the U.S. take the same test within a given
timeframe, results can be analyzed to help educators determine how students in a given class,
school, or school system perform in relation to other students who take the same test (Bagin &
Rudner,1996). In the article Standardized Testing in Schools, Robert Linn (2000) cited four
reasons for the popularity of standardized tests: 1) standardized tests are relatively inexpensive;
2) they can be administered relatively quickly; 3) their results are visible; and 4) first year results
tend to increase, indicating schools are improving.
Standardized tests have provided one way for states and school districts to judge whether
students are meeting their rigorous standards and whether their schools are performing; yet, they
have limitations. A standardized assessment does not adequately gauge an individual student's
knowledge. “The complexity of a child’s knowledge cannot simply be captured by a single test”
(Patten, 2000, p. 1). In terms of LEP students, standardized assessments’ results neither
demonstrate nor take into account all of the human and contextual factors which affect a
student’s English language proficiency and the student’s ability to handle a standardized test
(Fontana, 2002). Traditional standardized assessments hinder educational opportunities for
several reasons:
1. They are culturally biased;
2. they inadequately measure what LEP students actually know; and
3. they are often used for placement purposes (Lachat, 1999).
Standardized assessments are limited in what they can measure. Standardized
assessments are quantitative measurements, which can determine when students have achieved
or failed a task. They can provide national ranking, percentiles, and allow researchers to conduct
comparison analysis; however, they cannot provide the “total” picture of why a particular student
has either succeeded or failed (Burnaford et al., 2001; Gall et al., 1996; Meloy, 2002; The
Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis, 2003; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate,
2003). In order to measure student academic achievement more effectively, states, school
districts, and teachers can use authentic assessments, which measure the progress of the “whole
academic student.”
Standardized Testing and LEP Students
In the age of educational accountability, states and school districts face an increased
number of responsibilities. Three major areas of concern in education are students who are
culturally and linguistically diverse, students who are at risk of failure to meet new and
challenging standards, and students who have special needs. The increased responsibilities have
placed added pressure on educators as they continue to teach to a more diversified student body.
At the same time, they must help all of their students reach academic achievement according to
their rigorous state and school district standards. For many limited English proficient (LEP)
students, there has been no system of accountability in place that ensures whether or not they
have achieved the same high standards that have been set for English-speaking students. There
has been inconsistency amongst states when recording LEP students’ progress in their language
development and/or attainment of content area skills and knowledge (cite a source). Without an
accountability system in place, the achievement gap between LEP students and English-speaking
students will continue to exist (Hernandez, 2002).
An analysis of reports from state education agencies were compiled by the National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education for the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of
Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) (1997). The study indicated
that LEP students were exempt from such assessments if they have been in the United States or
enrolled in ESL/bilingual education programs for three years or less. Limited English proficient
students were also permitted exemption based on their English language proficiency level.
Today, this ruling is still in effect and reinforced with the passing of the “No Child Left Behind
Act 2001” (Holmes, Hedlund, & Nickerson, 2000; Lachat, 1999; No Child Left Behind Act of
2001; Wisconsin DPI, 2002).
Then Congress enacted the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Title III of the Act
concerns assessment. LEP students are to be assessed annually to ensure that they are making
"adequate yearly progress" (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; Wisconsin DPI, 2002). The
NCLB act requires that States create and implement annual assessments aligned to their current
academic content standards, by the 2005–2006 school year. In addition, all students, including
students identified as LEP, who have had at least one year of English instruction, will be required
to take the assessments in English. States and school districts must analyze the results to
measure achievement gains, set a beginning “achievement bar” then “raise the bar” in equal
increments at least once every three years. This new legislation requires that within 12 years, all
students must reach 100% English proficiency in their basic skills (Hass, 2002). Because of this
new emphasis on accountability for all students’ learning, and particularly LEP students, all
involved parties- states, school districts, administrators, teachers, and students themselves-are
greatly affected by the new requirements (Hernandez, 2002; Lachat, 1999; Menken, 2000;
Riddle, 1999).
Some schools have reverted to teaching just the basics. This instructional change causes
a narrowing of the curriculum, affecting what and how LEP students acquire knowledge that is
assessed (Hernandez, 2002). By narrowing their LEP students’ curriculum, teachers limit their
students’ equal educational opportunities. States and school districts must comply with the Title
VI obligation to provide equal educational opportunities to their LEP students. Under Title VI,
school districts must identify LEP students, and provide them with an academic program or a
service that enables them to acquire English-language proficiency. Teachers are obligated to help
LEP students gain the knowledge and skills that are expected of all students. This includes
providing meaningful opportunities for LEP students to acquire the academic knowledge and
skills covered by tests required for graduation or other educational benefits (Hernandez, 2002).
Many APA (Asian American and Pacific Islander) students, particularly

(English Language Learners) ELLs, are likely to be harmed by new
policies requiring standardized testing for promotion and graduation. New
York State recently began a policy requiring all students to pass new more
difficult Regents exams in English. Most ELL students have not had
proper access to the English Language Arts curriculum. Furthermore, in
the last four years, the percentage of APA students dropping out of high
school has risen by a higher proportion than any other group. Most
advocates suspect that the new graduation policy is the main factor in this
rise. (Chin, 2000, p. 5)
The standards-based education reform movement has had serious implications for LEP
students, leading many educators and members of the community to be concerned. Across the
country, as new laws are enacted and enforced, numerous states and school districts are
subjecting LEP students to these high-stakes tests and are holding them accountable to the same
standards and benchmarks as English speaking students (ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001;
Lachat, 1999; Urquhart, 2002). As schools become increasingly diverse, administrators and
teachers are becoming concerned about how they will effectively implement and achieve this
goal. Teachers are face with considerable challenges on how to implement these standards while
still providing an appropriate education for their students (Crawford, 1997; Duignan, 2000;
ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Lachat, 1999; Urquhart, 2002).
In the last decade, enrollment of LEP students in the nation's public schools has increased
105%. According to the 1990 Census, our educational system had an LEP population from the
age of 5 to 14 of about 6.3 million. Today, over 8.6 million immigrant children are in U.S.
schools and nearly 40% require some sort of language assistance, totaling 3.2 million LEP
students nationwide (Hakuta, 2001). There are 1.3 million students in state and local bilingual
programs, and over 75% of LEP students attend schools in high poverty areas (ELLKBase, 2002;
Hakuta, 2001; Lachat, 1999; Urquhart, 2002). There are over 640,000 LEP students not being
serviced through any type of language assistance programs. As more and more LEP students
enter our school systems, educators need alternative ways to assess each of student’s language
development appropriately (Crawford, 1997; Duignan, 2000; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001;
Lachat, 1999; Urquhart, 2002).
The President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic
Americans (2000) supported standards-based school improvement, yet the involved officials
remain cautious (Chin, J. 2000). They are questioning the ramifications of the high-stakes
assessments being imposed on U.S. LEP students, particularly Hispanic students. The
commission stated that the LEP students alone will bear the consequences of academic failure or
success that is associated with their tests scores, while these results may be misleading and/or
inaccurate. They believe this is a significant risk, which undermines the educational future of all
LEP students (Robertson, 2000).

The U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has received numerous
complaints and inquiries from K-12 administration, teachers, and parents regarding
discrimination toward LEP students in regards to high-stakes learning. The OCR has
responsibility for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. These statutes prohibit educational institutions that
receive federal funds from discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and
disability (Robertson, 2000).
Parents have demanded that their LEP children have equal access to testing in their native
language. LEP parents from San Francisco, California to Miami-Dade County, Florida have
protested against their children being tested in English, a language their children do not clearly
understand. They claim that traditional testing is a waste of time and money that serves to only
to embarrass their children (Pinzur, 2003; Robertson, 2000).
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has also voiced their concerns with regard to
the standards-based education reform movement (Robertson, 2000). Officials at the AFT are
worried that states and school districts are only focusing on students achievement based on
assessments, when there are ignored issues that can result in student failure. These other issues
include the lack of curriculum development, lack of supplies (such as textbooks), and the lack of
teacher training needed to support standards-based school improvement. States and school
districts are setting their LEP students up for failure when their teachers have not been provided
with strategies on how to prepare LEP students for the required exams (Robertson, 2000).
These high-stakes tests will have a tremendous impact on LEP students and their
learning. LEP students acquire their English through a lengthy, highly idiosyncratic, and difficult
process (Fontana, 2002). Second Language Acquisition is a developmental process in which a
language learner proceeds. Some people become bilingual by learning two languages
developmentally at the same time. This happens when one has had an extended amount of
opportunities to speak both languages (Abella, Shneyderman, & Urrutia, 2003; Crawford, 1997;
Duignan, 2000; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Krashen, 2002; Lachat, 1999).
For many LEP students, standardized tests are conducted in English and often do not
allow LEP students to demonstrate their academic achievement. According to a recent Miami-
Dade County schools’ study:
Standardized tests, which are given in English, do not accurately, measure

the knowledge of students who have spoken another language for most of
their lives. Those exams -- especially the Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test -- can determine a student's advancement and graduation,
leading the study's author to contend that recent immigrants may be at a
serious disadvantage. (Pinzur, 2003, p. 1)
Some LEP students do not have a strong command of the English language, and are not able to
discern the appropriate response on a test. This lack of English proficiency forces LEP students
to guess the answers to some test questions. The resulting test score is thus an invalid
measurement of these students’ true knowledge (Cesar, 2002; Crawford, 1997; Duigan, 2000;
Hernandez, 2002; Pinzur, 2003). Students who are administered any standardized assessment
often need to have a firm command of the English language (reading, writing and/or oral skills).
LEP students, more often than not, are administered standardized assessments when they do not
have sufficient literacy or fluency skills in English,and this may introduce construct-irrelevant
components to the testing process. By requiring LEP students to test in English before they have
attained reasonable levels of proficiency only serves to confirm what their language teachers
(Bilingual and/or ESL) already know: LEP students are often not yet ready to test in English
(Cesar, 2002; Crawford, 1997; Duigan, 2000; Hernandez, 2002; Pinzur, 2003).
Although some students are legally and rightfully excluded from taking standardized
assessments, such as special education students who have an active Individual Educational Plan
(IEP), LEP students are mandated to take these high-stakes assessments in English. The rules
when assessing LEP students with standardized test vary from state to state as well as from
district to district. Local standards become particularly complex as states and districts move
toward the broader inclusion of LEP students in their standardized assessments and systems of
accountability. States and school districts offer LEP students the same tests as those taken by
native English speakers, but with special testing accommodations that are intended to “level the
playing field.” Each state varies in the accommodations it permits (Iowa Testing, 1999; IPT,
2000; Lachat, 1999). Therefore, standardized assessments are neither the most effective nor
accurate measurements for limited English proficient students (LEP) when compared to
alternative assessments which can be utilized as an effective measurement of limited English
proficient students’ achievement.

LEP Students and Language Ability Levels
Since the enactment of the NCLB act, standardized assessments will play an integral part
in determining states’ LEP students’ academic proficiency (ELLKBase, 2002; No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001; Wisconsin DPI, 2002). To level the playing field of those LEP students who
are administered and mandated to take and pass these tests, it is imperative that states consider
the language development of their LEP students. When decisions are made affecting students'
educational opportunities and benefits, it is important that they be made accurately and fairly.
These assessments should measure LEP students' abilities, knowledge, skills, or needs, and do
so in ways that do not violate federal law of discrimination on the basis of students' race, national
origin, sex, or disability. Any assessment of LEP student’s content-area knowledge administered
in English may be greatly influenced by the student’s English language proficiency. If LEP
students were not proficient in English, any testing done in English would primarily be just an
English language proficiency exam and not necessarily a measure of content knowledge (Cesar,
2002; Crawford, 1997; Duigan, 2000; Hernandez, 2002; Menken, 2000; Pinzur, 2003; Robertson,
2000). It is uncertain at what point a child should be tested in a second language to yield more
meaningful results (Menken, 2000).
A student learning two languages typically progresses through one of the following paths:
1. Simultaneous Bilingualism: When a student speaks Spanish or their primary
language with their parents and English with their siblings and friends.
2. Receptive Bilingualism: Occurs when students receive a high exposure to a
second language throughout their lives, but have little opportunities to use the
language.
3. Rapid Sequential Bilingualism: Is when students learn a second language after
their first language has already been established.
4. Slow Sequential Bilingualism: Is when students with little to no exposure to
English have few opportunities to practice their English skills (Crawford, 1997;
Duignan, 2000; ELLKBase, 2002; Hakuta, 2001; Krashen, 2002; Lachat, 1999).
Some states are actively trying to level the playing field of their LEP students when it
comes to standardized assessments and measuring their LEP students’ academic proficiency.
Limited English proficient students in Wisconsin must take an annual language proficiency exam
such as the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) or Idea Proficiency Tests (IPT). Based on the
results, LEP students are classified and are placed into one of six recognized language levels; this
classification helps school districts and teachers to determine the level of English language
instruction best suited for the states’ LEP students. The following describes the language
abilities of LEP students according to the English language proficiency levels. These were
adapted from the definitions given in PI 13.03(3) (a)-(e), Wisconsin Administration Code; they
also align with the IPT-I Oral English, Forms: C & D, English Proficiency Tests. The state of
Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction (DPI) uses language level scale of 7. The levels
are:
In a pre-productive stage, or DPI Level 1, the student will often use their home language
to communicate. When everyone around these students is speaking a different language than the
students, such as English, the students may stop speaking entirely because they are frustrated, or
they may speak their native language. At some point, students quit speaking in their native
language because no one will respond to them in their first language. Students will go through a
period of not talking, which may be brief or it can last up to a year. Even though they are not
speaking in English at this time, they are absorbing the language; they will attempt to
communicate through non-verbal gestures or mimes. These students should not be subjected to
standardized assessments due to their limited English ability. If testing is required, these students
should have accommodations and/or perhaps should use alternative (authentic) assessments to
determine their academic progress (IPT, 2000; Wisconsin DPI, 2000).
The second language developmental stage (DPI Level 2) is the early-productive stage, in
which the students are basically nonverbal. Their speech is still not fluent but telegraphic. They
use words like, “Go bathroom!” “Drink water!” This is the period in which students begin to
crack the code of their second language. Students in this stage use simple sentences in English,
such as isolated words and expressions. During this stage, LEP students are at an emergent level
of reading and writing in English. During this stage, LEP students should not be administered
standardized assessments without accommodations. The use of alternative assessments to
determine their academic progress is appropriate (IPT, 2000; Wisconsin DPI, 2000).
The third stage of language acquisition is called the speech-emergence stage, or DPI
Level 3. In this period of language development, students are "ready for the lime light."
Students are considered to have “playground” language (or speech). Non-ESL teachers will
often question why students are placed in the program when they are speaking English. People
will hear students speaking English on the playground and think they are fluent English speakers,
yet they are not. This is the first form of English, LEP students learn, and it is classified as
survival English. These students know enough language to get by with their peers, yet they may
not have the full capabilities to understand academic language, which is formally tested.
Students are post-emergent, developing reading comprehension, and writing skills in English.
Their English literacy skills allow them to demonstrate academic knowledge in content areas
with assistance. It is in this stage of language development that the standardized assessment
becomes controversial. Some States have declared students ready for standardized assessments
with or without accommodations at Level 3. To increase students’ success, students at this stage
should be allowed accommodations (IPT, 2000; Wisconsin DPI, 2000).
Students then merge into an advanced intermediate level, which is DPI Level 4. During
this stage of language development, students’ speech is beyond telegraphic utterances and
memorized word chunks. They begin to form sentence structure and grammatical patterns. With
time, students will begin to demonstrate understanding of syntactic language. Minor
grammatical errors, at this point, are evident; however, students are more competent in their new
language. At this language development stage, students’ comprehension is building, and they
begin to develop the academic language needed to pass standardized assessments implemented in
many states. Students in this level should take standardized assessments with accommodations
(IPT, 2000; Wisconsin DPI, 2000).
Not until the Advanced level of language development, or DPI Level 5, do the students
understand and speak conversational and academic English well. Students are near proficient in
reading, writing, and the content area skills needed to meet grade level expectations. Students
require occasional support. During standardized assessments, students at Level 5 should be
allowed accommodations because they are still not considered fully fluent (IPT, 2000; Wisconsin
DPI, 2000).
DPI Level 6 is the reclassification from being LEP to Fully English Proficient (FEP).
During this stage, FEP students understand, speak, read, and write in English. They possess
critical thinking skills, which enable them to succeed in academic classes at or above grade level.
FEP students do not need accommodations during standardized assessments (IPT, 2000;
Wisconsin DPI, 2000).
Level 7 according to Wisconsin DPI’s language levels are those students who were never
classified as limited-English proficient and do not fit the definition of a limited English proficient
student outlined in the "No Child Left Behind Act" of 2001 Title IX sec. 9101(25)(A)-
(D)(Wisconsin DPI, 2000). This includes native English speakers.
States are implementing changes or alterations in the language assessment process in
order to comply with current law of the “No Child Left Behind Act 2001.” In the state of
Wisconsin, during the 2001-2002 school year, LEP students at Level 4 or 5 were mandated to
take the state assessments and district assessments, but were allowed to have accommodations.
In the 2002-2003 school year, to comply with the NCLB law, the DPI changed the rules of
assessment: the DPI lowered assessment levels to students at Level 3-5. During these stages, the
DPI continues to grant accommodations for those LEP students Levels 3-5; however, a Level 6
or 7 student would not be granted any accommodations. Students who are at Levels 1 and 2 are
required to take alternative performance assessments.

Fortunately some states, school districts, and teachers have recognized that standardized
assessments are not the most effective ways to measure their LEP students’ success and are
relying on alternative (authentic) forms of assessments as way to effectively measure their LEP
students’ success such as authentic assessments. When States, school districts, and teachers fail
to accommodate the assessment needs of their LEP students, they hinder their LEP students’
progress, thus giving them an ineffective education. This may result in failure, low self-esteem,
and/or halting of learning, which is in direct violation of their civil right to an equal education.
Educational policymakers, states, school districts, and the Federal government should continue to
collaborate to ensure that educational practices do not unfairly deny educational opportunities to
LEP students (Iowa Testing Programs, 1999; Wisconsin DPI, 2000).
Alternative/Authentic Assessments
Standardized assessments are neither the most effective nor accurate measurements for
limited English proficient students (LEP) when compared to alternative assessments (also termed
authentic assessments), which can be utilized as an effective measurement of limited English
proficient students’ achievement (Hancock, 1994; Garvin, 1996; Wiggins, 1990). With shifts in
pedagogical theories of learning, and as more research on effective best practices for teaching
LEP students is surfacing, language teachers are now beginning to incorporate authentic lessons
into their classrooms that are student centered, hands-on, cooperative, and involve
communicative approaches to learning (Hancock, 1994; Garvin, 1996; Wiggins, 1990). Through
authentic assessments (or alternative), teachers are able to integrate their assessments with
various classroom activities, and the assessments may be linked to the programs' goals and
objectives. Language teachers use alternative assessments that are aligned with their LEP
students’ language proficiencies, learning styles, cultural and educational backgrounds, and grade
levels (Hancock, 1994; Garvin, 1996; Wiggins, 1990).
“Alternative assessment is an ongoing process that involves the student and the teacher in
making judgments about the students’ progress in language using non-conventional ways”
(Hancock, 1994, p. 2). Alternative (authentic) assessments are by definition criterion-referenced
which is an authentic approach based on classroom activities that represents students’ progress
towards meeting instructional goals. Alternative assessments (A.A.s) require students to
demonstrate skills and knowledge by engaging in a complex performance, creating a significant
product, or accomplishing a complex task using higher order thinking, problem solving, and
often creativity. These assessments require real-world applications of skills and knowledge that
have meaning beyond the assessment activity (Garvin, 1996; Hancock, 1994; Mc Laughlin,
1995; Peterson, 2002).
“Authentic assessment refers to any type of evaluation that requires a student to use their
talents to express their understanding in a way that allows the evaluator to determine how deep
that understanding is” (Garvin, 1996, p.1). Authentic/alternative assessments present more of a
qualitative form of assessment than traditional standardized tools, which typically use
quantitative methods of assessment (Kerka, 1995). They are learning experiences, which engage
students and can be aligned with the states’ and districts’ standards. Authentic/alternative
assessments include a variety of measurements that may be altered for different educational
situations (Archibald & Newman, 1988). These assessments allow educators to adapt traditional
methods and integrate assessments hand in hand with their instructional approaches Alternative
assessments allow language teachers (Bilingual/ESL) to focus on students’ analytical skills and
their ability to share what they have learned in a more creative fashion. LEP students can
demonstrate physically what they know. Students may be asked to perform hands-on type
activities, act out specific vocabulary, or give non-verbal signs to specific “yes or no” questions.
When working cooperatively, in pairs or in groups, LEP students can demonstrate their oral
and/or language skills (Archibald & Newman, 1988).
In Authentic Assessment for English Language Learners , Valdez-Pierce and O'Malley
(1992) presented a number of practical approaches to implementing authentic assessment for
LEP students. The authors described how teachers could integrate assessments and instruction so
that the two are virtually indistinguishable. Results from these assessments may be combined
with results from standardized tests or language proficiency tests to profile LEP students'
competency in their language of study, content and academic communication skills. This allows
the teacher to form a more realistic picture of the “whole” student’s academic development. In
addition, this type of assessment provides teachers with frequent feedback on their instruction,
allowing them to adjust their curriculum to meet the varied needs of their LEP students in a
timely manner.
Performance and Portfolio Assessments
Some popular forms of alternative assessments are performance assessments, portfolio
assessments, and open-ended assessments. “Performance assessment and portfolios are typically
seen as sources of teacher and student empowerment because control over assessment shifts from
the administrators to those linked most closely to the instruction" (Valdez-Pierce & O’Malley,
1992, p. 2). Performance assessments may be designed by the teacher to assess a specific skill
and/or competency in relation to an agreed upon standard. Often, the performance assessments
will reflect a specific task and will require a rater to judge whether the student accomplished the
tasks he/she was asked to perform.
When assessments are tied to standards, students must demonstrate what they know and
perform the task, requiring high order thinking and complex problem solving skills. They offer a
better way to measure the achievement of high standards as well as to accommodate LEP
learners' unique needs. Performance-based assessments have the following characteristics.
These programs: 1) compare student achievement to an agreed upon level of proficiency; 2)
solicit higher order thinking process; 3) emphasize contextual importance through assessment
tasks using real-life problems involving multiple steps; and 4) invite students to problem solve
within groups or alone (Lachat, 1999, p. 24).
Portfolio assessments are used in various classrooms throughout the United States.
Language teachers can easily integrate and implement the use of portfolios during any phase of
their LEP students’ language development. They are an ongoing assessment involving the LEP
student and the teacher selecting numerous work samples or artifacts and displaying them in a
portfolio. The primary purpose of portfolios is to show LEP student’s progress. “Portfolios
allow teachers to see the student as an individual, each with his or her own unique set of
characteristics, needs and strengths" (Epstein, 2000, p. 1). This type of authentic assessment
includes teacher documentations, observations, and/or checklists. They may also include journal
entries and writing samples of students. The language teacher can include a recording of the
student speaking and reading over a specific time to show growth and development of their
language. LEP students can place artwork, diagrams, charts, and graphs of their own inside.
Portfolio artifacts should be accompanied by a reflection from the LEP student, if possible, or
from the teacher. The student and/or the teacher should explain why the particular artifact was
chosen to be part of the student’s portfolio. Performance based assessments and portfolios may
be used as documentation when considering the re-designation of a student from LEP to FEP
status (Epstein, 2000; Garvin 1996; Hancock, 1994; Lachat, 1999; Pearson Education
Development Group, 2000; Valdez-Pierce & O’Malley, 1992).
Rubrics
Scoring students’ work is a necessary part of the authentic assessment process. Teachers
should establish criteria for scoring according to the developmental levels of English: Non-
English Proficiency (NEP or Level 1), Limited English Proficiency (Level 2-5), and Fluent
English Proficiency (Level 6-7). “Holistic scoring procedures evaluate performance as a whole
rather than by it separate linguistic or grammatical features” (Valdez-Pierce & O’Malley, 1992,
p. 5). The scoring criteria needs to be holistic and focused on LEP students’ abilities and their
level of effort.
To score students’ work, teachers need to develop a rubric in order to determine their LEP
students’ learning outcomes. A rubric is used to establish a performance scale expected by the
student. In some cases, students are required to work cooperatively, and they must apply their
skills and concepts to a specific problem or task. Rubrics are often seen in mathematics or in
writing. Every rubric should focus on a specific skill and solely evaluate specific measurable
criteria. Rubrics may focus on how LEP students develop and express their learning. The rubric
should be specific and kept short; it may be a numeric scale ranging from 1 through 5. Some
teachers may require their students to perform a short scenario to assess the skills they have
mastered (Epstein, 2000; Garvin 1996; Hancock, 1994; Lachat, 1999; Miles, 1991; Pearson
Education Development Group, 2000; Pickett, 1999; Valdez-Pierce & O’Malley, 1992; Wiggins,
1990).
Conclusion
Regardless of how one feels about standardized assessements, they are here to stay.
Assessements are used today in ways that may profoundly shape the lives of LEP students. To
be effective, assessments should also be used in effective ways which accurately reflect
educational standards and that do not deny opportunities or benefits to LEP students based on
their race, nationality (including limited English proficiency), sex, and/or disability. All
standardized tests should be used as instruments by educators to help their students achieve their
full potential regardless of their language ability. School districts and schools should utilize the
educational test scores in ways that benefit students. Most importantly, before assessments are
implemented and evaluated, they should be designed to help school districts, schools, and
teachers irradicate inequalities in the kinds of educational opportunities their students are
receiving; thus, educators may utlize this knowledge to support educational efforts that ensure
that all students have equal opportunity to achieve high standards.
If standardized tests indicate performance gaps, school districts and schools should focus
on the quality of educational opportunities afforded to under-performing students and restructure
their programs to meet their needs as well. While evaluating the effectiveness of these
assessments in terms of the context of standards-based reforms and the use of tests as measures
of student accountability, educators should consider the following inquiry: have all students been
provided quality instruction, sufficient resources, and the kind of learning environment that
fosters academic success?
Standardized tests, when used in combination with other assessment techniques such as
observing students, evaluating daily work, meeting with parents, and tracking students'
development, can help provide teachers with a better picture of a student’s abilities, level of
knowledge, and learning needs. Some school districts are adjusting their policies to
accommodate both individual learning needs and the state's standards (Robertson, 2000). Using
a “one-size-fits-all” approach to assessment (standardized) is a quick fix to a very complex
problem. It is evident that testing LEP students in English is necessary in order to determine
their progress and growth in English language skills; however, assessments should be directly
correlated to LEP students’ needs and instruction (Fontana, 2002). Knowledge of language
acquisition and developmental levels assigned to individual students should guide educators on
when it is best to implement standardized testing.
Students who are not yet at a predetermined language level should be taught by teachers
who are given the freedom to use authentic assessments. By implementing alternative
assessments into language assistance programs, teachers will have a wide range of evidence to
support whether or not their LEP students are meeting their language academic goals and
objectives. Because LEP students have unique individual language needs, language teachers
(Bilingual/ESL) must be able to use any alternative means to effectively assess their students,
which enables their students to enjoy a variety of methodologies for displaying what they have
learned in the classroom. With A. A., teachers are demanding academic excellence from their
LEP students by challenging their students to reach the ultimate goal of language fluency,
academic excellence, and mainstreaming. Using authentic assessment will allow teachers to
meet the individual needs of their LEP students and value their diversity.
Alternative assessments can provide an effective way to improve instruction and learning,
which in the end will promote lifelong learning. By nature, A.A.s require integrated knowledge
and skills, rely on scorer interpretation, and are less standardized than other traditional
assessments (Lachat, 1999). Therefore, states and school districts should adopt a variety of
assessment practices that are inclusive of all students regardless of their language needs and
abilities. There is little evidence indictaing that one single assessment can accurately measure
what students know. Before states, school districts, and schools adopt a variety of assessements
for their LEP students, they should keep in mind the whole picture: costs, benefits,
consequences, and the feasibility (Lachat, 1999). Because of the inherent benefits, A. A.s can be
utilized throughout a student's educational career.

Appendix A
Types of Alternative Assessments
Portfolios
Student-authored books
Models
Posters
Displays
Murals
Newsletters
Brochures or pamphlets
Graphic organizers
Drawings
Oral reports
Interviews
Story Telling
Story or text retelling
Book talks
Literature circles
Journal writings
Essays (process writing pieces)
Research papers
Role-plays
Experiments
Debates
Drama (dialogues, skits, plays)
Use of technology
(Epstein, 2000; Garvin 1996; Hancock, 1994; Pearson Education Development Group, 2000).
References
Abella, R., Shneyderman, A. & Urrutia, J. (2003, February). An examination of the validity of
English language achievement test scores in a LEP student population. Miami-Dade
County Public Schools.
American Educational Research Association (1999). American psychological association &

national council on measurement in education, standards of educational and
Psychological Testing (Introduction).
Anstrom, K. (1995). New directions for Chapter 1/Title I. Directions in language and education.
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, Washington, DC. Retrieved June 29,
2003, from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/directions/07.htm.
Archibald, D. A., & Newmann, F. M. (1988). Beyond standardized testing: Assessing authentic
academic achievement in the secondary school. Reston, VA: National Association of
School Principals.
Assessing language development in bilingual preschool children. Retrieved January 3, 2003,

from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs.
August, D. (1995, Fall). For all students: Limited English proficient students and Goals 2000.
Retrieved January 3, 2003, from NCBE Focus: Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education:
http:www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/focus/focus10.htm.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Educating language-minority children. Committee on

Developing a Research Agenda on the Education of Limited-English-Proficient and
Bilingual Students, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, National Research Council.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bagin, C. B. & Rudner, L.M. (1996). What should parents know about standardized testing in
schools? Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://npin.org/library/1998/n00030/n00030.html.
Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (2001). Teachers doing research. A power of action
through inquiry. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cantu, Norma V. & Riley, Richard W. (2000, Dec.).The use of tests as part of high-stakes
decision-making for students: A Resource Guide for Educators and Policy-Makers. U.S.
Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.
Cesar, L. (2002, Spring). Stanford Educator. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/educator/fall2002/pages/forum-fall02.html.
Chin, J. (2000). The President’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
and the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders . (2000).
Retrieved November 12, 2002 from
http://www.asiaxpress.com/Articles/john_chin/townhallmeeting/townhall_meeting.htm.
Clark, L & White, N. (2003, May 24). Some who fail FCAT still may get a diploma. Gov. Bush
wants state to consider students' scores on college exams. The Miami Herald. Retrieved
May 25, 2003, from
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/education/5934464.htm.
Crawford, J. (1997). Best Evidence: Research Foundations of the Bilingual Education Act.
Retrieved January 12, 2003, from http://www.ncbegwu.edu.
Duignan, P. (2000). Bilingual education: A critique. Retrieved January 12, 2003 from
http://hoover.standord.edu.
ELLKBase-The English Language Learner Knowledgebase (2002). A framework for alternative

language programs. Region VII Comprehensive Center. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
Epstein, A. (2000). Assessment: Portfolio Assessment: Introduction. Retrieved June 29, 2003,
from http://www.teachervision.com.
Fontana, R. M. (2002). Stanford Educator. Retrieved June 28, 2003, from

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R. & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research. An introduction. (6th ed.).
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Garvin, I. (1996). Authentic-alternative assessment. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from

Hancock, C. R. (1994). Alternative assessment and second language study: What and why?
Retrieved June 29, 2003, from Eric Digest Available:
Hakuta, K. (2001, April 13). The education of language minority students. Paper presented at
United States Commission on Civil Rights. Retrieved September, 2002, from
Hass, B. (2002, Fall). How equitable is U.S. education for English language learners? Stanford
Educator. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/educator/fall2002/pages/article-us-education-fall02.html.
Hernandez, A. (2002, Spring). Stanford Educator. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
Heubert, J. P. & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and
graduation. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Idea Proficiency Tests- IPT Testing (2000). Retrieved June 29, 2003, from http://www.ballard-
tighe.com/catalog/ipt03.htm.
Iowa Testing Programs (1999). Using the tests. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://www.uiowa.edu/~itp/use-specialneeds.htm.
Kayser, H. (2000). From the heart. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://www.bilingualtherapies.com/Dr.says/.
Kerka, S. (1995). Practice application brief techniques for authentic assessment. Retrieved June
29, 2003, from http://ericacve.org/docs/auth-pab.htm.
Krashen, S. (2002). Term limits. Class dismissed. Retrieved October 21, 2002, from
http://www.americas.org/News/Features/200112-
Blingual_Education/2001110_letters.htm.
Lachat, M. A. (1999). What policy makers and school administrators need to know about
assessment reform for English language learners. The Education Alliance. Retrieved
September 25, 2002, from http://www.lab.brown.edu.
Laturnau, J. (2002). Standards-based instruction for English language learners. Retrieved June
29, 2002, from http://www.prel.org/products/pc_/standards-based.htm.
Meloy, Judith M. (2002). Writing the qualitative dissertation. Understanding by doing.

London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Menken, K. (2000). What are the critical issues in wide-scale assessment of English language
learners? Framing effective practice: Topics and issues in education English language
learners. NCBE. Retrieved June 29, 2002, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/tasynthesis/framing/3criticalissues.htm.
Miles, T. (1991). Criteria for complex performance-based assessments. Retrieved June 29, 2002,
from http://vmsgophercua.edu.
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. (1997). High stakes assessment: A research
agenda for English language learners. Symposium summary. Retrieved June 29, 2002,
from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/highstakes/symposium.htm.
New York City Board of Education. (2000, Jan.). Class of 1996 four-year longitudinal report and
1998-1999 event dropout rates.
National Research Council (1982). High stakes. Placing children in special education: A strategy
for equity.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Title IX sec. 9101(25)(A)-(D)
Patten, P. (2000). Standardized testing in schools. Parent News [Online], 6(1). Retrieved
September 29, 2002, from http://npin.org/pnews/2000/pnew100/feat100.html.
Pearson Education Development Group (2000). Authentic assessment overview. Retrieved June
30, 2002, from http://www.teachervison.com.
Peterson, K. Authentic assessment and school wide projects. Retrieved from

http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ccvi/pubs/publication/archive/newsletter/Winter1997_Weaving
AuthenticAssessment/AuthAssessment_SchoolwideProj.htm.
Pickett, N. (1999). Guidelines for rubric development. Retrieved June 30, 2002, from
http://edweb.sdsu.edu.
Pinzur, M. (2003, January). Even after English lesson, foreign kids lag on tests. Retrieved July
26, 2002, from http://oer.dadeschools.net/nabe03paper.pdf.
Pinzur, M. (2003, May 7). At low-scoring schools, poverty often is fact of life. The Miami
Herald. Retrieved May 21, 2003, from
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5801560.htm.
The qualitative versus quantitative analysis (2003). Retrieved April 5, 2003, from
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/monkey/ihe/linguistics/corpus3/3qual.htm.
The qualitative versus quantitative debate ( 2003). Retrieved March 20, 2003, from
http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/gentrans/pop2f.cfm.
Robertson, A. (2000, November/December). High-stakes" testing: New guidelines help direct

school change. Parent News. Retrieved March 20, 2003, from
http://npin.org/pnews/2000/pnew1100/int1100b.html.
Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. (1991, April). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction.
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL. ERIC Document No. ED337468. Retrieved March 20, 2003.
Tannenbaum, J. (1996). Practical ideas on alternative assessment for ESL students. Retrieved
March 20, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/.
Urquhart, (first initial)(2002, November/December). Three faces of diversity. Principal.

Retrieved March 20, 2003, from http://www.naesp.org/comm/p1102c.htm.
Valdez, L. & O’Malley, M. (1992). Performance and portfolio assessment for language minority
students. Retrieved March 20, 2003, from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs.
Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Retrieved February 19, 2003, from Eric
Digest: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/.
Winerip, M. (2003, May 21). Pupil held back, a heavier burden. New York Times.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2000). Alternative assessment. Retrieved February

19, 2003, from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/.
QUESTION 5
Analyze how brain-based research has impacted teaching and learning strategies of limited
English proficient students. What professional development strategies can be implemented to
train teachers to improve the linguistic and academic development of limited English proficient
students (SDAIE and CALLA)?
Even though some U.S. school districts have over 90 languages represented within their
schools, language teachers continue to successfully guide and facilitate their LEP students’
learning while at the same time meeting the rigorous demands of their states and school districts
(Duignan, 2000, p. 2). Mainstreamed educators often question how these language teachers are
successfully educating their LEP students within a multilingual environment. By accumulating,
investigating, evaluating, and applying the contributions of brain-based research, language
teachers are able to effectively teach, present materials, and contribute to the cognitive
development of their LEP students (ELLKBase, 2002; Freeman, 1998; Krashen 1981, 1985).
Brain-based research is confirming what experienced language teachers already know
about how people learn and acquire language. “What the research adds, at this point, is a partial
understanding of why certain procedures or strategies work” (Wolfe, 2001, p. V). The research
on the brain provides promising links to what language teachers may do to engage their students
in learning. Through the findings of brain-based research, language teachers are now more
effectively enabled to design classroom instruction that coincides with how their students learn
(English for the Children, 1998; ELLKBase, 2002; Freeman, 1998; Krashen 1981, 1985; Nevin,
1993; Short, 1998; Thomas & Collier, 2001; Wolfe, 2001). This comprehensive paper explores
brain research, including new knowledge about how the brain processes language. Second, how
classroom instruction relates to language acquisition is examined. Finally, two educational
models that emerged from the study of cognition, SDAIE and CALLA, are closely examined.
The methodologies are each examined for use with LEP students, in order to help these students
succeed academically.
Brain Research
Scholars have been studying the anatomy of the brain for over three thousand years
(Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001). For over a century, neuroscientists have tried to understand how
the human brain learns, stores, and processes information. This task has been rather difficult
because there are no animals that have symbol systems as rich as human's spoken language. For
a long time, information about how the brain processed language came only from the studying
effects of disease of the brain, known as neurological disease. Scientists dissected and studied
the brains of people who had suffered and died from a neurological; the study of cadavers is
known as post-mortem research (Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).
The adult brain weighs about three pounds; it is made up of predominately water (78%);
the remaining weight is fat (10%); protein (8%), and other materials (4%) (Jensen, 1998). The
brain is about 2% of an adult’s body weight but uses about 20% of the energy of the body. It
contains about 100 billion nerve cells (or neurons) and about 1 trillion supporting cells, known as
glia. These neurons are the only cells in the body that process information. The nerve cells of
the brain make about one thousand trillion synaptic contact points with each other. These
neurons pass information at a speed of up to 200 miles an hour. A single neuron can receive
thousands of signals from other neuronal sources although they do not make physical contact
with one another. The neurons send and receive chemical messages over the synaptic space.
They are constantly firing electrical and chemical energy, gaining strength through usage. With a
few exceptions, new neurons do not grow, however new connections between neurons are
always forming. It is within these connections in the brain that contributes to learning and
memory (Christison, 1999; Cogito: Brain and Mind; Genesee, 2000; Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).
Most neuroscientists believe that at birth the human brain has all the
neurons it will ever have … Some connections that control automatic
functions are in place by birth such as breathing. However, mental
circuitry results from experiences that greet the newborn and continue to
throughout their life. (Classroom Compass, 2000, p. 1)
In the past decade, exciting new brain imaging techniques have allowed researchers to
view the brains of live people. Using positron emission tomography (PET), special analyses of
electroencephalograms (EEG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
magnetoencephalography, and other tools, researchers can now view the brain in real time.
Linguists and neuroscientists use these imaging techniques to view the brains of people while
they process language. The researcher instructs the human subjects to do a language task while
their brains are being imaged by these technological advances borrowed from the field of
medicine (Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).
Neuroscientists long ago mapped the brain, and sophisticated imaging has increased
knowledge of how each section of brain operates. The brain is composed of four areas, called
lobes, and each has specific functions. Neuroscientists agree that the frontal lobe, located behind
the forehead, is involved in the most sophisticated, integrated brain functions (Jensen, 1998;
Wolfe 2001). The primary responsibilities of the frontal lobe include the following: thinking,
judgment, creativity, conceptualizing, problem solving, and planning skills. The parietal lobe is
in the top back of the brain; sensory and language functions are found there. The occipital lobe
is located in the middle back of the brain and is responsible for vision. The temporal lobes are
located on the left and right sides of the brain; these areas are responsible for hearing, memory,
meaning, and language. Experts believe that there is some functional overlap in the lobes.
Usually, several different areas of the brain are simultaneously engaged in an activity. For
example, thirty areas of the outer surface of the brain are involved in vision alone (D’Arcangelo,
1998; Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).
The brain has two nearly identical halves: the left and the right hemispheres.
Neuroscientists have discovered that there are small differences in the sizes of some regions in
the two hemispheres. The hemispheres connect via nerve fibers in a structure called the corpus
callosum. The hemisphercity theory attributes particular preferences and learning styles to one
side of the brain. This information comes from adults and children suffering brain injuries due to
catastrophic events. Language is typically a left hemisphere activity whereas art and music are
typically located in the right hemisphere. The left hemisphere appears to be responsible for both
sign language and spoken language. The left-brain is involved with processing words, numerals,
lists, and providing logic, analyses and order; the right brain is involved with rhythm, color,
daydreaming, imagination, space, and the ability to move through dimensions (Davies, 1996).
By studying the different times and areas of brain growth, language teachers can have a better
understanding of how language is developed, tailor the academic content, and develop their
students’ skills to enhance the curriculum, and provide an enriched, brain-friendly classroom
environment.
The Brain and Language Acquisition
“Learning is a process that establishes new connections among networks and the new
skills or knowledge that are learned" (Genesee, 2000, p. 3). The brain plays a vital role in
learning a language. How the brain works has a significant impact on what kinds of learning
activities are most effective. Neuroscientists long believed the regions of the brain developed
according to genetic codes that were predetermined at birth. Some neuroscientists believe the
brain begins to form its learning patterns, such as learning a language, at birth. Today, scientists
believe the brain is much more malleable than ever thought before (Jensen, 1998). They now
believe that the regions of the brain are not fixed at birth, but are shaped by experiences and
learning. As the individual responds and adapts to their environment, the brain also adapts itself
to the learning environment (Jensen, 1998). Scientific research has indicated that early in a
child's life, neural connections form as he/she learns. At what age these circuits are completed is
uncertain (Genesee, 2000; Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).
A newborn's brain makes connections at an incredible pace as the child

absorbs its environment. The richer the environment, the greater the
number of interconnections that are made, and learning takes place faster
and with greater meaning. As the child grows, the brain selectively
strengthens and prunes connections based on experience. Although this
process continues throughout our lives, it seems to be most pronounced
between the ages of 2 and 11, as different development areas emerge and
taper off. (Sousa, 1998, p.1)
Neurosurgeons have discovered that language processing is not located solely in the left
hemisphere of the human brain. In the normal brain, in fact, the two hemispheres work together
during speech. When people have had their brain midline severed, through the corpus callosum,
they stopped communicating. The language system connects to other intellectual and motor
systems, as well as mechanisms required for speech. These areas of the brain require motivation
to become aroused and activated. Neurological imaging studies have provided strong evidence
that the frontal lobes and structures deep in the brain become active during many language tasks.
Written language connects to the areas of the brain that are part of the visual cortex, and sign
language may recruit the areas of the brain that are related spatial ability; spatial ability allows
the brain to locate objects in space (Classroom Compass, 2000; Genesee, 2000; Wolfe, 2001).
Language acquisition and learning are two separate processes. Language acquisition is a
developmental type of learning processed in the auditory-temporal cortex located in the left
hemisphere. Language acquisition is a complex system that consists of a special kind of code (or
a set of symbols) that are connected to words and phrases and is a natural phenomenon that
occurs without any interventions (Jensen, 1998). The language pattern formed in an infant's
brain will continue to remain for a lifetime unless something intervenes to change that pattern
(Jensen, 1998). Experts believe that children discover the system of language from a small,
unsystematic amount of data and do not require instruction in how to acquire language (Krashen,
1981, 1985).
Language acquisitioning is the unconscious process that occurs when the infant or novice
hears real conversation; learning is the act of acquiring formal knowledge about the language
(Krashen, 1981). Linguist Stephen Krashen (1981) defined language acquisitioning in Second
Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning:
Language acquisition is very similar to the process children use in

acquiring first and second languages. It requires meaningful interaction in
the target language--natural communication--in which speakers are
concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they
are conveying and understanding. Error correction and explicit teaching
of rules are not relevant to language acquisition but caretakers and native
speakers can modify their utterances addressed to acquirers to help them
understand, and these modifications are thought to help the acquisition
process. It has been hypothesized that there is a fairly stable order of
acquisition of structures in language acquisition, that is, one can see clear
similarities across acquirers as to which structures tend to be acquired
early and which tend to be acquired late. (pp. 1-2)
Linguistic research is divisible into first and second language learning. A student’s
primary language (L1) is the language one has developed from birth and the language that was
closely intertwined with the development of cognition. Learning a second language (L2) is a
lengthy, highly idiosyncratic, and difficult process which language acquisition theorists suggest
can take up to seven or more years for a student to develop proficiency, depending on his/her age
(Classroom Compass, 2000; D’Arcangelo, 1998; Jensen, 1998: Krashen, 1981; 1985).
The best time to master a new language is when one is younger; their
neural connections are strong and not completely filled. If a person waited
until they are 18 or 30, learning a new language is possible, but it becomes
more difficult because the system governing this have been used for
something else. (D’Arcangelo, 1998, p. 4)
A child has twice as many neurons as adults. Therefore the ideal time for learning a
second language is during the first eight to ten years of development because it is during that
period that neural growth is so high (D’Arcangelo, 1998; Krashen, 1981, 1985). After that,
neural branches (dendrites) that have not connected will eventually die off. A newborn's neural
cortex grows at a rapid rate, then reaches a peak during adolescence, and then slowly declines.
“It is believed the brain interacts together as a whole brain and that learning begins when
connections are made within the brain and between the brain and the outside world" (Cognito:
Brain and Mind, 2002, p. 1). When one is learning, the neurons communicate using chemicals
called neurotransmitters. These connections occur when children are stimulated through
meaningful experiences such as learning a new language. Therefore, a solid educational
experience during this period of life is more critical than ever thought before.
These so-called "windows of opportunity" represent critical periods when

the brain demands certain types of input to create or consolidate neural
networks, especially for acquiring language, emotional control, and
learning to play music. Certainly, one can learn new information and
skills at any age. But what the child learned during that window period
will strongly influence what is learned after the window closes. (Sousa,
1998, p.1)
As we age, the development of neural connections can modify our capacity to learn new
concepts, such as a new language. Once, researchers believed that only young brains were
plastic. They thought that the dendrites developed in the first few years of childhood and were
fixed and difficult to change. An enormous amount of animal and human research in the past
two decades, however, confirms that the brain retains some of its plasticity throughout life.
Evidence has shown that older brains can adapt in order to overcome a number of barriers, such
as suffering a stroke. Language processing and motor function can return after this type of event.
Neuroscientist Marian Diamond stated in an interview, “If we continue to learn and enrich our
minds, we continue to grow dendrites, and if we stop we lose them with age" (D’Arcangelo,
1998, p. 4). In 1993, researchers Green, Black, and Wallace studied rats’ brains and
demonstrated enhanced synaptic growth due to a complex environment in both young and older
rats. In 1995, Karni and her colleagues demonstrated an expansion in cortical involvement
during the performance of motor tasks. The cerebral cortex was altered even in adult brains in
response to an enriched environment or complex learning experiences (Genesee, 2000, p. 2).
The longer continuous meaningful learning occurs in life, the longer the brain will make the
neural connections necessary for growth. Therefore, research on the brain and language
indicates that during the early years it is critical for teachers to help establish meaningful
associations between their students and learning opportunities. By examining research data from
the field of neuroscience and linguistics, language teachers can have a better understanding of
how language is developed. The ESL teacher may tailor the academic content to help develop
their student's skills most efficiently. Through curriculum enhancement, they may provide an
enriched, brain-friendly classroom environment. Classroom instruction and language acquisition
is explored next.
Classroom Instruction and Language Acquisition
Scientific research on the brain has transformed and enhanced how language instruction
is delivered in classrooms across the globe (Bueno, 1999; Jensen, 1998; Wolfe, 2001).
Instructional models have transitioned from the authoritative teacher-centered environment of the
first half of the twentieth century to the “humanistic" classroom and learner-centered mode of
instruction that predominated the 1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s, language classrooms
transformed again with the implementation new approaches and techniques to assist with
learning English as a Second Language. These approaches include the Communicative
Approach, the Total Physical Response (TPR), cooperative learning, and integrated learning
(Bueno, 1999; Garvin, 1996; Hancock, 1994; Krashen, 1981, 1985; Mc Laughlin, 1995;
Peterson, 2002).
The Communicative Approach is a language instructional methodology that emphasizes
the importance of interpersonal relationships to language learning and focused on the “whole”
student; it includes subjects such as music, physical activity, and art. The Communicative
Approach uses the stages of second language acquisition, comprehensible input, low affective
filter, and authentic activities and assessments. In 1981, Stephen Krashen defined
comprehensible input in his Monitor Model of Second Language Acquisition. According to
Krashen, language learners acquire second language through exposure to language samples that
contain mostly familiar forms and a few novel expressions. The familiar forms should resemble
"motherese" forms, which is a special form of language that caregivers use with their children as
they develop language. In the school setting, language teachers’ speak at a slower rate, and use
clear articulation, longer pauses, paraphrases, and gestures; they also use objects or pictures
frequently (Bueno, 1999). Affective filter, a term coined by Krashen, refers to how emotions,
such as motivation, self-confidence, self-image, and anxiety, influence learning. Students will
learn when they are motivated, their confidence and self-image are strong, and their anxiety
remains low (Bueno, 1999; Krashen, 1981). Learning activities and assessments are authentic
when students use language to interpret and express real world settings. To be considered an
authentic activity or an assessment, students must apply real-world applications of skills and
acquire meaningful knowledge that goes beyond an assessment activity (Bueno, 1999; Garvin,
1996; Hancock, 1994; Krashen, 1981, 1985; Mc Laughlin, 1995; Peterson, 2002).
Total Physical Response (TPR) is another instructional methodology teachers use to teach
language. James Asher (2002) created Total Physical Response in 1974; he applied brain
research to explain natural language acquisition. “TPR is based on the premise that the human
brain has a biological program for acquiring any natural language on earth - including the sign
language of the deaf.” Total Physical Response differs from other instructional techniques in that
is involved the use of physical actions. In TPR, language teachers employ kinesthetic-sensory
activities to stress “the full development of listening comprehension before encouraging any
active oral participation” (Bueno, 1999, p. 1). Total Physical Response continues to be one of
the most popular methods of delivering language instruction in today’s language classrooms
(Asher, 2002; Bueno, 1999).
Cooperative learning involves sharing knowledge within a group by collaboratively
working together. Each person has a specific role in a group-project: researcher, recorder, artist,
and/or presenter. By working cooperatively in small heterogeneous groups on a specific task,
students can negotiate the means to construct an outcome. This allows them to exchange
information, knowledge, and experience. In return, they will make connections themselves with
the content and the language. Using cooperative learning and center-based activities, teachers
can address the various learning styles, as well as the English language levels, of their students
(Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; D’Arcangelo, 2000).

Integrated (also termed interdisciplinary or thematic) learning occurs when teachers
introduce a topic thematically and intertwine two or more subjects to make connections to
learning more meaningful. When learning is orchestrated throughout the curriculum, students
become fully engaged, and in return, they enjoy learning and take ownership of it. Students are
taught to link content and language learning in a meaningful way, which helps to develop their
critical thinking skills. These skills are also needed for other content subjects, so it improves
performance "across the board" (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; D’Arcangelo, 2000).
In the 1990s, classroom instruction was again transformed with the findings of Dr.
Howard Gardner, a cognitive psychologist who developed a theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI)
(1993, 1995). Gardner theorized that human cognitive competence was pluralistic, rather than
unitary, in design. Human beings, according to Gardner, possess multiple intelligences in
varying amounts and each individual has a different intellectual composition. These
intelligences are located in different areas of the brain and can work either independently or
together. Gardner proposed a schema of eight types of intelligence, while suggesting there are
probably many others that educators have not yet been able to decipher.
A summary of Gardner's eight types of intelligence follows:
1) Linguistic intelligence is the ability to use language effectively both orally

and written.
2) Logical/mathematical intelligence is the ability to use numbers effectively
and reason well.
3) Visual/spatial intelligence is the ability to recognize form, space, color,
lines, and shapes to graphically represent visual and spatial ideas.
4) Bodily/kinesthetic intelligence is the ability to use the body to express ideas
and feelings and to solve problems.
5) Musical intelligence is the ability to recognize rhythm, pitch, and melody.
6) Naturalist intelligence is the ability to recognize and classify plants,

minerals, and animals.
7) Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand another person's
feelings, motivations, and intentions and to respond effectively.
8) Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to know about and understand
oneself and recognize one's similarities to and differences from others.
(Christison, 1998, 1999; Davies, 1996; ELLKBase, 2002)
The theory of Multiple Intelligences continues to be widely accepted by educators; it is
affecting instructional delivery throughout the world. Since the inception of Gardner’s MI
theory, teachers have become more receptive of differentiated learning. “In a differentiated
classroom, teachers begin where students are, not the front of a curriculum guide. They accept
and build upon the premise that learners differ in important ways” (Tomlinson, 1999, p. 1). In
addition, teachers are better equipped to work with their students, for they bring with them an
appreciation for individual strengths, unique learning styles, and different learning potentials
(Christison, 1998, 1999; Davies, 1996; ELLKBase, 2002; Tomlinson, 1999).
Educators, Geoffrey and Renate Caine (1994, 1997) have also studied brain-based
research and arrived at twelve principles of brain-based learning that are based on the notion that
all people are driven to search for meaning in life. These principles were derived from an
exploration of many disciplines and are viewed as a pedagogical framework for teaching. The
principles are:
1. The brain is a complex adaptive system.

2. The brain is a social brain.
3. The search for meaning is innate.
4. The search for meaning occurs through patterning.
5. Emotions are critical to patterning.
6. Every brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts and wholes.
7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral attention.
8. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes.
9. We have at least two ways of organizing memory.

10. Learning is developmental.
11. Complex learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat.
12. Every brain is uniquely organized. (p.28)
The Caines believe that each principle represents an aspect of learning based upon brain-based
research. These principles were designed to enhance the learning environment. Teachers who
have used their principles in instruction no longer see their students as a “blank slate, and have a
new appreciation of the fact that the body, brain, and mind are a dynamic unity” (p. 27).
According to the Caines (1997), teachers tend to fall into one of three categories. The
first is the traditional, old school, teacher-centered, or "stand and deliver" approach. The second
approach is the middle ground, where the teacher is in charge but creates a rich learning
environment, with more complex learning experiences, for their students. And the third
approach involves a complex, interactive, student-centered classroom environment. It is in this
student-centered environment that second language learners tend to flourish and to develop and
retain their new language most readily. In an interactive student-centered classroom, the teacher
has removed classroom threats and allowed the student's mind to be calm yet attentive (Krashen
1981, 1985).
For complex learning to occur, Caine and Caine have identified three conditions:
1. An optimal state of mind that is called relaxed alertness, consisting of a

low threat and high challenge.
2. The orchestrated immersion of the learner in multiple, complex,
authentic experience.
3. The regular active processing experience as the basis for the making
meaning. (p. 32)
Emotions may impede students’ learning (Caine & Caine, 1997; Jensen, 1998; Wolfe,
2000). Neuroscientists believe emotions are mediated through a complex mix of thoughts,
perceptions, feelings, and reasoning. These aspects are interwoven and can affect how a student
learns. When people are exposed to constant threat or early trauma, high levels of the
neurotransmitters serotonin and noradrenalin are released (Jensen, 1998). If fear or stress is
constant, the brain’s normal circuits can be altered; therefore, a person’s physical and emotional
well being is closely linked to the ability to think and to learn effectively (Jensen, 1998; Krashen,
1981, 1985; Wolfe, 2000). The affective filter is a screen of emotion that blocks language
acquisition or learning as it keeps the users from being too self-conscious or too embarrassed to
take risks. Krashen (1985) stressed that optimal input or learning occurs when the affective filter
is low. When the classroom atmosphere exhibits threatening or high tones, students will shut
down and not be willing to take risks. It is only when the atmosphere is “threat” free or (at least)
low threat that students begin to take risks (Bueno, 1999; Jensen; 1998; Krashen, 1981, 1985).
Teachers may use the understanding how students’ emotions play a critical role in their
learning to drive the curriculum. It is most important to realize that emotions can be a hindrance
in learning or can be an aide, depending on how the teacher uses them. If students experience a
negative emotion when under threat, the research indicates that the brain will downshift or (at
least) slow down. “When threatened, the second language learner becomes less flexible and will
revert back to a more routine behavior and will have difficulty processing new information"
(Christison, 1999, p. 1). When teachers’ instruction captivates students’ emotions in a positive
way such as love, excitement, enthusiasm, and joy, they enhance the ability of the cerebral cortex
to process information and create meaningful connections. Depending upon how students "feel"
about a learning situation determines the amount of attention they will devote to it. Their
emotions interact with reason to support or inhibit learning. Students, for example, must feel
physically safe and emotionally secure in their schools and classrooms before they can focus on
the curriculum. To aid in building an emotionally secure environment, teachers must provide
outlets for their students' emotions through discussions, singing, sharing, writing, music, or even
drawing. Teachers should do whatever it takes to get their students' emotions out in the open so
they do not suppress them (Jensen, 1998). When teachers promote emotional security in their
classroom, they are establishing a positive climate that encourages students to take appropriate
risks that enhance the learning experience.
“Teachers influence learning everyday by designing the physical and emotional
environment" (Jensen, 1998, p. 3). Students’ learning is influenced not only by their emotions
but also through social interactions because the brain is social by nature. There is a human need
to build realistic, intimate relationships with others in the environment; this need has evolved
over thousands of years (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; Krashen 1981, 1985). Social interaction is
also emotionally stimulating and supports the learning process. According to the Caines (1997),
teachers must immerse learners in complex, interactive experiences that are both rich and real.
An excellent example is illustrated in which the students are immersed in a foreign language
(English) and culture (American) in order to help them learn.
Through research, teachers are discovering how the brain makes new neural connections
when it gets actively involved in interesting and challenging situations. Classrooms should be
busy, interactive environments where students and their teachers are learning from one another.
In an interactive classroom teachers do not hesitate to have their students physically stand up,
move around, and have peer interactions. An interactive, task-centered classroom is critical to
students’ learning process because it helps maintain students’ focus while enhancing their sense
of meaning. Often this effective model of instruction can be found in most elementary
classrooms; however, in many secondary and college classrooms, students sit passively for long
period with little sensory stimulation, listening primarily to their teachers lecture (Caine &
Caine, 1997).
One of the most ineffective forms of instructional delivery for students, especially for
LEP students, is traditional lecturing. When teachers lecture, most often their students left-brains
begin to send sabotaging messages such as "How is this relevant to my life?” "How will I ever
use this information?" and/or "Does this teacher know what he/she is doing?” For many LEP
students, their critical left-brains may be telling them to ignore their teacher because their brains
have not been coded for the new language. In other words, their brains may be telling them that
there is no such language as the one the teacher is using. Often, to LEP students, it sounds like
their teacher is speaking like the teacher from Charlie Brown, “Blah, blah, blah.” After all, the
teacher is the only person in the room who is trying to challenge what the student knows to be
true. Therefore, in the students’ brains, whatever data the teacher is presenting is irrelevant to the
learner because their brains fail to store the information in their long-term memory and will not
be able to retrieve the data for later use. “Our marvelous brain remembers everything, the
problem we have is ineffective recall" (Davies, 1996, p. 5). That is why after extended periods
of instruction and practice, students later return to the class and act as if they have never heard
the material before (Davies, 1996).

Researchers, such as the Caines, recommend a relaxed learning environment that offers
numerous options for individual learning. In the student-centered classroom, the teacher is the
facilitator of learning, who guides their students learning by design. Teachers create
interdisciplinary, thematic lessons and then engage their students through an array of student-
centered, versatile activities. These activities speak to their students’ interests, thus creating an
interest in learning (Caine & Caine, 1994). According to Gerald Edelman (1992), chairman of
the Department of Neurobiology at Scripps Research Institute, students learn best when they
interact continuously in an environment that provides many sensory, cultural, and problem
layers. His ideas suggest that students have a natural inclination to learn, understand, and grow.
Surround the students with a variety of instructional opportunities and they will make the
connections for learning.
Both the Caines' and Edelman’s learning theories follow the model of Vygotsky’s social
cognition learning model. Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, an educational theorist and behaviorist
(1896-1934), suggested that culture is the primary determinant of individual development.
Through culture, children learn language and acquire much of the content of their thinking. The
familial culture of LEP students dictated what and how they thought within their native
homeland, but now they must learn to adjust to their new surroundings and culture (Vygotsky
and Social Cognition, 1998). Through communication with their peers, students learn a rich
body of knowledge that exists in the culture (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; D’Arcangelo, 2000).
The social cognition-learning model has heavily influenced education today. The teacher
becomes a facilitator of their students’ learning. The teacher sets up scenarios that students
perform with others. The students accomplish and perform tasks they may never have completed
on their own (Vygotsky and Social Cognition, 1998).
The best way help LEP students to transition students from one culture to another is
through peer interaction in cooperative student centers. These cooperative centers involve LEP
students in a variety of activities involving groups of students creating and solving specific tasks
together. Activities may include role-playing, cooperative learning, and story telling. The
lessons allow students to be focused for short periods of time allowing them to input the
information, reflect upon it, and then process the new information learned. These centers need to
be hands-on and allow the students to investigate new concepts and dialogue each other; the LEP
students will gain new knowledge and have immediate feedback from their peers. The students
are provided options and must learn to take responsibility and prioritize. By using cooperative
learning and center-based activities, teachers can address the various learning styles and the
English language development of their LEP students (Caine & Caine, 1994, 1997; D’Arcangelo,
2000; ELLKBase, 2002). Limited English proficient students can learn to excel in a variety of
ways when the classroom teacher offers an ample number of learning opportunities.
When learning is orchestrated throughout the curriculum, students will become fully
engaged, and in return, they will enjoy learning and take ownership of it. Implementing
interdisciplinary learning (thematic) is also an effective way to engage students. These students
are taught to link content and language learning in a meaningful way, which helps to develop
their critical thinking skills. By working cooperatively in small heterogeneous groups on a
specific task, LEP students can negotiate the means to construct an outcome. This activity
allows students to exchange information, knowledge, and experience. In return, they will make
connections themselves with the content and the language. Educators need to help students have
appropriate experiences and capitalize on those experiences. These activities will help to build
oral language development as well as increase the vocabulary needed to build comprehension
(Bower, 1998).
Brain-based research has provided evidence that individuals have different learning
styles, which affects their comprehension. Some children learn through problem solving
experiences, which they share with another student or the teacher. Others learn kinesthetically,
by using their sense of feel. Educators must take advantage of the brain's ability to parallel
process. Students must have a personal and meaningful challenge to gain new knowledge. Such
challenges stimulate a student's mind to the desired state of alertness. In order for a student to
gain insight about a problem, there must be intensive analysis of the different ways to approach
it. This is what is known as the "active processing of experience" (Jensen, 1998). Student
learning can be enhanced when teachers realize that how they deliver instruction can impede or
improve their students’ learning. It is imperative that teachers examine how they deliver
instruction because LEP students process and retain information differently. They must
determine whether they will require students to memorize facts and listen to lectures or engage in
meaningful exercises. Further, they must question whether the information being presented is
meaningful to the student. When LEP students are asked to merely memorize facts, it will not
lead to constructive learning. They will just be regurgitating information and not make a
meaningful connection. Evidence from neuroscience has shown that when students are asked to
learn facts and skills in isolation, the brain cannot make the necessary connections. If the lessons
are meaningful, students will learn quicker and retain the information longer (Christison, 1999).
Teachers are learning more about how students store and recall information in their long-
term memory. The research has indicated that students’ experiences may influence new learning.
Memory acts like a filter that helps students to focus on those things that have relevant meaning
and discard irrelevant thoughts. Meaning has a tremendous impact on what information and/or
skills will be learned and stored. If students do not develop a profound connection by the end of
a learning episode, there is little likelihood that much information will be recalled. To help
students find meaning, today's curriculum must contain connections to their experiences, not just
their teachers.
An example of how memory functions is evident when LEP students learn their new
language. The sounds (phonemes) are unfamiliar to their brains and therefore their brains are not
able to register the connections to words. If the brain hears an unfamiliar sound or word, it will
search other avenues such as auditory, visual, spatial, or motor sources to aid in the detection for
meaning. It registers as “an undifferentiated neural activity”; the learner must “retrain” their
brain to recognize these sounds (Genesee, 2000, p. 2). If all sources do not recognize the sound
or the word, the input will not be comprehensible and the sounds or words to be deciphered
become useless noise or jargon, and therefore meaningless. Only through continual exposure
over time does the brain begin to make sense of the sounds and words. Language teachers
successfully aid in this process by extending phonemes and exaggerating them until their
students are able to make the neural connections and learn the new sounds (Talukder, 2000). By
doing so, the teacher is naturally exercising their students’ neural activity. After this continual
exposure to the new sounds, the brain will be able to decipher among the new sounds. By
working together to form connections, the neurons form a type of network, which will allow one
to comprehend the sounds, the words, and the phrases (Talukder, 2000). An analogy for this
process is a Polaroid picture that is fuzzy when the photo is first pulled out of the camera and
then has greater definition when it is fully developed.
Knowledge of the manner, which the brain processes and stores memory, may assist
teachers with their lesson planning and their presentations (Jensen, 1998). There are four types
of memory: procedural, episodic, semantic, and sensory. Procedural memory occurs after
repeated action; it typically deals with routine activities, such as brushing teeth. Episodic
memory is emotionally charged, either positively or negatively. Teachers may use positive
episodic memory to aid their students in recalling important information, building on their prior
knowledge, and acting upon it (Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998).
Semantic memory, or rote memory, is often used in the classroom to recall facts. The
right side of the brain is thought to be virtually non-verbal or mute, and non-critical; however, it
is pattern seeking. Although this side of the brain is mute, and does not allow for spoken
language, it will try to communicate by whispering softly and using body language such as
gestures. When the pattern-seeking part of the brain finds cause-and-effect relationships, they
are likely to be stored in the long-term memory. The implication for teaching is that assertions
by the instructor are not enough; the student's brain will insist that each assertion is proved
(Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998).
Sensory memory, which is in the right part of the brain, is automatic. This allows one to
process short-term and long-term memory. Because every person has a neural history, teachers
draw from past experiences to grab students’ attention and build understanding. If a personal
connection is made to the learning experience, it will stimulate a response, which can generate a
new real life experience. According to Davies (1996), “We often remember information when it
is characterized by: sensory associations, emotional context, intense associations, necessities for
survival, personal importance, or repetition"(p. 5). Bringing two sources of stimulus together,
such as using of pictures and music, increases the overall amount of brain activity and creates
more neural connections; this ultimately assists with learning and language acquisition. When
these neural connections are formed, memories are created. If a teacher increases the number,
and the variety of the connections, there is an increased chance of retention and later recall.
Recall is also greater for information that is presented first or last in a session; this is known as
the "primacy effect" and the "recency effect." In order to retain the information necessary, the
brain needs to rehearse the information using a variety of repetitive actions such as learning
through rhyming, poetry, music, and movement. A teacher can also use word chunking to
convey the information. This process allows students to make connections to concepts to which
they are already familiar (Christison, 1999; Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998; Sprenger 1999).
Schemas are interpretive frames that teachers use to help their students make sense of
information by relating it to previous experiences. By providing students with a simple graphic
organizer or a visual aid that displays the chunks of information to be learned, the students have
a framework, which they can use to approach the information. Schemas also help to clarify
instructional goals and clear up any misconceptions. A story map is one example of a graphic
organizer that breaks down the elements of a narrative into chunks of texts, so that the students
can organize and comprehend the events therein. It also illustrates what the students are
responsible for learning. Using a story map for the study of literature helps to make the learning
interesting and increases later recall.

To inspire effective learning, a teacher should also include music. Music is often linked
to emotions in the brain, and playing it in the classroom can trigger pleasurable memories. “The
reason music is so important to the learning environment is that is actually corresponds to and
affects our physiological conditions” (Davies, 1996, p. 3). With music, students develop spatial
reasoning which they can use for mathematical skills (Classrooms Compass, 2000; Davies,
1996). It is probably the most inexpensive adaptation that can be easily applied in the classroom
environment. Teachers can use classical music, which is universal and has no lyrics to confuse
LEP students. Music may be employed during "quiet time," in which students quietly read a
book or relax without talking to each other. This quiet period allows time for neural connections
that were made during learning to be processed (Davies, 1996; Jensen, 1998).
An effective teacher will use knowledge of brain activity to focus on wholes to parts and
parts to wholes resulting in a balanced approach. One benefit of a balanced approach to
language it that is allows students to make real world connections. It uses the natural language
that students use in social interaction. Balanced approach instruction includes the integration of
listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Phonics and spelling are each integrated meaningfully
into the student’s written language, allowing them to express their thoughts. Using rich language
activities allows students to recall events they have learned both inside and outside of the
classroom (Christison, 1997).
Brain research has lead to changes not only in teacher presentation, but also in student
assessment. Assessment effects student learning because students learn differently, assessments
must take place in a variety of ways. It is particularly important to use multiple modes of
assessment that will allow students to show their strengths and perform optimally. The core of
Gardner's MI theory and Caines’ principles are opposed to the dated use of formalized,
standardized testing. Many testing professionals currently have confidence in authentic
assessment, which emphasizes viewing students' knowledge from different perspectives so as to
provide a complete picture of students' abilities, efforts, and progress during the learning process.
Brain-based research has indicated that students need to have a diverse system of assessments
that offer a variety of ways for students to express what they know. Assessments can be process-
based, individualized-based, contextualized-based, performance-based, and ongoing-based type.
The assessment may include paper-and-pencil tests, portfolios, journals/logs, projects, exhibits,
performances, and displays. Students need comments from teachers, their parents, and other
students to help reinforce their training (Christison, 1997; D’Arcangelo, 1998).
Middle and high school LEP students are entering U. S. public schools and are being
placed in English-only general education (mainstream) classrooms with minimal language
support. For those school districts that have language assistance programs, some of their LEP
parents are opting to “waiver” their children out of bilingual and/or ESL services (KUSD, 2003).
If LEP students are placed in mainstream classes, their teachers will need additional professional
development in order to effectively deal with them. Two highly effective language instructional
approaches that can aid general education teachers in improving the linguistic and cognitive
academic skills of their LEP students in the mainstreamed classroom are known as Specially
Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) and Cognitive Academic Language Learning
Approach (CALLA) (ELLKBase, 2002; Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000).
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English
SDAIE is the acronym for Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English, and is
based upon the theoretical work of linguistic theorists Stephen Krashen and Jim Cummins. Their
development of the “Contextual Interaction Theory” and the hypotheses therein provides the
cornerstones for SDAIE methodology and program design. SDAIE equips mainstream teachers
with neuroscience researched English language development strategies to effectively teach their
LEP students (Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000). SDAIE incorporates Vygotsky’s Zone
of Proximal Development, which is that level that is just above the students’ language abilities,
into classroom discussion. SDAIE was not originally designed for beginning level LEP students,
but for those LEP students who had been transitioned into the mainstreamed classrooms, and
who had reached intermediate fluency in English. These LEP students are usually orally
proficient in English, but are reading and writing below grade level (ELLKBase, 2002; Gulack &
Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000). SDAIE provides teachers with special techniques and strategies
that were designed to assist them in guiding their LEP students in both language acquisition and
subject matter content (ELLKBase, 2002; Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000).
The two major components of SDAIE methodologies include the comprehensible second
language input and a supportive affective environment (Gulack & Silverstein, 1997). Although
SDAIE uses ESL instruction, it functions in a different manner. SDAIE does not primarily focus
on language development, rather, its focus is on academic content comprehension, and English is
learned through this process. SDAIE is often referred to as "sheltered instruction" because it is
by sheltering students’ language development that instructors provide some “protection” from the
awesome prospect of learning a new language. The analogy often used for “sheltered” is one of
an umbrella; an umbrella protects one from a storm. SDAIE strategies provide LEP students an
extended opportunity to progress academically as they acquire the English skills necessary
(Gulack & Silverstein, 1997).
SDAIE strategies allow LEP students to comprehend the information presented by the
teacher (comprehensible input) in any format as long as it makes sense to the learner. It provides
the context for complex language and a motivation for both the student and the teacher to study
their textbooks for additional reading and writing activities. SDAIE strategies used in the
mainstreamed classrooms to enhance student learning may include:
1) realia, which are real objects and materials used as visual clues
that provide a literal and visual way to describe key words and
concepts;
2) manipulatives, such as drawings, posters, graphs, tables, maps,
props, multimedia presentations, storyboards, and story maps;
3) visuals, such as study-prints, textbook illustrations, overhead
projections, paintings, and documents;
4) graphic organizers, such as matrices, Venn diagrams, and webs;
5) classroom interactions between all individuals, such as creating
a skit and acting it out, cooperative learning, collaborative
learning, and student-generated stories based on personal
experiences; and
6) high thinking skills as previously discussed in Metacognitive
strategies. (ELLKBase, 2002; Gulack & Silverstein, 1997;
O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Rohac, 2000)
SDAIE strategies are divided into three categories: metacognitive, cognitive, and social-
affective (Rohac, 2000). Metacognitive strategies are high order critical thinking that, “may
entail planning for, monitoring, or evaluating, the success of a learning activity” (O'Malley &
Chamot, 1990, p. 44). Cognitive strategies are those derived from the knowledge and
competency structures involved in the learning activities and productions achieved by the
learner. Strategies may include grouping, note-taking, elaboration of prior knowledge,
summarizing, deduction/induction, imagery, auditory representation, and making inferences
(O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). Social-affective strategies are present when students work in
collaboration with other learners within the learning environment. Social-affective strategies
may include questioning for clarification, cooperative learning, and self-talk (ELLKBase, 2002;
Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). These activities provide the linguistic
"hooks" upon which the students can "pin" their new language.
SDAIE teachers continually make allowances for their LEP students’ language levels.
The teachers continually monitor their instruction including their rate speech, syntax and
language structure. Most commonly, reading and writing activities are considered guided
activities. Teachers use pre-reading activities with appropriate questioning strategies that relate
to students’ prior knowledge and experiences. Teachers provide graphic organizers and other
tools to help prepare and support students work and promote success (Gulack & Silverstein,
1997; ELLKBase, 2002; Rohac, 2000).
Additional instructional approaches imbedded in SDAIE classrooms include
heterogeneous grouping, hands-on instructional activities, word banks or guarded vocabulary,
and scaffolding. Schools often use heterogeneous grouping, in which LEP students are placed in
classes according to their ability, rather than by grade-level. This type of grouping allows
students from several grade-levels to be placed in one class, termed multi-age grouping (Gulack
& Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000). Hands-on activities are real life experiences that teachers use
to engage physically their LEP students. The teacher may use nonverbal cues to help his/her
students understand what is expected of them. Word-banks or guarded vocabulary is often

referred to as a “catch-all phrase” for a variety of language activities used to build vocabulary
concepts from the textbooks their students read. Although the vocabulary may contain
unfamiliar words, the main purpose of the list is to pre-teach significant ideas and concepts in the
reading (Gulack & Silverstein, 1997). This builds familiarity so those students recall being
introduced to the terms later in their education. Teachers are conscious of the selection of words
used, and how they are introduced, practiced and incorporated into all components of their lesson
plans. Teachers scan text materials for their content vocabulary and decide which terms might
cause comprehension problems in instruction and direction (this is termed the support
vocabulary). The teacher creates activities, games and other low stress activities to build upon
this new vocabulary item (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994, 1999; Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; Rohac,
2000).
Introduced by Vygotsky, scaffolding refers to all of the various strategies that teachers use
to make English more comprehensible to students. The teacher’s role in the learning process is
to provide the support and guidance to help his/her students’ progress (Vygotsky and Social
Cognition, 1998). Teachers use scaffolding strategies as a tool in which their LEP students can
accumulate knowledge; they provide a foundation for continued learning. Some examples of
scaffolding are shared reading, book reading, patterned writing, journaling, graphic organizers or
mapping, learning routines or instruction in and outside the class (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994,
1999; ELLKBase, 2002; Freeman & Freeman, 1998; Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000).
Scaffolding differs from sequencing because it places a time constraint on students to complete a
task (e.g. read a certain number of chapters in a book) (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994,1999;
ELLKBase, 2002; Freeman & Freeman, 1998; Gulack & Silverstein, 1997; Rohac, 2000).
Another effective instructional approach educators can implement in their classrooms to help
their LEP students succeed linguistically and academically is called CALLA, which will be
examined next.
Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach
CALLA is the acronym for the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach.
CALLA was specially designed for students enrolled in English Speakers of Other Languages
(ESOL) programs. The model is a component of Bilingual Education, and it is used in
traditional ESL classrooms. CALLA was first developed by Chamot and O’Malley (1994) and is
based upon their knowledge of research on cognition. The CALLA model integrates academic
language development, content area instruction, and explicit learning strategies for both course
content and English language acquisition.
The CALLA model was intended to reach out to ESOL students whom research indicated
were not being sufficiently prepared for grade-level content-area classrooms. There is a great
difference between the academic language skills needed by LEP students to function and those
needed to succeed in mainstream content classes at the high school and college levels. Academic
English takes up to 7 years to develop, in most cases. The academic content and learning
strategies beginning with math and science and gradually work into the language arts and then
the social sciences. Teachers may implement CALLA’s instructional model in their classroom as
a way to meet the challenges of implementing the standards of content-based language
instruction that is required of their school district or state (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994, 1999).
In The CALLA Handbook, Chamot and O'Malley (1994) provided teachers with useful
research on effective instructional strategies that will help LEP students to succeed. The research
findings revealed that when teachers carefully chose a learning strategy to implement that was
appropriate for a given task, their LEP students improved their academic English remarkably.
LEP students began to take ownership of their education by regulating their learning through a
strategic approach to learning tasks. Chamot and O"Malley indicated students worked more
independently and were less dependent on their teacher after learning the strategies.
According to Chamot and O'Malley (1994), CALLA should be utilized to develop
academic content as the primary purpose of instruction. The secondary purpose is to develop
language skills out of the content areas as the need arises. The purpose of using content in the
development of English is simply to provide meaningful context for the students. Instead of
“watering down” the curriculum, a CALLA teacher presents an array of instructional strategies
that are research based, and uses complex content in lecture and activities. These methodologies
allow LEP students to comprehend the underlying meaning. CALLA teachers use every means
possible and may borrow from other disciplines, such as MI, gifted and talented, or special
education, to provide the meaningful or comprehensible input needed to help their students be
successful. Teachers find a way to allow all students to participate no matter how fluent they are
in English (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994, 1999).

Conclusion
Educators can no longer remain on the sidelines while neuroscience reveals important
information about how the brain learns. As understanding of the brain continues to grow, it is up
to teachers to continue to interpret these findings and apply the research to their teachings so that
their students' learning evolves over time. Brain research does not dictate to teachers what to
teach or how they teach; it merely offers an insight that may assist them in lesson planning,
delivery, and assessment. Teachers must not abandon their traditional sources of insight and
guidance when it comes to planning effective instruction. Teachers must continue to draw upon
cognitive research while still developing their own insights based upon their classroom
experience. The two sources of information (research and experience) should complement each
other so that cognitive science reinforces what seasoned professionals already know about
learning.
Teachers are expert practitioners. They can build their craft by knowing more about how
the brain processes and stores information. This knowledge strengthens their expertise about
educational practices that build accountability and trust. When educators consider neuroscience,
they organize their curriculum around real experiences and integrated, "whole" ideals. They
tailor instruction to promote complex thinking and the natural "growth" of the brain. Brain-
based teachers understand the development of the human brain and its "windows of opportunity,”
when the hard, permanent wiring must take place. To miss these windows can handicap
students’ ability to learn. Educational experiences create connections in the brain that form the
foundation for spoken language, reading, comprehension of written language, writing, and
problem solving. These experiences will allow students to recall past experiences and use this
information to make neural connections. Instructional approaches consist primarily of trying to
maintain a relaxed, focused atmosphere that offers options for learning in individually satisfying
ways; this represents a major shift from the old paradigm of the teacher-centered classroom.
Traditional schooling often inhibits learning by discouraging, ignoring, or punishing the brain's
natural learning processes (Classroom Compass, p. 1).
To be effective, teachers must have a knowledge base that is kept current by acquiring
scientific understanding of the brain. Only then can teachers determine the educational
applications of the research. By increasing their knowledge base, teachers will gain competence
in determining which classroom strategies are more compatible with the current understanding of
the brain. Teachers must design learning around students’ interests and make learning
contextual. They must let their students learn in teams and use peripheral learning. Teachers
must structure students’ learning around real problems, and encourage their students to learn in
settings outside the classroom and the school building. In view of the fact that all students learn,
their assessments should allow them to understand their own learning styles and preferences. In
this fashion, students will monitor and enhance their own learning process.
Sheltered English teachers use various extra-linguistic learning strategies or
modifications to aid in building LEP students’ cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP).
Some SEI techniques utilized by teachers include SDAIE and CALLA, TPR, visual aids, realia,
manipulatives, hands-on activities, props, body language repetitions, pauses in speech, and
various types of technology. These techniques help facilitate comprehensible content, as
frequent checks for comprehension is incorporated. Thematic instruction and holistic lesson
plans are often implemented to encourage student interest and facilitate long-term memory
(English for the Children, 1998; ELLKBase; Freeman, 1998; Krashen, 1981, 1985; Nevin, 1993;
Short, 1998; Thomas & Collier, 2001). Teachers trained in SDAIE and CALLA pedagogical
theories frequently check their LEP students for progress in terms of understanding. Further,
these educators check themselves on how well they are meeting the needs of their students they
face on daily basis. By implementing instructional strategies, such as SDAIE or CALLA, that
are grounded in brain-based research, teachers will be forced to scrutinize every aspect of their
lessons they are delivering; in essence, it will make them better educators.
Teachers nationwide must do a better job at teaching their LEP students English. They
must do whatever it takes to encourage their students to become life-long learners. Too many
students are faltering in the current educational system. Teachers must continue to take a
leadership role in shaping their students’ learning. It is an educator’s duty to make innovative
and effective changes in his/her classroom to encourage student engagement and comprehension.
Change is inevitable, and teachers must embrace the new information that is coming from the
field of brain research. All educators have their students’ futures in their hands. If educators
become complacent and stagnant in their teachings, LEP students will continue to be withdrawn
and/or to drop out of school. Alternately, a brain-based educator can shape minds, inspiring their
students to achieve and dream of a future that matches their unique skills and abilities.
References
Barron, M. Surprising truths: The implications of brain research. Retrieved February 23, 2003,
from http://www.nauticom.net/www/cokids/brain.html.
Bower, B. The brain is tuned to grammar as music is tuned to lyrics. Retrieved February 23,
2003, from http://www.brainconnection.com.
Brain-Based Learning. Retrieved February 23, 2003, from http://www.funderstanding.com.
Bruer, J. (1999). In search of brain based learning. Kaplan. Retrieved February 23, 2003, from
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappan.htm.
Bueno, K. (1999). Glossary. Retrieved April 28, 2003, from

http://www.siue.edu/~kbueno/fl486/gloss.html.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1994). Mindshift. Tucson, Arizona: Zephyr Press.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Unleashing the power of perceptual change. Alexandria,
Virginia: ASCD.
Chamot, A. U. & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P.B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The Learning Strategies
Handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Chan, T. (1998, Nov.). The brain learns better in well-designed school environments. Classroom
Leadership, 2(3). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.ascd.org/pubs/cl/2nov98.html.
Christison, M. A. (1990, Oct.). Cooperative learning in the EFL classroom. English Teaching
Forum. Retrieved September 1, 2002, from
http://exchanges.state.gov/education/engteaching/chr1099.htm.
Christison, M. A. (1996). Multiple intelligences in the second language classroom. TESOL

Journal. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Christison, M. A. (1998, April-June). Applying multiple intelligences theory in preservice and

inservice TEFL education programs. English Teaching Forum.
Christison, M. A. (1999, April/May). Applications of brain based research to second language

teaching and learning: Part 1. TESOL Matters, 9 (2). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.tesol.org.
Christison, M. A. (1999, April/May). Applying mind-brain principles to L2 teaching. TESOL

Matters, 7(4). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from http://www.tesol.org.
Christison, M. A. (1999, June/July). Applications of brain based research to second language

teaching and learning: Part 2. TESOL Matters, 9 (3). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.tesol.org.
Christison, M. A. (1999, Dec). Classroom compass: How can research on the brain in form
education? Multiple Intelligences: Theory and practice in adult ESL. Retrieved February
24, 2003, from http://www.cal.org/ncle/digests/MI.htm.
Classroom Compass (2000). How can research on the brain inform education? 3 (2). Retrieved
September 22, 2002, from http://www.sedl.org/scimath/compass/v03n02/brain.html.
Curtain, H. (1995). Foreign language and content instruction in grades K-8. Retrieved February
24, 2003, from
http://www.uncc.edu/~medomoto/4201/handouts/tpr%20and%20other%20strategies/calla
.html.
Crandall, J., Jaramillo, A., Olsen, L., & Kreeft Peyton, J. (2002, Oct). Using cognitive strategies
to develop English language and literacy. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0205crandall.html.
Cogito: Brain and Mind (2002). Retrieved December 26, 2002, from
http://www.educ.drake.edu/romig/cogito/brain_and_mind.html.
D’ Arcangelo, M. (2000, June). Wake-up call about brain research. Education Update, 42( 4).
Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edupdate/2000/june00/02jun00.html.
D’ Arcangelo, M. (1998, Nov). How the brain learns: The brains behind the brains. Educational
Leadership, 56(3). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9811/darcangelo.html.
Duignan, P. Hoover essay. Bilingual education: A critique. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.hooverstandfordedu./publications/he/22/22d.html.
Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire: On the matter of the mind. New York: Basic.
Effective instructional practices for language minority students. MAEC. Retrieved July 29, 2002,
from http:www.maec.org/instprac.htlm.
Children.” In English for the Children. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
English for the Children of Arizona (2003). Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.angelfire.com/az/english4thechildren/body.html.
ELLKBase (2002). A framework for alternative language programs [Data file]. Region VII
Comprehensive Center. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
The English plus alternative. Retrieved September 6, 2002, from

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/EPIC.htm.
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. Sheltered English instruction. Retrieved June 29, 2002, from ERIC
Digest: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed301070.html.
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Friedlander, M. (1991, Fall). The newcomers program: Helping immigrant students succeed in
U.S. schools. NCBE program information guide series, 8. Retrieved November 1, 2002,
from http://ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig8.htm;
http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/refernces/NEWCOMERPROGRAMTableCo
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). "Are there additional intelligences? The case for the naturalist
intelligence." Howard Project Zero. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Howard
College.
Garvin, I. (1996). Authentic-alternative assessment. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from

Genesee, F. (1999-2001). Bilingual acquisition. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from

http://earlychildhood.com/Articles/index.
Genesee, F. (2000). Brain Research: Implications for Second Language Learning. Retrieved
February 24, 2003, from Eric Digest: http://cal.org./oricall/digest/ooo12brain.html.
Gulack, J. & Silverstein, (1997). SDAIE handbook: Techniques, strategies, and suggestions for
teachers of LEP and former LEP Students. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.csupomona.edu/~tassi/SDAIE .htm.
Hakuta, K. (2002, August 22). Points on SAT-9 performance and Proposition 227. Retrieved
Hakuta, K. (2002, August 29). What can we learn about the impact of Proposition 227 from SAT-
9 Scores. Retrieved September 8, 2002, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/.
Hakuta, K. & August, D. (1997). Improving education for all children: meeting the Needs of
Language Minority Children. Retrieved August 6, 2002, from
Hancock, C. R. (1994). Alternative assessment and second language study: What and why?
Retrieved June 29, 2003, from Eric Digest Available:
Hart, L. (1995, January 25). Human brain and human learning. Your child’s mind. Time
Magazine.
How the Brain Learns: The Key to Student Achievement. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.brainconnection.com.
How the Brain “Hears” Language. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from
Jensen, E (1998, November). How the brain learns: How Julie’s brain learns. Educational
Leadership, 56 (2), Retrieved September 6, 2002, from
http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9811/darcangelo.html.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, Virgina: ASCD
Kennedy, D. Key Resources, 3(2). Retrieved February 24, 2003, from

http://sedl.org.scimath/compass.
Kenosha Unified School District (KUSD) Five-Year long range committee (2003). Kenosha
Unified School District No. 1, Kenosha, WI.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. (1st ed. Internet,
December 2002). Retrieved January 3, 2003, from
http://www.sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/index.html.
Krashen, S. (1997). Why bilingual education? Retrieved August 6, 2002, from

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/bil-new.html.
Krashen, S. (1985). Insights and inquires. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Krashen, S. (1999). Structured immersion falls short of expectations: An analysis of Clark.

NABE.
Krashen, S. (2002, August 26). Focus on the library, not the playground [Letter to the editor].
Arizona Republic.
McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: What Every
Teacher needs to Unlearn. Retrieved August 22, 2002, from
http://www.bilingualprek.org/dl/myths.pdf.
Netkin, H. (1998, May). An assessment of bilingual education. In Letter. Retrieved September 6,

2002, from http://onenation.org/article.cfm?ID=4032.
Nevin, A., Neciichea, J., & Cline, Z. Using data-based instruction to improve the learning
outcomes of students who are difficult to teach. CSUSM College of Education. Retrieved
July 29, 2003, from http://www.csusm.edu/thousand/necochea.html.
Nunan, D. (2001). English as a global language. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4).
Peterson, B. The Evolution of Language. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from

Peterson, K. Authentic assessment and school wide projects. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ccvi/pubs/publication/archive/newsletter/Winter1997_Weaving
AuthenticAssessment/AuthAssessment_SchoolwideProj.htm.
Rohac, R. (2000, May). SDAIE - Specially designed academic instruction in English. Retrieved
January 3, 2003, from http://rohac.com/sdaieinfo.htm.
Languages and Linguistics. Retrieved February 24, 2003, from
Short, D. J. (2002). Newcomers programs: An educational alternative for secondary immigrant

students. Education and Urban Society 34(2), 173-198. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from
Short, D. & Boyson, B. (2000). Center for research on education, diversity & excellence
(CREDE). Summary of data in secondary newcomer directory. Center for Applied
Linguistics. Retrieved July 29,2002, from http://www.cal.org/crede/newsummary.htm.
Short, D. & Boyson, B. (2002) Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence
(CREDE). Newcomers: Language and academic programs for recent immigrants. Center
for Applied Linguistic. Retrieved July 29, 2002, from
http://www.cal.org/crede/newsummary.htm.
Sousa, D. (1998). Is the fuss about brain research justified? Retreived May 12, 2003, from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/16sousa.h18.
Sprenger, M. Learning and memory: The brain in action. 1999 Retrieved February 24, 2003,
from http://www.ascd.org/pubs/cl/2nov98.html.
Sylwester, R. (1996). Celebrating neurons. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
Talukder, G. How the brain makes way for a second language. Retrieved February 23, 2003,
from http://www.brainconnection.com.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness for language
minority students' long-term academic achievement. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from
http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research.
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom. Responding to the needs of all learners. The
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved March 15, 2003,
from http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/books/tomlin99book.html#chap1.
Vygotsky and Social Cognition. Retrieved February 23, 2003, from

http://www.funderstanding.com.
QUESTION 6
Evaluate how CBT or WBT can be used to improve staff development offerings for language
assistance teachers? Develop a comprehensive staff development program using CBT or WBT.
“Over the past two decades, America’s classrooms have undergone an unmistakable
metamorphosis” (Friedlander, 1991, p. 1). There are over 8.6 million children enrolled in U.S.
schools and nearly 40% require some sort of language assistance (Hakuta, 2001). Today,
virtually all school districts, whether rural or urban, have at least one limited English proficient
(LEP) student (Friedlander, 1991; Short, 1998; Viadero, 20001). This new wave of immigration
sweeping the U.S. is vastly different from that of a hundred years ago. Most of the 26.8 million
immigrants living in the U.S. come from Latin America, Asia, the Caribbean, and the Middle
East (Short, 1998). Forty percent of new immigrants are under 18 years of age, and one in five
children in America is an immigrant or a child of immigrants (Viadero, 2000). These new
immigrants are coming from a variety of educational realms; some come from well-educated
families with valuable expertise and knowledge, while others come from highly impoverished
areas (Friedlander, 1991; Short, 1998; Viadero, 2000). It is more difficult to educate the new
immigrants, when compared to immigrants of the past, because most new immigrants come from
non-English speaking countries, where access to formal education is limited (Short, 1998;
Viadero, 2000). Limited English proficient (LEP) is the legal definition used to identify students
who were not born in the U.S., or whose native language is not English and who cannot
participate effectively in the regular curriculum because they have difficulty speaking,
understanding, reading, and writing in English (Department of Education-OCR, 1999). LEP is

the term recognized by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and therefore will be the term used
throughout this comprehensive paper.
States and school districts are searching for effective methods to train their staff on how
to educate their LEP students in the mainstreamed classroom. School districts and universities
are currently failing to meet their LEP students' needs. These institutions are having difficulty
locating, hiring, and training qualified Bilingual and ESL language teachers (Hakuta, 1998).
New research indicates that children in schools with many minority and
poor students are more likely to be taught by under qualified teachers.
Those findings are emerging just as other studies are beginning to quantify
the damage that an ineffective teacher can do. Research by William
Sanders and his colleagues at the University of Tennessee suggest that
three consecutive years of bad teachers can significantly hamper a child’s
learning over the long run. (Viadero, 2000, p. 30)
Instructors of LEP students typically receive specialized training in bilingual and/or English as a
Second Language (ESL) education. In 1998, according to the California Department of
Education, there were only 14,965 certified bilingual teachers and only 9,188 who were in
training nationwide (Hakuta, 1998). This number is not enough to meet the ever-increasing need
for language assistance teachers who provide services to LEP students in mainstreamed/general
education classrooms.
The most challenging task facing American educators is finding or developing
methodologies to successfully integrate new LEP students into the academic arena. Effective
teachers must continually update their professional skills; however, today’s educators are
inundated and overworked. Teachers lack time to keep up with advances in their subject matter
and lack the funds to obtain the additional professional development needed. To aid in this
endeavor, a school district may elect to adopt available technologies, such as technology-based
learning programs, to enhance the educational development and/or professional development of
its staff (Beer; 2000; Gibson, 1992; Hakuta, 1998; Philips, 1999; Short, 1998; Viadero, 2000).
Technology-based Learning Inception
Education is changing and evolving over time. As in the business world, today’s
educational institutions are transitioning into the Information Age. Education via the use of
electronic technology is challenging traditional modes of instruction that have been in common
practice for hundreds of years. Because there are over twenty-five million host servers on the
Internet and over two hundred million users today, school districts, administrators, and educators
are beginning to reexamine the learning process of when, how, and where learning occurs
(Chute, Thompson, & Hancock, 1999). Many educational institutions and corporations are
investing in a wide range of educational services or courses that are posted on the Internet and/or
downloaded to their Intranet.
The power and the flexibility of distance learning technologies offer new
and enhanced ways to incorporate active and interactive learning
experiences into curricula at all educational levels to most appropriately
meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population of learners. (Chute et
al., 1999, p. 4)
Technology-based learning (TBL) is a viable option for school districts and/or
administrators to improve their staff professional development. Technology-based learning

(TBL) is the “preferred term for any form of technology to deliver or support learning” (Philips,
1999, p. 289). Technology-based learning encompasses presentation and delivery methods using
multimedia, videoconferencing, virtual reality, Groupware, distance learning, Internet/ Intranets,
CD-ROMS, satellites, e-mail, and voicemail (Philips, 1999).
School districts and administrators are incorporating newly available distance learning or
Internet instruction to train staff and/or to provide specialized training to meet their schools’
individualized needs (Beer, 2000; McKenzie, 2001). Distance learning courses allow a
participant to access the training he/she needs anywhere, any time, and at any location. The
student must have access to a computer, a CD-ROM, and/or a reliable connection to his/her
organization’s Intranet or to the Internet. Many educators are restructuring and creating an ideal
learning environment for their students and are employing new technologies to address their
needs. At Weekend College programs, multimedia programs and additional educational
opportunities are rapidly being developed. Through the use of satellite broadcasting, an array of
learning opportunities are now available for millions of people worldwide (Beer, 2000; Gibson,
1992). The virtual campus has shifted learning environments from a teacher/professor-centered
approach to a student-centered system of learning. Eighty-five percent of two-year colleges and
84% of four-year colleges were projected to offer distance learning courses by 2002 (Brown,
John, & Duguid, 1996; Herrington, Oliver, & Omari, 1996; Gallego, 1998; Philips, 1999; Young,
1997).
Internet/Intranet-based Training
The explosion of technological advances is due to the launch of the Internet, twenty-five
years ago, followed by the inception of the Worldwide Web (WWW) in 1989 (Chute et al.,
1999). Commonly referred to as the “Net, the World Wide Web, or simply the Web, the Internet
is the largest computer network in the world” (Philips, 1999, p. 303). The Internet has made it
possible for one to communicate quickly, easily, and inexpensively anywhere in the world. The
Internet has allowed organizations to expand the various types of technology, including distance
learning via web-based training or Internet/Intranet training. In 1998, there were 710,000
students enrolled in some form of distance-learning program, and the number was projected to
increase to over 2.2 million in 2002 (Driscoll, 1999; Gallego, 1999; Herrington et al., 1996;
Philips, 1999). The delivery of TBL opportunities available via the Internet/Intranets includes
the use of e-mail, multimedia, WBT, and CBT (Brown et al., 1996). Training Industry Magazine
reported that 19 % of training courses available were delivered via computer using CD-ROMs,
diskettes, or online via the Internet (Brown et al., 1996; Philips, 1999).
“Internet-based training is referred to any skill or knowledge transfer that takes place
using the WWW as a distribution channel” (Gallego, 1998, p. 7). The Internet/Intranet has made
it possible for corporations to provide “just-in-time training” to their employees anywhere across
the globe. The delivery is virtual and “distance becomes irrelevant which makes it ideal for
global learning solutions” (Philips, 1999, p. 304). An Intranet is an internal network that
organizations use to deliver in-house information; this information is not available to the public
(Leiden & Wilensky, 2000). By placing a single website on an organization’s Intranet, it allows
administrators and staff to access all types of learning resources within the organization. The
resources may include internal, external, instructor led programs, on-line courses, fixed media
coaching resources, books, or on-the-job training courses (Philips, 1999, p. 295).
Internet/Intranet instruction is now one of the most popular instructional modes for a variety of
reasons (Beer, 2000; Philips, 1999). “It is easily accessible, it supports flexible storage and
display options, it provides a simple yet powerful publishing format and a means to incorporate
multiple media elements” (Herrington et al., 1996, p. 2).
The emergence of the Worldwide Web, with its easy-to-use graphical

interface, has drastically altered the way in which people access
information, and how they think about computers. Methods in which we
deliver and receive instruction may also be on the brink of a new
dimension. (Hoffman & Ritchie, 1996, p. 1)
Interactive forms of communications include electronic e-mails, interactive television,
and teleconferencing. As the name suggests, interactive forms of communication allow the
instructor and the participants to interact with one another in live time. Networks allow
organizations to provide desktop platforms to interface with each other. Networks include the
Internet, Intranets, local-area networks (LANs), and wide-area networks (WANs) (Leiden &
Wilensky, 2000). A LAN is defined as computers or other devices that communicate over small
geographical areas, such as a home office, a floor of a building, or even several buildings on a
small campus (Leiden & Wilensky, 2000). A WAN is a network of computers that span
geographical distances that are too large for a LAN (Leiden & Wilensky, 2000). Organizations
that use networks are able to reduce training costs because networks do not require complex
software. Incorporating multimedia is an efficient and cost-effective way to deliver training
(Chute et al., 1999; Philips, 1999).
Web-based and Computer-based Training
Technology-based learning includes web-based training (WBT) and computer-based
training (CBT). Web based training (WBT) may be delivered in a variety of modes. For
instance, the simple text-only utilizes e-mail technology, whereas more complex networking
utilizes multimedia and/or live video-conferencing (Beer, 2000). Computer-based training
(CBT) often includes the use of CD-ROMs, or diskettes used by an individual, to provide instant
and up-to-date instruction (Beer, 2000). CD-ROMS are considered today to be one of the best
delivery systems for TBL. Web-based training differs from CBT in that WBT requires a
computer with a connection to the Internet, whereas CBT can include the use of one computer
with a CD-ROM inserted to deliver instructional materials. Web-based training is considered to
be more versatile and "user- friendly" than CBT; it is always available as long as the user has
Internet or Intranet access (Beer, 2000). Computer-based training devices may be ineffectual if
the user is not able to upload the information (Beer, 2000; Chute et al., 1999; Gibson, 1992;
Philips, 1999).
“Web-based training generally applies to any kind of instructional material delivered over
a corporate Intranet or Internet accessed by browser-equipped users” (Gallego, 1999, p. 3). Web-
based instruction is described as “a hypermedia instructional program which utilizes the
attributes and resources of the World Wide Web to create a meaningful learning environment
where learning is fostered and supported" (Brandon 1997, p. 1). Web-based training is an
innovative method that incorporates a distance learning format; in this format, CBT is
transformed by the technologies and methodologies of the Internets/Intranets. Web-based
training programs offer base knowledge instruction that engages the learner in problem solving
exercises and provide a summation of the participants’ overall performance (Beer, 2000). With
full access to the Internet, WBT programs can expand to include a worldwide community of
learners not accessible in an ordinary classroom (Beer, 2000; Boshier & Gallego, 1998; Chute et
al., 1999; Philips, 1999; Wilson & Qayyum, 1999).
In Australia, CBT has been legislated to a greater extent than in most

countries. Policy directives at the national/federal level I the early 1990s
have ensured that competency-based training would become the preferred
method of delivery of VET [Vocational Education and Training]… Today,
CBT is synonymous with training in Australia. (Lowrie, 1999, p. 2)
WBT can be delivered synchronously or asynchronously. In an asynchronous virtual
classroom delivery, students and instructors are not required to engage in online collaborative
learning activities at the same time. With this type of program, learners are usually self-directed
and/or self-paced. This type of instruction utilizes hypermedia, hypertexts, online quizzes, and e-
mail (Beer, 2000; Driscoll 1999; Gallego, 1999; Herrington et al., 1996). A more technically
sophisticated WBT course may use a synchronous mode of instructional delivery that resembles
more of a “traditional” classroom because it may consist of an instructor and students who are
online at the same time (Beer, 2000). The instructor facilitates the instruction and guides his/her
students through conversations regarding the course context using questions, discussions, and
debate tactics. Tools utilized in synchronous course include electronic whiteboards, video-
conferencing, audio-conferencing, and online chats (Beer, 2000; Gallego, 1998). This process is
commonly referred to as "interactivity" because there is dialogue between the participants (Beer,
2000; Gallego, 1998; Herrington et al., 1996). “Through their connection across time and space,
teachers and students gain experiences, share text, graphics, audio, video, and virtual reality
experiences” (Weinstein, 1997, p. 24).
WBT programs can save organizations money even though they are rather expensive to
develop initially. School districts and administrators must consider the development costs, which
include the following: equipment, software, hardware, and program maintenance. The cost of
WBT programs varies depending on the organization's technological infrastructures already in
place. If the organization has no existing infrastructure, the cost could range from $25,000 to
$50,000 (Beer, 2000; Chute et al., 1999; Philips, 1999; Wilson & Qayyum, 1999). If a school
district opts to send fifteen employees to a traditional training program, it could cost the district
an average of $24,000. This amount, according to numerous experts, is less than the estimated
cost for developing a WBT; however, the costs of creating a WBT could be recovered initially
and/or over time of the program (Beer, 2000; Boshier & Gallego, 1998).
Technology-based Learning and Education
Technology-based learning has particular implications not only for the student, but, for
the teaching profession and the learning environment. Technology-based learning utilizes
multimedia that is capable of evaluation, adaptation, and remediation; all multimedia is
independent of the computer platforms of each user. Educational organizations are now offering
a wide range of courses and programs without having the additional expense of adding buildings
and classrooms (Beer, 2000). A student may enroll in an unlimited number of correspondence
courses and distance learning educational programs. These programs are now regarded as
important educational environments in which a significant number of adults are opting to enroll
(Beer, 2000; Chute et al., 1999; Gibson, 1992; Philips, 1999).
Technology is not only challenging and transforming higher education, but secondary and
elementary education as well. Distance learning technologies are being implemented into
schools to improve the quality of instruction delivered. Secondary and elementary schools are
offering on-line full-time accredited distance educational programs. Advanced placement high
school courses are available on-line for secondary students. In Appleton, Wisconsin students in
grades K-8 are now (2003-2004) able to attend a virtual charter school called Wisconsin
Connections Academy (Borsuk, 2002). “The school plans to use teachers hired by Appleton and
curriculum provided by a private company, Sylvan Ventures, to educate about 300 children
learning from their homes all across the state” (Borsuk, 2002, p. 1). A curriculum enrichment
program, such as the "virtual field trip," is also available at most school districts (Borsuk, 2002).
These types of technologies offer educators tools for design of their learning environment that
encourages their students to work on activities both individually and collaboratively with other
students around the globe (Chute et al., 1999).
Technology-based Learning Effectiveness

Regardless of what type of instructional delivery that is utilized with TBL, instructors and
participants who are separated by space and time, come together. Today’s educators have the
ability to develop the skills necessary to require students to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the
information presented (Chute et al., 1999; Driscoll 1999; Gallego, 1999; Herrington et al.,1996).
To be an effective TBL program, it must be aligned with how adults (children if applicable) learn
and process information (Grill, 1999). According to Grill (1999), the distance learner's average
age ranges from 25 to 50 years. These adults are often self-directed learners who tend to focus
on the process and take control of their own learning. Often, TBL students set their own learning
goals, locate appropriate resources, and determine which learning methods to employ. They also
tend to evaluate their own progress along the way, allowing them to keep up with others enrolled
in the course. Although there is no physical classroom where distance learners meet, they do
communicate with each other as part of study groups.
Technology-based learning programs tend to utilize experiential learning theory models,
which postulate that students' learning should be built upon their own experiences, and that their
experiences represent a valuable resource (Jarvis, 1987). Technology-based learning allows
participants to progress through their training at their own pace (Beer, 2000). It also provides the
student with the opportunity to immediately evaluate his/her own learning. As "most WBT
programs are little more than self-paced learning, success in these programs hinges on the
learner's ability to engage in self-directed learning and to develop metacognitive skills for the
Web" (Driscoll, 1999, p. 24).

Instructors play a vital role in the success of a TBL program. Instructor effectiveness is
one of the determining factors in participant dropout rate; however, this is also true of traditional
courses. Traditional courses provide a detailed time frame that allows the participant to complete
the course in the manner set out before them. In TBL, instructors facilitate learning by using
creative lessons and incorporating a variety of multimedia modes into their lectures. Often,
courses are subdivided into incremental sections, which are taught in a systematical manner.
Activities utilized in TBL often include advanced graphic organizers, hyperlinks, and
scaffolding. These methods are designed to help students construct knowledge and complete
tasks utilizing their interpersonal and analytical skills (Beer, 2000; Brown, 2000; Herrington et
al., 1996). "Learning communities must foster communication between teacher and student, and
use the computational power of the Web to provide rich media that enhance the learning process"
(Driscoll, 1999, p. 25).
It facilitates student-centered approaches creating a motivating and active

learning environment; it supports and encourages browsing and
exploration, learner behaviors that are frequently associated with higher-
order learning. The nature of the organization … appears to closely mimic
human memory, and retrieval methods closely resemble the human
thought processes. (Herrington et al., 1996, p. 1)
Web-based training and CBT provide an effective learning environment that offers
students flexibility of course materials, immediate communication with peers and instructors,
and the informational feedback that they desire (Beers, 2000). Effective web-based tasks require
participants to build from their prior knowledge as well as apply their new skills and abilities in a
more insightful manner (Chute et al., 1999; Lightfoot, 1998, 1999; Rowe & Gregor, 1999; Yang,
2001). Technology-based learning courses instigate problem-solving, critical thinking skills, and
acknowledge the diverse cognitive learning styles of their participants. Technology-based
learning offers hands-on, cooperative, real-world learning activities. Appropriately, designed
courses engage participants in finding real-world solutions to real-life problems (Beer, 2000). At
the same time, the students construct new tools for understanding, based upon their prior
knowledge (Brown, 2000). The materials themselves do not actually teach the participants but
provides a medium that supports learning (Herrington et al., 1996). In a professional
development course on tolerance education, an instructor may assign participants the task of
demonstrating the ways culture sometimes impedes classroom learning. A participant may use
web-based search engines or a library database to find information on culture in schools. The
participants may use their own set of resources and capabilities to access the necessary
information needed to complete the lesson (Beer, 2000; Brown, 2000).
Technology-based Learning Limitations
Despite its multiplicity of applications, the Internet is not the best educational or training
environment for some people. Herrington and colleagues (1996) found that in many instances
delivery via the Web might impede learning rather than enhance learning when compared to
conventional educational forms. Participants tend to become disenfranchised because
technology may be intimidating for some users. Learners do not always have the technology
skills, navigational skills, and/or prior knowledge of the subject matter needed to effectively
learn in TBL (Beer, 2000; Eastmond, 1998; Tergan, 1997). Technology-based learning may
require the learner to have more complex technical skills (Wilson & Lowry, 1998). Learners
may have to use video, animation, audio, e-mails, bulletin boards, online chats, complicated
software, and web browsers such as MS Internet Explorer, and Netscape Navigator (Driscoll,
1999; Gallego, 1999; Herrington et al.,1996; Wonacott, 2000).
Often the constraints of TBL have to do with the students’ technological skills and their
attitude towards the faculty. “WBT courses tend not to be as interactive as instructor-led ones,
and the absence of an instructor means that most students will not push themselves as hard”
(Heckler, 1999, p. 4). Learners who experience difficulty with the courses have indicated the
need for more one-on-one interaction with their instructor, including the need for further input
and feedback on their progress. Based upon completed program evaluations, some participants
experienced isolation in their courses, from their instructors and were less engaged overall (Beer,
2000; Brown, 2000; Edelson, 1998). Experts conclude unsatisfactory evaluations could be
related to TBL instructors not being adequately trained in facilitation of TBL courses, how to
increase their students' participation and interaction while other instructors tend to utilize the
more traditional mode of delivery, the lecture mode, as the predominant method of instruction
(Beer, 2000; Brown, 2000; Edelson, 1998).
Researchers, including Lightfoot (1998, 1999) and Lowrie (1999), have found the
opposite contention to be true. Their research suggested that participants enrolled in WBT
courses on the Web experienced immediate and more productive interactions with their peers and
their instructor. Through course feedbacks, learners have stated they had a more intimate
learning experience and had experienced more ownership, which led to more positive learning
outcomes. Participants reported a stronger sense of connection to their peer learning community
and had developed a more powerful learning experience as a result of their participation in the
WBT course. The researchers also indicated that successful completion of WBT/CBT courses
was difficult for those participants who were undisciplined or lacked motivation. While
motivation is always important, those who lack discipline may be suited to a more traditional
learning environment (Beer, 20000; Brown, 2000; Lightfoot, 1998, 1999; Vondanovich &
Piotrowski, 1999, 2000).
Conclusion
The use of TBL is rapidly growing because of the advantages this type of instruction
offers to educational organizations. Children will enjoy more in-class contact time with their
teachers. Teachers will be able to participate in training that is relevant to their particular needs
and on their own time, when convenient for their schedules. Technology-based learning allows
participants the flexibility of choosing the time and place for their instruction; this aspect is
appealing to teachers who are trying to balance their own training with classroom and home
responsibilities (Beer, 2000; Brown, 2000; Lightfoot, 1998, 1999). By changing the way
professional development is delivered, students, educators, and administrators will each benefit.
School districts will be able to save money that is usually spent on substitute teachers.
Administrators would be able to add additional student contact days to the school calendar by
reducing the number of professional development days required for teacher training.
Technology-based learning provides school districts a way to assess their staff members’ active
participation in their professional development (Lightfoot, 1998, 1999). As states face huge
deficits and school districts continue to scramble to find the funding for professional staff
development, TBL allows districts to the ability to reduce costs associated with training. Savings
would come from a reduction in travel expenses, instructor fees, facility costs, materials, and
office equipment costs. In addition, the cost of lost job time that occurs when teachers are in
training would be saved. Technology-based learning saves districts an average of $1,500 per
employee annually (Beer, 2000; Brown & Duguid, 1996; Driscoll, 1999; Herrington et al., 1996;
Pollack, 1996; Philips, 1999).
It is commonly accepted among educators that there is not just one way in which all
students learn; each learner is unique and has his/her own learning style (Beer, 2000; Brown &
Duguid, 1996; Driscoll, 1999; Herrington et al., 1996; Philips, 1999; Pollack, 1996).
How do learners learn best? Trainers and educators often ask this
question. The answer invariably is that it depends on the learning context
and the individual’s learning style. Getting information when we want it,
where we want it, and in a way that is meaningful to us can have
significant effects on both our willingness and our ability to learn. (Chute
et al., 1999, p. 205)
It is illogical to conclude that there is a single mode of instructional delivery that will effectively
reach all potential learners. Technology-based learning was not designed to replace universities
or instructor-led learning. Due to the complexity of human learning, the need for face-to-face
communication will not be eliminated. In order to be effective, TBL must offer a balance
between virtual interaction (between the learner and the material) and real-time interaction
(between the instructor and the students) (Weinstein, 1997). Technology-based learning offers a
methodology of instruction that can be used by the teacher and the students.
Regardless of how one feels about TBL, WBT and/or other distance
learning technologies used in education, they are here to stay. Educators
will continue utilizing TBL in their classrooms to enhance how they
deliver instruction that fosters students’ learning. School districts and
educators are discovering that the type of training programs currently
offered are not representative of how adults optimally learn. Learning can
no longer be confined within the four walls of a classroom. An instructor
armed with a textbook will no longer be the sole source of knowledge and
educational experiences. Information resources will be everywhere, often
separated from learners by time and space. (Chute et al., 1999, p. 204)
Through TBL, states and school districts can begin to eliminate the educational and
instructional problems facing schools. When school districts and administrators implement
technology-based instruction, they provide their staff members with an effective way to
collaborate with colleagues elsewhere. This type of professional development affords educators
a viable way of sharing their knowledge and expertise with others in the same field. Technology-
based learning may provide learning environments that allow educators and other staff members
to become life-long learners. Using technology as a strategy for training teachers and others in
education may ultimately benefit not only the individual learner, but the organization as a whole.
Tolerance Education: Changing Our World One Child at a Time!
Technology-based Learning Course Model
Rationale
As of September 2002, Kenosha Unified School District, also known as "the District," the
third largest school district in Wisconsin, enrolled over 21,000 students. The District offered its
Language Assistance Programs (LAPs) services to over 1,300 LEP students at all grade levels
(KUSD, 2003). Enrollment data were retrieved from Wisconsin’s “Third Friday in September
Enrollment Count.” In March 2003, the District identified and assessed an additional 700+ LEP
students due to the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.” The District has continuously enrolled
ten to fifteen new LEP students per month (KUSD, 2003).
In addition, the District has had various complaints filed with the Office of Civil Rights
(OCR) on behalf of its LEP student population. In July 2002, the District reached an agreement
with OCR (termed the Action Plan). Part of the Action Plan mandated that the District provide
professional development to teachers on effective instructional strategies for mainstreaming LEP
students, as stipulated by OCR. Based upon the preliminary results of the training sessions, the
District’s staff indicated a need for additional professional development in the area of diversity
education and/or cultural sensitivity training. The District is now mandating all its employees to
attend this staff development on diversity education and/or cultural sensitivity training. The
District has made a concerted effort to train its staff on these issues, but due to time constraints
and funding, it has not been able to reach and train all of its staff members. Currently, the district
has two ESL certified “classroom” teachers to train all of the staff members. These two teachers
team-teach within the same classroom. Additionally, these teachers must attend various meetings
and/or training sessions during school hours and rely on substitute teachers to teach their students
in their absence.
In order to assist in this endeavor, a technology-based learning model course was
developed for the District to train the entire staff. Prior to creating this course, the District’s
technology team met to discuss the District’s available technology resources and to determine
whether a model was feasible and/or reasonable. It was determined from this meeting that the
District has the capabilities to incorporate a WBT/CBT on its Intranet-Advisory Board, but has
never attempted to do so. Based on the information gained from various educational courses at
Capella University, a model was created for a TBL program on Tolerance Education for KUSD.
The District administrators will be consulted to determine content changes. Also, the
administrators will arrange for implementation of the TBL course in the Fall 2003- 2004.
Tolerance Education: Changing Our World One Child at a Time!
Technology-based Learning Course Model
Designed for Kenosha Unified School District No. 1, Kenosha, Wisconsin
Step 1: To access the web-based training site, utilize the following link:
http://scjven.puertasdebabel.org/ell/email.htm
Step 2: Input the username: Tolerance
Step 3: Input the password: education
* This program is case sensitive. Please use the correct wording, and use of capitalization,
or access will be denied.
References
Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995, November/December). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm
for undergraduate education. Change, 13-25.
Beer, V. (2000). The web learning fieldbook. Using the World Wide Web to build workplace
learning environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass- Pfeiffer.
Borsuk, A. (2002). Virtual schools hit turbulence in state-One delayed by lack of charter, second
challenged by teachers union. Journal Sentinel. Retrieved May 27, 2003, from
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug02/64523.asp.
Boshier, R., Wilson, M., & Qayyum, A. (1999). Lifelong education and the World Wide Web:
American hegemony or diverse Utopia? International Journal of Lifelong Education.
Retrieved March 4, 2003, from http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/tern/Text/contact.htm.
Brandon, H. (1997). Web-based training cookbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Brown, B. (1998). Distance education and web-based training. ERIC Information Series No.
379. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH.
Retrieved March 4, 2003, from http://ericacve.org/majorpubs2.asp?ID=20.
Brown, B. (2000). Web-based training. ERIC Digest No. 218. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult,
Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, OH. Retrieved March 4, 2003, from
http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed445234.html.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1996). Universities in the digital age. Part two: Business, commerce
and services, Information Age Anthology. Retrieved March 4, 2003 from
http:www.dodccrp.org/antch13.htm.
Buchanan, T. (1998-99). Using the World Wide Web for formative assessment. Journal
Educational Technology Systems, 27(1).
Chute, A., Thompson, M., & Hancock, B. (1999). The McGraw-Hill handbook of distance
learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dede, C. (1998). ASCD Yearbook-1998. Learning with technology. Alexandria: ASCD.
Desimone R., Werner, J., & Harris, D. (2002). Human resource development. Fort Worth:
Harcourt College Publishing.
Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights –OCR (1999). Retrieved October 22, 2002
from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/ELL/index.html.
Driscoll, M. (1999). Web-based training in the workplace. Adult Learning, 10 (4), 21-25.
Driscoll, M. M. (1997). Defining Internet and web-based training. Performance and Instruction
Journal, 36(4).
Dugan, S. (1998). Internet fuels training market. InfoWorld, 20(36).
Dunn, S. (2000). The virtualizing of education. The Futurist, 34 (2).
Eastmond, D. V. (1998). Adult learners and Internet-based distance education. Adult learning and
the Internet, new directions for adult and continuing education, 78, 33-41.
Edelson, P. J. (1998). The organization of courses via the Internet, academic aspects, interaction,
evaluation, and accreditation. Paper presented at the National Autonomous University of
Mexico, Mexico City.
Friedlander, M. (1991, Fall). The newcomer program: Helping immigrant students succeed in
U.S. schools. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, No. 8. Retrieved November 1,
2002, from http://ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig8.htm;
http://www.helpforschools.com/ELLKBase/refernces/NEWCOMERPROGRAMTableCo.
Gallego, G. (1998). The state-of-the-art in web-based training. Retrieved March 3, 2003 from
http://gracespace.com/weblearn/.
Gibson, C. (1992). Distance education: On focus and future. Adult Education Quarterly, 6(4).
Giroux, S., Hotte, R., & Dao, K. (1997). Adaptive and agile learning environments on the
WWW. In WebNet 97 Conference of the WWW, Internet, and Intranet Proceedings,
Charlottesville, VA. Edited by S. Lobodzinski and I. Tomek. Charlottesville, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 1997. (ED 429 535).
Hakuta, K. (1998). Improving education for all children: meeting the needs of language minority
children. Retrieved August 6, 2002, from http://www.standford.edu/~hakuta/Aspen.html.
Henke, H. (1997). Evaluating web-based instruction design. Retrieved March 3, 2003, from
http://www.scis.nova.edu/~henkeh/story1.htm.
Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Omari, A.,(1996). Creating effective instructional materials for the
World Wide Web. Retrieved March 2, 2003, from

http://elmo.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ausweb96/educn/oliver/.
Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D. (1996). CSU instructional technology initiatives. Office of
Chancellor: The California State University. Retrieved March 2, 2003, from
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/learningtree/DCD/WWWInstrdesign/Instruction.html.
Imel, S. (1997). Web-based training: Trends and issues alerts. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Center on Education and Training for
Employment, Ohio State University.
Jarvis P. (1987). Adult Learning in the Social Context. Croom Helm: London.
Kahn, R. (1997). 21st century training. Sales and marketing management. 146 (6).
Kenosha Unified School District Five-Year Long Range Committee (2003). Kenosha Unified
School District No. 1, Kenosha, WI.
Lawson, K. (1998). The trainer’s handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass- Pfeiffer.
Lee, W., & Owens, D. (2000). Multimedia-based instructional design. Computer-based training,
web-based training, distance broadcast training. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass- Pfeiffer.
Leiden, C., & Wilensky, M. (2000). TCP/IP for dummies. (4th ed.). New York: Hungry Minds,
Inc.
Lightfoot, J. (1998-99). A Blueprint for using the World Wide Web as an interactive teaching
tool. Educational Technology Systems, 27(4).
Lowrie, T. (1999). Policy innovations in the VET sector: The role of instructors in a competency-
based environment. Retrieved February 25, 2003, from
http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/low99164.htm.
McKenzie, J. (2001). How teachers learn technology best. Retrieved February 25, 2003, from
http://staffdevelop.org/howteachrslearn.html.
Miliano, M., & Ullius, D. (1998). Designing powerful training. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass-
Pfeiffer.
Phillips, J. (1999). HRD trends worldwide. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.
Pollack, T. A. (1996). Distance learning and today’s educational environment. In association of

small computer users in education summer conference proceedings, 29th, North Myrtle
Beach, SC.
Rah, K. Y., & Scuello, M. (1996). Computer aided statistics instruction protocol (CASIP)
restructuring undergraduate statistics in psychology: An integration of computers into
instruction and evaluation. Paper presented at 10th Annual Conference on Undergraduate
Teaching and Psychology, Psychology Department, Brooklyn College of the City
University of New York.
Rowe, G., & Gregor, P. (1999). A computer-based learning system for teaching computing:
Implementation and evaluation. Computers and Education.
Silberman, M. (1998). Active training. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: Pfeiffer.
Sherry, L., & Wilson, B. (1997). Transformative communication as a stimulus to web

innovations. B. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.
Languages and Linguistics, from http://www.cal.org/crede/newcomer.htm.
Tergan, S. (1997). Conceptual and methodological shortcomings in hypertext/hypermedia design

and research. Journal of Educational Computing Research.
Viadero, D. (2000, May). Bridging the gap. Teacher Magazine, 11(8).
Vondanovich, S., and Piotrowski, C. (1999-2000). An Internet-based approach to legal issues in

industrial-organizational psychology. Journal of Educational and Technology Systems,
26 (1).
Weinstein, P. (1997). Education goes the distance: Overview. Technology & learning,
17 (8).
Wilson, B., & Lowry, M. (1998). Constructivist learning happens all the time on the web. In
learning technologies: Reflective and strategic thinking, new directions for adult and
continuing education. Edited by E. Burge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
Wonacott, M. E. (2000). Web-based training and constructivism. In brief: Fast facts for policy
and practice. (2). Retrieved March 2, 2003, from
http://www.nccte.org/publications/infosynthesis/in-brief/in-brief02/index.asp.
Wright, S. W. (1998). The distance learning explosion. Community College Week.

Yang, S. C. (2001). Synergy of constructivism and hypermedia from three constructivist
perspectives- Social, semiotic, and cognitive. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 24 (4).
Young, J. R. (1997). Information technology: Rethinking the role of the professor in an age of
high-tech tools. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44 (6).

Collection of Papers On English As A Second Language

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Collection of Papers On English As A Second Language

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Comprehensive Collection of Papers on English as a Second Language

Dr. Patricia A. Alvara

Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research 5

Funding Newcomers Programs 54

The Bilingual Movement 80

Standardized Assessments 122

Brain Research 153

Technology-based Learning Inception 194

While the efficacy of language programs remains a widely debated topic

program of preference and study (Amrein & Pena, 2000).

District: Dual Immersion, Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE), English as a Second

instruction for LEP students nationwide.

“Bilingual education was initially implemented to address political, social, economical,

and educational injustices; it instead remains a powerful instrument of mainstreaming minority-

comprehensive paper refers to increasing LEP students’ achievement in English language

white 8th graders” (Johnston & Viadero, 2002, pp. 18-19).

Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE). Today, available research on Sheltered English

Multiple research methodologies have been utilized in bilingual education as tools to

exploration as methods of identifying the District’s Language Assistance Programs’(LAP)

strengths and weaknesses.

Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research

Qualitative research incorporates a variety of methodologies that are often combined

words and observations; stories, visual portrayals, meaningful characterizations, interpretations,

Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate, 2003).

Qualitative analysis is a process that is often the precursor to quantitative,

stories, visual portrayals, meaningful characterizations, interpretations, and other

expressive descriptions. Interviews are often used in qualitative research. Alternatively,

Qualitative data involve words and quantitative data involve numbers;

Qualitative research uses a combination of strategies to collect data: field observations,

research. It may be an exploratory research study or a quantitative descriptive study. A

collected through numbers, words or both (Zikmund, 2000).

In quantitative research, researchers conduct experiments, classify data, and construct

researcher may conduct non-controlled quantitative studies such as descriptive, correlational, ex

The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate, 2003).

Quantitative Debate, 2003).

research tends to incorporate a more humanistic approach. When conducting qualitative

& Schostak, 2000; Meloy, 2002).

In qualitative research, we seek to minimize the impact of our

In conducting a comparative analysis of Sheltered English Immersion programs, researchers may

select a multi-method or mixed methods methodology by collecting quantitative and qualitative

of assessment examined will be identified as qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of both.

Action research is a powerful qualitative research tool utilized in education. Educators

population, or if it is limited to the practices studied (its external reliability). In addition to

conclusions to warrant policy or strategic changes. In conducting a comparative analysis of

LEP student population.

descriptions of a phenomenon, to develop possible explanations of it, or to evaluate the

reaction to a perceived limitation of qualitative research.

(4) the study of emic [participant’s viewpoint] perspective of case study

teaching in an ESL classroom as a method of building LEP students’ academic content

A good depiction will provide a thick description…statements re-create a

was to contribute to the understanding of implementing alternative science assessments by

and other artifacts.

more variables. In order to be classified as an effective experiment, the research must be

monitoring process of their FEP students (Amselle & Chavez, 1997).

observational studies. Control is a critical factor in experimental design; experimental control

Fienberg, 1992; The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate, 2003).

Feinberg, 1992; Ramirez et al., 1991).

effectiveness of two alternative programs- Structured English Immersion and late-exit

affordable, and ethical.

significant part in an organization’s comprehensive needs assessment by identifying areas for

Feinberg, 1992; Gall et al., 1996).

“When the purpose of a study is to provide a systematic description of a large number of

to improve student learning (Kenosha Unified School District, 2003).