Page 363

Appendix A—
The Infrastructure for Research on English-Language
Learners and Bilingual Education

Diane August

Carl Kaestle

This appendix presents the results of a comprehensive study of the infrastructure for research on English-language learners and bilingual education. The origins of that infrastructure are first examined. This is followed by an explanation of the approach used for this study. The third and fourth sections review the agencies involved in the research and their activities at the federal and state levels, respectively. The fifth section describes the efforts of the various foundations, and the sixth those of the national reform networks. The final section addresses the recruitment and training of researchers.

The Origins Of An Infrastructure For Research
Bilingual Education in the Nineteenth Century

From the inception of free public education in the United States through the 1960s, most schools used English as their language of instruction, offering work in other languages only as second-language instruction. However, there were exceptions. In nineteenth-century New York City, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, smaller cities in Ohio, small towns in Wisconsin, and some communities in Louisiana, New Mexico, and elsewhere, school officials approved instruction in languages other than English as a response to the educational needs of immigrant children or as a reflection of the political strength of language-minority groups (see Castellano, 1983; Schlossman, 1983a; Jones, 1973).1

1Although there is no single source that consolidates perspectives on bilingual education, valuable information can be found in Crawford (1995); Zehler et al. (1993); Baker and de Kanter (1983); Glenn (1996); and Hakuta (1986). A good historical perspective from the early phase of bilingual education can be found in a five-volume set published by the Center for Applied Linguistics (1977).



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 363
Page 363 Appendix A— The Infrastructure for Research on English-Language Learners and Bilingual Education Diane August Carl Kaestle This appendix presents the results of a comprehensive study of the infrastructure for research on English-language learners and bilingual education. The origins of that infrastructure are first examined. This is followed by an explanation of the approach used for this study. The third and fourth sections review the agencies involved in the research and their activities at the federal and state levels, respectively. The fifth section describes the efforts of the various foundations, and the sixth those of the national reform networks. The final section addresses the recruitment and training of researchers. The Origins Of An Infrastructure For Research Bilingual Education in the Nineteenth Century From the inception of free public education in the United States through the 1960s, most schools used English as their language of instruction, offering work in other languages only as second-language instruction. However, there were exceptions. In nineteenth-century New York City, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, smaller cities in Ohio, small towns in Wisconsin, and some communities in Louisiana, New Mexico, and elsewhere, school officials approved instruction in languages other than English as a response to the educational needs of immigrant children or as a reflection of the political strength of language-minority groups (see Castellano, 1983; Schlossman, 1983a; Jones, 1973).1 1Although there is no single source that consolidates perspectives on bilingual education, valuable information can be found in Crawford (1995); Zehler et al. (1993); Baker and de Kanter (1983); Glenn (1996); and Hakuta (1986). A good historical perspective from the early phase of bilingual education can be found in a five-volume set published by the Center for Applied Linguistics (1977).

OCR for page 363
Page 364 The arguments used to support or oppose such programs were similar to those we hear today. Opponents argued that children needed English to function well as workers and citizens in America, that immigrants would remain isolated and clannish if they did not mix thoroughly with other children in the English-language environment of the common school, and that children would remain too long in the bilingual programs provided. Advocates variously argued that bilingual programs were needed to attract and retain immigrants' children in the public schools; that bilingual education was a reasonable accommodation; and that the purpose of these programs was a transition to English, which the children would learn soon enough. Occasionally, research in favor of bilingual education was cited. John Peasley, superintendent of Cincinnati's schools, studied achievement test scores and concluded that ''a child can study two languages at the same time and do as well in each, as he would if all his time were devoted to either language alone." And in St. Louis the head of German education persuaded William Torrey Harris, the famous superintendent of St. Louis schools, to provide classes in which German students were mixed with the other students. Harris approved a 5-year experiment comparing the mixed and segregated German-language classes. Achievement scores following the experiment suggested that "the Anglo-Americans will certainly learn more German" in the bilingual classes, while "the German Americans are not retarded in their progress by the presence of the Anglo-Americans," doing as well as those in segregated German bilingual classes (Schlossman, 1983a:156, 164). Usually, however, educators argued not from research, but from political conviction, common sense, or anecdote. Arguments were often expressed in terms such as "…rests on the soundest bases of public policy" or "as is well known." In a Milwaukee debate, both sides claimed that "expert" opinion supported their position (Schlossman, 1983a:174). In 1837, New York City opened two German schools. These were public primary schools with German-speaking teachers, provided for German American immigrant children. The instruction was supposed to be in English, and the purpose was to prepare the children to pursue their education in the existing public schools and thus to become identified with our native population. After a year, 380 children had been admitted. The school board tried to limit attendance to a 1-year maximum, but the teacher said the children could not be prevailed upon to attend the other schools because of dissimilarity of language, dress, manners, and so on. The board compromised, but insisted that the aim was to make these children, though Germans by birth, Americans by education, which could be accomplished only by their attendance at the regular common schools.

OCR for page 363
Page 365 Critics on the board said in 1843, "When foreigners are in the habit of congregating together they retain their national customs, prejudices and feelings and are therefore not as good members of society as they would otherwise be" (Kaestle, 1973:144). The board repeatedly refused requests for similar Italian schools, and in 1850 they abolished the German schools. Yet when the New York City schools underwent a governance reform and allowed more decentralized control in the latter part of the century, some wards offered German instruction once again, illustrating the ebb and flow of foreign-language instruction in nineteenth-century public schools. In rural Wisconsin and Minnesota, where German or Norwegian immigrants sometimes constituted a majority of a town's population, local schools often had German and Norwegian teachers, and, despite state laws limiting foreign-language instruction to 1 hour, German or Norwegian often became the school vernacular. Where the conditions were right, local schools in the nineteenth century often accommodated other languages. The extent of these practices cannot be precisely stated, but some estimates are quite substantial. Kloss (1977), for example, calculates that perhaps a million schoolchildren received some or all of their instruction in a language other than English in 1890. Some nonimmigrant politicians favored the accommodation as part of a strategy to attract immigrants, and some educators spoke positively about the outcome. The superintendent of Marathon County schools said that "if the children should first learn to express their thoughts in their mother tongue, they would later learn more of the English language in three months than they would learn, in the old way, in three years" (quoted in Schlossman, 1983a:144). In some midwestern cities with large German populations, various sorts of bilingual programs existed. William Torrey Harris argued that it was "in the interest of the entire community here that the German shall cultivate his own language while he adopts English as his general means of communication" (quoted in Schlossman, 1983a:151). Arguments of the opponents of these programs also sound familiar to the modern ear. In Milwaukee, dissenting board members argued in the 1890s that "instruction in German unnecessarily burdens these young children and retards their progress in other studies. … All means should be used to give them the best possible education in the English language, the language of their country" (quoted in Schlossman, 1983a:172). It is not surprising that little research was conducted on the scattered bilingual programs of the period. Little research was conducted on any educational practice. State departments of education had modest staffs and budgets, and American universities had as yet established neither a tradition nor an infrastructure for research. At the state and federal levels, research consisted largely of gathering statistics that could be used in formulating education policies.

OCR for page 363
Page 366 The Early Twentieth Century Three developments of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries changed the above situation: the expansion of state departments of education; the rise of research universities in the United States, with the attendant development of the social sciences; and the launching of large philanthropic foundations, many of which had an interest in education. These developments portended an increase in education research. However, by the time the necessary infrastructure was in place, the scattered, fledgling programs in bilingual education had largely ended. Use of the native language in schools went into a long period of dormancy starting with public outcries about the waves of new immigrants in the early 1900s (Jones, 1960s; Hakuta, 1986). The Dillingham Commission, set up by Congress to investigate the changing patterns of immigration, noted the low skill levels of new immigrants who had "congregated together in sections apart from native Americans and the older immigrants to such an extent that assimilation [had] been slow" (quoted in Jones, 1960:178). More pointedly, Francis Walker, president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, expressed his concerns: "These immigrants are beaten men from beaten races, representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence. …Europe is allowing its slums and its most stagnant reservoirs of degraded peasantry to be drained off upon our soil" (quoted in Ayres, 1909:103). Conditions had changed dramatically from the 1800s with respect to societal attitudes toward immigrants, in part as a result of the increased number of immigrants and in part as a result of the fact that the sources of immigration had changed from northern to southern and eastern Europe. Added to the anti-immigrant feeling was the hostility to German language and culture associated with World War I. In the wake of these combined developments, many states passed laws making English the sole language of school instruction in the first two decades of the century (Liebowitz, 1980). Thus from the 1920s on, although there was more education research in general, there was less bilingual education in practice. This is not to say, however, that there was no research on the educational needs of language-minority children or on language-minority populations more generally. As Hispanic American educators entered the mainstream of university research and educational administration, they mustered research to argue against the massive discrimination experienced by Hispanic students. The most famous of these researchers, George Sanchez, took his doctorate at Berkeley and held positions first as a researcher for the New Mexico state department of education and later as a professor of education at the University of Texas at Austin. Continually challenging discriminatory practices, Sanchez (1934:770) wrote about the subtle problems of translation for bilingual children taking mental ability tests. He argued that the "prostitution of democratic ideals to the cause of expediency, politics, vested interests, ignorance, class and 'race' prejudice" had led to inferior, segregated schooling, while standardized mental tests rested

OCR for page 363
Page 367 on an assumption of common culture and language. Schools "have the responsibility of supplying those experiences to the child which will make the experiences sampled by standard measures as common to him as they were to those on whom the norms of the measures were based." Like his mentor Herschel Manuel, Sanchez invested his energies in fighting the segregation of Mexican American children, not in arguing for separate bilingual programs (Schlossman, 1983b). In Forgotten People (Sanchez, 1940), he argued that New Mexico's public schools and other institutions had refused to accept and serve the needs of Mexican Americans, resulting in cultural lag and lack of opportunity to assimilate. Speaking of the teachers of Taos, Sanchez said, "Bilingualism and its problems, as a significant challenge and as an opportunity in education, is largely a closed book to them" (p. 78). "The educational policy followed in New Mexico is startling in its ineptitude," he declared (p. 33). A smattering of more general research on language minorities emanated from America's research universities from the 1920s to the 1960s, culminating in some important pieces of work, such as Fishman et al.'s influential Language Loyalty in the United States (1966). However, bilingual education was virtually absent from the policy agenda of American public schools, so the potential for research to shape policy and practice in this area remained to be seen. The Latter Twentieth Century Bilingual education did not significantly re-emerge until 1963, when a Ford Foundation grant set up an experimental program in Dade County, Florida, to accommodate the needs of the first wave of Cuban refugees, many of whom had intentions of returning to Cuba at the earliest opportunity (Mackey and Beebe, 1977). The goal of this program was to create fully functional bilingual students, and it enjoyed the privilege of including the elite among the Cuban refugee community and English-background students whose parents were interested in a bilingual education. The success of this program gave encouragement to the concept of bilingual education for students from less privileged backgrounds (see Hakuta, 1986). Federal endorsement of bilingual education began in 1968 when President Johnson signed into law the Bilingual Education Act as Title VII of the Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary Education Act, authorizing funds to be made available to local school districts on a competitive basis to establish innovative programs for students of limited English proficiency. The law did not specify that these programs had to use the native language of the students, although in practice most of them did (Crawford, 1995:60, footnote 1). Funds could be used to support programs, train teachers and aides, develop and disseminate instructional materials, and encourage parent involvement in the programs. In fiscal year 1969, Congress made the first appropriation for bilingual education, $7.5 million, enough to fund just 76 projects serving 27,000 students. Congressional

OCR for page 363
Page 368 action was followed by a flurry of activity in state legislatures and in the courts. Many states, starting with Massachusetts in 1971, enacted their own laws requiring special services, including bilingual education, for English-language learners.2 In 1974, in a class action suit filed on behalf of Chinese-background students against the San Francisco Unified School District, the Supreme Court ruled that districts offering the same instruction to English-language learners as they did to English-speaking children were in violation of the Civil Rights Act (Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 1974). In agreeing with the plaintiffs, they wrote: There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education. Importantly, the ruling did not require bilingual education: No specific remedy is urged upon us. Teaching English to the students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak the language is one choice. Giving instructions to this group in Chinese is another. There may be others. Petitioners ask only that the Board of Education be directed to apply its expertise to the problem and rectify the situation. In response to this ruling, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued a set of proposed remedies (known as the Lau remedies) to be used by its Office for Civil Rights to negotiate compliance plans with school districts that did not provide special programs for English-language learners, and thus were in violation of Lau. These proposed remedies required the provision of transitional bilingual education in most instances and went beyond the literal interpretation of the Lau decision with respect to specific remedies. The recommendations of the Lau remedies found three types of programs acceptable. We quote (excerpted in Baker and de Kanter, 1983:221): (1) Bilingual/Bicultural Program. A program which utilizes the student's native language (example: Navajo) and cultural factors in instructing, maintaining and further developing all the necessary skills in the student's native language and culture while introducing, maintaining, and developing all the necessary skills in the second language and culture (example: English). The end result is a student who can function, totally, in both languages and cultures. (2) Multilingual/Multicultural Program. A program operated under the same principles as a Bilingual/Bicultural Program except that more than one language and culture, in addition to English language and culture is treated. The end 2This action by Massachusetts was followed by similar actions by Alaska and California (1972); Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico, and Texas (1973); Michigan, New York, and Rhode Island (1974); Colorado, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Wisconsin (1975); Indiana (1976); Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, and Utah (1977); and Iowa, Kansas, Oregon, and Washington (1979). California's state law was allowed to "sunset" in 1987.

OCR for page 363
Page 369   result is a student who can function, totally, in more than two languages and cultures. (3) Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE). A program operated in the same manner as a Bilingual/Bicultural Program, except that once the student is fully functional in the second language (English), further instruction in the native language is no longer required. English as a second language (ESL), which the Lau remedies defined as "a structured language acquisition program designed to teach English to students whose native language is not English," was not considered appropriate "because an ESL program does not consider the affective nor cognitive development of students."3 The policy debate in the education of English-language learners in the early years of Title VII and the post-Lau period of the 1970s thus came to be defined in terms of how aggressively to pursue the use of the native language. The 1970s saw the active pursuit of bilingual and even bicultural education in both Congress and the courts and an administration eager to press for bilingualism (e.g., Gaarder, 1967). The first reauthorization in 1974 dropped the poverty criterion for eligibility and required schools to include instruction in the native language and culture. As noted earlier, many states followed suit by passing bilingual education laws that were modeled on Massachusetts law and on Lau, both of which set a specified number of students that would trigger a requirement for the provision of bilingual instruction. Around this time a series of evaluations began, comparing different methods of instruction for English-language learners. The first major event was the release of a study by the American Institutes for Research, challenging the effectiveness of bilingual education as compared with "sink-or-swim" situations for these students (Dannoff, 1978; see also Chapters 3 and 6 in this volume). Nonetheless, during the late 1970s the federal government settled into a policy of transitional bilingual education, rejecting English immersion on the one hand and the maintenance of non-English languages on the other. Much of the subsequent politics of language instruction for English-language learners can be seen as efforts to change that policy, and much of the research of the next two decades has been generated and interpreted through this lens. Despite the government's repeated statements that the purpose of bilingual education was the transition to English, opponents saw bilingual education as a force for language pluralism the maintenance of non-English languages. If the 1970s was a period of advancement for proponents of instruction through the native language, the 1980s was one of hurried retreat. The Lau remedies, requiring native-language instruction, were broadly used by the Office 3Elaboration and discussion of the uses of the Lau remedies can be found in Crawford (1995) and in Birman and Ginsburg (1983).

OCR for page 363
Page 370 for Civil Rights in negotiating with local school districts, but they had never been set in regulations. They were finally proposed as regulations in 1980 during the final months of the Carter administration and prior to President Carter's electoral loss to Ronald Reagan that same year. The proposed regulations were withdrawn early the next year by the Reagan administration for being "harsh, inflexible, burdensome, unworkable, and incredibly costly…an intrusion on state and local responsibility" (Education Secretary Terrel Bell, cited in Crawford, 1995:53). Title VII also came under stern criticism for its requirement of native-language use. President Reagan took time to depart from his prepared address to a group of mayors: It is absolutely wrong and against American concept [sic] to have a bilingual education program that is now openly, admittedly dedicated to preserving their native language and never getting them adequate in English so they can go out into the job market (New York Times, March 3, 1981). Secretary of Education William Bennett found much to attack in Title VII, specifically the restrictions on the proportion of funding for Special Alternative Instructional Programs, which do not use the native language. According to the Director of the Office of Bilingual Education at the time, Alicia Coro (personal communication), flexibility was needed because many school districts did not have the resources to provide native-language instruction for students from a myriad of backgrounds; ESL instruction was a more practical approach. The 1984 reauthorization had placed a cap on Special Alternative Instructional Programs of 4 percent of total program spending in Title VII. In a well-noted address in 1985, Bennett summed it up as follows: This, then, is where we stand: After seventeen years of federal involvement, and after $1.7 billion of federal funding, we have no evidence that the children whom we sought to help—that the children who deserve our help—have benefitted. And we have the testimony of an original sponsor of the Bilingual Education Act, Congressman James Scheuer of New York, that the Bilingual Education Act's original purposes were perverted and politicized; that instead of helping students learn English, the English has been sort of thinned out and stretched out and in many cases banished into the mists and all of the courses tended to be taught in Spanish [sic]. That was not the original intent of the program (U.S. Department of Education, 1985). Following a vigorous legislative battle in which proponents of bilingual education tried to maintain the existing cap on Special Alternative Instructional Programs, the cap was increased from 4 to 25 percent in the 1988 reauthorization (Section 7002(b)(3) of Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended in 1988). The shift in Congress from mandating of bilingual programs to increased acceptance of English-only programs has continued to this day. In the most recent reauthorization in 1994, the 25 percent cap was retained, but with a special

OCR for page 363
Page 371 provision for exceeding it if a grant applicant shows bilingual education to be infeasible because of the diversity of native languages or if bilingual teachers are not available despite documented efforts. At the state level, California allowed its aggressive state bilingual education law to sunset in 1987. Although no other states have allowed their bilingual education laws to lapse, these laws continue to generate controversy in state legislatures, most recently in states such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, and Connecticut. With the erosion of the position of bilingual education advocates in Congress in the 1980s, as well as the decreased enforcement of Lau by the Department of Education, an important court decision emerged on the definition of what it means for a school to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs. In this decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals offered an interpretation of Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, which referred to appropriate action. Castaneda v. Pickard (648 F.2d 989, 1006-07, 5th Cir. 1981) is the leading case that establishes a school district's obligations. It requires that (1) the program pursued by the district be informed by an educational theory recognized as sound by some experts in the field, or at least deemed a legitimate educational strategy; (2) the program and practices actually used by the school system be reasonably calculated to implement that theory effectively; and (3) a school's program, although premised on sound educational theory and effectively implemented, produce results indicating that the language barriers confronting students are actually being overcome. Other court cases, including Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1 (576 F. Supp. at 1519) and Teresa P. v. Berkeley Unified School District (724 F. Supp. 698, 716 N.D. Cal. 1989), have dealt with requirements for serving English-language learners under the Equal Education Opportunities Act, and in their interpretation have used Castaneda as a persuasive precedent (see August and Garcia, 1988). Castaneda is notable from the perspective of this report because of the burden it places on programs that they be informed by educational theory and the evidence upon which they are based (see Chapter 6). The final leg of the history that brings us up to date begins with the national education reform movement that was punctuated most prominently by the 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education) and the 1989 Education Summit in Charlottesville. The call to arms by the nation's governors (led by then-Governor Clinton) and President Bush led to a characterization of the entire national student body, not just particular groups of students, as being at risk. There was an ensuing call for explicit education goals, standards, and accountability, generically referred to as standards-based reform (see Chapter 5), to make the United States competitive in a global economy. Standards-based reform continues to define the debate over reform to this day (McLaughlin et al. 1995). One by-product of these political battles was to strengthen the framework of debate and analysis, which saw the education of English-language learners as a

OCR for page 363
Page 372 contest between two alternative strategies—some use of the native language versus an English-only approach—whose coherence in practice was illusory (since they were implemented differently in each site), but whose electrical charge in politics was potent. Several influential researchers have bemoaned the inelegance, ineffectiveness, and narrowness of research conducted under such circumstances over the past 20 years and have urged the value of basic research in developing more adequate theory to underlie bilingual education programs (see, e.g., McLaughlin, 1985; Hakuta and Gould, 1987). Many other researchers, of course, have lent their talents and time to the large-scale program evaluation studies that have dominated the agenda (see Chapter 6). The Bilingual Education Act of 1978 provided, for the first time, funds for a regular program of research on the education of English-language learners. There had been a few individual research projects on bilingual education funded by the old Office of Education and then by the National Institute of Education (NIE), which was established in 1972. But the 1978 legislation directed the Office of Bilingual Education (OBE) to lay out a 5-year plan of research. The law also required that the "Assistant Secretary of Education coordinate research activities of the National Institute of Education, with the Office of Bilingual Education, the National Center for Education Statistics, and other appropriate agencies, in order to develop a national research program for bilingual education (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended 1978, Section 742(a)(3) of Title VII). In response to this section of the law, and because OBE had no research staff at the time, while various other agencies in the Department of Education had research capacity and responsibilities, the department established a committee to coordinate research efforts on bilingual education department-wide. Named for the section of Title VII that provided the research money, the Part C Coordinating Committee envisioned a situation in which OBE would develop the capacity to fund and monitor research, but would also distribute funds to NIE for research on teaching and learning among English-language learners; to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for data collection and survey efforts; and to the Department's Office of Policy, Budget, and Evaluation (OPBE) for the evaluation of bilingual education programs. The Coordinating Committee was chaired by a representative of the Assistant Secretary for Education; some original members of the committee were Ronald Hall, Leslie Silverman, Katherine Truex, and Lois-Ellen Datta. For the first time, then, the federal government had created an infrastructure for research on language-minority student education. This infrastructure was a set of resources and institutional arrangements—funds, personnel, and procedures—intended to engage experts in surveying, analyzing, and evaluating the experiences of English-language learners and the programs designed to meet their needs, and thereby to improve practice. Now the ingredients for research-based educational policies existed, at least in theory: bilingual education was a growing feature of local school practice, but programs had very diverse characteristics

OCR for page 363
Page 373 and aims; bilingual education was becoming a hot debate; and the nation had at least a modest commitment to research in education. Researchers were challenged both to sort out the complexities of programs and results and to provide ammunition for the debates. In retrospect, however, the past 20 years has not been a heyday for research on this topic. Often, despite the existence of a research infrastructure, policy has been driven by the kinds of stereotypes, political preferences, and misconceptions that informed debates on bilingualism in the nineteenth century (see Hakuta, 1986). Nor did the research systematically contribute to improvements in practice, partly because of problems with the research methodology—an overreliance on large-scale evaluations and effective/nominated schools research, as well as faulty and weak mechanisms for oversight of the research enterprise. The purpose of this appendix is to describe how that infrastructure developed, how well it has worked, and what obstacles have impeded the effective funding of research and evaluation in this field. To some extent, the infrastructure for research related to the education of English-language learners partakes of the inadequacies of education research in general (see Atkinson and Jackson, 1992; Kaestle, 1993; Dershimer, 1976; Sproull et al., 1978). The picture is further complicated by the fact that the infrastructure for education research in general, and for research on these students in particular, is being substantially restructured as we write this report. Issues related to the infrastructure and recommendations for its improvement are addressed in Chapter 10 of this report. Approach To This Study Our central interest is in research on children with limited English proficiency and the programs designed to meet their educational needs, including bilingual education. We are also interested, however, in research on bilingualism as a cognitive and social phenomenon and research on language minorities and their relation to American schooling. As a shorthand for this set of concerns, we use the phrases "English-language learners" and "LEP issues" (see the discussion of definitional issues in Chapter 1). When deciding whether to include a given piece of research in our purview, we sometimes included research that specified a target group, such as Asian Americans or Hispanic Americans, having a large proportion of non-native speakers of English, even if the research did not directly address language acquisition; in contrast, we did not include studies that targeted "minority," "inner-city,'' or "disadvantaged" populations unless language was the specific focus. We looked not only at basic, intermediate, and applied research that directly addressed our topics, but also at studies that looked incidentally at language, those that included language as an explanatory variable, and data collection projects that included language variables. We surveyed all of the federal research agencies that fund a significant amount of research on LEP issues. We gathered background documents on these

OCR for page 363
Page 402 Asian Pacifics, Inc., was for policy research on Asian Pacific immigrants. Program grants included five sizable awards (to California State University at Long Beach, California Tomorrow, the Center for Applied Linguistics, the Intercultural Development Research Association, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County), all for programs on immigrant education. A large program grant to Teachers College of Columbia University supported work with suburban school districts in demographic transition. Two grants to Brown University supported school superintendents in their work with English-language learners. David and Lucile Packard Foundation The Packard Foundation did not fund any research per se on language issues, but did support a number of education programs relating to language. They gave modest-sized grants to Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Santa Cruz County for bilingual after-school tutoring; to the Self-Reliance Foundation of Santa Fe, New Mexico, to develop Spanish-language radio programs about family planning and women's reproductive rights; to the Sequoia Union School District of Redwood City, California, for immigrant education programs; and to others. They also awarded a large grant to Stanford University to improve translation services in health care settings for non-English-speaking Americans. Carnegie Corporation of New York Carnegie Corporation of New York supported this report. Two of the foundation's grants programs—Education and Healthy Development of Children and Youth, and Special Projects—provided significant support for research programs, model development, policy linkage, and community-organizing projects that benefit language-minority children, youth, and families. For example, the corporation provided support for research on effective parenting education and school reform models targeting Latino families, for legal advocacy to secure language-minority citizens' rights to equitable educational opportunity, for policy linkage activities that provide research-based analyses of language issues to federal and state lawmakers, and for voter education and outreach to strengthen the participation of Latino and Asian Americans in the democratic process. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The Hewlett Foundation provided four grants related directly or indirectly to language issues in education, though not for research. Among these were support to the Ravenswood City School District to purchase native-language library materials, to Arizona State University to sponsor a conference on minority opportunities programs, to California Tomorrow for its Education for a Diverse Society

OCR for page 363
Page 403 project, and to Morgan Hill Unified School District for a diversity training program. Spencer Foundation The Spencer Foundation devotes virtually its entire grants budget to education research. Thus, although its total grants budget is smaller than that of many other foundations, Spencer is the largest supporter of education research among all the foundations, and its work is of great importance to the future of the education research enterprise. Among its projects relating to LEP issues in its 1994-1995 annual report were a grant to Marcia Farr to study literacy practices among Mexican immigrant families; a grant to Robert Fullwinder to study multicultural education as moral education; a grant to Sara Harkness and Charles Super to study parental ethnotheories, cultural practices, and the transition to school; a grant to Lucinda Pease-Alvarez and Kenji Hakuta to study language maintenance and shift in early adolescence; a grant to Alejandro Portes to study the adaptation process of second-generation immigrants; and a grant to Sandra Schecter and Robert Bayley to study family language environment and bilingual development. Through its Small Grants Program, a grant was made to Irene-Anna Diakidoy and Stella Vosniadov to study Lakota/Dakota children's knowledge acquisition in astronomy. Spencer postdoctoral fellowship awards last year included one to Judith Moschkovich to study the construction of mathematical meaning in bilingual conversations, and Spencer dissertation fellowships went to Cynthia Brock to explore a second-language learner's opportunities for literacy learning in a mainstream classroom and to Jane Herman to study cross-linguistic transfer among bilingual kindergartners learning to read. Other Foundations This survey was informal. We did not find projects that were obviously about LEP education issues in the most recent available annual report of the Lilly Endowment, the Exxon Education Foundation, or the James S. McDonnell Foundation, although each of those foundations may have supported many research projects or action programs on other education issues, as they have in the past. Summary There is a substantial amount of support flowing from the philanthropic foundations to projects aimed at language-minority, LEP, or bilingual education issues. Not very much of this support is for research, as is true of the foundations' general stance toward a world full of problems needing solutions. In our recommendations in Chapter 10, we suggest that the foundations, like the government, should be mindful of opportunities to include language variables and issues

OCR for page 363
Page 404 in projects while continuing to emphasize applications to practice. Furthermore, we urge the foundations to support synthesis or networking activities that might foster the improvement of research and policy on such issues. National Reform Networks Since the mid-1980s, thousands of efforts have been launched to reform or restructure U.S. schools. Perhaps a dozen of these efforts have expanded to form networks that have gained national prominence and are frequently reported or cited in research, professional, or popular outlets. For the most part, these networks are not research oriented, but many have begun conducting evaluations of their projects. Moreover, most of these projects do not specifically target English-language learners. But since English-language learners have become an increasingly prominent component of the school population, many of these projects have, at a minimum, implicitly had to address the needs and issues of these students in local contexts. There is enormous variability in the manner and the degree to which these projects have responded to the presence of language-minority students in U.S. schools. At one extreme is Success for All, a project based at The Johns Hopkins University and headed by Robert Slavin. Success for All did not begin as a program for English-language learners; it began in inner-city Baltimore with largely African American schools. However, it has been implemented in a small number of schools with substantial language-minority populations. The program has maintained its essential characteristics, but it has also been explicitly adapted for English-language learners. There are in fact two adaptations—an ESL adaptation for students who receive all instruction in English, regardless of their primary language, and a Spanish bilingual adaptation for students in a Spanish primary-language program. Success for All's unusually systematic evaluations indicate that both adaptations are highly effective in promoting higher levels of reading achievement among English-language learners in project schools. A roughly analogous effort by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards is under way. The board has been working to develop standards and assessments for certifying highly qualified teachers; eventually, teacher certification will be available in more than 30 areas. One of those areas is ''English as a new language," and certification will be available to any teacher who wishes to be board certified for teaching in ESL or bilingual contexts. Employing the general framework used to develop certifications in other areas of teaching, the board will offer certification for teachers of English-language learners by September 1998. In addition, although minimal, standards for dealing with these students are included in the standards for all other areas of certification. In contrast to Success for All and the efforts of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, some programs make no adaptations for or simply have not included English-language learners in their activities. For example,

OCR for page 363
Page 405 the National Paideia Center is based on the explicit assumption that the program "works with all students" and that there is no need to differentiate for specific groups. The Core Knowledge Foundation is similar in that it, too, promotes a common, core curriculum for all students, although it encourages schools to devote half of their curriculum to topics and skills deemed relevant and meaningful locally. In both cases, there is a rejection of the differentiation of educational treatment by language or cultural group membership. Project Zero has done no work with English-language learners. More typically, however, reform efforts reviewed here attempt to deal with LEP issues through a subtle and complex interplay between the framework of the overall program and the particulars and exigencies of local contexts. Thus, Accelerated Schools, the Center for Educational Renewal, the Coalition of Essential Schools, Effective Schools, New American Schools Corporation, and the School Development Program have for the most part well-articulated core philosophies and principles. But they believe in the need to adapt curriculum, instruction, and other aspects of student experiences and school operations to the linguistic and cultural characteristics of the student population. How schools do this is left largely up to them, but the assumption is that local sites will attempt to synthesize the core principles of the network or project they have joined with the instructional and curricular features required by their student populations. For the most part, these projects have not examined their effects on English-language learner outcomes; in many cases, they have not examined effects on student outcomes at all. Although conceptually the idea of "general principles locally adapted to English-language learner populations" makes great intuitive sense, generally these projects have yet to demonstrate the viability of this idea empirically. To this end, we would encourage projects to disaggregate outcome data by LEP status in order to compare the performance of English-language learners with that of other students. Moreover, we would encourage them to field test and evaluate adaptations of their programs for these students. Recruitment and Training of Researchers As noted in the discussion of recommendations 10-9 and 10-10 in Chapter 10, there is considerable concern among senior researchers and agency officials that insufficient talent exists at present, or in training, to accomplish the research that is needed on language-minority and LEP issues. Recognizing the problem of insufficient research talent across the whole field of education research, the Spencer Foundation has supported doctoral training, dissertation fellowships, postdoctoral fellowships, and small grants on a large scale (see Patrick, 1991, on the Spencer postdoctoral fellowship program). Those efforts have been crucial to attracting talented young people to work in education research, and some of them have worked on bilingual education and language-minority issues. Since 1992, five dissertation fellowships, one postdoctoral fellowship, and seven small

OCR for page 363
Page 406 grants15 have been awarded for research on English-language learners and related language-minority concerns (from a total of approximately 135 such grants per year during the period).16 In states with large language minority populations, support programs such as the Language Minority Research Institute of the University of California have helped train and support researchers working on these issues. At the federal level, the Title VII fellowships, provided in various reauthorizations of the Bilingual Education Act, have been the major source of funding for the development of research talent in bilingual education. Between fiscal years 1979 and 1987, a total of 1,721 fellows participated in the fellowship program; another 316 participated between 1990 and 1991. Of the fellows participating between 1979 and 1987, 1,432 were pursuing a doctoral degree, 104 were postmaster's students, and 185 were enrolled at the master's degree level. Although the purpose of the fellowship program is to develop faculty for teacher training programs in bilingual education, not all recipients have followed this course. Even so, all Title VII recipients have necessarily been involved in the conduct and uses of research on LEP issues, and in some cases the attainment of a doctorate and the acquisition of a teaching position (27 percent of those studied) or university administrative position (8 percent of those studied) and receipt of tenure at a university. Thus many of the active researchers in this area have been recipients of Title VII fellowships. On the other hand, Title VII fellowships tend to be restricted to students in schools of education. Some notable researchers who work on LEP issues received their degrees in disciplinary fields outside of schools of education, such as psychology, anthropology, and linguistics. However, these researchers typically do not have access to Title VII fellowships. The 1996 appropriation provided no funds for Title VII fellowships, but the Department of Education reprogrammed $1.1 million to cover continuation grants to 100 fellows. As we emphasize in Chapter 10, we believe federal research agencies need to give more attention to the problem of the future of the research corps for LEP issues. The concern has special urgency for research relating to LEP issues because the area is politically charged, and this may deter talented researchers from choosing it as a focus of their studies. Numerous models for the needed support exist. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, for example, divides its considerable Field Initiated Studies funds among doctoral dissertation support, postdoctoral fellowships, and senior research grants. Various National Institutes of Health institutes support training programs. We urge more opportunities of this sort in our recommendations in Chapter 10. Among those highly qualified and rigorously trained researchers needed to 15The small grants are heavily used by pretenured faculty. 16The topics are listed in the annual reports of the Spencer Foundation.

OCR for page 363
Page 407 conduct research on LEP issues, we would hope that a substantial number would represent minority groups. This is a separate issue from the quality of the research corps as a whole; we raise it because of the role-model potential of minority scholars and, more important, the experience, insights, and networks they can bring to the enterprise. Although there are a large number of minority scholars and/or scholars from language-minority backgrounds currently doing work on LEP issues, senior people in the field need to nurture such participation among the younger potential scholars (see Padilla, 1994). Note that of the 13 Spencer awards for dissertations, postdoctoral fellowships, and small grants for work on LEP and related issues since 1992, 6 were awarded to minority scholars, a larger proportion than is usually the case. Some notion of the potential pool of minority scholars can be gleaned from the annual reports on minority group members in higher education published by the American Council on Education. Figures for doctorates received in education are imperfect indicators of the pool because, as noted above, researchers on LEP and related issues are often trained in anthropology, psychology, linguistics, or other departments. Conversely, very large numbers of education doctorates are awarded to candidates headed for practice, such as school administrators, and among those trained for research careers, only a small minority will work on LEP issues. However, the broad parameters of minorities receiving the doctorate in education are as follows: of the 5842 U.S. citizens receiving a doctorate in education in 1994, 36 (.62 percent) were Native American, 80 (1.37 percent) were Asian American, and 225 (3 percent) were Hispanic American (Carter and Wilson, 1996). It is among these small groups and the equally small numbers of minorities in related disciplines that we must look for future minority scholars on LEP issues. References Atkinson, R.C., and G.B. Jackson, eds. 1992 Research and Education Reform: Roles for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Committee on the Federal Role in Education Research, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. August, D., and E.E. Garcia 1988 Language Minority Education in the United States: Research, Policy, and Practice. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Ayres, L.P. 1909 Laggards in Our Schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Baker, K., and A. de Kanter 1981 Summary Report of a Review of the Literature on the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Washington: U.S. Department of Education. Baker, K., and A. de Kanter, eds. 1983 Bilingual Education: A Reappraisal of Federal Policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

OCR for page 363
Page 408 Birman, B., and A. Ginsburg 1983 Introduction: Addressing the needs of language-minority children. Pp. ix-xxi in K. Baker and A. de Kanter, eds., Bilingual Education: A Reappraisal of Federal Policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Burkheimer, Jr., G.J., A.J. Conger, G.H. Dunteman, B.G. Elliott, and K.A. Mowbray 1989 The Effectiveness of Service for Language-Minority Limited-English-Proficient Students. 2 volumes. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute. Callahan, D., and B. Jennings, eds. 1983 Pp. 31-46 in Ethics, The Social Sciences and Policy Analysis. New York: Plenum Press. Campoverde, R.O.1993 Memorandum from the Director of the Executive Secretariat, Office of the Secretary, to the Deputy Secretary, January 12. U.S. Department of Education. Carter, D.J., and R. Wilson 1996 Minorities in Higher Education: 1995. Fourteenth Annual Status Report, June. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Office of Minorities in Higher Education. Castellano, D. 1983 The Best of Two Worlds: Bilingual-Bicultural Education in the U.S. Trenton: New Jersey State Department of Education. Center for Applied Linguistics 1977 Bilingual Education: Current Perspectives. 5 volumes: Linguistics, Social Science, Education, Synthesis, Law. Washington, D.C: Center for Applied Linguistics. Chapman, J. 1992 Office of Management and Budget (now Office of the Under Secretary), unpublished paper, May 28. The Department of Education Bilingual Research Program. Washington, DC. Crawford, J. 1995 Bilingual Education: History Politics Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services, Inc. Cyert, R., and J. March 1963 A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dannoff, M. N. 1978 Evaluation of the Impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish-English Bilingual Education Programs. Technical Report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Dershimer, R.A. 1976 The Federal Government and Educational R&D. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Education Week 1996 E.D. Awards 5-Year Grants to 10 Regional Research Labs. January 10: 1996 $107 Million over 5 Years Awarded to 7 Research Centers. February 14:20. Fishman, J., V. Nahirny, J. Hofman, and R. Hayden 1966 Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague: Mouton. Gaarder, A.B. 1967 Teaching in the mother tongue. Congressional testimony, U.S. Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Special Subcommittee on Bilingual Education. (May 18, 1968) Pp. 50-54 in Hearings on S. 428, 90th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (Excerpted: pp. 325-329 in J. Crawford, ed., Language Loyalties: A Sourcebook on the Official English Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.) Garcia, G. 1994 Strategic Framework for Bilingual Education Research and Evaluation Studies Funded under ESEA, Title VII. OBEMLA, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

OCR for page 363
Page 409 Glenn, C.L., with E.J. de Jong 1996 Educating Immigrant Children: Schools and Language Minorities in 12 Nations. New York: Garland. Hakuta, K. 1986 Minor of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Hakuta, K., and L.J. Gould 1987 Synthesis of Research on Bilingual Education. Educational Leadership 44 (March):38-45. Jones, J.1973 Cultural Conflict in Rural Public Schools: The Case of Wisconsin, 1848-1890. Unpublished paper, Department of History, University of Wisconsin. Jones, M.A. 1960 American Immigration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kaestle, C.F. 1973 New York Public School Society, Executive Committee Minutes, 1839, 1843. Pp. 143-144 in The Evolution of an Urban School System: New York City, 1750-1850. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1992 Everybody's Been to Fourth Grade: An Oral History of Federal R&D in Education. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 1993 The awful reputation of education research. Educational Researcher (January-February):23-31. Kingdon, J.W. 1984 Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Harper-Collins. Kirst, M., and D. Ravitch 1991 Research and the Renewal of Education. Standford, CA: National Academy of Education. Kloss, H. 1977 The American Bilingual Tradition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Liebowitz, A.H. 1980 The Bilingual Education Act: A Legislative Analysis. Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Lindblom, C.E. 1990 Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lynn, L.E., Jr., ed. 1978 Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection. Study Project on Social Research and Development, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Mackey, W.F., and Von Nieda Beebe 1977 Bilingual Schools for a Bicultural Community. Miami's Adaptation to the Cuban Refugees. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. McLaughlin, B. 1985 Second-Language Acquisition in Childhood. Vol. 2: School-Age Children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McLaughlin, M.W., and L.A. Shepard with J.A. O'Day. 1995 Improving Education through Standards-Based Reform. A Report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education. Meyer, M.M., and S.E. Fienberg, eds. 1992 Assessing Evaluation Studies: The Case of Bilingual Education Strategies. Panel to Review Evaluation Studies of Bilingual Education, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

OCR for page 363
Page 410 Moss, M., and M. Puma 1995 Prospects: The Congressionally Mandated Study of Educational Growth and Opportunity. First Year Report on Language Minority and Limited English Proficient Students. Prepared for Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education by Abt Associates, Inc., Cambridge, MA. National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983 A Nation At Risk. A Report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. National Research Council 1986 Creating a Center for Education Statistics: A Time for Action. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. New York Times 1981 Reagan Defends Proposed Budget and Asks Mayors' Group for Help. March 3:1. Padilla, A.M. 1994 Ethnic Minority Scholars, Research, and Mentoring: Current and Future Issues. Educational Researcher (May):25-27. Patrick, C.L. 1991 Spencer postdoc fellowships give young scholars "a chance to look at the taller mountains." Educational Researcher (October) 20(7):29-32. Ramirez, D.J., S.D. Yuen, D.R. Ramey, and D.J. Pasta 1991 Final Report: National Longitudinal Study of Structured-English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language-Minority Children, Vol. I-II, Technical Report. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Riley, R.W. 1995 Letter from the U.S. Secretary of Education, to the Honorable John Porter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, September 18. Sanchez, G. 1934 Bilingualism and mental measures: A word of caution. Journal of Applied Psychology 8 (December):770. 1940 Forgotten People: A Study of New Mexicans. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Schlossman, S.L. 1983a Is there an American tradition of bilingual education? German in the public elementary schools, 1840-1919. American Journal of Education (February) 91(2):139-186. 1983b Self-evident remedy? George I. Sanchez, segregation, and enduring dilemmas in bilingual education. Teachers College Record 84 (Summer):871-907. Sproull, L., S. Weiner, and D. Wolf 1978 Organizing an Anarchy: Belief, Bureaucracy, and Politics in the National Institute of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tharp, R., and R. Gallimore 1991 The Instructional Conversation: Teaching and Learning in Social Activity. Research Report No. 2. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Turnbull, B., H. McCollum, M. Bruce Haslam, and K. Clopy 1994 Regional Education Laboratories: Some Key Accomplishments and Limitations in the Program's Work. Final Report (December). Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. U.S. Department of Education 1985 Address by U.S. Secretary of Education William J. Bennett to Association for a Better New York. Press release, September 26. U.S. Department of Education.

OCR for page 363
Page 411 1991 The Condition of Bilingual Education in the Nation: A Report from the Secretary of Education to the Congress and the President. Office of the Secretary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 1992 Field Initiated Studies Program. Abstracts of Funded Projects, 1990 and 1991 (Spring). Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 1993 Field Initiated Studies Program. Abstracts of Funded Projects, 1992. (Spring). Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 1994 Field Initiated Studies Program. Abstracts of Funded Projects, 1993. (Spring). Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 1995 Directory of National Education Research and Development Centers. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Vinovskis, Maris A. 1993 Analysis of the Quality of Research and Development at the OERI Research and Development Centers and the OERI Regional Educational Laboratories. Unpublished report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, OERI, June. Weiss, C.H. 1983 Ideology, Interests, and Information. Pp. 213-245 in Carol Weiss, D. Callahan, and B. Jennings, eds., Ethics, Social Service, and Policy Analysis. New York: Plenum. Weiss, C.H. with M.J. Bucuvalas 1980 Social Science Research and Decision-Making. New York: Columbia University Press. Willig, A.C. 1981- The effectiveness of bilingual education: Review of a report. NABE 1982 Journal 6 (Winter/Spring). Zehler, A.M., P. DiCerbo, C. Greniuk, L.K. Lathrop, A.M. Schwartz, P.J. Hopstock, W. Strang, and C. Heid 1993 Literature Review of Federally Funded Studies Related to LEP Students. Final Analytic Report. Arlington, VA: Development Associates.

OCR for page 363