Testimony:

     OPENING REMARKS

     THE HONORABLE MIKE CASTLE:

     EXAMINING THE BILINGUAL EDUCATION ACT

     June 24, 1999

     1 want to begin by thanking you for coming to today's hearing. As you know, the title of today's hearing is "Examining the Bilingual Education Act." This is an appropriate title since it is our intention to examine current law and determine what changes are necessary to insure it is effectively providing limited English proficient children with the best possible educational opportunities.

     The education of limited English proficient children is of growing interest throughout the United States as more and more school districts are faced with the problem of providing a quality education to children for whom English is not their first language.

     I believe the word "quality" is the key. As the population of limited English proficient children increases, we need to insure that programs funded under this Act provide each and every child with the opportunity to achieve to the extent of his or her potential. An instrumental part of achieving this goal is insuring such children learn English as soon as possible.

     I know that the debate over the years has focused on which method of instruction is most effective in helping limited English children succeed in school. However, I believe our primary focus should be on the children and allowing schools and parents the flexibility to make decisions regarding the instructional programs they will use to educate these children, based on the needs of the children themselves. We must acknowledge the fact that children learn differently and have different needs. Allowing schools and parents to make decisions regarding the education of their children places control in the hands of those individuals who know these children the best.

     Currently the graduation rates of limited English proficient children are very discouraging. For example, in 1996, only 55.2 percent of Hispanic students graduated from high school. It is my hope that we can work together to support changes in the current Bilingual Education Act to insure that each and every child participating in programs funded under this Act is given the opportunity to graduate from high school and continue their education or enter the world of work.

     I look forward to receiving the testimony of today's witnesses.

     Statement of Joseph M. Farley, Ed.D.

     Representing the Oceanside Unified School District of

     Oceanside, California

     before the

     United States House of Representatives

     Committee on Education and the Workforce

     June 24,1999

     Introduction

     Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to your committee meeting regarding bilingual education. I represent the Oceanside Unified School District in Oceanside, California. Our 25 schools and 22,000 kindergarten through twelfth grade students have received widespread attention since California voters approved Proposition 227, declaring English the language of instruction in California classrooms. The passage of Proposition 227 had major implications for our District, because 21 percent of our students are considered limited in English proficiency. While 20 different languages are spoken in our community, most of our non-English speaking children speak Spanish. The majority of these students also qualify for free and reduced school meals, an indicator of low family income. Prior to ProR2sition 227 Prior to the implementation of Proposition 227, half of the District's English Language Learners were enrolled in so-called "bilingual classes." The availability of bilingual teachers determined how many students would be enrolled in these classes. Instruction was predominantly in Spanish, while students received approximately 45 minutes per day of English-as-a-Second Language. Textbooks, instructional materials and the District's standardized assessment test were in Spanish.

     Students typically remained in bilingual classes from kindergarten through fourth grade and were declared English proficient by the sixth grade. However, many students remained 'in bilingual settings for six or seven years and still had limited proficiency in reading, writing and speaking the English language.

     Implementation of Proposition 227

     California school districts with large numbers of limited and non English speaking students anxiously awaited the outcome of the June 3, 1998, vote on Proposition 227, also called the initiative for "English Language Education in Public Schools." At Miss-Ion Elementary School, where I am principal, 400 of the 820 students had been participating in formal bilingual education. We weren't certain how these kids would do in an English-only environment and many of our teachers were against the Proposition. However, our personal beliefs about the Proposition were set aside to make English only instruction successful for our children.

     When the Proposition passed, our Governing Board and Superintendent, Mr. Kenneth Noonan, interpreted the legislation more strictly than most districts, even though Mr. Noonan had been a bilingual 'instructor himself and was the founding president of the California Association of Bilingual Educators. English would be the language of instruction in Oceanside classrooms, with the goal of developing student fluency as quickly as possible. In Oceanside, "Structured English Immersion" classes replaced bilingual ones and all instructional materials were presented in English. Teachers were permitted to use a child's native language only when it was clear that a student did not grasp a key concept. However, there were no attempts to restrict a child's language preference outside of the classroom and staff members continued to communicate with parents in Spanish, when necessary.

     The Proposition permits parents to request a waiver of English only instruction if the following conditions exist:

     - The principal and the educational staff believe an alternative course of study would be better suited to a child's rapid acquisition of English language skills, and the child is 10 years of age, or older;

     - A child is already proficient in English, as measured by standardized tests of English vocabulary comprehension, reading, and writing; or,

     - The principal and educational staff believe a child's physical, emotional, psychological, or educational needs would be better served ban alternative program that would help the child learn English more effectively.

     Many California school districts utilized a "blanket" waiver approach, sending waiver forms to all English Language Learners and approving all waivers submitted. In Oceanside, parents were required to meet with the principal before obtaining a waiver application. Furthermore, a team of educators evaluated each student's waiver application individually. The principal, the classroom teacher, a certified bilingual instructor, and two members of our curriculum and instruction division used student assessment data, work samples, behavior, and attendance to determine if a child had a legitimate educational need for a bilingual program. The team made recommendations to the Superintendent, who could approve, deny or seek additional evaluation information before making a waiver decision. This school year, only five of the 155 waivers submitted were approved. An additional 15 students were identified with special education needs that had been previously attributed to English language development issues. The five waivers approved did not constitute enough students to form a bilingual classroom according to the new provisions of the law. Therefore, no bilingual classes were offered this year.

     SAT-9 Scores Increase Significantly

     In the Spring of 1998, in California, second through twelfth graders took a new standardized examination in language, reading, and math. It was written and administered completely in English. With the implementation of English-only instruction in Oceanside, the 1998 test results became pretest scores that were compared with those of 1999 to assess the instructional success of English only instruction.

     It would be an understatement to say that my Oceanside colleagues and I were pleased with the language and math growth of our students. We were amazed, excited, proud and inundated with attention.

     Although Oceanside's overall scores still fall in the average range when compared to the national norm, the increase across the board is phenomenal. The scores for English Language Learners showed a gain that ranged from S6 percent in third grade reading, up to a 475 percent in seventh grade reading.

     At my own school, where conventional wisdom would suggest that our scores would be negatively impacted by a high rate of poverty and a student population composed of more than 50 percent of limited English speaking children, the scores of English Language Learners showed a gain of from 138 percent to 222 percent in English reading, a pin of 29 percent to 154 percent in mathematics and a gain of between 69 percent and 175 percent in language.

     In addition to English-only instruction, we believe the following factors contributed to these gains:

     -The decision to redirect Title I and California School Improvement Program funding from personnel expenses to instructional materials for classrooms;

     -The implementation of a structured English language development program with a strong foundation in phonics and supportive staff development activities for teachers;

     - Strict protection of instructional time to the extent that teachers reported gaining as much as one hour of instructional time per week, Activities unrelated to formal instruction were eliminated or transferred to after school hours;

     - The complete support of the District's Governing Board in the implementation of the English only approach and for the items outlined above.

     On a district-wide basis, several significant steps were taken to improve the academic performance of Oceanside students. The District has taken a back-to- basics approach to reading, writing and arithmetic, teaching phonics, spelling and grammar, as well as multiplication tables, long division and arithmetic facts. The District has established eight-grade exit criteria and promotion criteria for each high school grade, and is phasing in higher graduation requirements. High exit standards are also being phased in for each elementary grade.

     Conclusion

     School districts like Oceanside clearly face many additional challenges and hurdles in the education of all children. We have been significantly encouraged by our recent successes and will continue to raise the academic bar for increased student performance in all areas. This concludes my written and verbal report and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the information presented.

     HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

     EARLY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES SUBCOMMITTEE

     HEARING ON BILINGUAL EDUCATION

     HECTOR AYALA

     JUNE 24, 1999

     My name is Hector Ayala. I have taught English, including AP English for the last twelve years at Cholla Nigh School in Tucson, Arizona. I am also co director of English for the Children-Arizona, an organization designed to abolish bilingual education in Arizona. I would like to say that I am here to give my rationale for having started this organization, what it is that finally moved us all in Arizona to do something about bi-ed.

     To make a long story short bilingual education can mean several different things, depending oft whom you talk to. That in fact is its main drawback. When bilingual ed started out in '68, it began with the focus of teaching non English speakers the English language as quickly and well as possible. Since then, bi ed has been taken -over-by-political groups bent on indoctrinating young children into their political agendas. And the result has been that bi-ed has turned !Into native language instruction for all immigrant Hispanic students, often for up to seven years, and known my experience, to-the detriment of these students` ' success.

     Canadian researcher Jim Cummins and others have felt that children Must be taught in their native language and slowly weaned into English as children become more academically proficient; they claim that it takes children anywhere from seven to ten years to learn academic English adequately. This plays right into the hands of separatist political groups and their agendas since it forces Mexican children to retain their Spanish, which in and of itself is not a bad idea. Unfortunately, bilingual education was neither designed to achieve that goal nor can it And again, it has been my and others' experiences that it does not.

     In the meantime our Mexican children do languish all those years in bi-ed only to discover that not only have they not been prepared academically, but neither has their English progressed. As a high school teacher in a bilingual feeder pattern I have experienced what many Of my colleagues in. similar positions have experienced. My freshmen students who come through our feeder pattern come in reading at about a 4th grade reading level. Every year we receive about 640 freshmen, four years later, only about 200 graduate. The experience of twelve years I have has shown me that these students drop Out because they find themselves tragically challenged in their abilities to speak English or do academics, both of which bi-ed claims they teach better than anyone.

     The irony is that the -movement in favor of bi-ed is generally limited to bi-ed educators. The movement is neither started nor continued by the desire of Mexican parents to make their kids bilingual, which bi-ed cannot do anyway, but by Anglo university professors and perfectly assimilated, professional Hispanics who never went through bi-ed themselves. Now they feel perfectly secure in that this is a program that must be thrust on all Mexican parents and their children.

     Our organization English for the Children -- AZ first, decries the ineffectiveness of a system that is generally undefined, arbitrary, and capricious. More often than not, children are placed in bi-ed classrooms without their or their parents' consent or knowledge. Often, monolingual English speaking children are placed in bi-ed classes where they are taught in Spanish based on their Hispanic surname. Also, generally, when parents do find out their children are in bi ed classes they are not allowed to remove them. There is a principal of a bi-ed school who has told parents that in her school' there will never be English only classes.

     Second, we intend through our-initiative to establish a uniform and most effective approach to the teaching of English and that is Structured English Immersion. This method refers to an approach that places elementary aged children in classrooms where academics of grade level are taught to them in English. Contrary to reactionary belief, we have no intention of doing away with Spanish, even in the form, of occasional help for a student who maybe having problems in the immersion classroom. We are not associated with any English Only or immigrant reform groups. Our intent is solely to afford Young Hispanics the level-playing field they deserve, which can only be achieved by speaking English well.

     The main issue which turned me against bi-ed has been the results of standardized test scores through the years.

     These are examples from last year:

     elementary schools--of the lowest scoring twenty-five elementary schools, twenty-three are bilingual ed schools. Even so, the bilingual director in our district has said that he intends to make all elementary schools in the area bilingual schools. Even he operates on the belief that bilingual schools create bilingual students.

     middle schools--the lowest scoring ten middle schools are all bilingual ed schools.

     high schools--the lowest three scoring high schools are -all at the end of bilingual feeder patterns, mine included (drop out rates are highest for Hispanics than for any other group. bi-ed has never kept records that would prove any success especially where it`s most important college attendance and graduation rates. Every indication points to a general ineffectiveness of bi ed.)

     And what we hear most often is that these kids are doing worse than any other group because they are poor and there is little support in the home. I find it difficult to imagine that any school is incapable of compensating for the deficiencies of the home, either in English or academics. No other school district in Tucson uses bilingual education and they all scored better In their Stanford 9's than any of these bilingual schools.

     Another common argument against us is that non-native children must have a command of academic English before they can be taught in English. You don't teach academic English, a child develops academic English by doing academics in English. What they say is equivalent to saying that a child cannot t become a conceit pianist until he car, play piano like a concert pianist; we must not allow him to play the piano then until he can play like a concert pianist. All a child needs to develop in enough proficiency in English to understand what the teacher is saying; he can then develop the academic English with experience in the classroom. But not if he is taught in his native tongue, which as I said is what is currently happening.

     What is being done to these non-English speaking kids amounts to a patent racism, since they are riot receiving the same schooling that English speaking children are offered: they are segregated into different rooms, or different areas of the same classroom, they are given different work, usually in Spanish, or simply busy work in English.

     Does English Irnmersion work? Not only is these research that shows it does, but now we are beginning t receive quite encouraging numbers from California which in effect demonstrate the ease with which young children can learn English as long as they are immersed. L.A. Times, San Diego Union-Tribune and the Wall Street journal have all reported these results.

     About research; All we generally hear is that some researcher has seen favorable findings on bi-ed. After thirty years, we need much more than favorable findings. In any case, we must resist flinging research at one another and start concentrating on the fact that there thousands of children who are the real issue. We don`t need research that shows bi-ed could work, should work, has worked. We need results.

     TESTIMONY OF

     MARTHA BUJANDA

     BEFORE THE

     SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND FAMILIES

     OF THE

     COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

     THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1999

     "BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND PARENTS` RIGHTS"

     Mr. Chairman,

     I am Martha Bujanda from Dallas, Texas. I am here today to discuss the issue of bilingual education. This is a program with which I have ad a great deal of personal experience. My family immigrated to Texas from Mexico when I was five years old and I was immediately placed in a bilingual education program. For three years I learned almost no English in this program until my family moved to Dallas and I was finally placed in an English program--in a school which had no bilingual education--where I could acquire the skills which allowed me to graduate and go on to college.

     I would like to make clear that I believe the ability to communicate in two languages is an incredible asset. In many cases someone who is bilingual has a clear and definite advantage over someone who is not. The question before us then is not whether it is beneficial to be bilingual or not. Undoubtedly, being bilingual has indisputable advantages. What should concern us is the extent to which Bilingual Education truly helps minority children learn English, succeed in the United States, and whether or not parents have a legal right to know in what manner their child is being taught English.

     From 1994-1998 I was the director of a community outreach program at the University of Dallas in Irving, Texas, the goal of which was to tutor students who had failed portions of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills Test. More commonly known as the TAAS Test, students are required to pass this exam in order to advance to the next grade level in the Texas public school system. As Director of this program, I was in contact with countless numbers of Hispanic parents who were unaware that their children were in Bilingual Education classes, and were under the false impression that their children were being taught in English. Unable to speak English themselves, I found the parents were intimidated by the prospect of questioning their children`s teachers and principals, even if they did want their children to be taught solely in English.

     I also noticed a widespread misunderstanding regarding their conception of the Bilingual Education Program and their children. Most parents were not aware of what the term Bilingual Education meant exactly. At the heart of this confusion was their notion of what language would take preeminence over the other. Thus, they expected their children to be in a class where English would be spoken predominantly --and only when their child did not understand, or had difficulty on an assignment-- would the teacher help him or her in their native language. These parents were surprised to find that many of the classes their children attended were taught solely in Spanish, while others were chiefly taught in Spanish but included some English as well.

     As parents became aware of this unfortunate reality, a feeling of impotence came over them. Unable to speak English themselves, many of them felt they had no recourse as they saw their children continue to struggle with the English language even after several years of Bilingual Education. I often asked them why they did not remove their children from Bilingual Education if they were dissatisfied with the results. The answer was always that they did not know they had this option.

     However, even when parents discovered that removing their child from Bilingual Education was possible, they often did not feel empowered to do so. In almost all cases, they were intimidated by the thought of having to go to their children's school and formally sign a written request stating their desire to remove their child from the Bilingual Education Program. Even in those rare cases where parents were willing to be proactive with school administrators about this issue, they were often discouraged by guidance counselors and teachers, or were made to feel like outcasts for wishing to place their children in mainstream classes.

     On one occasion, the mother of one of my students approached me and asked what was required to remove her seventh grade boy from the Bilingual Education program at his Irving Middle School. When I inquired as to why she wanted to do this, she responded that her son had been educated in a Bilingual Program since elementary school and she felt that he was capable of speaking better English than he actually did. I informed her that under Texas law all that was necessary was written request with her signature indicating her wishes. She asked me to accompany her to the school since she did not speak English very well, and I agreed.

     What I thought would be a relatively simple task, turned into a two and a half-hour situation. Disregarding the mother's wishes, the boy's homeroom teacher, guidance counselor, and principal attempted to convince them both that it was in the boy's best interest to remain in the program instead of attending mainstream classes in English. I reminded them all that the only stipulation required under Texas law to remove a child from a Bilingual Education Program was a written request from a parent. Only after this, did they cease to discourage the mother.

     I believe this mother to be representative of countless Hispanic parents who are unaware of the manner in which their children are being educated. Yet, this unfortunate situation is simply the result of a lack of communication; and in some cases, of an outright unwillingness on the part school officials to respond to what parents perceive is in the best interest of their child.

     It may seem easy for the parent of a bilingual education student to ask school administrators for the removal of his or her child from Bilingual Education classes. But to many parents this is a tremendous obstacle to overcome. Hispanic parents who have only recently immigrated to the United States, are undoubtedly intimidated by their surroundings and, as they seek to adjust to this new environment and learn English themselves. The prospect of having to argue with teachers, principals and other school administrators in order to secure an English education for their children is frightening, to say the least.

     Hispanic parents should be given the opportunity of choosing the type of education they feel is most beneficial to their child without feeling pressured by school administrators or anyone else. This Bill would require that public school systems be forthcoming with regard to the education of Hispanic students. If passed, it will finally allow parents to make a truly informed decision on the type of education they would prefer for their children; allowing them, for the first time, to weigh all of their options. It should be the responsibility of each school to inform the parents that they have a choice on the language in which their children are to be educated.

     Bilingual Education Reform:

     Critical for Hispanic Student Success

     Don Soifer

     Executive Vice President

     Lexington Institute Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and

     Families

     House Committee on Education and the Workforce

     June 24, 1999 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to participate in today's discussion on federal education programs for Limited English-Proficient (LEP) students. My name is Don Soifer and I am the Executive Vice President of the Lexington Institute, a nonpartisan public-policy research organization in Arlington, Virginia.

     My remarks will focus on the need for flexibility in the bilingual education program, and in that regard I will stress the following three points:

     - Now more than at any other time in our history it is essential for young people to possess strong English-language skills. Without them students are left to fall further behind their peers with less hope of regaining lost ground the older they get.

     - Bilingual education programs currently funded under Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) favor initial instruction in students' native languages rather than in English. Such programs are ill- suited to provide English learners with the skills they need.

     - The pending ESEA reauthorization gives Congress an important opportunity to make policy changes that will accelerate and improve the learning of English under these programs.

     Before turning to these points, I would like briefly to address how my organization views the importance of learning English. If students can graduate from high school fluent in a second, or even a third language, they would certainly be in an advantageous position. Better jobs, better college educations, and increased opportunities would likely await them.

     But when students are denied the opportunity to learn English, segregated in separate classrooms where they receive all of their instruction in Spanish, save for a precious few hours per week or even less, and where they learn reading exclusively in Spanish until the fifth grade, then they are receiving unfair treatment and poor education. Their aptitude to acquire a new language - an aptitude which diminishes with age -- is being squandered. Parents want their children to learn English at school because without it they will be at a tremendous disadvantage in commerce, in citizenship, on the internet, in many important aspects of American life.

     America's English Learners

     The U.S. Department of Education identified 3.5 million LEP students in 1996- 1997, an increase from 2.1 million in 1990-91.

     85% of these reside in the following ten states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Arizona, New Mexico, New Jersey, Washington and Michigan. There are bilingual education programs currently employed in all fifty states.

     Three-quarters of LEP students are Spanish-speaking, which is why bilingual education is widely perceived as an Hispanic issue. The next three most common languages combined, Vietnamese, Hmong, and Cantonese, are spoken by less than 8 percent of LEP students.

     Much has been written in recent years about the challenges facing America's Hispanic young people. The 1997 status dropout rate (those not enrolled in school and who have not completed high school) among Hispanic 16- to 24-year olds was 25.3%, as opposed to 13.4% for African-Americans and 7.6% for non-Hispanic whites. The annual, or event dropout rate, which describes the proportion of students who leave school each year without completing a high school program, was 9.5% for Hispanics in grades 10-12, 5.0% for African-Americans and 3.6% for whites. Shortcomings of Bilingual Education

     Bilingual programs vary in methodology but share a common reliance on segregated instruction in students' non-English native language. Advocates of bilingual education emphasize that in their view, children acquire English more smoothly when they are first taught to read (and speak) in their native language. As a result, students can remain in these programs for seven or eight years or even longer. But the reality of the situation is that they generally learn English more slowly, later, and less effectively than their peers.

     Much recent scientific research suggests that children who learn a second language at a younger age can do so more effectively, more quickly, even with less likelihood of a pronounced accent. To many parents and educators, this just underscores what their common sense already makes plain. But once students reach the third and fourth grade without adequate English skills, it becomes much more difficult for them to regain the ground they have lost.

     Currently, districts are given little incentive to accelerate the rate at which students gain English fluency and graduate to mainstream classrooms. When California voters last spring considered an initiative to effectively end most bilingual education in the state, one widely-cited statistic indicated that less than 7 percent of the state's English learners had successfully graduated out of bilingual programs the previous year. Arizona state Department of Education officials report that only 4 percent of LEP students were reclassified as English proficient in 1998.

     As former Representative Herman Badillo, the nation's first Member of Congress of Puerto Rican descent and a leading proponent of reforming bilingual education, has said, "To keep children in classes where their own native language is used in the hope that they will somehow make the transition to English after five or six years is unacceptable to us."

     Bilingual education as we know it today evolved from the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. That legislation in concert with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed with the noble intention of providing equitable education for all.

     But over the intervening thirty years the federal Department of Education has intermingled the goal of learning English with such tangential concerns as multicultural awareness and cultivating higher self esteem among students. My own review of Title VII bilingual grants has produced examples of such funded programs as:

     - A four week orientation class to encourage high school students to pursue bilingual education degrees. While the need for more bilingual education teachers may seem pressing in some districts, using Title VII funds for a program of this purpose would certainly seem to detract resources and energy away from helping English learners acquire basic language skills. (Artesia, New Mexico, $220,000 2-year Program Enhancement grant, #T289P50368, p ii)

     - SSOW (Summer School on Wheels) trip to the rain forests of Costa Rica to offer LEP students new experiences. "Students gained valuable insights into the rain forests, animals, volcanoes, and the aspects of life in other countries," explains the program's Title VII grant report. "9 of the 14 students received passing grades for the trip," the document explains, and "overall the trip was a huge success for the children and parents and chaperones alike." (Rocky Boy School District, Box Elder, Montana, $144,920 2-year Program Enhancement grant #T289950376, p 12.) - Developing educational software for students to use to develop written proficiency in Lakota (Sioux). Lakota is an oral language for which no standard orthography exists, so one had to be developed. The reasoning applied by the program's Title VII personnel stated, "It is important to note that the Lakota language and Sioux culture are a part of our national heritage and programs such as this will ensure this language and culture will not be lost." (Takini School, Howes, South Dakota, $240,039 4-year Comprehensive School grant #T90U50059, p. 13.)

     It is not my intention to deride the value of promoting cultural awareness, but it should not dilute a program that Congress clearly intended to promote rapid acquisition of English. And native languages can be preserved at home without causing children to fall behind academically. While many of us have heard the call for wiser spending on education, surely programs such as these seem of dubious value.

     What Should Congress Do?

     In considering reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Congress faces an important opportunity to mend these broken programs to the benefit of millions of this country's English learners. What better way can Congress demonstrate to our Hispanic and other language minority communities that it is working to promote the success of their children than to guarantee that they are taught English as early as possible in their schooling?

     Since last June, when California voters approved the "English for the Children" initiative, policymakers around the country have pursued their own measures to reform bilingual education in their schools:

     - Denver and Chicago public schools have moved forward with plans to limit the time students spend in bilingual programs to three years.

     - The Massachusetts Board of Education earlier this year voted to bar bilingual students from being excluded from taking the Iowa Reading Test.

     - Connecticut legislators are considering limiting bilingual programs to 30 months, and also standardizing entrance and exit requirements.

     - Just last month Arizona legislators passed a bilingual education reform bill which, among other things, requires parental consent to participate in bilingual or English as a Second Language (ESL) programs, require principals to remove students from these programs within 5 days of a parent's request, and require school districts to provide parents with detailed information in advance about their child's bilingual or ESL program.

     There are many policy prescriptions available to Congress which could substantially help America's millions of English learners. I respectfully suggest that the subcommittee consider the following measures:

     - Let parents choose how their own children learn English, and require written consent before placing a student in bilingual education. The "Parents Know Best Act" proposed by Congressmen Salmon and Tancredo would be an effective step towards achieving these modest, vital goals.

     - Safeguard the right of parents to have their child immediately removed from bilingual programs upon their request.

     - Limit the amount of time students spend in bilingual programs to three years or less. Secretary of Education Riley testified in February that school districts would be held accountable "for ensuring that LEP students reach the three-year accountability goal" as part of ESEA accountability provisions. Such accountability would have a significant effect on how many school districts teach English.

     The subcommittee does not need me to remind it of the broad expanse of programs included in the ESEA, and it may decide that to pursue such measures appears daunting in perspective of other desired reforms. But Hispanic young people have urgent educational needs that cannot wait until the next ESEA reuthorization.

     Today's bilingual education programs such as those I have described, while designed with noble intentions, seem less concerned with successfully providing our English learners with the language skills they need than with striking a posture of concern after continuing to fail. Would we not be better off to subscribe to a bold vision of an America where everyone succeeds than to risk promoting failure by renewing such faulty programs?

     Statement of Sylvia R. Hatton, Ph.D.

     Executive Director

     Region One Education Service Center

     1900 West Schunior

     Edinburg, Texas 78539

     on the

     Bilingual Education Act

     Submitted to the

     House Sub-Committee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families

     June 24, 1999

     While the educational research has given considerable attention to exploring the characteristics of effective schools, it is still difficult to isolate the conditions, policies, and behaviors that yield success for every learner. Too many students continue to fail in our schools. Generally, these students come from low socioeconomic backgrounds, from culturally and linguistically different groups, and have high inter and intra district mobility rates. In their study of border schools in Texas, Scheurich and Laible (1996) traced the academic difficulties of these students primarily to racial and linguistic biases, to negative beliefs about the educative potential of children from particular subgroups - such as immigrants, migrants, or limited English proficient (LEP), to a lack of cultural appreciation, an unwillingness to use the language and experiential knowledge of the student, and negative beliefs about cultures or parents on the part of school personnel. It is these obstacles which the Bilingual Education Act was created to overcome.

     The Bilingual Education Act

     The Bilingual Education Act (BEA) was a purposeful policy enacted as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to reduce the high dropout rates for language minority students who were limited English proficient. To that point, nearly 80 percent of the Mexican American students in California and the Southwest dropped out of school prior to high school graduation. Native American and Puerto Rican students also were dropping out at alarming rates. This landmark policy charted a new direction for the education of language minority students.

     The 1994 reauthorization incorporated new important principles:

     Given access to challenging curriculum, language-minority and limited English proficient (LEP) students can achieve to the same high standards as other students, and

     Proficient bilingualism is a desirable goal, which can bring cognitive, academic, cultural, and economic benefits to individuals and to the nation.

     The BEA, know as Title VII, Part A of the Improving America`s Schools Act, is designed "to assist state and local educational agencies, institutions of higher education and community-based organizations to build their capacity to establish, implement, and sustain programs of instruction for children and youth of limited English proficiency" [P.L. 103-382, Sec. 7102 (b)]. Among its stated purposes is the intent "to educate limited English proficient children and youth to meet the same rigorous standards for academic performance expected of all children and youth, including. . . developing the English of such children and youth, and to the extent possible, their native language skills." [Sec. 7102 (c)].

     The Bilingual Education Act has led to striking advances in the fields of psycholinguistics, second-language acquisition, bilingual pedagogy, and multi-cultural education (Crawford, 1997). Gratefully, as a profession, we have learned a great deal about the needs and challenges faced by language minority students, as well as, the promising practices, conditions, and behaviors for overcoming them.

     The need for more research remains. Crawford (1997) cites that we still need answers regarding how children acquire second languages, how social and cognitive variables affect language acquisition and how bilingualism interacts with literacy development and academic achievement. It is more basic research in these areas which hopefully will guide us in improving the schooling of LEP children.

     It is imperative that the Bilingual Education Act be re authorized, so that the answers sought can be found. The demand for the answers will continue to increase as the population of language-minority students increases in states across the country. The support of Congress with this initiative is a vital link in the State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) efforts to offer LEP students access to the academic support which they require to achieve their full learning potential. While the challenges of effectively serving LEP students are many and varied, real partnerships will yield real results.

     Bilingual Education in Texas

     In the late 1930s, enrollment statistics for the typical Texas school district reflected the following characteristics of school age children. (Graham, 1938):

     English Speaking Spanish Speaking

     Students Students

     Enrolled in school 91.01% 59.60%

     Normal age for grade 64.00% 14.00%

     Retentions 3.72% 41.96%

     In response to new federal legislation, an Advisory Committee on Bilingual Education developed the Texas Statewide Design for Bilingual Education in 1968. In 1969, a handful of programs were funded under Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965.At the suggestion of the State`s Commissioner of Education J.W. Edgar, the 61st Legislature repealed Article 288 of the Penal Code in 1969 to end fifty-one years of prohibition on the use of a language other than English in the schools.

     In the ensuing thirty years, Texas schools have been charged with the responsibilities and the challenges of developing and implementing bilingual education programs focused on providing a full opportunity for all language minority students to become competent in speaking, reading, writing and comprehending the English language. Additionally, it is a clear expectation that English language competencies be mastered. Language minority students must also effectively participate in the state`s educational program in all content areas. A rigorous and comprehensive statewide assessment and accountability system was implemented in 1995 for students of limited English proficiency (LEP) to supplement the accountability system for all students. A Spanish TAAS in the areas of Reading, Writing and Mathematics was developed, field tested, and has since been implemented at grades 3-5. On the schedule for implementation beginning 1999-2000, is the Reading test of English proficiency to add to the Spanish TAAS and the early academic inventory used in the primary grades to monitor academic progress in English and/or Spanish. The 76th Legislature which adjourned on May 31, 1999 has strengthened the assessment and accountability system requirements by eliminating exemptions from testing for all Spanish-speaking LEP students grades 3-6, except for up to a one year exemption from Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) for unschooled immigrants, and has required the Texas Education Agency to study the need for Spanish Assessments for grades 7 and 8. A reading test to monitor academic progress in English complements the Spanish TAAS. These changes become effective in the 1999-2000 school year and are intended to insure that the LEP population reaches the same academic standards set for all students.

     Student Achievement data for former students of bilingual education programs for the five education service center regions in Texas having the largest numbers of students in these programs showed that 88.79% of these students passed the English reading TAAS in 1993-94. Statewide, the results of former LEPs in the math, reading and writing portions for the third and fourth grades TAAS reflect the following results (Appendix A).

     Grade 3 Grade 4

     Reading 76.47% 72.37%

     Math 61.89% 56.60%

     Writing 84.80%

     A comparison of the 4th grade TAAS results for 1994 of former LEPs with other student groups reflects that former LEPs had higher mastery rates than the Hispanic and African-American student groups in Reading, Writing, Math, and all tests taken.

     Former African All

     TAAS Sections LEP Hispanic American White Students

     All Tests 51% 43% 33% 66% 54%

     Reading 72% 66% 58% 85% 75%

     Math 57% 48% 37% 70% 59%

     Writing 85% 79% 74% 91% 85%

     On the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Programs (NAEP) which assesses national and state academic performance of student groups, Texas students scored among the top 10 states in 4th grade math, and had the highest percentage of increases in performance from the 1992-1996 NAEP administrations. The 4th grade results by group for Whites, Hispanics, and African Americans ranked in the top five comparison for all states.

     The academic success of language minority students in Texas can be attributed to many factors. The border districts and the schools with high concentrations of LEP students rely on instructional approaches for teaching English; particularly, content-based English as a Second Language (ESL) and sheltered English and program models like transitional bilingual, maintenance bilingual, and two-way bilingual programs for developing English communication and content proficiency.

     The strongest variables influencing the selection of the instructional approach and/or the program model to be implemented are the availability of teachers who speak the language and the percentage of English language learners whose native language is Spanish. However, the critical bilingual/ESL teacher shortage we are experiencing in Texas and across the country will have undoubted influence on our ability to continue to be successful with LEP students, unless specific targeted and innovative approaches can be implemented to recruit, retrain and retain bilingual/ESL certified teachers.

     In addition to the implementation of appropriate instructional approaches and program designs by qualified/certified bilingual/ESL teachers, other factors play a key role in effecting positive results with LEPs. Among the most crucial support factors are the availability of a culturally relevant curriculum, access to instructional resources, the use of technology, continuous professional development of teachers, and parental empowerment and involvement at school. The Bilingual Education Act has continuously emphasized these areas as vital to achievement of the program`s goals.

     While it seems indisputable that Bilingual Education programs are succeeding in Region One ESC schools and across many parts of Texas and the country where programs for language minority students have existed for several decades, too many LEP children continue to fail. Language minority students, the largest number and percent of these Hispanic, continue to increase in new areas and states, which lack the human and fiscal resources vital to successful programs. It is imperative that the federal government continue to provide direction for schools serving this student population to avoid a return to the conditions of the past. The risks are too high and the losses will be too great.

     National Demography Trends

     Language minority student groups, which for many years were concentrated in five states, (Texas, California, New York, Florida, and Illinois) are now present in almost half of our nation`s school districts. In ten states, (Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and Tennessee), the LEP population more than doubled between the 1992-93 and 1996-97 school years. Nationwide, approximately 7% of the total K-12 enrollment during the 1996-97 school year was classified as LEP.

     Border schools in Texas serve a population of learners who are mostly Hispanic, low-SES, limited English proficient and Migrant. In the Region One Education Service Center area, the student demographic summary (Appendix B) reveals that 95.2

     percent of the 289,617 enrolled students during the 1998-99 school year were Hispanic, 81.4 percent came from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, 55.2 percent were

     classified as LEP, and 11.2 percent were Migrants enrolled as of October 31, 1999. While the demographics of the region remain fairly stable, the changes across Texas reflect dramatic increases in the number and percent of minority students between the 1987-88 and the 1997-98 school years. In 1997-98, 3,891,877 students enrolled in Texas public schools, with minorities accounting for 55 percent of the total enrollment, and Hispanics representing 38 percent of the total (Appendix C).

     Across the country, increases are evident in the number of students from diverse cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds, poor families, and non-traditional families (Villa & Thousand, 1992). Many of the minority groups are bilingual and have a predominant language other than English (Yates & Ortiz, 1991). For example, by the year 2050, it is projected that White Non-Hispanic students will constitute no more than 42 percent of the total school population.

     According to the 1990 U.S. Census, 6,322,934 school aged (5-17 years) children, or approximately 14 percent of the total number of students in the U.S. population, lived in a home where a language other than English was spoken. Fleishman and Hopstock (1993) estimated that of these 2,314,079 were English-language learners in grades K-12 in the Fall of 1991. In Texas, the Fall, 1997 Bilingual/ESL enrollment was 12 percent (462,379 students, K 12), up from 7 percent (236,551 students K-12) in Fall, 1997.

     As the Hispanic student population is increasing, the attrition rate of these students is also on the rise. A study of the Dropout and Attrition Rates in Texas Public High Schools by the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) comparing school dropouts in Texas in 1985-86 and 1997-98 found that the attrition rate of 33 percent had increased to 42 percent in 1997 98. The potential income, lost tax revenues, and increased criminal justice, welfare, unemployment and job training costs rose from $17.12 billion in 1985-86 to a projected loss of $319 billion for the 1997-98 statistics. The 1.2 million students lost from Texas public schools during those 12 years reflect that 2 of every 5 students in grade 9 during the 1994-95 school year did not complete grade 12 in 1997-98. The IDRA data indicate that 1 of 2 Hispanics and African-Americans and 1of 3 white students failed to complete grade 12 in 1997-98.

     While these statistics are appalling, and Texas educators and legislators debate the merits and weaknesses of the research design, the reality is that Hispanic students are not completing a high school education in alarmingly high numbers. It appears likely that this terrible trend is occurring in other states.

     These dramatic demography changes pose new challenges for many schools across the country not just for Texas. Increased support from state and federal policy makers is warranted to assist school districts in responding appropriately to these changes. The Bilingual Education Act has been proven an effective tool and now more than ever, merits increased emphasis and increased resources. The demand for support already exists. What remains unclear is the level of assistance and the kind of leadership that policy makers will exert on behalf of these children and the communities which serve them.

     The Future

     The classroom realities of the future will reflect increased numbers of low-income, linguistically diverse school age children. Poverty, family illiteracy, cultural barriers and institutional racism will account for underachievement of many language minority students. Drop-out rates for language minority students will likely continue to escalate. The challenges that have traditionally confronted pockets of school districts primarily in five states now extend to almost every state across the country. Direction and continued support to facilitate the implementation of effective programs for language minority students must come from partnerships of national, state, and local organizations. Failure to actively provide leadership from the national and state levels can yield disastrous results.

     The Recommendations

     The lessons learned to date from educational research must guide our policies and actions. The Bilingual Education Act in its reauthorization must encourage schools serving language minority students to become learning communities driven by a shared mission of high expectations for all members in an inclusive environment. The programs must promote high academic standards, including proficiency in more than one language; must create partnerships with parents and communities; and, must insure that qualified teachers and relevant and appropriate instructional tools and materials are available in classrooms for these students. Accountability for student performance on clearly defined standards must be a vital dimension of all programs. Continuous professional development for teachers and administrators, and parent education and parent empowerment must be achieved. Reauthorization of the Bilingual Education Act can facilitate a common theme and provide cohesive direction for all programs offered for minority students.

     Models for building quality schools for all children are of significance for today`s educational leaders. These models must address the attitudes and behaviors which are critical to student success. The deficit model and cultural deprivation argument prevalent in much of the professional literature must be denied. The notion that racial/ethnic minority students who come from low socio-economic status homes and do not speak English proficiently are not capable learners must be rejected. The new mandates of the Bilingual Education Act should demonstrate that ethnic pluralism is respected, and that open, caring and culturally inviting inclusive learning environments can and should be created for these language minority students.

     Specific recommendations include:

     Academically rich programs of study must be offered to low SES, language minority students. They should be offered in the students` dominant language as they engage in the acquisition of their second language and not postponed until they demonstrate proficiency in English. A culturally relevant curriculum and culturally responsive pedagogy are integral to producing teaching for understanding and learning for life.

     Teachers must be recruited who share similar backgrounds with the students. It would be particularly helpful for the teachers to speak the language of the students and have had many of the same experiences. This forms a stronger bond and link between the teachers, the parents, and the students. For teachers of language minority students, staff development must be a career long plan. The training must provide teachers with knowledge and strategies which are responsive to the specific strengths and needs of the students they serve.

     Teacher education programs must prepare teacher candidates for the realities which exist in low SES schools serving LEP students, including those from high mobility backgrounds.

     New and innovative methods and processes must be sought to develop and nurture highly committed and qualified teachers of low SES, LEP, and mobile students. A system of incentives and/or rewards for choosing these assignments and pursuing the additional certificates may be appropriate.

     Culturally-sensitive, accommodating, and enabling strategies for influencing the parents of LEP students in the education process must be incorporated into all programs (Cummins, 1986). Children from low-income and minority families have the most to gain when schools involve parents.

     A rigorous and comprehensive assessment and accountability system must be an added dimension of all bilingual/ESL programs. Students academic competencies must be monitored, whether in English or Spanish, (to be determined by the language of instruction). If students are tested academically in Spanish, an assessment strategy to determine progress in the acquisition of English should also be incorporated. The accountability system must demonstrate progress of the classroom, school and/or district towards the defined standards of achievement over time. Levels of acceptable and unacceptable performance standards should be defined. Flexibility to allow for the use of state assessment and accountability system in Title VII programs merits consideration.

     The scope of the Bilingual Education Act should be expanded. The financial resources available should be increased commensurate with the needs. It is critical that schools and communities, which find themselves for the first time serving significant numbers of highly mobile, low SES/LEP students, have the support they desperately need to build effective learning communities. Those of us who as practitioners have a lifetime of serving these children clearly see the challenges which lie ahead; but also, understand the privilege of serving theses children and appreciate the pride of achieving success. We have not accomplished our successes alone. It was the partnership of the national, state, and local stakeholders collaborating for the common good of language minority students that has contributed to whatever successes we have had. Our colleagues across the country merit the same commitment and the same support.

     Closing

     There is evident support across the world for proficiency in more than one language. Crawford (1997) states "competence in multiple languages is an obvious necessity in diplomacy, national security, and the market place." Today, more so than any other time in our history, it is vitally important to create instructional programs like the two-way bilingual models, affording all children, regardless of racial/ethnic and linguistic backgrounds the opportunity to develop proficiency in more than one language and an understanding of and appreciation for different cultures. By implementing bilingual and multi lingual education programs viewed as asset models, more children, and more parents can hopefully be influenced to voluntarily choose bilingual education programs and insure that their children reap the economic advantages of being bilingual and bi cultural.