As teachers it is important to know where and what different standards are being expected of us. As the laws change so do the expectations of teaching practices and what content is taught in the classroom. If not kept up to date, a teacher could find themselves losing their job because they did know about or didn't know how to meet the new expectations.
Restrictive Period:
1880s-1960s
1960s-1980s
(Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968 or ESEA)
Aspira of New York v. Board of Education-1975
1880s-1960s
A time period described by Carlos Ovando where the U.S. the historical development of linguistics and immigration restrictionsim took a turn. The number of repressive policies increased as a way to "civilize" Indians and contain them on reservations (Ovando, 2003).
Opportunist Period1960s-1980s
A time period described by Carlos Ovando where the U.S. reemphasize bilingual education following the National Defense Education Act (1958) and the Bilingual Education Act (1968). It was during World War II and the Soviet Union launching Sputnik that the U.S. realized they needed to increase their foreign-language instruction to keep up with the National math, science, military, commercial, and diplomatic skills(Ovando, 2003).
Bilingual Education Act of 1968 (BEA)(Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968 or ESEA)
Was the first federal legislation passed to recognize and provide funding for students with Limited English Speaking Ability (LESA). This act was passed soon after the Civil Rights movement.
Lau V. Nichols-1974
In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled saying the San Francisco School District was violating limited English speaking Chinese American students' Civil Rights (under the VI Civil Rights Act of 1964). The students claimed there was a lack of appropriate accommodations to help them with the language barrier (English only services/supports) which lead to unequal educational opportunists as a result of their ethnicity (Ovando, 2003).
Aspira of New York v. Board of Education-1975
A lawsuit in 1975 a community-based Hispanic educational advocacy group, sued the Board of Education in New York because they said many Puerto Rican students with limited English skills were discriminated against because they were not able to fully participate instructional programs at the public schools. This resulted in a settlement called: Aspira Consent Decree. With this decree the schools were required to provided bilingual education programs (Santiago, 1986).
Dismissive Period
1980-Present
A time period described by Carlos Ovando where the U.S. put restrictions on bilingual education through "English Only" initiatives. It was felt by Reagan that one must speak English if they are participate in the job market. There was and is still much debate over how long students should be in educational programs utilizing their native language. There is a push to get students into an English only academic environments as soon a possible (Ovando, 2003).
Nationality Act of 1906
First federal law mandating that any immigrant wishing to gain citizenship, must speak English.
No Child Left Behind- 2002
The No Child Left Behind Act, was signed by President Bush in January of 2002. In short, the act aimed to pressure schools and holds them accountable for closing achievement gaps among: students of privilege, non-English proficient students, students with low economic status, and students with disabilities. No Child Left Behind mandated all schools annually assess their student’s skills in reading and math. The students’ scores were used to asses a schools yearly progress. If schools did not meet yearly progress, they had to make a two-year school improvement plan and give parents the option of choosing a different school for their child. If after two years the school did not make adequate improvements, schools were required to offer free after school tutoring. At some schools, a whole school’s staff was dismissed in hopes for improving student test scores (Ravitch, 2009). This law affected education both positively and negatively. On the plus side schools were now being held accountable for aligning curriculum with teaching standards and making sure all students had equal access the same curriculum. On the negative side however, the pressure and stressed causes by the high stakes testing caused teachers to “teach to the test,” instead of through more unique meaningful practices (Johnson, 2010). Often these tests didn't give the best representation of a student’s skills nor give them credit for progress made.
The Number of ESL Students in on the Rise!
“From 1998 to 2008, the number of English language learner students increased from 3.5 million to 5.3 million, and researchers estimate that 1 in 10 public school students in the United States is an English Language Learner” (Chang, 2012).
How do we assess if schools are meeting the needs of all their students?
The Goals of No Child Left Behind (Johnson, 2010):
•To “closes the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.”
•To "ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.”
**Congress was also worried because U.S. students were not preforming as high as other countries (Ravitch, 2009).
Components of No Child Left Behind (Johnson, 2010)
•Academic proficiency standards or average year progress (AYP) were set for all schools
•Schools have to state how the plan to reach AYP
•All students in public schools (charter schools included) must take an academic achievement test
•Schools are responsible for students academic achievement scores
•Professional standards for teachers and support staff were raised (all teachers teaching bilingual education programs must be fluent in English and any other language used in the classroom)
•Schools were given greater flexibility in how they wanted to spend their federal funds
•ESL and special education students were to be included in a schools annual progress report
•Students grades 3-8 were tested yearly in math and reading.
•States were allowed to create their standardized tests and definition of “proficiency”
•If a school did not reach the set yearly progress (in all student subgroups), the school had to create a two year intervention plan.
•If after two years a school did not make enough progress, it had to allow parents the option of choosing a different school.
•By year three, if a school continued not to reach the yearly progress bench marks, the students were offered free after school tutoring. If little improvement was made, the whole staff my be dismissed.
•All Schools students must reach 100% proficiency by 2014.
•Mandated that all bilingual teachers be fluent in all languages used in the classroom.
•Parents were able to chose if they wanted their child in a bilingual education program.
•ESL students were given a three year “time-limit” in bilingual education before being enrolled in “English-only” classes. (regardless of the students English proficiency)
Pro’s of No Child Left Behind
Bilingual Education in the United States: Historical Development and Current Issues
http://www.cwu.edu/~hughesc/EDBL514Syl_files/Readings/Bilingual%20Ed%20Ovando.pdf
**Note: See full citations/references on the "Reference" page.
•To “closes the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.”
•To "ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.”
**Congress was also worried because U.S. students were not preforming as high as other countries (Ravitch, 2009).
Components of No Child Left Behind (Johnson, 2010)
•Academic proficiency standards or average year progress (AYP) were set for all schools
•Schools have to state how the plan to reach AYP
•All students in public schools (charter schools included) must take an academic achievement test
•Schools are responsible for students academic achievement scores
•Professional standards for teachers and support staff were raised (all teachers teaching bilingual education programs must be fluent in English and any other language used in the classroom)
•Schools were given greater flexibility in how they wanted to spend their federal funds
•ESL and special education students were to be included in a schools annual progress report
•Students grades 3-8 were tested yearly in math and reading.
•States were allowed to create their standardized tests and definition of “proficiency”
•If a school did not reach the set yearly progress (in all student subgroups), the school had to create a two year intervention plan.
•If after two years a school did not make enough progress, it had to allow parents the option of choosing a different school.
•By year three, if a school continued not to reach the yearly progress bench marks, the students were offered free after school tutoring. If little improvement was made, the whole staff my be dismissed.
•All Schools students must reach 100% proficiency by 2014.
•Mandated that all bilingual teachers be fluent in all languages used in the classroom.
•Parents were able to chose if they wanted their child in a bilingual education program.
•ESL students were given a three year “time-limit” in bilingual education before being enrolled in “English-only” classes. (regardless of the students English proficiency)
Pro’s of No Child Left Behind
•“Was the 1st law to hold districts accountable for the achievement of their English Language Learner students”(Chang, 2012).
•Drew attention to ESL/bilingual education (Good, 2014)
•There was an increase in professional development in high-ELL schools (Good, 2014).
•Fostered growth in communication between ESL/ bilingual teachers and general education teachers (Good, 2014).
Con’s of No Child Left Behind (Good, 2014)
•Pre-K education was not included
•Students only got to be in bilingual education programs for three years before they were sent to classes spoken all in English
•There was no consistency in how schools ran their bilingual program's
•The increase use of testing caused stress on students and teachers.
•Drew attention to ESL/bilingual education (Good, 2014)
•There was an increase in professional development in high-ELL schools (Good, 2014).
•Fostered growth in communication between ESL/ bilingual teachers and general education teachers (Good, 2014).
Con’s of No Child Left Behind (Good, 2014)
•Pre-K education was not included
•Students only got to be in bilingual education programs for three years before they were sent to classes spoken all in English
•There was no consistency in how schools ran their bilingual program's
•The increase use of testing caused stress on students and teachers.
Con’s of No Child Left Behind (Katz, 2004)
•Indirectly decreased emphases on bilingual education. Only encouraged English-only instruction •Students were expected to assimilate in three years time.
•As a result, many students never reached proficiency in their native language or in English due to lack of continual supports in either languages.
•Indirectly decreased emphases on bilingual education. Only encouraged English-only instruction •Students were expected to assimilate in three years time.
•As a result, many students never reached proficiency in their native language or in English due to lack of continual supports in either languages.
Resources:
History of Bilingual Education in the United States (timeline)
http://www.preceden.com/timelines/59492-history-of-bilingual-education-in-the-united-statesBilingual Education in the United States: Historical Development and Current Issues
http://www.cwu.edu/~hughesc/EDBL514Syl_files/Readings/Bilingual%20Ed%20Ovando.pdf
**Note: See full citations/references on the "Reference" page.
No comments:
Post a Comment