Educating Limited-English-Proficient Students in Washington State

Pete  Bylsma

In November 2000, Arizona voters passed Proposition 203, a law that replaced bilingual education with a 1-year program known as Structured English Immersion (SEI). Although SEI has little support in the educational or applied linguistics research literature, all English-language learners (ELLs) in Ari-zona are automatically placed in SEI classrooms. This article examines the effects of SEI on the teachers, administrators, and students at an urban school serving a large number of ELLs. The study found that SEI teachers are largely unaware of the model and unprepared to teach it effectively, that training in SEI strategies has been haphazard, that interpretation of the law's waiver system by State education officials has seriously reduced the number of students eligible for the school's dual-language program, and that forcing English learners into SEI is traumatizing some of them and distressing their parents. The study raises questions about the civil rights implications of the law.

The present thesis aims to evaluate the efficacy of bilingual education programs for English Language Learners (ELLs) in District 3 of New York City. It begins with a historical account of the previous (and controversial) research and policies that led to the development of contemporary bilingual education programs. It continues with a debriefing of the current state of affairs surrounding bilingual education, including types of programs, demographics, and funding. This background provides context for the statistical analysis, which investigates whether English proficiency level and/or grade level can predict performance on the New York State English Language Arts (ELA) exam — a substantial measure of literacy and language skills. The results found that English proficiency level was a significant predictor of ELA exam performance in both the highest and lowest clusters of scores. Further, native-English speaking students were increasingly more likely to score in higher performance levels than ELL students; higher performance levels (reflecting higher scores) saw a larger achievement gap, as ELL students were less likely to score in those levels than their English-proficient peers. The findings contradict established psychological research that demonstrate bilingual education as beneficial to bilingual children’s cognitive development, suggesting that these programs aren’t operating efficiently and effectively. The implications are further supported by qualitative data collected through interviews with District 3 teachers and parents. Suggested future steps are discussed.

The struggle of American migrants and their families has been a part of the American story since the beginning. These individuals faced unique challenges and barriers to assimilation, including the language barrier. As a response, the American Government was forced to enact laws to protect the non-English-speaking children of these migrants, ensuring their education. The current research paper examines the historical origins of the Limited English Proficiency label in American Public schools, the classification system utilized, and contemporary issues faced by participating students.

DOCUMENT RESUME UD 034 092 ED 451 311 Bylsma, Pete Educating Limited-English-Proficient Students in Washington AUTHOR TITLE State. INSTITUTION PUB DATE NOTE AVAILABLE FROM Washington Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Olympia. 2000-12-00 143p.; Funding for this project was provided by the Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program, a state funded program. Resource Center, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, P.O. Box 47200, Olympia, WA 98504-7200. Tel: 888-595-3276 (Toll Free); email: erickson@ospi.wednet.edu; Web site: http: / /www.kl2.wa.us. PUB TYPE EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS IDENTIFIERS Descriptive (141) Reports MF01/PC06 Plus Postage. Academic Achievement; *Bilingual Education; Diversity (Student); Educational Finance; Elementary Secondary Education; Enrollment Trends; Family Income; Financial Support; *Limited English Speaking; Public Education; Socioeconomic Status Washington ABSTRACT This study examined data from Washington school districts with approved state programs for limited English proficient (LEP) students during 1999-00. Data came from district annual reports; student information from districts with significant numbers of LEP students; and reviews of research on bilingual and LEP education. Overall, students' academic performance was better when they had significant exposure to instruction in both English and their primary language. Most LEP students received little or no instruction in their primary language. Although most program funding went to staff-related costs, lack of qualified teachers who spoke other languages and the numbers of languages spoken by students within a district limited the possibility of providing adequate bilingual instruction. Many factors influenced amount of time students spent in state LEP programs, including family socioeconomic status, amount of education received before entering the program, and program structure and administration. The number of LEP students continued to grow in 1999-00, although at a slower rate than in 1998-99. Six appendixes present: federal education programs supporting LEP students; languages spoken; length of stay data; districts operating programs for LEP students; summary of research on programs for LEP students; and end-of-year report form, 1999-00. (Contains 62 references.) (SM) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ucatin n lis invite U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) El This document has been reproduced as roficient to ents in as in ton tate received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY B.11 P,-tter.500 I c. IA 43 THE E CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 6.1%44 1 Dr. Terry Bergeson December 2000 State Superintendent of Public Instruction BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2 About This Document This document can be obtained by placing an order on our Web site (www.k12.wa.us); by writing the Resource Center, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, PO Box 47200, Olympia, WA 98504-7200; or by calling the Resource Center toll-free at (888) 595-3276. If requesting more than one copy, contact the Resource Center to determine if printing and shipping charges apply. This material is available in alternative format upon request. Contact the Resource Center at (888) 595-3276, TTY (360) 664-3631, or e-mail erickson@ospi.wednet.edu. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction complies with all federal and state rules and regulations and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, or marital status. For more information about the contents of this document, please contact: Helen Malagon, Supervisor Bilingual Education Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction PO BOX 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200 E-mail: hmalagon @ospi.wednet.edu The contents of this document can be reproduced without permission. Funding for this project was provided by the Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program, a state-funded program. Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Pete Bylsma, Director of Research and Evaluation. Many other staff at the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction helped prepare this document, including Debora Merle, Lisa Ireland, Tani Schwent, Sherrie Keller, Helen Malagon, Richard Gomez, Steve Shish, and Mike Dooley. The review of research related to length of stay and program effectiveness issues was conducted by Thomas Stritikus from the University of Washington and Patrick Manyak from California State University/Fullerton. Staff in 46 districts provided student-level data on LEP students in certain grades. 3 Educating Limited-English-Proficient Students in Washington State Dr. Terry Bergeson State Superintendent of Public Instruction Cheryl L. Mayo, Deputy Superintendent Learning and Teaching B.J. Wise, Assistant Superintendent Special Populations Richard Gomez, Director Bilingual and Migrant Education Helen Malagon, Supervisor Bilingual Education Pete Bylsma, Director Research and Evaluation December 2000 4 CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Section 1 Introduction 4 Background Washington's Program For LEP Students Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Section 2 Staffing and Instruction 8 Most Expenditures Are Staff-Related Staffing Issues Instructional Strategies and Programs Section 3 Students Served 18 Total LEP Student Enrollment Uneven Distribution of LEP Students Grades of Students Served Students Served by Other.Programs Section 4 Languages Spoken 25 Number of Students Speaking Various Languages Wide Disparity in the Number of Languages Section 5 Length of Stay and Academic Performance 31 Background LEP Students Leaving and Remaining in the Program Test Score Trends Relationship with Family Income Impact of Programs on Academic Achievement and Length of Stay Other Factors Influencing Length of Stay Section 6 Conclusion and Next Steps 43 Study Implications Topics for Further Research Appendix A Federal Education Programs Supporting LEP Students B Languages Spoken C Length of Stay Data D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students F End-of-Year Report Form, School Year 1999-2000 5 47 48 50 75 95 126 Abbreviations ELL ESL FTE ITBS LEP OSPI WASL English language learners English-as-a-second language full-time equivalent Iowa Test of Basic Skills limited English proficient Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Washington Assessment of Student Learning 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background As Washington becomes a more diverse society, the state's transitional bilingual instruction program is serving an increasing number and percentage of students who speak languages other than English and have English language skill deficiencies that impair their learning in regular classrooms. Students with limited English proficiency (LEP) often have lower levels of academic performance, higher rates of grade retention, and higher dropout rates than their English-fluent peers. As the number of LEP students grows and higher academic standards are put in place, issues related to meeting the needs of these students are getting more scrutiny. The Legislature requires the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to review the program each year, and the Governor requested additional information related to the program. Some have been concerned about the rising cost of the program. The program provides extra funding to districts for services to these students. In school year 1999-2000, the state provided about $38 million for the program. This total was 11 percent more than the previous year due to increases in LEP enrollment and per pupil funding. Districts supplemented state funding with about $12 million in local funds. Hence, districts spent about $50 million in state and local funds educating LEP students last year. Results in Brief Our analysis of data from the program and review of recent research on different approaches used to educate LEP students found that students' long-term academic performance is better when they have significant exposure to instruction in both English and their primary language. However, most LEP students in the state receive little or no instruction in their primary language. Although most program funding is spent on staff-related costs, the current lack of qualified teachers that speak other languages and the number of different languages spoken by students across the range of grades within a district limit the possibility of many schools providing instruction in both English and students' primary language. We also found that many factors influence the amount of time students spend in the state program. A student's background, such as family socioeconomic status and amount of education received before entering the program, can influence the amount of time spent in the program. How the program is structured and administered also can affect the time spent in the program. These issues need more attention in the future. Staffing & Instruction Most funds for educating LEP students are spent for staff salaries and benefits. One obstacle facing the education of LEP students is the shortage of qualified teachers to provide instruction. Although research has consistently found that students perform better when provided more intensive instruction in their primary language, few students receive this type of instruction in part because of this Educating LEP Students in Washington State 1 relative shortage of qualified teachers. Most instruction for LEP students in Washington is provided by instructional aides who often lack much formal training in second language learning strategies. These aides typically provide intensive instruction in English-as-a-second language (ESL) in a classroom setting but provide little or no instruction in the students' primary language. Thus, the program is more accurately called an ESL program. Fewer than half of all teachers of LEP students have an ESL endorsement. Students Served The number of LEP students continued to grow in school year. 1999-2000, although at a slower rate than in the previous year. The increase is influenced by several factors, including the faster growth of the non-English speaking student population due to higher immigration and birth rates, and a higher rate of students entering rather than exiting the program. LEP students are not evenly distributed across the statesome districts serve a large number and/or a high percentage of LEP students, while other districts serve few or no LEP students. Some districts have experienced a dramatic increase in the number of LEP students they serve, while others are serving fewer LEP students. Half of all LEP students are found in Grades K-3, and many are served by other state and/or federal programs as well. Languages Spoken Length of Stay & Student Achievement A total of 159 different languages were represented in the program in school year 1999-2000. Spanish was spoken by more students (62 percent) than students speaking all the other languages combined. Six other languages were spoken by at least 1,000 students, and about 85 percent of all LEP students in Washington spoke either Spanish or one of these other six languages. The number of students speaking the language of new refugee groups (Bosnian, Somali, Ukrainian) has grown dramatically, while the number speaking the major southeast Asian languages (Vietnamese, Cambodian, Lao) has declined. Some districts have many different languages spoken among their LEP students, while many other districts serve only LEP students whose primary language is Spanish. The program is intended to provide temporary services for up to three years until LEP students can develop adequate English language skills. About 25 percent of the state's LEP students left the program in school year 1999-2000, and a majority had been in the program no more than two years. However, nearly 28 percent of the students have remained in the program for more than three years. Many factors can affect a student's length of stay in the program. Exiting the program depends on meeting certain academic achievement standards, and learning academic terminology in another language can take years. Thus, LEP students tend to have lower scores on achievement tests. Test scores are also influenced by socioeconomic factorsdistricts and schools with higher percentages of LEP students tend to have higher percentages of students from low-income families. Students who come from poor families typically have lower test scores, and those who are both poor and not proficient in English have a higher risk of academic failure. 8 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 2 Other factors affect the length of stay in the program. Those served in special education or migrant programs and with lower levels of previous education and English-speaking ability when entering the program average more time in the program. Students speaking certain languages tend to stay in the program longer. Some factors relate to the way a program is designed, such as the quality or type of program administered, the extent to which the primary language is used in instruction, and the relative ease with which students enter and exit the program. National research has found that the more instruction provided in the students' primary language, the better their academic achievement. However, most LEP students in Washington receive little or no instruction in their primary language. Next Steps This report identifies a number of issues that need further scrutiny. Action is already underway to address some of these issues. However, other issues need to be explored in order to improve the effectiveness of the program and ultimately the performance of LEP students. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 3 9 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 BACKGROUND The United States is becoming a more ethnically and linguistically diverse society. Over 90 percent of recent immigrants come from non-English-speaking countries, and many of these immigrants arrive with little or no formal education. Minority groups also have higher birth rates, and many native-born ethnic group members do not speak English in the home. These immigration and birth patterns are contributing to the increase in the linguistic diversity of our public schools. This is especially true in the West and in urban areas where limited English proficient (LEP)' students are concentrated. Nationwide, the number of LEP students increased by an estimated 57 percent between 1990 and 1997. Washington ranked 14th in terms of the percentage of LEP students in public schools in 1995-96.2 There is great variation among students whose primary language is not English. Some are recent arrivals from foreign countries while others have been born and raised in the United States. The level of education received prior to immigrating to the U.S., family socioeconomic status, and cultural background also differ. Students coming from the same country may speak different languages or dialects. In addition, differences exist within groups. For example, the first wave of southeast Asian refugees was comprised of highly educated people, while subsequent refugees tended to be less well educated. Thus, generalizations about any group of students may mask important background characteristics that are important to understand when designing appropriate curricular interventions. Students not proficient in using the English language have a higher risk of academic failure. When children with little or no previous exposure to the English language enter the public schools, they are often unable to profit fully from instruction in English. Research has found that LEP students tend to have lower levels of academic performance in math and reading, higher rates of grade retention, and much higher dropout rates than their English-fluent peers.3 As the number of LEP students in public schools continues to grow and higher academic standards are put into place, issues related to meeting the needs of these students and assessing their academic progress are receiving greater scrutiny. These students are also referred to as English language learners (ELL). Nearly all the states ranked higher than Washington were in the West, according to a 1998 report by the National Clearinghouse on Bilingual Education. 3 In 1992, students speaking English with difficulty dropped out of school at four times the rate of their English-fluent peers. 2 10 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 4 Section 1 Introduction WASHINGTON'S PROGRAM FOR LEP STUDENTS Educating LEP students is primarily a state and local responsibility. While the federal government provides support for LEP students through various programs, districts say they rely heavily on state aid and local revenue to fund Englishlanguage acquisition programs.4 The Transitional Bilingual Instruction Act of 1979, which was amended in 1984, provides extra state funding to Washington districts for services to students who have a primary language other than English and have English language skill deficiencies that impair their learning in regular classrooms.5 The major objective of the transitional bilingual instruction program is for students to develop competence in English language skills. Instructional assistance is restricted to students who have very little or no English speaking ability and are in most need of help, as defined by the eligibility requirements.6 Bilingual education is the use of two languages as mediums of instruction, English and one other. The non-English language is a bridge, a language the child understands, that can be used while English skills are being acquired. As a student learns more English, there is a corresponding decrease in the use of the primary language. This is the "transitional" aspect of the program as established in Washington. Although the program is for "bilingual instruction," relatively few students in the program actually receive much formal instruction in their primary language. Thus, the program could more accurately be called an ESL program. Program Funding Districts receive extra state funding for each eligible LEP student. This funding is allocated based on the average number of LEP students enrolled each month. In school year 1999-00, the state provided about $691 for each of the 55,651 LEP students.? The rate per eligible student is $711 for school year 2000-01, which is about 3 percent more than in school year 1999-00. The per pupil amount is adjusted annually and is about 18 percent more than the base amount provided for all students. In school year 1999-00, the state provided a total of $38.4 million for the program, an 11 percent increase from the previous year. Figure 1-1 shows the growth of state funding for the program over the last 15 years. The figure does not 4 See Public Education: Title I Services Provided to Students With Limited English Proficiency, U.S. General Accounting Office, December 1999. Beginning in 1979, LEP students were funded along with certain special education students as part of a "special needs" grant. In 1984, funding for the program was set up as a separate allocation. Other program changes were made in the 1984 law, including how eligible students are identified. 6 The transitional bilingual instruction program operates under the authority of RCW 28.A180.060 and as detailed in chapter 392-160 WAC. 7 This was the average number of students enrolled in the program each month, as reported by districts on the most recent P223-H report. The total number of LEP students served by the program was 66,281see Sections 3 for more information on enrollment issues. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 5 Section 1 Introduction adjust the funding amounts for inflation. Appropriations for the 1999-2001 biennial budget were for $73.5 million. Figure 1-1: Growth in Program Funding $40,000,000 $35,000,000 4, $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 1 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 V4, V V 4, A 0 c) (2) '27, VA' V (21. * Not adjusted for inflation (0 cb N c5 ('S cb V VVV cb A c%) Cb A' c0 c=5 cb 4i cb 0 cY School Year The state is not the only source of revenue for the program. Districts can choose to supplement their state program funds with funds raised at the local level for programs educating LEP students. In school year 1999-00, districts used about $11.9 million in local funding for educating LEP students. In addition, various federal programs can be used to support LEP students, including funding from Title I and programs for migrant, immigrant, and special education. (Appendix A provides more information on these programs.) However, the federal funding is minimal compared to state and local funding. Program Eligibility Program funding is intended for those with the greatest need, so not all students who have a primary language other than English may be eligible. To be eligible, a student must have a primary language other than English and their English language skills must be sufficiently deficient or absent to impair learning in an all-English classroom. The program is for eligible students in grades K-12.8 To identify eligible pupils, districts conduct an initial assessment to determine a student's language proficiency. Students are eligible if they score below a minimum level on an oral language proficiency test administered by the district.9 8 Beginning in school year 1997-98, prekindergarten students were no longer eligible for bilingual program services. 9 Most districts use the Language Assessment Scales (LAS or Pre-LAS) to determine initial eligibility. The LAS cut-off score for eligibility is Level 3Limited English Speaker and the range of the total score is between 65-74. A bilingual advisory committee is currently studying the assessments in order to recommend that only one be used statewide. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 6 12 Section 1 Introduction An annual reassessment must be made for a student to continue in the program. Eligibility ends whenever the student scores above the 35th percentile in the reading and language arts portions of an approved norm-referenced written test. Students cannot stay in the program more than three school years unless their English language skills remain below the 35th percentile. Districts must have empirical evidence to keep a student in the program for more than three years.I° OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY The Legislature requires the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to review the bilingual program and report each year on the results of that review. In addition, in May 2000 Governor Locke requested OSPI to use available resources to provide updated information related to LEP and bilingual programs to his office and the Legislature by December 2000. This report provides information on the bilingual program for LEP students in school year 1999-2000 as well as historical information. It also provides information requested by the Governor. Specifically, this report discusses the following topics: Staffing patterns and instruction to implement the program. Enrollment patterns of students who have participated in the program and how the patterns have changed over time. The languages spoken by students in the program. The amount of time that students spend in the program, the impact that programs for LEP students have on their academic achievement and the length of stay in these types of programs, and factors influencing the length of stay. To address these topics, we examined data obtained from all 185 districts that had an approved state program for LEP students in school year 1999-2000. The data were provided on the district annual reports (see Appendix F). We also used data reported by districts in previous years. The district reports were checked for consistency, and districts were contacted when discrepancies were found. However, the accuracy of the data in these reports was not verified." Since school-level data are not collected on the program, most of the report provides data aggregated at the district leve1.12 To supplement the district-level data, we analyzed selected student-level information obtained from 46 districts that enrolled 80 percent of all LEP students in the state." We also reviewed recent research related to bilingual education and instruction of LEP students.I4 I° The State Auditor is examining the evidenCe that selected districts have used to keep a student in the program. 11 See Section 2 for information about data limitations. 12 Districts began reporting the number of LEP students at the school building in the fall of 2000. 13 Data for over 15,000 LEP students in selected grades at 618 schools were analyzed. 14 Tom Stritikus from the University of Washington and Patrick Manyak from California State University/Fullerton reviewed the relevant literature. OSPI also published a summary of research on the education of LEP students in 1999. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 13 7 STAFFING AND INSTRUCTION SECTION 2 . Nearly all expenditures used to educate LEP students are for staff, mainly salaries. Although research has found that students perform better when provided more intensive instruction in their primary language, few students receive this type of instruction. One reason for this is the relative shortage of qualified teachers. Most instruction for LEP students in Washington is provided by instructional aides, typically in a classroom setting with some ESL instruction. Less than half the teachers in the program have an endorsement in teaching either ESL or bilingual education. MOST EXPENDITURES ARE STAFF-RELATED In school year 1999-00, expenditures for educating LEP students totaled $52.3 million. Of this amount, about 73 percent came from the state, 23 percent came from the local districts themselves, and 4 percent came from federal sources.15 Of the nonfederal funding for educating LEP students, 95 percent was spent on instruction-related activities, mainly in the form of salaries and benefits for teachers and instructional aides. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show the amounts and proportions spent on various categories in school year 1999-00. Figure 2-1: Staff Costs Account for Most Expenditures for LEP Students $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 Salaries Certificated Staff Salaries Classified Staff Staff Benefits Other Expenditures Note: Excludes expenditures related to federal funding. 15 The state does not keep track of how funds from different revenue sources are spent on various programs, so an analysis of expenditures for the program includes other sources of funding besides state funds designated for the bilingual program. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 14 8 Section 2 Staffing and Instruction Figure 2-2: Proportion of Expenditures Spent for the Bilingual Program Other Expenditures 6.7% Salaries Certificated Staff 41.0% Staff Benefits 22.2% Salaries Classified Staff 30.1% STAFFING ISSUES LEP students need access to properly qualified, highly skilled teachers in order to meet high standards. Studies have found that teachers need to have certain knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be effective with LEP students.I6 However, one obstacle facing the education of LEP students is the shortage of qualified staff to provide instruction. According to a study conducted for the U.S. Department of Education," about 10 percent of teachers of LEP students were certified to teach bilingual education, and 8 percent were fully certified to teach English-as-asecond language (ESL),III Many districts report difficulties recruiting teachers qualified to teach students with limited English proficiency. Providing training to teachers with LEP students also appears to be a problem. During school year 1997-98, less than 40 percent of teachers nationally reported having received some training to teach students from culturally and linguistically diverse 16 For more information about the characteristics of effective teachers of LEP students, see Effective Instruction For Language Minority Students: The Teacher, Journal of Education, 173 (2), Garcia, E., 1992; and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy for the1990's and Beyond, Educational Testing Service, Villegas, A., 1991. 17 See Descriptive Study of Services to Limited English Proficient Students, Vol. 1 and 2, Fleischman, H. and Hopstock, P., Development Associates, Inc., 1993. "In ESL instruction, students with limited English proficiency are provided instruction in using the English language with little or no use of their native language. Bilingual instruction includes instruction in a student's native language. Nationally, public schools enrolling LEP students are more likely to provide ESL programs than bilingual programs. Both approaches may be used within the same school or district. For more information on how ESL and bilingual instruction differ, see Limited English Proficiency: A Growing and Costly Educational Challenge Facing Many School Districts, U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 15 9 Section 2 Staffing and Instruction backgrounds.'9 A study conducted for the Legislature found similar problems in Washington .2() In the current education reform movement that aims to have all students meet high academic standards, schools face a challenge to find and train staff to meet the needs of the growing number of students with limited English proficiency. The newly formed Professional Educator Standards Board has recommended that several alternative certification methods be used to increase the number of teachers for ESL programs. Qualifications and Training The qualifications of teachers of LEP students funded by the state program in Washington and their training are significantly better than the national numbers mentioned above. Of the Washington teachers who provided instruction to LEP students in school year 1999-2000,45 percent had an ESL endorsement and 17 percent had a bilingual endorsement. (Some teachers have both an ESL and bilingual endorsement.) In terms of training, 96 of the 185 districts (52%) involved in the program provided some inservice training on ESL and bilingual education to teachers. More districts (64 percent) provided such training to instructional aides. Training on multicultural issues was lessabout 30 percent of the districts provided such training to either teachers or aides. Teachers in the program averaged more than 10 hours of inservice training in ESL or bilingual education. Instructional aides averaged more than eight hours of such training. Teachers in the program averaged about four hours of multicultural training during the year, and aides averaged about three hours of such training. The above numbers apply to staff funded by the state program and do not apply to staff who may be educating LEP students and who are paid from other funding sources. Data are not provided on the qualifications and training of staff hired by a district with other funds and are providing instruction to LEP students. Some districts have a significant number of staff hired to educate LEP students who are not funded by the state program. Types of Staff Districts have relied more heavily on instructional aides than certificated teachers to provide instruction to LEP students. In school year 1999-00, the number of 19 See Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Preliminary Report, U.S. Department of Education, 1999. 20 See K -12 Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program, Report 92-3, Legislative Budget Committee, February 1992. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 16 10 Staffing and Instruction Section 2 teachers involved in the program increased while the number of aides declined by a larger amount. Thus, the number of FTE staff involved in the program decreased slightly. In school year 1999-00, there were 2,556 staff involved in providing instruction in the program-1,722 were instructional aides, more than double the number of teachers (834). In terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff involved in the program, aides represented about 56 percent of the total FTEs in school year 1999-00, which is less than in the previous two years. Table 2-1 and Figure 2-3 provide more information on the FTE staffing trends. Table 2-1: Five-Year Staffing Trends (in FTEs) Type of Staff (FTE) Certificated staff Percent of total 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 362 44.3% 402 45.4% 389 40.0% 435 40.0% 467 43.8% 455 55.7% 483 54.6% 584 60.0% 654 60.0% 600 56.2% 817 885 973 1,089 1,067 Classified staff Percent of total Total FTEs Figure 2-3: Change in FTE Staff Involved in the Bilingual Program 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 9 9 5-96 1996 -97 0Teachers 19 9 7-98 1998-99 1999-00 Instructional aides Student/Staff Ratios With more instructional aides involved in the program, the LEP students per aide ratio is lower than the raiio of LEP students per teacher. The student/staff ratios can be measured in different ways by using the total number of students and staff in the program, the average number of students served per month, and the total number of FTE staff. The ratios are slightly smaller when measured in terms of the average number of students served and much larger when measured in terms of FTE staff. Table 2-2 shows various ratios for school year 1999-00. The average number of students per FTE teacher is about the same as the previous Educating LEP Students in Washington State 11 Section 2 Staffing and Instruction year because more teachers are involved in the program, but the ratio of LEP students per FTE staff is higher because more students were served and fewer FTE staff were involved in the program (see Figure 2-4). Table 2-2: LEP Student/Bilingual Program Staff Ratios (School Year 1999-00) Teachers Aides All Staff Total staff 834 1,722 2,556 Staff FTE 467 600 1,067 79.5 38.5 25.9 66.7 32.3 21.8 119.2 92.8 52.2 Student/staff ratio' (based on total students and total staff) Student/staff ratio2 (based on average number of students served and total staff) Student/staff ratio2 (based on average number of students served and FTE staff) Ratio based on the total (66,281) number of LEP students served. 2 Ratio based on the average (55,651) number of LEP students served. Figure 2-4: LEP Student/Program Staff Ratios, Two-Year Trend 125 119.6 119.2 rrQ 01 0 92.8'' 75 79.6 50 47.8 52.2 25 0 Student/teacher Student/aide Student/all staff TYPE OF RATIO 0 1998 -99 01999-00 INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMS Nationwide a variety of instructional strategies and approaches have been implemented in recent decades with the goal of teaching the large LEP student population. These range from having no instruction in the student's primary 18 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 12 Section 2 Staffing and Instruction language and providing only ESL instruction to providing instruction over an extended period in both English and the student's primary language.21 In Washington, the services provided to LEP students are described in two ways: instructional focus and program model. Instructional focus describes the methods by which students are actually instructed with differing emphases and methodologies. Program model describes the setting or circumstances in which the services are delivered. These approaches may have different types of effectiveness. Instructional Focus Most (68%) LEP students receive little or no instruction in their primary language, according to district reports. Due to staffing constraints and the number of languages that are spoken in some districts, it may not be possible to provide any instruction in a student's primary language. Most districts rely on intensive ESL instruction to educate LEP students. Districts with large numbers of LEP students speaking a particular language have a greater ability to offer instruction in that language. Districts report their instructional focus in four categories, which are defined below. In addition, some districts report that they provide instruction using some other strategy or a combination of strategies. 1. Primary Language Development: Language development in both English and the primary language is the focus. The goal is to enable the student to become academically and socially fluent in both languages. 2. Academic Language Development: Academic skills and literacy are provided in the primary language with additional intensive ESL instruction. When the student reaches moderate English reading competency, academic instruction in the primary language is discontinued. 3. Limited Assistance in the Primary Language: Students are provided with intensive ESL instruction with additional basic skills and literacy offered in English with limited assistance in the primary language. This may include academic tutoring provided by noncertificated personnel, translations, interpretations, etc. 4. No Primary Language Support: Students are provided with intensive ESL instruction and may receive other special instructional services which enable them to participate in regular all-English classrooms. 21 The Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to place a student with limited English proficiency into a regular English-only classroom and provide no special instruction support (Lau v. Nichols). Educating LEP Students in Washington State 19 13 Section 2 Staffing and Instruction Table 2-3 and Figure 2-5 report the number of students served in each of the four state-defined instructional focus categories. Because students may be served in more than one category, the totals reported exceed the unduplicated total number served. Table 2-3: Enrollment by Type of Instructional Focus (School Year 1999-00) Instructional Focus Primary Language Development Academic Language Development Limited Assistance in the Primary Language No Primary Language Support Other Number of Percent Students of Total 3,034 4.5% 10,471 15.6% 26,623 39.9% 18,781 28.1% 7,813 11.7% Figure 2-5: Enrollment by Type of Instructional Focus (School Year 1999-00) 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Primary Language Development Academic Language Limited Assistance in No Primary Language Development the Primary Language Support Other Instructional Focus Program Model While the instructional focus differentiates the instructional strategies used, the program model describes the setting or circumstances in which the services are delivered. Districts report five categories of program models, which are defined below. 1. Self-Contained Classroom: Schedules students to an all-bilingual classroom that offers instruction in English/language arts appropriate for the student's level of English competence and sometimes provides academic instruction in the primary language. The bilingual reading/language arts instruction is parallel, not supplementary, to that offered in the regular classroom. 2. Center Approach: Non-English speaking students are scheduled for a large portion of the day in a bilingual center offering intensive English language Educating LEP Students in Washington State 14 Section 2 Staffing and Instruction development and, in some cases, instruction in the primary language. Students return to the regular classroom only for those subjects not requiring significant English language interaction. 3. In-Classroom: Eligible students who have attained some English language proficiency are provided, in the regular classroom, with ESL instruction by a specialized instructor and, in some cases, with academic instruction in the primary language. 4. Pull-Out: Takes students from the regular classroom to provide ESL and, in some cases, academic instruction in the primary language. Instruction is delivered either in small groups or on an individual basis. 5. Tutoring Provides students with a bilingual tutor who assists individual or small groups in completing class assignments or provides limited assistance in ESL. Table 2-4 and Figure 2-6 report the number of students served by program model. Because students may be served in more than one model, the totals reported exceeds the unduplicated total number served. Table 2-4: Enrollment by Type of Program Model (School Year 1999-00) Number of Percent Students of Total Program Model Self-Contained Classroom Center Approach In-Classroom Pull-Out Tutoring Other 10,935 3,528 18,041 20,550 6,488 10,810 15.5% 5.0% 25.6% 29.2% 9.2% 15.4% Figure 2-6: Enrollment by Type of Program Model (School Year 1999-00) 25,000 20,000 15,000 RIERIM 10,000 5,000 0 Self-Contained Classroom Center Approach In-Classroom Pull-Out Tutoring Other Program Model Educating LEP Students in Washington State 15 4.a Section 2 Staffing and Instruction Effectiveness Research has been conducted to determine the effectiveness of different approaches for educating LEP students. In general, studies have found that the more instruction that is provided in the student's primary language, the better the overall academic performance of the student over a long-term period.22 It is believed that developing proficiency in one language promotes the development of proficiency in a second language. Our analysis of student-level data from 46 districts was consistent with this conclusion. We found that the average length of time LEP students had spent in the program was less when they were receiving more intensive instruction in their primary language along with instruction in English.23 LEP students who received more intensive instruction in their primary language outside their regular classroom averaged less time in the program, while students receiving somewhat limited assistance only in the context of their regular classroom averaged the longest amount of time in the program. These findings would indicate that more academic instruction needs to be given in the student's primary language rather than simply relying only on English-language instruction. However, the shortage of trained staff to provide instruction in many primary languages limits this possibility. , Due to a number of data limitations, these results should be viewed with caution until more research can be conducted.24 The data OSPI receives from districts related to the instructional focus and program model categories are not verified for accuracy, so the results noted above should be considered estimates of how instruction is provided statewide. Even if these data were verified, the categories are not exhaustive, not mutually exclusive, and are broadly defined and therefore subject to interpretation when districts prepare their reports. We found some confusion among districts regarding how to characterize their instructional focus and programs when we asked districts about their data. In addition, some districts move LEP students from one type of program to another over time as the students improve their English language skills, but districts have not been asked to provide this type of data. Research has been hampered in other parts of the country by similar problems related to the lack or inaccuracy of data. In addition, the quality of a program will influence its effectiveness, so poorly implemented programs will cancel out the effects of successful programs in evaluation studies. Some researchers say it would be better to observe the components of programs, 22 The effects of different instructional approaches may not be seen in the short-term since language acquisition in an academic context is a long-term process. See Reading and Second Language LearnersResearch Report, OSPI, April 1999, and School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students, Thomas, W. and Collier, V., National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, December 1997. 23 Students receiving a significant amount of instruction in their primary language as well as instruction in English averaged 2.3 years in the program; students who were provided ESL instruction in a regular classroom averaged 3.8 years in the program. Nearly all districts involved in the program in Washington provide the same kind of approach from year to year, so analyses of length of stay over time does not appear to be affected by changes in educational approaches. 24 A number of major studies are scheduled to be released in 2001. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 4 4n 16 Section 2 Staffing and Instruction principally in the classroom, rather than simply comparing programs based on imprecise labels.25 OSPI plans to take steps to improve the definitions used in the district reports and gather the types of information that can be used to help evaluate the program. Section 5 and Appendix E provide more information about the effectiveness of programs for LEP students. Section 6 provides information about additional research that needs to be conducted. 25lmproving Schools For Language Minority Students, August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.), National Academy Press, 1997. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 17 23 STUDENTS SERVED SECTION 3 The number and percentage of LEP students in Washington continues to grow, but at a slower rate than last year. LEP students are not evenly distributed across the state. Some districts serve either a large number or a high percentage of LEP students, while other districts serve few or no LEP students. Moreover, some districts have experienced a high rate of growth in their LEP student population, while other districts are serving fewer LEP students. Half of the LEP students are found in Grades K-3. Many are served by other state or federal programs as well. TOTAL LEP STUDENT ENROLLMENT A total of 66,281 students were served by the program in school year 1999-00. This total represents a 6.7 percent increase from the previous year total but a slower rate of growth than in school year 1998-99 (9.1%). The average monthly enrollment in the program was 55,651 in school year 1999-00. This number is used for state funding purposes. The program serves slightly more males (52.8 percent) than females (47.2 percent). This proportion of males to females has remained about the same for the past 15 years. The percentage of LEP students in the state has slowly risen over time (see Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2). In school year 1999-00, 6.7 percent of the state's students were in the program, up from 6.3 percent in the previous year. The increase in the level of LEP students in the state is influenced by several factors. First, the nonEnglish speaking student population is growing faster than the English-speaking student population because of higher immigration and birth rates.26 In addition, when a district develops an approved program, its LEP students would be added to the number of students in the program. More districts had approved program in school year 1999-00 than in any year in the past decade. Finally, the increase is influenced by a higher rate of students entering the program compared to the rate of students exiting the program. In school year 1999-00, 20,545 students entered the program and 16,474 left the program, a net difference of 4,171. (See Section 5 for more information on those leaving the program and factors affecting their length of stay in the program.) 26 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, both the Asian and Hispanic populations have a higher percentage of the total Washington population in 1999 than in 1990. It is hard to determine the cause of the increasebirth rates, refugee flows from abroad and other states, the strength of the economy in different parts of the country, and the relative quality of ESL programs can all affect the growth of the non-English speaking population. a Educating LEP Students in Washington State 24 18 Section 3 Students Served Table 3-1: Growth of LEP Student Enrollment Year Total Enrollment' Total LEP' Percent LEP 756,340 770,538 785,854 805,913 833,906 862,423 889,680 908,017 928,669 945,283 964,642 977,818 990,884 992,088 16,352 17,800 21,062 24,279 28,473 34,338 38,735 2.2% 2.3% 2.7% 3.0% 3.4% 4.0% 4.4% 4.9% 5.1% 5.4% 5.6% 5.8% 6.3% 6.7% 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 44,266 47,214 50,737 54,124 56,939 62,132 66,281 Average headcount based on the P-223. Figure 3-1: Percentage of LEP Students Statewide Has Gradually Increased' 6.7% 6.3% 5:47e 5.1% 4.9% 5'8% 5.6% 4.0% 3:4%3.0% 2.7% 0\4150,41o)o)o) 454) or o)o cg° \ '4V 00'1" \`') \ cbcl' of\'' 5) oi) \) 5) 5) o)5` \) \ oi) 5') qb N.c) \ or\ 5) 5)5) ofb \c" Percentage is based on the total number of LEP students served and the total number of students in the state (i.e., headcounts). UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION OF LEP STUDENTS LEP students are not evenly distributed across the state. A total of 185 districts had students in the program in school year 1999-00, which is 63 percent of the state's districts. The percentage has remained about the same the past few years. These 185 districts enroll over 95 percent of the state's total student population. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 25 19 Section 3 Students Served In the 185 districts, 19 had LEP students representing at least 25 percent of their total average enrollment, while 50 districts had LEP students representing less than one percent of their total average enrollment. Districts that had students in the program had an average of 6.1 percent LEP students. In terms of the number of LEP students served, 20 of the 185 districts had more than 1,000 LEP students. These 20 districts had 62 percent of all LEP students served. On the other hand, 18 districts had programs serving less than 10 LEP students. Some districts experienced tremendous growth in the number of LEP students, while others had fewer LEP students than in previous years. Of the districts that had at least 1,000 LEP students in school year 1999-00, both Everett and Mukilteo had 45 percent more LEP students than in the previous year; Seattle, Tacoma, and Sunnyside had fewer LEP students than in the previous year. The following figures and tables show the number of districts with a bilingual program as well as the districts with the highest percentage and number of LEP students served. Appendix D provides more information on the percentage and number of students served. Figure 3-2: Number of Districts with a Program for LEP Students 200 180 173 176 183 176 176 181 178 182. 185 162 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 26 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 20 Section 3 Students Served Table 3-2: Districts With At Least 25 Percent LEP Students (School Year 1999-00) District Palisades Orondo Toppenish Wahluke Roosevelt Bridgeport Brewster Pasco Prescott 10. Royal 11. Manson 12. Othello 13. Warden 14. Yakima 15. Wapato 16. North Franklin 17. Cape Flattery 18. Mabton 19. Sunnyside 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Average LEP Enrollment' Total Students' Percent LEP Students 35 118 1,997 43 169 82.3% 69.7% 61.1% 56.6% 54.8% 50.2% 41.1% 39.1% 38.3% 35.8% 35.8% 31.0% 30.3% 30.3% 29.6% 27.8% 27.1% 25.7% 25.2% 31.1% 749 11 299 394 3,107 99 436 234 880 264 3,983 918 499 149 220 1,235 15,627 3,269 1,323 20 595 957 7,943 258 1,216 653 2,842 869 13,162 3,099 1,795 551 858 4,898 44,520 Monthly average Table 3-3: Districts With At Least 1,000 LEP Students (School Year 1999-2000) Total LEP Students (School Year) District 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Seattle Yakima Pasco Kent Toppenish Vancouver Tacoma Federal Way Highline 10. Bellevue 11. Edmonds 12. Mukilteo 13. Mount Vernon 14. Kennewick 15. Wenatchee 16. Lake Washington 17. Sunnyside 18. Everett 19. Wapato 20. Evergreen (Clark) Total 1999-2000 5,447 4,600 3,914 2,611 2,417 2,121 2,029 1,838 1,789 1,758 1,430 1,403 1,397 1,366 1,343 1,245 1,211 1,135 1,032 1,004 41,090 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 1998-1999 5,584 4,491 3,537 2,354 2,313 1,921 2,234 1,610 1,735 1,687 1,362 963 1,092 1,357 1,326 1,225 1,311 782 1,000 861 38,745 Percent Increase in LEP Students in Past Year -2.5% 2.4% 10.7% 10.9% 4.5% 10.4% -9.2% 14.2% 3.1% 4.2% 5.0% 45.7% 27.9% 0.7% 1.3% 1.6% -7.6% 45.1% 3.2% 16.6% 6.1% 21 Section 3 Students Served Figure 3-3: Districts Serving At Least 1,000 LEP Students (School Year 1999-00) Seattle 1 5,447 I 4,600 Yakima Pasco 3 3,914 Kent 1 Toppenish 1 Vancouver 2,61:1 2,417 12,121 t 2,029 Tacoma Federal-Way 1,838 I Highline 1 Bellevue 1,789 I 1,758 Edmonds 1,430 1 Mukilteo 1 1,403 Mount Vernon I 1,397 Kennewick 1,366 Wenatchee I 1,343 Lake Washington 1 Sunnyside 1,245 1 1,211 g Everett 1 1,135 Wapato 1,032 Evergreen (Clark) 1 0 1,004 1,000 3,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Number of LEP students served GRADES OF STUDENTS SERVED Most students served by the program are in the early grades. LEP students in grades K-3 accounted for 50 percent of the LEP students served in school year 1999-00. The percentage of LEP students gradually declines in the higher grades. New LEP studentsthose served for the first time by the districtrepresented 31 percent of the total LEP student enrollment. As expected, LEP students in kindergarten comprise most of the new students. Grade 9 shows an increase in the number of new and total LEP students compared to the earlier grades. Table 3-4 and Figure 3-4 show for each grade level the number of total and new LEP students served. 28 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 22 Students Served Section 3 Table 3-4: Total and New LEP Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 1999-00) Total LEP Grade students Percent of total LEP students 12 9,103 9,319 7,956 6,765 5,578 4,659 3,907 3,582 3,238 4,481 3,391 2,587 1,706 Ungraded 9 4.9% 6.8% 5.1% 3.9% 2.6% 0.0% Total 66,281 100.0% K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Percent of New LEP new LEP students students 13.7% 14.1% 12.0% 10.2% 8.4% 7.0% 5.9% 5.4% 8,056 2,357 1,518 1,242 1,079 900 828 825 708 1,463 783 504 275 39.2% 11.5% 7.4% 6.0% 5.3% 4.4% 4.0% 4.0% 3.4% 7.1% 3.8% 2.5% 7 0.0% 100.0% New LEP students percentage of total LEP students 88.5% 25.3% 19.1% 18.4% 19.3% 19.3% 21.2% 23.0% 21.9% 32.6% 23.1% 19.5% 16.1% 77.8% 31.0% 1.3% 20,545 Figure 3-4: Total and New LEP Student Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 1999-00) 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 1 0 Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total LEP students Educating LEP Students in Washington State 7 8 9 10 11 12 New LEP students 29 23 Section 3 Students Served STUDENTS SERVED BY OTHER PROGRAMS Some students with limited English proficiency also receive other services. Table 3-5 and Figure 3-5 provide more information on LEP students receiving services from other federal and state programs. The high number of students served by Title I reflects the fact than many LEP students are enrolled in schools that have "schoolwide" Title I programs, which apply to all students in the school. It also, reflects the fact that LEP students tend to come from low-income families (see Section 7 for more information on this issue). Table 3-5: Number and Percentage of LEP Students Receiving Support by Other Programs (School Year 1999-00) Other programs supporting LEP students Title I Title I Migrant Education Special Education (state or federal) Learning Assistance Program Number of LEP students served by other program 32,683 13,058 4,151 13,924 Percent of all LEP students 49.3% 19.7% 6.3% 21.0% Figure 3-5: Number of LEP Students Receiving Support by Other Programs (School Year 1999-00) Learning Assistance Program Special Education (state or federal) Title I Migrant Education Title I (any program) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Number of LEP students 30 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 24 LANGUAGES SPOKEN SECTION 4 A total of 159 languages were represented in the program, 10 fewer than in the previous year. However, 85 percent of the students spoke either Spanish or one of six other languages. Some districts have many different languages spoken among their LEP students, while many other districts serve only LEP students whose primary language is Spanish. The number of students speaking some languages has grown dramatically, while the number speaking other languages has declined. NUMBER OF STUDENTS SPEAKING VARIOUS. LANGUAGES A total of 159 primary, non-English languages were represented among the students served by the program in school year 1999-00.27 For the last 13 years, students speaking Spanish accounted for more LEP students than students speaking all the other languages combined. In school year 1999-00, Spanish was the primary language spoken by 61 percent of all LEP students. While the percentage of Spanish speaking students in Washington has gradually increased at a steady pace, the percentage is still less than the national averageabout 75 percent of LEP students speak Spanish nationwide. Besides Spanish, six other languages were spoken by at least 1,000 students in Washington: Russian, Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Korean, Cambodian, and Tagalog. About 24 percent of all Washington LEP students spoke one of these six languages. In contrast, over half of the 159 languages were spoken by less than 10 students statewide. Overall, the rate of increase in the number of students speaking languages other than Spanish has slowed. Nevertheless, the number of students speaking some languages has risen rapidly. For example, in one year the number of LEP students speaking Somali increased about 36 percent and the number speaking Bosnian increased 140 percent. On the other hand, the number speaking the major southeast Asian languages (Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Lao) all had large declines. These fluctuations are closely related to the timing of when refugees arrived in the United States. The following tables and figures provide more information on the number of students speaking the various languages represented in the program. Appendix B lists the number of students speaking the different languages in the program. 27 Some districts could not identify the names of the languages spoken by their LEP students, so there may be more than 159 languages spoken by LEP students statewide. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 25 Section 4 Languages Spoken Table 4-1: Frequency of Languages Spoken by LEP Students Served LEP Students Served Number of Language Groups 1,000 or more 100-999 10-99 1-9 Total 7 25 47 80 159 Table 4-2: Steady Growth of Spanish-Speaking LEP Students Served Total LEP Students 13,939 15,024 16,352 17,800 21,062 24,279 28,473 34,338 38,735 44,266 47,214 50,737 54,124 56,939 62,132 66,281 School Year 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Percent Spanish 40.3 44.0 45.1 52.0 54.2 54.9 54.5 54.4 55.5 55.5 56.8 58.8 59.8 59.9 60.1 61.3 Figure 4-1: Steady Growth of Spanish-Speaking LEP Students 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 e \ a, e,) es 4, A % 'ID a, of' e) es 0" e)N! es aes es es 4 Spanish q e) es es to of cc' e es cb c) q es ,A es 43Other languages 32 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 26 Section 4 Languages Spoken Table 4-3: Change in Enrollment, by Major Language Group School Year 1999-00 1998-99 37,349 40,662 5,480 5,049 2,598 3,201 3,478 2,895 1,610 1,804 1,697 1,444 657 1,047 838 913 823 892 635 626 436 358 178 428 423 427 494 413 Language Spanish Russian Vietnamese Ukrainian Korean Cambodian Tagalog Chinese-Cantonese Somali Punjabi Chinese-Mandarin Arabic Bosnian Japanese Lao 531 403 Change since 1998-99 8.9% 8.5% -8.0% 11.4% 12.0% -14.9% 24.9% 10.9% 35.8% -1.4% -11.7% 19.6% 139.9% -2.4% -24.1% Figure 4-2: One-Year Change in Enrollment, by Major Language Group 150% 125% 100% 75°/0 50% 25%1- LI 0000oo mmm mm mmmol'immarum Fr. -25%.\eP ..4\ CP) tks-2 e .0' AV t- e .(. 17). 4(L _6 4,0 ,?)9 C.) 4e .4 oP e Ns, o Table 4-4: Five-Year Change in Enrollment, by Major Language Group Language Spanish Ukrainian Russian Tagalog Korean Vietnamese Cambodian All languages 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 29,830 1,546 3,701 837 1,497 3,983 32,367 34,099 1,645 3,907 881 1,563 1,961 37,349 2,598 5,049 838 1,610 3,478 1,697 62,132 40,662 2,895 5,480 1,791 50,737 3,792 1,724 54,124 4,089 910 1,514 3,585 1,685 56,939 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 33 1,047 1,804 3,201 1,444 66,281 Pct. Change 1996-2000 36.3% 87.3% 48.1% 25.1% 20.5% -19.6% -19.4% 30.6% 27 Section 4 Languages Spoken Figure 4-4: Some Languages Increase While Others Decline 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Ukrainian Russian 0 1995-96 Taga og n 1996-97 Korean 01997-98 Vietnamese 01998 -99 Cambodian 1999-00 Figure 4-5: Five-Year Growth of LEP Students, Selected Languages 100% 87.3% 80% 60% 48.1% 40% 30.6% 36.3% 25.1 20.5% 20% 0% -20% All languages Spanish Ukrainian Russian Tagalog Korean .Mal! -19.4% 9.6% Cambodian Vietnamese WIDE DISPARITY IN THE NUMBER OF LANGUAGES Some districts provide instruction to LEP students speaking many different languages. In school year 1999-00, 19 districts served students that spoke more than 20 languages (see Table 4-5). In contrast, some districts serve many students who speak the same language-56 districts had at least 20 LEP students and more than 95 percent of their LEP students speaking Spanish (see Table 4-6). Figure 46 shows how the number of languages served varied considerably in school year 1999-00. Appendix D provides more information on the number of languages spoken in the districts. 34 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 28 Section 4 Table Languages Spoken 4-5: Districts Serving More Than 20 Languages (School Year District 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Number of Languages Kent Seattle Edmonds Bellevue High line Lake Washington Renton Shoreline Federal Way 10. Vancouver 11. Tukwila 12. Northshore 13. Mukilteo 14. Evergreen (Clark) 15. Spokane 16. Tacoma 50 49 47 47 45 44 38 36 36 35 33 33 31 31 18. Clover Park 19. Bellingham 25 22 4-6: 1. 36.3 92.3 26.0 35.2 36.5 26.5 17.9 12.5 41.8 55.8 19.1 12.3 40.1 30.4 27.2 65.5 36.6 27.6 19.3 Districts With at Least 95 Percent LEP Students Speaking Spanish' (School Year 1999-00) District 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. LEP Enrollment to Languages Ratio 2,611 5,447 1,430 1,758 1,789 1,245 841 561 1,838 2,121 688 443 1,403 1,004 899 2,029 1,135 691 425 72 59 55 17. Everett Table Total LEP Enrollment 1999-00) Yakima Pasco Wenatchee Sunnyside Wapato Othello Wahluke Prosser Quincy 10. Walla Walla 11. Burlington-Edison 12. Royal 13. Grandview 14. North Franklin '15. Brewster 16. Bridgeport 17. Granger 18. Lake Chelan 19. Warden 20. Mabton 21. Manson 22. Highland 23. White Salmon 24. Okanogan 25. East Valley (Yakima) 26. Orondo Total LEP Students Total Spanish-Speaking LEP Students 4,600 3,914 4,556 3,779 1,343 1,308 1,203 1,014 973 884 633 624 607 540 536 517 1,211 1,032 978 885 636 628 630 549 536 518 504 469 344 340 323 309 268 261 229 223 184 152 147 496 469 344 340 317 308 268 261 227 222 184 152 147 Percent Spanish 99.0% 96.6% 97.4% 99.3% 98.3% 99.5% 99.9% 99.5% 99.4% 96.3% 98.3% 100.0% 99.8% 98.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.1% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 99.1% 99.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Continued on next page Educating LEP Students in Washington State 35 29 Section 4 Languages Spoken Total LEP Students District 27. Kiona-Benton 28. Oroville 29. Selah , 30. Shelton 31. Mount Adams 32. Prescott 33. Cashmere 34. Naches Valley 35. Zillah 36. Sedro Woolley 37. Tonasket 38. Union Gap 39. West Valley (Yakima) 40. Omak 41. Chehalis 42. Entiat 43. Dayton 44. Kittitas 45. Palisades 46. La Conner 47. Touchet 48. Finley 49. Pateros 50. Enumclaw 51. Quinault Lake 52. Woodland 53. Conway 54. Waterville 55. Sequim 56. Lind Total Total Spanish-Speaking LEP Students 139 120 98.6% 100.0% 99.2% 96.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97.9% 100.0% 95.9% 100.0% 100.0% 95.5% 97.5% 98.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 137 120 120 118 118 118 115 95 121 122 118 118 115 97 94 97 94 90 90 88 89 79 88 85 77 75 93 76 52 45 45 45 43 42 35 34 52 45 45 45 43 42 41 39 37 37 36 34 34 31 31 28 23,366 28 23,041 41 39 37 37 36 Percent Sputish 98.6% Only districts serving at least 20 LEP students are listed. A total of 13 districts serving fewer than 20 LEP students have only Spanish-speaking students in the program. Figure 4-6: Number of Languages Served Among Districts 70 60 50 40 26 30 20 20 19 10 I0 0 2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21 + Number of Languages Served Educating LEP Students in Washington State 36 30 LENGTH OF STAY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE SECTION 5 The state program is intended to provide temporary support services for up to three years until LEP students can develop adequate English language skills. Concerns have been raised about students staying in the program longer than three years. While most students have been in the program no more than two years, about 28 percent had been in the program for more than three years, and about 10 percent had been in the program from more than five years. The length of stay in the program depends not only on a student's English language ability but also on how students perform on academic tests. LEP students tend to have lower scores on achievement tests. Many factors affect how students perform on tests, so these factors affect their length of stay in the program as well. Some students tend to stay in the program longer, such as those from low-income families, those with little previous education and low English language proficiency when entering the program, and those served by special education and migrant programs. Students speaking certain languages tend to stay in the program longer. Program-related factors may affect a student's length of stay as well, such as the quality or type of program administered, the extent to which the primary language is used in instruction, and the relative ease with which students enter and exit the program. BACKGROUND The purpose of the program is to provide temporary services for up to three years until LEP students can develop adequate English language skills. Thus, instruction is provided in a "transitional" program. As discussed in Section 2, students are eligible to enter the program if they score below a certain level on an oral language proficiency test. Each year districts reassess their LEP students to determine if they can continue in the program. Eligibility ends when a student scores above the 35th percentile in the reading and language arts portions of an approved norm-referenced written test. Students cannot stay in the program more than three years unless their English language skills remain below the 35th percentile. Districts must have empirical evidence to keep a student in the program for more than three years. Concerns have been raised about the length of time students spend in the program. Each LEP student generates extra funding for the district, and the number of students in the program continues to grow at a faster pace than the overall student population. The growth in the program can be a result of many factors, as discussed in Section 3. However, many students stay in the program for more than the intended three years, which contributes to the growing number of students served. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 31 J7 Section 5 Length of Stay & Academic Performance OSPI examined various issues related to the length of stay of students served by bilingual and ESL programs. Specifically, we examined the amount of time that students spend in the program, the impact that programs for LEP students have on their academic achievement and the length of stay in these types of programs, and factors that influence the length of stay. This section contains information related to these issues based on analyses of district and student-level data and published research. LEP STUDENTS LEAVING AND REMAINING IN THE PROGRAM LEP students leave the program in several ways. They can be transitioned out of the program by meeting the exit performance criteria. A student meeting the exit criteria is expected to perform adequately in a regular, all-English classroom. A student can also leave the program by either graduating or dropping out of school. Finally, some students leave for other reasons. Approximately 25 percent of the LEP students served during school year 1999-00 left the program. Ten percent (6,619) were either transitioned out of or graduated from the program. (Appendix C lists this information by each district.) Another 15 percent (9,855) left for other reasons. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 provide more information about the number of LEP students leaving the program. Table 5-1: Status of Students Served in the Last Five Years Exited program Graduated Transitioned Dropped out Unknown/other reasons Continuing in program Promoted Retained Total LEP students served 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Percent of Total 12,045 13,379 13,824 13,898 16,474 24.9% 1,173 1,194 1,080 1,117 1,221 1.8% 3,919 4,102 5,398 8,490 8.1% 2.1% 12.8% 1,043 1,018 5,007 1,297 5,910 7,065 6,440 5,095 1,079 6,607 38,682 40,745 43,115 48,234 49,807 75.1% 37,683 1,009 39,745 1,000 41,678 46,674 47,959 1,437 1,560 1,848 72.4% 2.8% 50,737 54,124 56,939 62,132 66,281 100.0% 1,365 Table 5-2: Number and Percent of Students Transitioned or Graduated from the Program by Time in Program (School Year 1999-00) Time in Program Less than 1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years More than 5 years Total Number Served 22,359 15,805 9,640 6,904 4,646 6,927 66,281 Number of LEP Students Transitioned or Graduated' 1,199 1,638 1,369 955 643 Percent of Total Number Served (66,281) 1.8% 2.5% 2.1% 1.4% 1.0% 1.2% 10.0% 815 6,619 Percent of Number Served, by Time in Program 5.4% 10.4% 14.2% 13.8% 13.8% 11.8% 10.0% 1 Does not include others who exited the program through other means. Educating LEP Students in Washington Skate 32 38 Section 5 Length of Stay & Academic Performance Students cannot stay in the program for more than three years unless their English language skills remain below the 35th percentile on an approved written test. In school year 1999-00, the majority (58%) had been in the program two years or less. However, about 28 percent of the LEP students had been in the program for more than three years (see Appendix C for district-level information); this percentage has increased slightly over the past four years. Table 5-3 and Figure 5-1 show the proportions served by length of time in the program in school year 1999-00. Table 5-4 and Figure 5-2 provide information on the length of stay over the past four years. Table 5-3: Number and Percent of Students Served in the Program by Time in Program (School Year 1999-00) Time in.Program Number Served Percent in Program Less than 1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years More than 5 years 22,359 15,805 9,640 6,904 4,646 6,927 33.7% 23.8% 14.5% 10.4% 7.0% 10.5% Total 66,281 100.0% Figure 5-1: Number of LEP Students Served in the Program by Time in Program (School Year 1999-00) 20,000 15,000 Less than 1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years More than 5 years Number of years in program Educating LEP Students in Washington State 30 33 Length of Stay & Academic Performance Section 5 Table 5-4: Trend in the Number of Students Served in the Program Time in Program < 1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years > 5 years Total 1996-97 18,943 13,531 1997-98 19,228 13,589 9,742 4,871 3,247 5.275 54,124 9,190 6,240 3,417 5.275 56,939 1998-99 21,862 13,869 9,331 6,386 4,246 6.438 62,132 1999-00 22,359 15,805 9,640 6,904 4,646 6.927 66,281 Figure 5-2: Trend in the Percentage of Students Served More Than Three Years 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Enrolled > 5 years Enrolled 4-5 years 1996-97 Enrolled more than 3 years Enrolled 3-4 years Enrolled > 3 years 01997-98 1998-99 1996-97 1997-98 26.2% 1998-99 27.5% 1999-00 11.0% 6.0% 10.3% 6.8% 10.4% 10.4% 7.0% 10.5% 24.7% Enrolled 3-4 years Enrolled 4-5 years Enrolled > :5 years 9.0% 6.0% 9.7% 9.3% 01999-00 27.9% TEST SCORE TRENDS The length of stay in the state program depends not only on a student's English language ability but also on performance on academic tests. Research has found that children do not learn a second language effortlessly and that they may require many years to reach grade-level academic ability in the new language. Many LEP students may be able to speak and understand English, but they may have problems reading and writing English proficiently. Thus, students who are not proficient in using the English language have a higher risk of academic failure. Often they do not profit fully from instruction in English, and many LEP students have low levels of academic performance in English, have higher rates of grade retention, and have much higher dropout rates than their English-fluent peers. An analysis of student performance in Washington Educating LEP Students in Washington State 34 40 Length of Stay & Academic Performance Section 5 shows a clear relationship between the level of LEP students in a district and district averages on various state assessments. The results of the Grade 4 and 7 WASL show that when the level of LEP students in a district is greater than 15 percent, the percentage of students meeting the standard in both mathematics and reading declines rapidly (see Figures 5-3 and 5-4). The same pattern exists in other grades for other tests (see Table 5-5). Figure 5-3: Districts With Higher Levels of LEP Students Have Lower Levels of Students Meeting Math Standards (School Year 1999-00) 50 40 30 20 10 0 State < =5 > 5 & <= 10 > 108,;<=- 15 > 15 &<= 20 >20&<=-5 >25 District percent of LEP students ['Math 4th grade (3 Math 7th grade Figure 5-4: Districts With Higher Levels of LEP Students Have Lower Levels of Students Meeting Reading Standards (School Year 1999-00) 3 70 60 50 oA .F. 40 30 20 10 0 State <=5 >5 &<= 10 > 10&<= 15 >15 (4:<= 20 >20&<=25 >25 District percent of LEP students Reading 4th grade Educating LEP Students in Washington State 0 Reading 7th grade 41 35 Section 5 Length of Stay & Academic Performance Table 5-5: Test Scores Decline as District LEP Percentage Increases2X (School Year 1999-00) Percent Meeting WASL Standard Percentage of District LEP Students State Average <5 >5 & <10 >10 & <15 >15 & <20 >20 & <25 >25 Grade 4 math Grade 7 math 41.6 28.2 44.7 30.3 40.9 27.6 42.0 28.9 30.5 24.6 19.1 18.0 18.4 11.9 Grade 4 reading Grade 7 reading 65.4 41.5 69.2 44.9 65.5 39.1 62.3 38.3 53.9 33.4 49.3 29.9 38.3 19.5 3-yr WASL Avg. Grade 4 math Grade 7 math 36.8 24.2 39.7 26.0 35.4 23.4 36.2 24.4 27.1 17.0 20.5 13.9 14.8 Grade 4 reading Grade 7 reading 60.2 40.2 63.9 43.4 59.0 38.0 56.1 47.1 33.2 43.2 26.5 33.3 19.4 Grade 3 math Grade 6 math 63 63.6 57.9 60.3 54.5 65.6 58.0 51.1 56 46.2 39.9 40.5 38.0 37.6 Grade 3 reading Grade 6 reading 56 54 57.9 56.4 53.6 51.0 57.5 55.0 41.3 40.4 37.6 38.5 31.2 29.2 Pct. Low-Income 31.1% 25.3% 34.1% 42.2% 48.8% 58.5% 65.7% 36.6 9.4 ITBS Percentile RELATIONSHIP WITH FAMILY INCOME Many factors affect how a student performs on a test, so many factors affect their length of stay in the program. Research has consistently shown that test scores are closely linked to family income-students from low-income families tend to score lower on achievement tests than students from wealthier families. Districts and schools that have a higher percentage of LEP students also tend to have a higher percentage of students from low-income families (see Figure 5-5)29 While students who are either poor or have limited English proficiency are more at risk, having both characteristics greatly increases their likelihood of educational failure.3° We found that LEP students in schools with higher levels of low-income families tended to stay in the program longer, even though they do not enter the program with lower language proficiency scores. Districts and schools that have higher percentages of both LEP and low-income students face a stiffer challenge in having all students meet high standards than do districts and schools with lower proportions of such students. 28 Weighted averages are shown for all 296 districts. The correlation between a district's percentage of LEP students and percentage of low-income students was .618. 3° Unpublished results from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, February 2000. Additional factors that can place a student at risk include being from a home with a single parent and being from a home that has a low level of parental education (e.g., high school dropout). 29 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 36 42 Section 5 Length of Stay & Academic Performance Figure 5-5: Districts With Higher Levels of LEP Students Have a Higher Percentage of Low-Income Students 70% 65 7 °% 58.5% J. a) 60% 1. 48.8% E 0 U a 50% 42.2% J 40% :1 0 C a) a) a. State average (31.1%) 34.1% = 30% .25.404, 20% 10% 0% c-, e o 1 59' e '1' t'- We e '1'D tih Percent I EP students Note: Percentage of low-income students is measured as the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Other analyses found that a district's level of low-income students had a stronger negative relationship with WASL and norm-referenced test scores than the level of LEP students. These relationships are stronger for reading scores than for math scores (see Table 5-6), reflecting the difficulty low-income and LEP students have on language-related tests. Table 5-6: Correlation Results' Elementary Grades Percent low-income Percent LEP Middle Grades Percent low-income Percent LEP Percent LEP .618 ITBS -.811 -.640 .609 -.813 -.601 Reading Percent Meeting WASL Standard Mathematics -.792 -.613 ITBS -.739 -.542 Percent Meeting WASL Standard -.715 -.452 -.766 -.495 -.727 -.468 -.703 -.332 'All correlations are for school year 1999-2000 and are statistically significant. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 43 37 Section 5 Length of Stay & Academic Performance IMPACT OF PROGRAMS ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND LENGTH OF STAY One criterion that has been used to assess the effectiveness of educational models serving LEP students has been their "length of stay" in the particular programs in question. This raises two issues: (1) how long it takes to learn academic English, and (2) the impact of instruction in a student's primary language on the ability to learn English. Appendix E provides more information on these issues. Developing Proficiency in "Academic English" Takes Years For many LEP students, schools provide their first significant contact with English. Several major studies have emphasized the long-term nature of learning English. Since the language used in school is unique and becomes increasingly complex as students progress from one grade to the next, the task of achieving proficiency in academic English becomes even more difficult. Numerous studies have found that it takes more than three years for LEP students to achieve academic proficiency in English. LEP students, especially those at intermediate levels of language development, exhibit a large discrepancy between oral language development and reading and writing skills. One researcher recently found that for LEP students who enter school in kindergarten, it is not until the 5' grade that lagging reading and writing abilities merged with oral abilities.3I Others have found that it takes even longer to achieve grade-level proficiency in academic subjects in another language. Even under ideal language learning conditions (e.g., advantaged students, support of the home language, and cognitively demanding curriculum), the process can take up to ten years for students to fully develop an academic knowledge of English. Effect of Instruction in the Primary Language on Length of Stay Most research suggests that continued development of the first language plays a positive and significant role in successful second-language development. Studies have found that proficiency in a student's primary language is a predictor in their future English-language development and that instruction in the primary language does not hinder English-language development. In general, research has found the following regarding the academic achievement of LEP students, which affects the length of stay in Washington's program. The greater a student's proficiency in the primary language, the more likely the student will become proficient in English in the future. The use of primary-language instruction with LEP students contributes to their development of and academic achievement in English. Instructing LEP students only in English does not in and of itself result in superior achievement in English. 31 Setting Expected Gains For Non And Limited English Proficient Students, De Avila, E., National Center for Bilingual Education, Resource Collection Series (8), 1997. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 38 Section 5 Length of Stay & Academic Performance Children in effectively implemented bilingual programs develop language and literacy skills in two languages and benefit from the transfer of these skills across languages. States are taking different approaches to educating LEP students. The citizens of California recently passed a proposition that effectively eliminated bilingual education (see box below). Texas has taken the opposite approach, expanding bilingual education in light of recent research findings (see box on next page). California's Proposition 227 In June 1998 California voters passed Proposition 227 which was to end bilingual education. The law required all children in California public schools "to be taught English by being taught in English." Voters had the perception that instruction provided in students' primary language hindered the acquisition of English and was responsible for poor academic achievement among LEP students. (In 1998, less than one-third of California's 1.5 million LEP students were enrolled in a bilingual program taught by a teacher who had bilingual credentials, so their low academic scores could not be attributed to bilingual programs.) Children now entering California's public schools with very little English are to be "observed" for 30 calendar days. This generally occurs in an English-language classroom. After 30 days, school personnel must decide if a child has enough fluency in English to manage in a mainstream English classroom. If not, the student is eligible to receive one year of "Sheltered English Immersion," a program of English language instruction that requires instruction to be "nearly all" in English (the definition of "nearly all" is left to the district's discretion). After one year, children are expected to integrate into mainstream English classrooms where instruction is required to be "overwhelmingly" in English. Teachers and district personal face legal liability if they do not implement the law fully. The only legal alternative is through a parental waiver process. Children with special language needs, or whose parents request it, can be placed in "Alternative Programs," most likely some form of bilingual program that includes instruction in the child's primary language. The child must first go through the 30-day observation period. Some districts, particularly those with longstanding bilingual programs, have pursued district-wide waivers in order to maintain their existing programs. When California released its test scores in August 2000, several national newspapers ran stories about how LEP students had higher scores, "proving" the success of the approach. However, further analysis of the test data found that the approach may not be working. Scores of native English speakers rose as well, just like those of LEP students. Scores rose in districts that retained bilingual education. Scores rose more among native English speakers from low-performing schools than among LEP students in those schools. If the English-immersion approach worked, California should have seen a dramatic increase in the number of LEP students "redesignated" as being fluent in English the next year. However, after two years the annual redesignation rate had improved less than one percentage point (from 7.0 to 7.8 percent). Some districts that kept bilingual education have rates above the state average, while districts that eliminated bilingual programs and were touted by newspapers as "proving" the success of the approach have rates below the state average. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 45 39 Section 5 Length of Stay & Academic Performance Since learning academic English takes many years, any evaluation of the merits of different educational approaches needs to examine their long-term effects. One ongoing longitudinal study has examined the academic performance of students who entered kindergarten with no proficiency in English and who came from a low socioeconomic background.32 The study found that academic achievement of students was about the same through grade 3, regardless of the type of program approach. However, student achievement by grade 11 was much greater for those who had been in elementary school programs that provided significant instruction in their primary language for 4-6 years (see Figure 5-6). Figure 5-6: Average Performance of Grade 11 Students Who Started Kindergarten as Non-English Speakers 70 61 60 National average for all students 52 50 40 30 35 24 20 10 0 ESL pullout taught traditionally Early exit bilingual education Late exit bilingual education Two-way developmental bilingual education Source: Thomas and Collier (1997) The Texas Approach Prior to this year, Texas policy mandated that districts with 20 or more LEP students speaking the same language in the same grade must provide bilingual instruction, in either an "early" or "late" exit program. These two exit programs provide students instruction in their primary language, to a diminishing degree, over either three or five years. (Districts must provide ESL instruction if they do not meet the 20-student criterion.) In response to the research of Thomas and Collier, Texas has eliminated the "early exit" option. Districts are now providing instruction in students' primary language over a longer period of time and the transition to ESL or English-only classes takes place at a slower pace. The state is also considering the elimination of traditional ESL pullout programs. Texas is making changes related to the training of "regular" classroom teachers as well. It now pays the full tuition for teachers interested in obtaining an ESL and/or bilingual endorsement and who will teach LEP students. The state's goal is to have all classroom teachers fully endorsed in ESL instruction. Many teacher education programs in Texas are now requiring all new teachers to have at least six credits of ESL training. 32 School Effectiveness For Language-Minority Children, Thomas, W., & Collier, V., National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, December 1997. The same results were found with other cohorts of students with similar backgrounds. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 46 40 Section 5 Length of Stay & Academic Performance While time and resources limited the scope of our analysis of these issues in Washington, we found similar patterns when analyzing data on more than 15,000 LEP students. As noted in Section 2, we found that students who were receiving significant instruction in both their primary language and in English averaged less time in the program than those who received less instruction in their primary language. OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING LENGTH OF STAY In addition to the family background and the type of educational approach used, other factors can contribute to the number of students staying in the program beyond three years in Washington. Students can enter the program more easily than they can exit the program. Oral language abilities are assessed to enter the program, but academic criteria, based on a written test, are used to exit the program. LEP students generally score below their English-speaking peers on academic tests. As noted above, LEP students often come from low-income families. Thus, students may stay in the program for general academic reasons apart from their English-language proficiency. Poorly implemented programs will not educate LEP students as effectively as well-run programs that use proven language acquisition strategies. Research has been hampered by a lack of information on the quality of programs. Poorly run programs will cancel out the effects of successful programs in evaluation studies. The quality of instruction and the level of expectations can affect the length of stay. Students with well-qualified teachers who have high expectations tend to have higher levels of academic achievement. Districts in Washington that serve many LEP students tend to have an average length of stay that is longer than districts serving fewer students.33 The reason for this trend is unclear. Perhaps districts with a large number of students in the program may have difficulty finding enough qualified staff to meet students' needs. These districts may rely more heavily on the regular classroom teacher, who may not be sufficiently trained, to provide instruction to LEP students. Some LEP students simply take longer to achieve English proficiency than others. Based on our analysis of data provided by 46 districts on over 15,000 LEP students, we found the following patterns:34 Students who arrive with little or no formal education average more time in the program than those who have received some previous education. 33 Different analyses examining the relationship between length of stay and the number of LEP students served all found the same positive relationship and were all statistically significant. 34 Results from multiple regression analyses and correlations were statistically significant. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 47 41 Section 5 Length of Stay & Academic Performance Students who speak the languages of less-developed countries tend to be enrolled longer in the program than other LEP students who speak the languages of more-developed countries. Students from more-developed countries may have had some exposure to English or another second language before entering American schools; students from less-developed countries may be affected by socioeconomic factors that are closely linked to lower test scores, as discussed earlier in this section. Migrant LEP students and those in special education programs tend to be enrolled in the program longer. Students who enter the program with lower language proficiency scores stay in the program longer. These students simply have more to learn, which affects their time in the program. Some research has found that students of different ages learn a second language at different speeds. For example, immigrant students under age 12 with at least two years of education in their native country reach average achievement levels in five to seven years. However, students older than age 12 who face challenging subject matter in a second language may take as long as ten years to catch up. While older students were in the program in Washington longer than younger students, this may be due to the fact that younger students had already left the program, leaving a relatively few older students in the program who have been served for a longer period of time. Without longitudinal analyses of entry and exit data for students served by the program, we cannot determine if age is related to length of stay. Studies of how age affects language acquisition have come to different conclusions. 48 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 42 CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS SECTION 6 The previous sections raise a number of issues that have implications about the way the program is designed and implemented. Some work is underway to address some of these issues. For example, a bilingual advisory committee is exploring the possibility of (1) selecting one test to determine program eligibility, (2) developing English language achievement standards to monitor student progress toward English fluency, and (3) designing a data collection system that would enable ongoing assessment and monitoring of program effectiveness. In addition, the State Auditor is examining a sample of districts to determine the extent to which students are transitioned out of the program properly. Discussion needs to occur about other issues as well. This section describes some of the implications of this report and the types of research that need to be conducted in the future in order to improve the effectiveness of the program and ultimately the performance of LEP students. STUDY IMPLICATIONS Research has shown the benefit of academic instruction in a student's primary language while the student learns English, both in terms of the impact on the length of stay in the program and the future academic success of LEP students. However, the sheer number of languages spoken in many districts and a shortage of well-trained staff who can provide bilingual or ESL instruction potentially makes LEP students more at risk of failing to meet the state's high academic standards. Thus, ways need to be found to improve the instruction of the growing number of LEP students while operating under staff-related constraints. Providing Primary Language Instruction: Recent comprehensive studies of programs serving LEP students confirm a strong positive relationship between the amount of instruction students receive in their primary language and (1) the rate at which they acquire English as a second language, and (2) the long-term academic achievement of LEP students. Linguistic development, cognitive development, and academic development are interdependent processes and should all be supported simultaneously if educators are to succeed in developing deep levels of English proficiency among LEP students. So to the extent possible, schools need to provide LEP students with cognitively complex academic instruction through their first language for as long as possible, while providing cognitively complex instruction through the second language for part of the school day in increasing amounts as English proficiency increases. Educating LEP Student's in Washington State 49 43 Section 6 Conclusions and Next Steps Improving the Quality of Curriculum: LEP students can and should be expected to participate in high-quality curriculum. If a curriculum is properly designed for LEP students, they can learn challenging content in language arts, mathematics, and science while gaining literacy in English. Most schools tend to treat the education of LEP students as a remedial issue, assuming LEP students must learn English before they can learn the standard curriculum designed for "mainstream" students. Exemplary schools studied by the U.S. Department of Education show that assumption is not warranted (see Appendix E).35 This requires a shift from a teacher-centered to a student-centered instructional philosophy. Improving Staff Quality: LEP students need access to properly qualified, highly skilled teachers. Yet teaching aides continue to be responsible for the majority of specialized ESL instruction that LEP students receive. Moreover, LEP students are likely to spend most of their time with "regular" classroom teachers who have neither the background nor training in educating second language learners. Districts can actively support schools with LEP students by helping with teacher and aide recruitment and by providing professional development opportunities to all staff who have contact with LEP students. OSPI can also explore ways to help districts identify sources of additional funding to help address this issue. The additional funds could be used for various purposes, such as paying tuition costs associated with ESL/bilingual coursework or providing a small stipend for teachers who acquire endorsements. Focus on Program Components: Programs are a complex series of components, and programs that share the same "label" can vary greatly, both in terms of these underlying components and in terms of student achievement outcomes. A better approach to finding effective methods of educating LEP students is to go beyond a debate about broad program categories and identify district, school, and classroom level factors that support the academic achievement of the students. Improving Program Data: Each year OSPI collects information from districts receiving program funding, checks the data for internal consistency, and contacts districts when discrepancies were found. Nevertheles's, these district-level data have a number of limitations. The student-level data collected as part of the state assessments (e.g., WASL and ITBS) provide information about students enrolled in language-acquisition programs and the languages spoken, but problems have been found with the accuracy and completeness of these data as well. Studies of program effectiveness for LEP students are often flawed because of: (1) inaccurate or misleading program labeling, or widely divergent implementation of similarly labeled programs; (2) the lack of longitudinal data and random sampling; and (3) the lack of classroom observations and interviews with program stakeholders (including school staff, students, parents, and community members). Current OSPI data collection forms ask for district-level data on instructional 35 For more information on the findings, conclusions, and case studies, see School Reform and Student Diversity, Volumes I and II, U.S. Department of Education, April 1997. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 0 44 Section 6 Conclusions and Next Steps focus and program delivery without regard to variations of implementation. When student-level data are aggregated to the district level, analyses of individual student characteristics cannot occur. These data limitations make it difficult to conduct a comprehensive review of programs serving LEP students in Washington. Better data are needed at the student and school levels in order to answer questions related to program effectiveness. TOPICS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH While many research questions need to be answered about the education of LEP students, answering two general questions would help determine the relative effectiveness of programs administered in Washington. These questions relate to how various program and instructional approaches and the resources outside the school (e.g., community involvement) impact both student achievement and the length of stay in the program. 1. How do variations in program components and implementation impact academic achievement and length of stay in programs serving LEP students in Washington State? To answer this question, information needs to be collected at the school and student level using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Selecting a group of Washington schools for case study analyses (including surveys, interviews, and classroom observations) would allow for an analysis of specific program components and the quality of program implementation rather than comparing programs based on imprecise labels. In addition to providing a catalog of "best practices" that could be disseminated to schools that serve LEP students, a number of interesting questions could be answered using these data. For instance, once schools with particularly effective combinations of program components have been identified, student-level data could be collected to form the baseline for a longitudinal analysis of the length of stay and achievement in wellrun programs. Another benefit of case studies of programs serving LEP students is that the information gathered will allow OSPI to amend end-of-year reporting forms to request more specific data from schools and districts with regard to the components of programs that are actually in place in schools and districts in Washington State. Undertaking other longitudinal studies using randomly selected students in programs throughout the state would provide specific baseline data that would allow for the analysis of individual student characteristics upon program entry, during the time they spend in the program, and in the years following their exit from the program. The collection of data aggregated at the district level precludes the possibility of analyzing the student characteristics (e.g., English-language proficiency upon program entry, migrant or special education status, and Educating LEP Students in Washington State 51 45 Section 6 Conclusions and Next Steps statewide assessment scores) of individuals who may exit "early" or "late" from programs. These analyses would also allow for comparisons with national longitudinal research which suggests that students in certain types of bilingual programs make significant gains on norm-referenced English-language achievement tests during the years following program participationgains that are undetected by program evaluations focused on short-term achievement. 2. How do community resources devoted to English-language acquisition, and school-community partnerships supporting second-language learners, impact the success of LEP programs in schools? Research has found that school-community connections are part of the characteristics of successful schools. However, LEP students have unique needs than may require different forms of school-community partnerships. Schools in neighborhoods with programs that provide support to second-language learners outside of school are likely to have more success with those students in school. However, research to provide evidence of this likelihood is scarce. Case studies of schools in such neighborhoods and of schools that have forged meaningful partnerships with community organizations would shed light on the relative importance of these connections in terms of English-language development, academic achievement, and length of stay for students in programs. Results of this type of research would provide information to schools seeking to develop relationships with community-based organizations. 52 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 46 APPENDIX A FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUPPORTING LEP STUDENTS Various federal education programs can provide funding for LEP students. The table below describes these programs and the estimated funding amounts available nationally for school year 1999-00. Table A-1: Federal Education Programs That Can Provide Support Services to LEP Students Federal Program a Education for Disadvantaged Children (Title I) FY 1999 Funding (est.)b $7.7 billion Bilingual Education Act (20 USC 7401-7491) $224 million Emergency Immigrant Education Program (20 USC 7541-7549) Migrant Education Program (20 USC 6391-6399) $150 million $355 million Program Description Helps disadvantaged children succeed in schools. LEP students may participate if they come from disadvantaged backgrounds and are at risk of failing in school or if they attend a school that has a schoolwide program. Helps ensure that LEP students master English and develop high levels of academic attainment in content areas. Provides both state and local grants. Provides grants to school districts with unexpectedly large increases in the student population due to immigration. Provides funds to states to help educate the children of migrant agricultural workers, including migratory fishers and dairy workers. Provides funds to improve the quality of vocational education and provide access to vocational training to special populations, such as disadvantaged and disabled students. Supports special education for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. Carl D. Perkins Vocational $1.2 billion Education and Applied Technology Act (20 USC 2301 et Seq.) Individuals with Disabilities $5.1 billion Education Act (20 USC 1400 et Seq.) a Other federal programs may also support services to LEP students, so long as these students qualify to receive services under the programs' guidelines for participation. b Estimate based on U.S. Department of Education Fiscal Year 1999 Budget. Source: Public Education: Title I Services Provided to Students With Limited English Proficiency, U.S. General Accounting Office, December 1999. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 53 47 APPENDIX B LANGUAGES SPOKEN Table B-1: Languages Spoken by LEP Students, by Number of Students Students 40,662 5,480 3,201 2,895 1,444 1,804 1,047 913 892 626 436 428 427 413 403 347 333 330 322 242 230 224 208 190 177 163 145 132 120 118 117 115 87 85 84 77 70 62 61 56 55 Language Spanish Russian Vietnamese Ukrainian Cambodian Korean Tagalog Chinese-Cantonese Somali Punjabi Chinese-Mandarin Arabic Bosnian Japanese Lao Sahaptian Samoan Rumanian Hmong Amharic Tigrinya Serbo-Croation Hindi Makah Mien Farsi Ilokano Thai Oromo German Kurdish Urdu Bulgarian French Portuguese Polish Albanian Chinese-Taiwanese Toishanese Marshallese Mixteco Students 51 47 43 38 37 32 26 24 23 22 22 20 20 20 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 16 16 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 9 9 8 Language Chinese-Fukienese Indonesian Quileute Swahili Moldavian Tongan Chamorro Turkish Afrikaans Estonian Fijian Cebuano Haitian Creole Tibetan African Czech Italian Byelorussian Dutch Burmese Cham Ethiopian Norwegian Armenian Greek-Modern Khmer Chuuk Hungarian Lithuanian Egyptian-Arabic Gijarati Hebrew-Modern Hoh Tilugu Danish Papago Wolof Latvian Pashto Tamil Hawaiian Educating LEP Students'in Washington State Students 8 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 Language Kmhmu Malayalam Swedish Kakwa Manchu Bengali Finnish Ibo Pahlavi Sudanese-Arabic Chao Georgian Kazakh Krio Nuer Sinhalese Acholi Creole Icelandic (old) Liberian 4 Twi 3 Akan 3 Croation 3 Igbo 3 Luganda 3 Malay 3 Marathi 3 Mordvin 3 Nepali 3 Trukese 3 Yakima 2 Azerbaijani 2 Bekol 2 Chungki 2 Fallani 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ga Hopi Inuktitut Javanese Kikuyu Kinyarwanda Students Language 2 2 2 Mongolian Navajo Nyanja 2 Pali 2 2 2 2 2 Pohnpeian Romansch Slovak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 58 Suri Urian Berber Bisaya Chewa C.R. Sehapti Coptic Cowichan Dire Durcese Eritai Guarani Jamaican Kannada Kishinau Kru Luo Marquesan Native American Nez Perce Nigerian Ouolof Salish Sao Taishan Uigur Ute Yap Yoruba Unknown 159 languages 66,281 students 48 Appendix B Languages Spoken Table B-2: Languages Spoken by LEP Students, by Language Students 4 19 23 3 70 242 428 15 2 6 1 2 1 427 87 16 17 1,444 20 16 26 5 1 913 51 436 62 2 13 1 1 1 4 3 18 11 1 1 17 12 1 Language Acholi African Afrikaans Akan Albanian Amharic Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Bengali Berber Bikol Bisaya Bosnain Bulgarian Burmese Byelorussian Cambodian Cebuano Cham Chamorro Chao Chewa Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Fukienese Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Chungki Chuuk C.R. Sehapti Coptic Cowichan Creole Croatian Czech Danish Dire Durcese Dutch Egyptian-Arabic Eritai Students 22 16 2 163 22 6 85 2 5 118 14 1 12 20 8 12 208 322 12 2 13 6 4 3 145 46 2 18 1 413 2 7 1 5 14 2 2 1 8 1,804 5 Language Estonian Ethiopic Fallani Farsi Fijian Finnish French Ga Georgian German Greek, Modern Guarani Gujarati Haitian Creole Hawaiian Hebrew, Modern Hindi Hmong Hoh Hopi Hungarian Ibo Icelandic (Old) Igbo Ilokano Indonesian Inuktitut Italian Jamaican Japanese Javanese Kakwa Kannada Kazakh Khmer Kikuyu Kinyarwanda Kishinua Kmhmu Korean Krio Educating LEP Students in Washington State Students 1 117 403 10 . 4 13 3 1 190 3 8 7 3 1 56 177 55 37 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 16 5 2 120 1 6 2 11 9 2 77 84 626 43 2 330 5:5 Language Kru Kurdish Lao Latvian Liberian Lithuanian Luganda Luo Makah Malay Malayalam Manchu Marathi Marquesan Marshallese Mien Mixteco Moldavian Mongolian Mordvin Native American Navajo Nepali Nez Perce Nigerian Norwegian Nuer Nyanja Oromo Ouolof Pahlavi Pali Papago Pashto Pohnpeian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Quileute Romansch Rumanian Students 5,480 347 1 333 1 224 5 2 892 40,662 6 2 38 8 1,047 1 9 12 132 20 230 61 32 3 24 4 1 2,895 115 2 1 3,201 11 3 1 1 58 Language Russian Sahaptian Salish Samoan Sao Serbo-Croatian Sinhalese Slovak Somali Spanish Sudanese-Arabic Suri Swahili Swedish Tagalog Taishan Tamil Telugu Thai Tibetan Tigrinya Toishanese Tongan Trukese Turkish Twi Uigur Ukrainian Urdu Urian Ute Vietnamese Wolof Yakima Yap Yoruba Unknown 159 languages 66,281 students 49 APPENDIX C LENGTH OF STAY DATA STUDENTS TRANSITIONED OR GRADUATED Table C-1: By District (alphabetical) Table C-2: By Number Served Table C-3: By Percent Transitioned or Graduated STUDENTS ENROLLED MORE THAN THREE YEARS Table C-4: By District (alphabetical) Table C-5: By Number Served Table C-6: By Percent Enrolled More Than Three Years 56 Educating LEP Students iriyashington State 50 Appendix C Length of Stay Data Table C-1: Number and Percent of Students Transitioned or Graduated, by District Total LEP Number graduated students served or transitioned District Aberdeen Anacortes Arlington Asotin-Anatone 169 19 49 6 9 2 55 5 Auburn Bainbridge Island Battle Ground Bellevue Bellingham Bethel Blaine Bremerton Brewster Bridgeport Burlington-Edison Camas Cape Flattery Cascade Cashmere Castle Rock Central Kitsap Central Valley Centralia Chehalis Cheney Clarkston Clover Park Colfax College Place Columbia (Walla Walla) Conway Coupeville Dayton East Valley (Spokane) East Valley (Yakima) Eastmont Easton Eatonville Edmonds Ellensburg Elma Entiat Enumclaw Ephrata Everett Evergreen (Clark) . 699 36 44 14 151 21 1,758 425 93 274 59 87 6 8 54 469 344 549 29 9 44 19 51 6 28 188 205 12 115 22 8 1 265 32 107 231 11 76 5 10 14 691 2 16 0 49 0 3 220 54 12 10 35 3 14 0 45 52 152 4 4 ., 17 596 45 13 1 8 0 1,430 88 45 52 37 151 6 4 19 7 14 211 "-. 1,135 177 145 1,004 Educating LEP Students in.Washington State 57 Percent of total 11.2% 12.2% 16.4% 40.0% 6.3% 38.9% 13.9% 15.6% 13.9% 8.6% 6.9% 16.7% 9.4% 5.5% 9.3% 20.7% 14.9% 5.9% 19.1% 12.5% 12.1% 10.3% 6.9% 6.6% 20.0% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 5.5% 18.5% 8.6% 0.0% 8.9% 7.7% 11.2% 7.6% 7.7% 0.0% 10.6% 6.8% 8.9% 36.5% 18.9% 6.6% 15.6% 14.4% 51 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Federal Way Ferndale Fife Finley Franklin Pierce Goldendale Grandview Granger Granite Falls Green Mountain Highland High line Hoquiam Issaquah Kelso Kennewick Kent Kiona-Benton City Kittitas La Center La Conner Lake Chelan Lake Stevens Lake Washington Lakewood Liberty Lind Longview Lyle Lynden Mabton Manson Marysville Mead Mercer Island Meridian Methow Valley Monroe Montesano Moses Lake Mossyrock Mount Adams Mount Baker Mount Vernon Mukilteo Naches Valley Naselle-Grays Riv. Valley Nine Mile Falls Total LEP Number graduated students served or transitioned 1,838 179 102 41 376 36 181 19 47 518 340 4 1 3 8 69 0 5 9 229 1,789 0 62 294 20 84 204 35 9 101 1,366 2,611 139 45 7 43 323 67 192 3 3 0 1 1,245 28 26 118 16 5 2 2 28 225 0 16 12 0 216 268 261 15 81 5 22 0 184 85 95 146 10 18 11 5 1 132 7 5 536 9 0 5 0 118 16 121 18 1,397 1,403 285 97 16 6 0 2 2 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 19 58 Percent of total 20.5% 20.1% 1.0% 7.3% 10.5% 17.0% 0.8% 20.3% 0.0% 0.0% 27.1% 16.4% 23.8% 17.2% 8.9% 4.9% 7.4% 2.2% 6.7% 0.0% 2.3% 8.7% 32.1% 9.5% 31.3% 100.0% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 2.3% 5.6% 8.4% 0.0% 11.8% 18.9% 7.5% 20.0% 3.8% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 13.6% 14.9% 1.4% 20.3% 16.5% 0.0% 100.0% 52 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Nooksack Valley North Franklin North Kitsap North Mason North Thurston Northshore Oak Harbor Ocean Beach Okanogan Olympia_ Omak Onalaska Orcas Orondo Oroville Oiling Othello Palisades Pasco Pateros Paterson Peninsula Port Angeles Port Townsend Prescott Prosser Pullman Puyallup Quillayute Valley Quinault Lake Quincy Raymond Renton Richland Ridgefield Riverview Rochester Roosevelt Royal Seattle Sedro Woolley Selah Sequim Shelton Shoreline Snohomish Snoqualmie Valley Soap Lake Total LEP Number graduated students served or transitioned 114 11 504 9 75 3 13 0 20 230 443 81 172 16 2 47 184 155 33 79 23 19 31 0 2 2 147 120 19 28 978 45 3,914 39 9 2 16 1 249 8 18 0 39 31 18 1 16 118 8 636 64 53 22 178 159 37 20 628 75 36 841 51 252 17 18 0 46 64 14 1 12 0 8 6 16 0 99 802 536 5,447 97 13 121 3 36 122 561 58 1 14 108 13 15 2 107 44 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 59 Percent of total 9.6% 1.8% 4.0% 0.0% 8.7% 18.3% 9.3% 4.3% 17.9% 20.0% 24.1% 0.0% 100.0% 12.9% 1.7% 32.1% 1.6% 2.2% 6.4% 20.5% 0.0% 79.5% 5.6% 6.3% 6.8% 8.3% 34.4% 11.2% 7.5% 0.0% 5.7% 10.7% 6.1% 6.7% 0.0% 13.0% 21.9% 0.0% 18.5% 14.7% 13.4% 2.5% 2.8% 11.5% 19.3% 22.4% 13.3% 41.1% 53 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District South Bend South Kitsap South Whidbey Southside Spokane Stanwood Steilacoom Stevenson-Carson Sultan Sumner Sunnyside Tacoma Tahoma Tenino Thorp Toledo Tonasket Toppenish Touchet Trout Lake Tukwila Tumwater Union Gap University Place Vancouver Vashon Island Wahkiakum Wahluke Walla Walla Wapato Warden Washougal Waterville Wenatchee West Valley (Spokane) West Valley (Yakima) White River White Salmon Valley Win lock Woodland Yakima Yelm Zillah State Total LEP Number graduated students served or transitioned 54 8 55 6 13 1 899 45 55 0 0 89 1 11 4 0 18 3 76 1,211 2,029 36 5 182 275 10 1 0 0 ,5 0 90 2,417 42 7 113 10 21 3 0 688 53 88 41 141 2,121 41 87 13 3 1 885 630 1,032 309 55 34 1,343 69 89 13 4 0 64 63 115 26 3 2 69 0 17 8 0 223 53 36 40 4 4,600 128 36 94 66,281 3 3 26 6,619 Percent of total 14.8% 23.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9% 2.2% 7.3% 0.0% 16.7% 6.6% 15.0% 13.6% 27.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 4.7% 23.8% 0.0% 6.0% 24.5% 4.5% 29.1% 4.1% 23.1% 0.0% 7.2% 10.0% 11.1% 8.4% 5.5% 5.9% 5.1% 0.0% 19.1% 0.0% 17.9% 7.5% 8.3% 2.8% 8.3% 27.7% 10.0% 60 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 54 Appendix C Length of Stay Data Table C-2: Number and Percent of Students Transitioned or Graduated, by Students Served District Seattle Yakima Pasco Kent Toppenish Vancouver Tacoma Federal Way High line Bellevue Edmonds Mukilteo Mount Vernon Kennewick Wenatchee Lake Washington Sunnyside Everett Wapato Evergreen (Clark) Othello Spokane Wahluke Renton Auburn Clover Park Tukwila Prosser Walla Walla Quincy Eastmont Shoreline Burlington-Edison Royal Moses Lake Grandview North Franklin Brewster Northshore Bellingham Bridgeport Granger Lake Chelan Warden Mabton Total LEP Number graduated students served or transitioned 5,447 4,600 3,914 2,611 2,417 2,121 2,029 802 1,838 1,789 1,758 1,430 1,403 1,397 1,366 1,343 1,245 1,211 1,135 1,032 1,004 '978 899 885 841 376 294 274 699 44 49 128 249 192 113 87 275 151 285 19 67 69 118 182 177 115 145 16 549 536 536 518 504 469 443 425 344 340 323 309 268 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 0.8% 51 1.7% .9 1.8% 44 9.4% 81 18.3% 13.9% 5.5% 20.3% 8.7% 8.4% 5.6% 59 19 69 28 26 15 61 15.0% 15.6% 11.1% 14.4% 1.6% 9 4 41 53 63 36 45 108 561 4.9% 5.1% 9.5% 99 51 688 636 630 628 596 14.7% 2.8% 6.4% 7.4% 4.7% 4.1% 13.6% 20.5% 16.4% 15.6% 10.6% 20.3% 1.4% 9.9% 7.2% 6.1% 6.3% 7.1% 6.0% 8.3% 10.0% 5.7% 7.6% 19.3% 9.3% 18.5% 89 64 691 Percent of total 55 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Central Kitsap Manson Richland Centralia North Thurston Highland Longview White Salmon Valley College Place ( Lynden Ephrata Cascade Issaquah Cape Flattery Okanogan Marysville Franklin Pierce Ferndale Puyallup Oak Harbor Aberdeen Quillayute Valley Olympia East Valley (Yakima) Battle Ground Orondo Meridian University Place Kiona-Benton City Monroe Shelton Selah Mount Baker Oroville Prescott Mount Adams Cashmere Nooksack Valley Soap Lake Central Valley Fife Kelso Sedro Woolley Naches Valley Mercer Island Zillah Bethel Tonasket Total LEP Number graduated students served or transitioned 265 32 22 261 252 231 230 229 225 223 17 16 20 62 16 40 220 216 12 211 205 204 188 184 184 181 179 178 172 169 159 155 152 14 5 12 35 28 33 0 19 36 20 16 19 12 31 17 151 21 147 146 141 139 132 122 19 11 41 3 5 20.1% 11.2% 9.3% 11.2% 7.5% 20.0% 11.2% 13.9% 12.9% 7.5% 29.1% 2.2% 3.8% 41.1% 11 10.3% 1.0% 8.9% 13.4% 16.5% 18.9% 27.7% 8.6% 7.8% 2 8 16 22 1 101 9 97 97 95 94 93 90 13 16 18 26 8 7 62 17.9% 5.5% 2.3% 6.6% 5.9% 17.2% 14.9% 17.9% 0.0% 10.5% 11 18 Educating LEP Students 'in Washington State 27.1% 7.1% 44 3 120 118 118 115 114 107 107 102 12.1% 8.4% 6.7% 6.9% 8.7% 11.5% 2.5% 14.9% 1.7% 6.8% 13.6% 19.1% 9.6% 14 121 121 Percent of total 56 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District West Valley (Yakima) Union Gap Ellensburg Blaine Mead Hoquiam Lake Stevens Omak Sumner Chehalis Raymond North Kitsap West Valley (Spokane) Rochester Pullman Snohomish Washougal Steilacoom South Kitsap Arlington South Bend Columbia (Walla Walla) Bremerton Win lock Tumwater Entiat East Valley (Spokane) Anacortes Ocean Beach Goldendale Riverview Stanwood Palisades Kittitas Elma Dayton La Conner Touchet Finley Peninsula Pateros Quinault Lake Enumclaw Yelm Woodland Tahoma Sequim Bainbridge Island Total LEP Number graduated students served or transitioned Percent of total 89 88 88 17 19.1% 4 87 6 4.5% 6.8% 6.9% 6 85 10 11.8% 84 20 26 5 23.8% 32.1% 24.1% 6.6% 6.6% 81 79 76 76 75 19 8 10.7% 75 3 69 64 64 58 0 4.0% 0.0% 21.9% 34.4% 22.4% 5.5% 7.3% 23.6% 16.4% 14.8% 18.5% 16.7% 7.5% 24.5% 36.5% 7.7% 12.2% 4.3% 17.0% 13.0% 2.2% 2.2% 6.7% 8.9% 8.9% 2.3% 23.8% 7.3% 79.5% 20.5% 0.0% 18.9% 8.3% 8.3% 27.8% 2.8% 38.9% 5 14 22 13 55 55 55 55 54 3 4 13 9 8 54 54 53 10 53 52 52 13 49 47 47 46 6 2 9 4 19 4 8 6 45 45 45 45 45 43 1 1 3 4 4 1 42 10 41 3 39 39 37 31 37 7 36 36 36 36 36 3 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 8 0 3 10 1 14 63 57 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Conway Waterville Camas Orting Lind Onalaska Tenino Sultan Ridgefield Port Angeles Paterson Roosevelt Port Townsend Lakewood Snoqualmie Valley Coupeville Clarkston Vashon Island North Mason Easton Lyle Stevenson-Carson Cheney Green Mountain White River Eatonville Castle Rock Montesano La Center South Whidbey . Naselle-Grays Riv. Valley Toledo Mossyrock Methow Valley Granite Falls Asotin-Anatone Trout Lake Colfax Orcas Nine Mile Falls Liberty Wahkiakum Thorp Southside State Total LEP Number graduated students served or transitioned 35 34 29 28 28 23 21 18 18 18 18 16 16 16 3 2 6 9 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 5 15 2 14 14 0 0 13 13 13 12 3 11 10 9 8 8 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 6 5 5 5 1 5 5 0 3 0 0 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 66,281 2 2 2 0 0 0 6,619 Percent of total 8.6% 5.9% 20.7% 32.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 31.3% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0% 23.1% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 64 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 58 Appendix C Length of Stay Data Table C-3: Number and Percent of Students Transitioned or Graduated, by Percent Graduated or Transitioned District Liberty Nine Mile Falls Orcas Peninsula Soap Lake Asotin-Anatone Bainbridge Island Entiat Pullman Lake Stevens Orting Lakewood University Place Tahoma Zillah Highland Tumwater Omak Hoquiam Touchet South Kitsap Vashon Island Snohomish Rochester Camas Federal Way Pateros Granger Mukilteo Ferndale Cheney Methow Valley Olympia Shoreline Cashmere West Valley (Yakima) Enumclaw Mercer Island Columbia (Walla Walla) Royal Northshore Okanogan White Salmon Valley Issaquah Goldendale Total LEP Number graduated students served or transitioned 2 2 2, 2 2 2 39 107 31 44 5 2 36 52 64 14 19 22 26 9 81 28 16 5 141 41 10 36 94 229 53 79 84 42 55 26 62 13 19 20 10 13 13 3 58 64 29 1,838 39 13 14 6 376 8 340 1,403 179 69 285 36 10 2 5 1 155 561 115 89 37 95 31 108 22 17 7 18 54 536 443 184 223 204 47 10 99 81 33 40 35 8 Educating LEP Students in Washington State Percent of total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 79.5% 41.1% 40.0% 38.9% 36.5% 34.4% 32.1% 32.1% 31.3% 29.1% 27.8% 27.7% 27.1% 24.5% 24.1% 23.8% 23.8% 23.6% 23.1% 22.4% 21.9% 20.7% 20.5% 20.5% 20.3% 20.3% 20.1% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 19.3% 19.1% 19.1% 18.9% 18.9% 18.5% 18.5% 18.3% 17.9% 17.9% 17.2% 17.0% 59 65 Appendix C Length of Stay Data Total LEP Number graduated students served or transitioned District Bremerton Sultan Naches Valley Arlington High line Bellevue Everett Sunnyside Cape Flattery Mount Baker South Bend Seattle Evergreen (Clark) Battle Ground Bellingham Mount Adams Tacoma Sedro Woolley Snoqualmie Valley Riverview Orondo Castle Rock Anacortes Central Kitsap Mead Shelton Aberdeen East Valley (Yakima) Puyallup Wapato Raymond Edmonds Franklin Pierce Central Valley Walla Walla Spokane Nooksack 'Valley Lake Washington Brewster Burlington-Edison Oak Harbor Dayton Elma Kelso Lake Chelan North Thurston Bethel Conway . 54 9 18 3 97 16 55 1,789 1,758 1,135 1,211 188 9 294 274 177 182 28 121 18 54 5,447 1,004 802 151 21 425 59 8 145 118 16 2,029 97 275 15 2 13 46 6 147 19 8 1 49 265 6 32 85 122 10 169 152 19 178 20 1,032 75 1,430 115 151 181 19 14 17 8 107. 11 630 63 89 899 114 11 1,245 118 469 549 44 172 16 45 45 4 51 4 101 9 323 28 230 20 93 35 8 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 3 66 Percent of total 16.7% 16.7% 16.5% 16.4% 16.4% 15.6% 15.6% 15.0% 14.9% 14.9% 14.8% 14.7% 14.4% 13.9% 13.9% 13.6% 13.6% 13.4% 13.3% 13.0% 12.9% 12.5% 12.2% 12.1% 11.8% 11.5% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.1% 10.7% 10.6% 10.5% 10.3% 10.0% 9.9% 9.6% 9.5% 9.4% 9.3% 9.3% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.7% 8.7% 8.6% 8.6% 60 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Manson Warden Prosser Woodland Yelm Tonasket East Valley (Spokane) Easton Eastmont Meridian Quillayute Valley Win lock Kent Finley Steilacoom Wahluke Clover Park Longview Blaine Centralia Ellensburg Prescott Kittitas Richland Chehalis Ephrata Sumner Pasco Auburn Port Townsend Renton Tukwila Cascade Waterville Quincy Mabton Port Angeles Bridgeport College Place Washougal Wenatchee Kennewick Toppenish Union Gap Ocean Beach Vancouver North Kitsap Monroe Total LEP Number graduated students served or transitioned 261 309 22 26 53 636 36 36 90 52 3 3 7 4 13 1 596 45 146 159 53 11 2,611 192 41 55 3 12 4 4 64 885 691 225 87 231 88 118 45 252 76 211 76 49 16 6 16 6 8 3 17 5 14 5 3,914 699 249 44 16 1 841 51 688 205 41 12 34 2 628 268 36 15 18 1 344 220 55 1,343 1,366 2,417 88 47 2,121 75 19 12 3 69 67 113 4 2 87 3 132 Educating LEP Students in Washinkton State 5 Percent of total 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 7.8% 7.7% 7.7% 7.6% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.4% 7.3% 7.3% 7.2% 7.1% 7.1% 6.9% 6.9% 6.8% 6.8% 6.7% 6.7% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.4% 6.3% 6.3% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.1% 4.9% 4.7% 4.5% 4.3% 4.1% 4.0% 3.8% 67 61 Appendix C Length of Stay Data Total LEP Number graduated students served or transitioned District Sequim Yakima Selah La Conner Lynden Kiona-Benton City Palisades Stanwood North Franklin Moses Lake Oroville Othello Mount Vernon Fife Grandview Clarkston Colfax Coupeville Eatonville Granite Falls Green Mountain La Center Lind Lyle Marysville Montesano Mossyrock Naselle-Grays Riv. Valley North Mason Onalaska Paterson Quinault Lake Ridgefield Roosevelt South Whidbey Southside Stevenson-Carson Tenino Thorp Toledo Trout Lake Wahkiakum West Valley (Spokane) White River . State 36 1 4,600 128 121 3 43 216 139 45 45 504 536 120 978 1,397 102 518 1 5 3 1 1 9 9 2 16 19 1 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66,281 6,619 14 3 14 8 5 9 7 28 12 184 7 5 6 13 23 18 37 18 16 21 1 5 3 1 69 68 Educating LEP Students in Washington State Percent of total 2.8% 2.8% 2.5% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 1.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 62 Appendix C Length of Stay Data Table C-4: Number and Percent of Students Enrolled More Than Three Years, by District District Aberdeen Anacortes Arlington Asotin-Anatone Auburn Bainbridge Island Battle Ground Bellevue Bellingham Bethel Blaine Bremerton Brewster Bridgeport Burlington-Edison Camas Cape Flattery Cascade Cashmere Castle Rock Central Kitsap Central Valley Centralia Chehalis Cheney Clarkston Clover Park Colfax College Place Columbia (Walla Walla) Conway Coupeville Dayton East Valley (Spokane) East Valley (Yakima) Eastmont Easton Eatonville Edmonds Ellensburg Elma Entiat Enumclaw Ephrata Everett Evergreen (Clark) Federal Way Ferndale Total LEP students served Number enrolled more than 3 years 169 42 49 21 55 8 5 0 87 699 36 11 44 316 151 1,758 425 93 87 54 , 87 11 27 19 469 344 549 29 188 132 188 131 205 24 115 15 84 5 8 0 265 71 107 231 76 23 50 18 2 10 14 0 691 83 3 0 220 54 76 35 0 14 2 45 52 7 18 6 152 7 596 152 13 0 0 8 1,430 , 88 45 52 37 211 1,135 1,004 1,838 179 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 197 13 20 3 6 23 200 133 252 27 69 Percent of total 24.9% 42.9% 14.5% 0.0% 12.4% 30.6% 29.1% 18.0% 20.5% 11.8% 31.0% 35.2% 40.1% 38.4% 15.3% 17.2% 69.7% 11.7% 13.0% 0.0% 26.8% 21.5% 21.6% 23.7% 20.0% 0.0% 12.0% 0.0% 34.5% 33.3% 0.0% 14.3% 15.6% 11.5% 4.6% 25.5% 0.0% 0.0% 13.8% 14.8% 44.4% 5.8% 16.2% 10.9% 17.6% 13.2% 13.7% 15.1% 63 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Fife Finley Franklin Pierce Goldendale Grandview Granger Granite Falls Green Mountain Highland High line Hoquiam Issaquah Kelso Kennewick Kent Kiona-Benton City Kittitas La Center La Conner Lake Chelan Lake Stevens Lake Washington Lakewood Liberty Lind Longview Lyle Lynden Mabton Manson Marysville Mead Mercer Island Meridian Methow Valley Monroe Montesano Moses Lake Mossyrock Mount Adams Mount Baker Mount Vernon Mukilteo Naches Valley Naselle-Grays Riv. Valley Nine Mile Falls Nooksack Valley North Franklin North Kitsap North Mason North Thurston Total LEP students served Number enrolled more than 3 years 102 41 , 0 4 181 16 47 518 340 27 6 5 0 0 42 346 0 28 20 412 703 42 71 9 229 1,789 84 204 101 1,366 2,611 139 45 7 7 0 43 323 0 70 81 1,245 16 339 8 1 2 0 28 225 13 43 0 68 12 216 268 75 261 184 85 95 146 131 7 3 12 5 36 0 132 10 7 3 536 175 5 0 32 118 121 11 1,397 1,403 97 6 414 127 47 0 0 2 114 16 504 26 26 0 27 75 13 230 Educating LEP Students in Washington State Percent of total 0.0% 9.8% 8.8% 57.4% 1.2% 20.9% 0.0% 0.0% 18.3% 19.3% 0.0% 13.7% 19.8% 30.2% 26.9% 30.2% 15.6% 0.0% 0.0% 21.7% 9.9% 27.2% 6.3% 0.0% 46.4% 19.1% 0.0% 31.5% 28.0% 50.2% 3.8% 3.5% 12.6% 24.7% 0.0% 7.6% 42.9% 32.6% 0.0% 27.1% 9.1% 29.6% 9.1% 48.5% 0.0% 0.0% 14.0% 5.2% 34.7% 0.0% 11.7% 7o 64 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Northshore Oak Harbor Ocean Beach Okanogan Olympia Omak Onalaska Orcas Orondo Oroville Orting Othello Palisades Pasco Pateros Paterson Peninsula Port Angeles Port Townsend Prescott Prosser Pullman Puyallup Quillayute Valley Quinault Lake Quincy Raymond Renton Richland Ridgefield Riverview Rochester Roosevelt Royal Seattle Sedro Woolley Selah Sequim Shelton Shoreline Snohomish Snoqualmie Valley Soap Lake South Bend South Kitsap South Whidbey Southside Spokane Stanwood Steilacoom Stevenson-Carson Total LEP students served Number enrolled more than 3 years 443 53 24 172 47 18 184 155 56 47 45 0 0 48 29 79 23 2 147 120 28 978 45 1882 0 0 0 3 16.7% 0 0.0% 45.8% 30.5% 4.7% 3 9 39 18 39 18 16 118 54 194 636 64 3 178 159 37 24 13.5% 61 38.4% 0.0% 28.3% 52.0% 15.8% 13.1% 0.0% 10.9% 10.9% 25.0% 35.8% 41.0% 14.4% 25.6% 22.2% 30.3% 9.3% 25.9% 0.0% 19.6% 35.2% 12.7% 0.0% 0.0% 14.1% 31.1% 3.6% 45.5% 0 178 628 39 75 841 252 133 33 18 0 46 64 5 7 16 4 536 5,447 192 2,232 97 14 31 121 36 8 122 561 37 52 58 15 15 0 107 21 19 7 54 55 6 1 0 0 899 45 55 127 14 2 11 5 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 71 12.0% 14.0% 38.3% 30.4% 30.3% 57.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32.7% 24.2% 10.7% 29.6% 20.0% 48.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 289 3,914 Percent of total 65 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Sultan Sumner Sunnyside Tacoma Tahoma Tenino Thorp Toledo Tonasket Toppenish Touchet Trout Lake Tukwila Tumwater Union Gap University Place Vancouver Vashon Island Wahkiakum Wahluke Walla Walla Wapato Warden Washougal Waterville Wenatchee West Valley (Spokane) West Valley (Yakima) White River White Salmon Valley Winlock Woodland Yakima Ye Im Total LEP students served Number enrolled more than 3 years 18 4 76 7 0 2068 0 50 22.2% 9.2% 12.5% 33.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.2% 48.4% 26.2% 33.3% 21.8% 9.4% 5.7% 5.0% 13.3% 30.8% 0.0% 31.4% 22.4% 47.2% 25.6% 54.5% 73.5% 45.6% 18.8% 6.7% 0.0% 41.3% 13.2% 0.0% 45.0% 0.0% 53.2% 18,477 27.9% 1,211 151 2,029 36 669 21 0 0 0 9 1 5 90 2,417 42 11 1,170 11 3 1 688 53 88 150 5 5 141 7 2,121 283 4 0 278 13 1 885 630 141 1,032 309 55 487 79 30 25 612 34 1,343 69 89 13 6 8 0 223 53 36 92 7 4,600 Zillah 36 94 State 66,281 Percent of total 72 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 66 Appendix C Length of Stay Data Table C-5: Number and Percent of Students Enrolled More Than Three Years, by Number Served District Total LEP students served Seattle Yakima Pasco Kent Toppenish Vancouver Tacoma Federal Way 5,447 4,600 3,914 2,232 2,068 1,882 703 1,170 283 669 252 346 316 2,611 2,417 2,121 2,029 1,838 1,789 1,758 1,430 1,403 1,397 1,366 1,343 1,245 1,211 1,135 1,032 1,004 978 899 885 841 699 691 688 636 High line Bellevue Edmonds Mukilteo Mount Vernon Kennewick Wenatchee Lake Washington Sunnyside Everett Wapato. Evergreen (Clark) Othello Spokane Wahluke Renton Auburn Clover Park Tukwila Prosser Walla Walla Quincy Eastmont Shoreline Burlington-Edison Moses Lake Royal Grandview North Franklin Brewster Northshore Bellingham Bridgeport Granger Lake Chelan Warden Mabton Central Kitsap Manson Richland Number enrolled more than 3 years 197 127 414 412 612 339 151 200 487 133 289 127 278 133 87 83 150 194 630 628 596 141 561 52 84 178 152 549 536 536 518 504 469 443 425 344 340 323 309 268 265 - . 175 192 6 26 188 53 87 132 71 70 79 75 261 71 131 252 33 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 73 Percent of total 41.0% 45.0% 48.1% 26.9% 48.4% 13.3% 33.0% 13.7% 19.3% 18.0% 13.8% 9.1% 29.6% 30.2% 45.6% 27.2% 12.5% 17.6% 47.2% 13.2% 29.6% 14.1% 31.4% 15.8% 12.4% 12.0% 21.8% 30.5% 22.4% 28.3% 25.5% 9.3% 15.3% 32.6% 35.8% 1.2% 5.2% 40.1% 12.0% 20.5% 38.4% 20.9% 21.7% 25.6% 28.0% 26.8% 50.2% 13.1% 67 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Centralia North Thurston Highland Longview White Salmon Valley College Place Lynden Ephrata Cascade Issaquah Cape Flattery Marysville Okanogan Franklin Pierce Ferndale Puyallup Oak Harbor Aberdeen Quillayute Valley Olympia East Valley (Yakima) Battle Ground Orondo Meridian University Place Kiona-Benton City Monroe Shelton Mount Baker Selah Oroville Mount Adams Prescott Cashmere Nooksack Valley Central Valley Soap Lake Fife Kelso Naches Valley Sedro Woolley Mercer Island Zillah Bethel Tonasket West Valley (Yakima) Ellensburg Union Gap Blaine Mead Hoquiam Total LEP students served Number enrolled more than 3 years 231 50 230 229 225 223 220 216 27 42 43 92 76 68 23 24 28 211 205 204 188 184 184 131 7 56 181 16 179 178 172 169 159 155 152 151 147 146 141 139 132 122 121 121 120 118 118 115 114 107 107 102 101 97 27 24 24 42 97 95 14 94 50 61 47 7 44 48 36 7 42 10 37 11 31 29 32 54 15 16 23 21 0. 20 47 12 93 11 90 11 89 88 88 87 85 6 13 5 27 3 84 0 Percent of total 21.6% 11.7% 18.3% 19.1% 41.3% 34.5% 31.5% 10.9% 11.7% 13.7% 69.7% 3.8% 30.4% 8.8% 15.1% 13.5% 14.0% 24.9% 38.4% 30.3% 4.6% 29.1% 32.7% 24.7% 5.0% 30.2% 7.6% 30.3% 9.1% 25.6% 24.2% 27.1% 45.8% 13.0% 14.0% 21.5% 19.6% 0.0% 19.8% 48.5% 14.4% 12.6% 53.2% 11.8% 12.2% 6.7% 14.8% 5.7% 31.0% 3.5% 0.0% 74 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 68 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Total LEP students served Lake Stevens Omak Chehalis Sumner North Kitsap Raymond West Valley (Spokane) Pullman Rochester Snohomish Arlington South Kitsap Steilacoom Washougal Bremerton Columbia (Walla Walla) South Bend Tumwater Win lock East Valley (Spokane) Entiat Anacortes Goldendale Ocean Beach Riverview Dayton Elma Kittitas Palisades Stanwood La Conner Touchet Finley Pateros Peninsula Enumclaw Quinault Lake Bainbridge Island Sequim Tahoma Woodland Ye lm Conway Waterville Camas Lind Orting Onalaska Tenino Paterson Port Angeles Number enrolled more than 3 years 81 8 79 76 76 45 75 75 26 69 64 64 58 55 55 55 55 54 54 54 53 53 52 52 49 47 47 13 18 7 39 3 7 15 8 7 2 30 19 18 19 5 7 6 3 21 27 18 46 , 5 45 45 45 45 45 43 42 41 39 39 37 37 36 36 36 36 36 35 34 29 28 28 23 7 20 7 9 14 0 11 4 0 0 6 0 11 8 9 0 0 0 25 5 13 3 0 0 0 21 18 18 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 3 75 Percent of total 9.9% 57.0% 23.7% 9.2% 34.7% 52.0% 18.8% 4.7% 10.9% 25.9% 14.5% 12.7% 3.6% 54.5% 35.2% 33.3% 35.2% 9.4% 13.2% 11.5% 5.8% 42.9% 57.4% 38.3% 10.9% 15.6% 44.4% 15.6% 20.0% 31.1% 0.0% 26.2% 9.8% 0.0% 0.0% 16.2% 0.0% 30.6% 22.2% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 73.5% 17.2% 46.4% 10.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 69 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Ridgefield Sultan Lakewood Port Townsend Roosevelt Snoqualmie Valley Clarkston Coupeville Easton North Mason Vashon Island Lyle Stevenson-Carson Cheney Green Mountain Castle Rock Eatonville White River La Center Montesano Naselle-Grays Riv. Valley South Whidbey Asotin-Anatone Granite Falls Methow Valley Mossyrock Toledo Colfax Trout Lake Liberty Nine Mile Falls Orcas Southside Thorp Wahkiakum State Total LEP students served Number enrolled more than 3 years 18 18 16 0 4 16 16 0 4 0 0 Percent of total 1 0 0 0 0 0.0% 22.2% 6.3% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 30.8% 0.0% 45.5% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 42.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66,281 18,477 27.9% 1 15 14 14 2 0 0 4 13 13 13 12 0 11 5 2 10 9 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 0 7 7 6 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 5 5 3 3 1 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 76 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 70 Appendix C Length of Stay Data Table C-6: Number and Percent of Students Enrolled More Than Three Years, by Percent Enrolled More Than Three Years District Waterville Cape Flattery Goldendale Omak Washougal Zillah Raymond Manson Naches Valley Toppenish Pasco Wapato Lind Prescott Wenatchee Stevenson-Carson Yakima Elma Anacortes Montesano White Salmon Valley Seattle Brewster Bridgeport Quillayute Valley Ocean Beach Royal Bremerton South Bend North Kitsap College Place Columbia (Walla Walla) Trout Lake Tacoma Orondo Moses Lake Lynden Wahluke Stanwood Blaine Vashon Island Bainbridge Island Prosser Okanogan Olympia Shelton Kennewick Kiona-Benton City Total LEP Number enrolled students served more than 3 years 34 188 47 79 55 94 75 261 97 25 131 27 45 30 50 39 131 47 1,170 1,882 487 2,417 3,914 1,032 28 118 13 54 612 1,343 11 5 4,600 2,068 20 45 49 21 7 3 223 5,447 469 344 92 2,232 188 132 61 159 47 18 192 19 19 536 54 54 26 76 75 220 54 18 3 1 2,029 669 48 147 536 216 175 68 278 885 45 87 14 13 27 4 36 636 194 184 155 122 1,366 139 56 47 37 412 42 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 11 77 Percent of total 73.5% 69.7% 57.4% 57.0% 54.5% 53.2% 52.0% 50.2% 48.5% 48.4% 48.1% 47.2% 46.4% 45.8% 45.6% 45.5% 45.0% 44.4% 42.9% 42.9% 41.3% 41.0% 40.1% 38.4% 38.4% 38.3% 35.8% 35.2% 35.2% 34.7% 34.5% 33.3% 33.3% 33.0% 32.7% 32.6% 31.5% 31.4% 31.1% 31.0% 30.8% 30.6% 30.5% 30.4% 30.3% 30.3% 30.2% 30.2% 71 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Mount Vernon Othello Battle Ground Quincy Mabton Lake Washington Mount Adams Kent Central Kitsap Touchet Snohomish Warden Total LEP Number enrolled students served more than 3 years 1,397 414 978 289 151 44 628 .268 178 75 1,245 118 2,611 265 339 32 703 71 42 58 309 11 .15 79 Selah 121 31 Eastmont Tahoma Roosevelt Aberdeen Meridian Oroville Chehalis Walla Walla Sequim Sultan Tukwila Lake Chelan Centralia Central Valley Granger Bellingham Palisades Cheney Kelso Soap Lake 596 36 152 9 16 169 146 120 4 42 36 29 76 630 36 18 141 8 18 4 150 High line Longview West Valley (Spokane) Highland Bellevue Everett Camas Port Angeles Enumclaw Renton Dayton Kittitas Burlington-Edison Femdale Ellensburg Arlington Sedro Woolley Coupeville 688 323 70 50 23 231 107 340 425 45 71 87 9 10 2 101 20 21 107 1,789 225 69 229 1,758 1,135 29 346 43 13 42 316 200 5 3 18 37 841 6 133 7 7 45 45 549 179 88 55 97 84 27 13 8 14 14 Educating LEP Students in:IYU shington State 2 78 Percent of total 29.6% 29.6% 29.1% 28.3% 28.0% 27.2% 27.1% 26.9% 26.8% 26.2% 25.9% 25.6% 25.6% 25.5% 25.0% 25.0% 24.9% 24.7% 24.2% 23.7% 22.4% 22.2% 22.2% 21.8% 21.7% 21.6% 21.5% 20.9% 20.5% 20.0% 20.0% 19.8% 19.6% 19.3% 19.1% 18.8% 18.3% 18.0% 17.6% 17.2% 16.7% 16.2% 15.8% 15.6% 15.6% 15.3% 15.1% 14.8% 14.5% 14.4% 14.3% 72 Appendix C Length of Stay Data Total LEP Number enrolled students served more than 3 years District Spokane Oak Harbor Nooksack Valley Edmonds Federal Way Issaquah Puyallup Vancouver Evergreen (Clark) Win lock Richland Cashmere South Kitsap Mercer Island Sunnyside Auburn Tonasket Clover Park Northshore Bethel North Thurston Cascade East Valley (Spokane) Ephrata Rochester Riverview Orting Lake Stevens Finley Tumwater Shoreline Sumner Mukilteo Mount Baker Franklin Pierce Monroe West Valley (Yakima) Lakewood Entiat Union Gap North Franklin University Place Pullman East Valley (Yakima) Marysville Steilacoom Mead Grandview Fife Hoquiam La Conner , 899 127 24 16 197 172 114 1,430 1,838 204 252 28 24 283 178 2,121 1,004 53 252 133 7 33 115 55 15 95 1,211 699 12 151 7 87 90 11 691 83 53 443 93 230 205 52 11 27 24 6 211 64 23 46 5 28 3 7 81 8 41 4 53 561 52 76 1,403 127 5 7 121 181 11 132 89 16 52 88 10 6 504 26 141 7 16 1 3 5 64 3 152 184 55 85 7 7 2 518 102 84 6 0 0 43 0 Educating LEP Studen6.in. Washington State 3 79 Percent of total 14.1% 14.0% 14.0% 13.8% 13.7% 13.7% 13.5% 13.3% 13.2% 13.2% 13.1% 13.0% 12.7% 12.6% 12.5% 12.4% 12.2% 12.0% 12.0% 11.8% 11.7% 11.7% 11.5% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 10.7% 9.9% 9.8% 9.4% 9.3% 9.2% 9.1% 9.1% 8.8% 7.6% 6.7% 6.3% 5.8% 5.7% 5.2% 5.0% 4.7% 4.6% 3.8% 3.6% 3.5% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 73 Appendix C Length of Stay Data District Pateros Peninsula Quinault Lake Woodland Yelm Conway Onalaska Tenino Paterson Ridgefield Port Townsend Snoqualmie Valley Clarkston Easton North Mason Lyle Green Mountain Castle Rock Eatonville White River La Center Naselle-Grays Riv. Valley South Whidbey Asotin-Anatone Granite Falls Methow Valley Mossyrock Toledo Colfax Liberty Nine Mile Falls Orcas Southside Thorp Wahkiakum State Total LEP Number enrolled students served more than 3 years 39 39 37 36 36 35 23 21 Percent of total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66,281 18,477 27.9% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 16 15 14 13 13 12 9 8 8 8 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 3 2 2 2 1 1 GO Educating LEP Students in Washington State 74 APPENDIX D DISTRICTS OPERATING PROGRAMS FOR LEP STUDENTS Student and Language Information District Aberdeen Languages District Total (6) Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Korean Spanish Tagalog Vietnamese Anacortes Arlington Asotin-Anatone Served District Languages 169 Auburn District Total (18) Arabic Cambodian Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Hindi Ilokano Italian Korean Lao Marshallese Russian Samoan Somali Spanish Tagalog Thai Ukrainian Vietnamese 699 District Total (14) Arabic Chinise-Cantonese Chinese-Taiwanese Farsi French German Haitian Creole Ilokano Indonesian Japanese Korean Polish Spanish Thai 36 10 3 1 153 1 1 District Total (9) Chinese-Cantonese Dutch Greek, Modern Japanese Korean Russian Spanish Tagalog Vietnamese 49 4 District Total (9) Chinese-Mandarin German Latvian Polish Russian Spanish Tagalog Thai Vietnamese 55 District Total (3) Norwegian Rumanian Tagalog 5 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 1 1 2 1 2 33 2 3 2 Bainbridge Island 1 1 1 1 42 2 3 2 2 2 1 81 Served 9 5 4 3 12 3 2 3 19 5 155 6 10 307 20 1 103 32 1 2 1 1 2 4 1 3 1 5 4 2 8 1 75 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Battle Ground Bellevue Languages District Total (11) Bosnian Cambodian Hmong Korean Norwegian Rumanian Russian Samoan Spanish Tagalog Ukrainian District Total (50) Albanian Amharic Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Bosnian Bulgarian Burmese Cambodian Chao Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Croatian Danish Estonian Farsi French German Hebrew, Modem Hindi Hmong Hungarian Indonesian Italian Japanese Kazakh Korean Lao Lithuanian Mongolian Norwegian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Samoan Somali Spanish Served District Languages 151 Bellevue (cont.) Swahili Tagalog Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukranian Unknown Urdu Vietnamese 2 19 115 District Total (22) 425 Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin 5 6 1 2 3 4 7 64 2 46 2 14 Bellingham 1,758 10 Farsi Finnish French German 3 23 4 2 24 Greek, Modern 15 2 Hindi Japanese Khmer Korean Portuguese Punjabi Russian Samoan 22 5 70 95 25 2 4 Serbo-Croatian Spanish Tagalog Thai Ukranian Vietnamese 1 24 11 4 3 9 28 Bethel District Total (14) Albanian Cambodian Japanese Korean Moldavian Polish Rumanian Russian Spanish Tagalog Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese 1 6 2 145 1 114 25 2 1 2 5 17 16 Served 5 15 4 5 9 3 6 6 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 11 1 33 48 1 3 199 2 3 48 49 93 3 3 1 28 14 1 1 6 27 4 1 1 2 53 120 . 1 .',677 82 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 76 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Blaine Languages District Total (11) Arabic Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Fijian Hindi Punjabi Russian Spanish Tagalog Ukrainian Bremerton Brewster District 87 Cape Flattery 1 188 District Total (2) French Spanish 205 Cashmere District Total (1) Spanish 115 115 Castle Rock District Total (2) Russian Spanish 8 Cascade 1 5 46 18 1 6 2 Central Kitsap 1 1 1 1 4 10 1 3 11 10 1 1 7 469 469 Spanish 344 344 District Total (4) 549 Central Valley Burlington Edison German Russian Spanish Vietnamese Camas District Total (10) Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Ethiopic Japanese Korean Lithuanian Russian Spanish Ukrainian Urdu 1 5 540 3 29 2 1 1 1 1 1 15 3 3 1 83. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 1 204 2 4 54 District Total (1) Served Makah 1 District Total (14) District Total (1) Languages 1 Cebuano Chamorro Chinese-Mandarin Hawaiian Japanese Korean Kurdish Punjabi Samoan Spanish Tagalog Tamil Trukese Vietnamese Spanish Bridgeport Served 5 3 District Total (19) Arabic Chamorro 265 Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Chungki Gujarati Haitian Creole Hawaiian Ilokano Japanese Korean Kurdish Papago Russian Samoan Spanish Tagalog Thai Vietnamese 2 District Total (19) Albanian Arabic Armenian Berber Bulgarian Cambodian Chinese-Mandarin Farsi French Greek Korean Polish Punjabi Russian Serbo-Croatian Spanish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese 6 4 9 1 1 3 4 3 5 9 17 3 4 4 27 155 5 3 107 3 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 5 2 3 41 5 18 2 3 7 77 Appendii D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Centralia Languages District Total (8) Chinese-Cantonese German Hindi Japanese Punjabi Russian Spanish Ukrainian Chehalis District Total (2) Korean Spanish Cheney Clarkston Clover Park Served District 231 Colfax 5 1 76 1 Columbia (Walla Walla) 75 14 District Total (5) Igbo Pohnpeian Russian Spanish Thai 199 14 District Total (4) Bosnian Russian Spanish Vietnamese Educating LEP Students in Washington State College Place 2 2 7 10 Chinese-Cantonese Czech French German Hindi Italian Japanese Korean Lao Latvian Mordvin Polish Rumanian Russian Samoan Spanish Swahili Tagalog Thai Tibetan Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese District Total (1) Chinese-Cantonese Served 3 3 1 District Total (4) Chinese-Mandarin Korean Russian Spanish District Total (25) Bulgarian Cambodian Languages District Total (3) Russian Spanish Vietnamese 220 2 2 8 207 1 54 7 46 1 2 Conway 1 3 4 Coupeville District Total (2) 35 Russian Spanish 34 1 District Total (2) Italian Spanish 14 District Total (1) 45 Spanish 45 52 1 District Total (11) Armenian Georgian Hindi Hmong Italian Russian Spanish Tagalog Thai Ukrainian 2 Vietnamese 1 2 8 3 Dayton 1 13 691 1 11 East Valley (Spokane) 1 1 3 34 2 1 4 160 2 1 1 5 1 25 10 1 1 2 3 1 6 2 21 East Valley (Yakima) 20 344 District Total (1) Spanish 152 Eastmont District Total (3) 596 Russian Spanish Ukrainian 3 29 152 9 553 34 3 Easton 1 3 4 23 Eatonville 84 District Total (1) Spanish 13 District Total (2) Japanese Spanish 8 13 1 7 78 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Edmonds Languages Served District Languages Served District Total (55) Akan Amharic Arabic Armenian Bulgarian Cambodian Cebuano 1,430 Edmonds (cont.) Vietnamese Wolof 147 Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Danish Egyptian-Arabic Estonian Ethiopic Farsi Fijian Finnish French Georgian German Greek, Modern Gujarati Hindi Hungarian Ibo Icelandic (old) Ilokano Indonesian Japanese Korean Kurdish Lao Malayalam Nepali Oromo Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romansch Rumanian Russian Serbo-Croatian Somali Spanish Swahili Tagalog Telugu Thai Tigriny Turkish Twi Ukrainian Urdu 35 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 3 5 43 Ellensburg 1 21 32 District Total (6) Chinese-Taiwanese Javanese Korean Punjabi Spanish Vietnamese 1 22 1 88 1 1 2 1 82 1 1 Elma District Total (6) Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Japanese 45 Spanish 29 Entiat District Total (1) Spanish 52 52 Enumclaw District Total (1) 37 37 1 3 1 4 23 8 2 2 12 3 1 1 4 Spanish 5 1 25 Ephrata District Total (7) German Marathi Punjabi Russian Spanish Ukrainian Vietnamese 3 1 1 5 4 9 195 211 1 1 1 10 179 17 2 3 Everett 7 1 1 1 6 6 19 1 13 93 50 1 365 1 50 1 6 13 4 2 151 25 85 District Total (31) 1,135 Arabic Bosnian Bulgarian Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Farsi French German Hindi Hmong Hungarian Indonesian Japanese Korean Kurdish Lao Marshallese Pali Polish Punjabi 117 4 2 19 5 3 6 1 4 3 6 2 1 1 47 1 14 16 1 4 24 79 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Everett (cont.) Evergreen (Clark) Languages Rumainian Russian Serbo-Croatian Spanish Swedish Tagalog Thai Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese District Total (33) Albanian Arabic Bosnian Bulgarian Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Ethiopic Farsi German Hmong Ilokano Italian Japanese Korean. Kurdish Lao Marquesan Nepali Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Samoan Serbo-Croatian Spanish Tagalog Tamil Tibetan Tongan Ukrainian Vietnamese Federal Way District Total (44) Acholi Arabic Bosnian Bulgarian Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Educating LEP Students in Washington State Served District Languages 8 Federal Way (cont.) Dutch Farsi French German Gujarati Hindi Hmong Ilokano Indonesian Japanese Kazakh Kikuyu Korean Lao Malayalam Marshallese Mien Polish Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Samoan Sao Sinhalese Slovak Somali Spanish Swahili Tagalog Telugu Thai Tongan Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese 238 2 258 1 7 2 194 8 136 1,004 1 8 44 4 14 28 8 2 .6 1 3 1 1 23 14 3 2 1 1 2 4 29 46 4 Served 1 3 7 1 3 12 8 5 1 3 1 1 261 6 2 14 1 5 1 64 7 416 26 1 3 1 26 480 13 30 3 3 6 303 5 52 2 Ferndale 109 District Total (6) Cambodian Polish Russian Spanish Ukrainian Vietnamese 3 1 1 1 174 44 1,838 Fife District Total (8) Cambodian Farsi Korean Russian Samoan Spanish Thai Ukrainian 1 14 1 1 18 10 13 5 86 179 4 1 63 80 29 2 102 2 3 3 6 7 79 1 1 80 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Finley Franklin Pierce Languages Served District District Total (1) Spanish 41 41 High line (cont.) District Total (14) Cambodian Fijian German Indonesian Korean Marshallese Moldavian Russian Samoan Spanish Tagalog 181 Thai Ukrainian Vietnamese Goldendale District Total (7) Chinese-Cantonese Columbia River Greek, Modern Nez Perce Sahaptian Spanish, Yakima Grandview Granger Granite Falls Green Mountain Highland High line 1 Bulgarian Burmese Cambodian Chamorro Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Chuuk Czech Dire Eritai 8 Fa llani 11 1 2 1 36 1 60 2 2 1 3 47 1 1 1 1 1 40 2 518 District Total (1) Spanish 340 340 District Total (2) Korean Spanish 5 1 517 1 4 District Total (4) Liberian Russian Spanish Vietnamese 9 District Total (2) Korean Spanish 229 Arabic Bosnian Educating LEP Students in Washington State Farsi Fijian French Ga German Haitian Creole Hindi Hmong Ilokano Korean Kurdish Lao Mien Oromo Pashto Polish Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Samoan Serbo-Croatian Somali Spanish Swahili Tagalog Tamil Thai Tigrinya Tongan Ukrainian Unknown Urdu Vietnamese 52 District Total (2) Japanese Spanish District Total (49) Albanian Amharic Languages 4 3 1 1 Hoquiam 2 227 1,789 6 27 District Total (4) Cambodian Korean Spanish Yap Served 1 7 113 2 7 5 6 1. 1 1 2 11 1 1 2 1 13 12 33 1 22 7 10 2 5 1 5 2 74 6 51 52 3 178 705 2 32 1 2 12 6 38 1 4 257 84 1 10 72 1 13 44 87 81 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Languages Issaquah Kelso Served District District Total (18) 204 Kent (cont.) Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Fukienese Farsi French Hebrew, Modern Hmong Indonesian Japanese Korean Lao Marshallese Mien Portuguese Russian Spanish Tagalog Thai Ukrainian 6 37 6 District Total (8) Cambodian Lao Moldavian Rumanian Russian Spanish Tagalog Ukrainian Kennewick District Total (18) Afrikaans Albanian Amharic Arabic Bosnian Chinese-Cantonese Farsi French German Italian Kakwa Korean Kurdish Lao Russian Spanish Ukrainian Vietnamese Kent District Total (71) Acholi Afrikaans Albanian Educating LEP Students in Washington State 1 1 13 1 16 29 2 2 1 2 7 72 4 2 2 101 7 2 2 1 10 75 2 2 1,366 2 3 2 4 90 6 3 2 1 1 4 4 1 16 77 1,111 15 24 2,611 3 1 7 88 Languages Ambaric Arabic Armenian Bengali Bosnian Bulgarian Burmese Byelorussian Cambodian Chamorro Chewa Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Croatian Czech Ethiopic Farsi French German Gujarati Hindi Hmong Ibo Ilokano Indonesian Italian Japanese Javanese Kakwa Kannada Khmer Kmhmu Korean Krio Kurdish Lao Lithuanian Malayalam Mien Navajo Nepali Nuer Nyanja Ouolof Polish Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Samoan Serbo-Croatian Slovak Somali Spanish Served 4 11 1 2 9 4 3 4 41 2 1 41 31 1 2 1 11 3 4 1 22 8 3 1 3 2 11 1 3 1 9 2 55 2 37 12 2 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 12 5 204 21 306 24 10 1 197 559 82 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Kent (cont.) Languages Sudanese-Arabic Suri Swahili Swedish Kiona-Benton City 139 Spanish Thai Ukrainian 137 Cambodian Rumanian Spanish District Total (1) Spanish District Total (3) Arabic Russian Spanish District Total (9) Arabic Cambodian Estonian Japanese Lao Russian Spanish Ukrainian Vietnamese Lake Washington Lake Wash. (cont.) District Total (3) La Center District Total (3) Lake Stevens 2 2 2 2 51 616 4 200 Spanish Lake Chelan District Tagalog Taishan Telugu Thai Tigrinya Tongan Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Kittitas District Total (1) La Conner Served District Total (47) Albanain Arabic Bosnian Bulgarian Burmese Cambodian Educating LEP Students in Washington State 1 2 3 6 1 3 1 1 45 45 7 2 1 4 43 43 323 2 4 317 81 5 1 2 1 2 21 Lakewood 23 23 3 Languages Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Taiwanese Czech Danish Farsi Finnish French German Gujarati Hebrew, Modern Hindi Hmong Icelandic (old) Indonesian Japanese Korean Kurdish Latvian Marathi Mongolian Nyanja Polish Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Samoan Serbo-Croatian Somali Spanish Swahili Swedish Tagalog Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Unknown Urdu Vietnamese Served 122 6 4 1 18 3 6 12 2 3 8 91 1 4 51 79 5 2 1 1 1 3 15 5 45 92 1 2 6 460 1 2 14 1 1 11 2 20 1 8 57 District Total (4) Hmong Russian Spanish Tagalog 16 2 1 10 3 1,245 1 Liberty 26 4 6 District Total (1) Ukrainian 2 2 Lind District Total (1) Spanish 28 28 1 39 89 83 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Longview Languages District Total (11) Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Ethiopic Gujarati Hindi Japanese Korean Russian Spanish Tongan Vietnamese Lyle Lynden Manson Marysville 225 20 Mead (cont.) 8 1 2 1 1 1 30 151 1 9 12 Dktrict Total (8) 216 District Total (1) Spanish 12 1 1 20 18 170 1 3 268 268 261 261 District Total (17) Cambodian Chinese-Taiwanese Czech 184 District Total (15) Bulgarian Chinese-Taiwanese Educating LEP Students in Washington State Mercer Island 2 District Total (1) Spanish Egyptian-Arabic Farsi . Japanese Korean Kurdish Lao Punjabi Romansch Russian Spanish Tagalog Thai Ukrainian Vietnamese Mead District District Total (1) Spanish Cambodian German Hindi Punjabi Russian Spanish Ukrainian Vietnamese Mabton Served 3 Meridian 1 2 7 Languages German Indonesian Kinyarwanda Korean Marshallese Portuguese Rumanian Serbo-Croatian Spanish Tagalog Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese 1 12 6. 3 3 2 10 3 1 41 1 4 3 2 1 2 District Total (17) Albanian 95 Bosnian Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Danish German Japanese Korean Kurdish Norwegian Polish Punjabi Rumanian Russian Serbo-Croatian Spanish Tagalog 3 District Total (7) Cambodian Punjabi Russian Serbo-Croatian Spanish Ukrainian Unknown 1 Served 3 6 26 2 1 6 26 2 1 3 1 1 3 3 7 146 1 13 51 2 42 35 2 1 8 Methow Valley 1 District Total (1) Spanish 5 District Total (4) Albanian Latvian 132 Spanish Ukrainian 121 5 6 92 Monroe 14 1 13 15 5 5 1 85 7 2 90 84 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Montesano Moses Lake Languages Served District District Total (3) 7 Mukilteo (cont.) Cambodian Korean Spanish 3 District Total (11) Chinese-Cantonese Farsi French Japanese Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Spanish Swahili Ukrainian Mossyrock Mount Adams 536 4 2 2 22 1 1 4 53 375 2 70 5 Spanish 5 District Total (1) 118 Spanish 118 Korean Russian Spanish Tagalog Mukilteo 3 District Total (1) Mount Baker District Total (4) Mount Vernon 1 District Total (11) Chinese-Mandarin 121 Hindi Hmong Hopi Hungarian Icelandic (old) Indonesian Italian Japanese Korean Kurdish Lao Luganda Polish Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Sinhalese Spanish Tagalog Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Served 9 11 2 4 2 12 3 10 119 9 4 3 7 4 23 12 346 2 414 43 3 1 131 4 80 2 106 Naches Valley 11 2 1,397 3 5 Japanese Korean Mixteco Punjabi Russian Spanish Tagalog Thai Ukrainian Vietnamese 57 1,239 District Total (35) 1,403 Afrikaans Amharic Arabic Bosnian Cambodian Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Dutch Farsi French 19 4 Educating LEP Students in Washington State Languages Naselle-Grays River Valley District Total (2) 97 Spanish Tagalog 95 District Total (1) Spanish 2 6 6 10 52 Nine Mile Falls District Total (1) Russian 2 Nooksack Valley 2 1 25 1 2 2 District Total (4) 114 Mixteco Punjabi Russian Spanish 3 8 2 101 North Franklin District Total (2) Lao Spanish 504 8 496 44 North Kitsap 6 33 District Total (12) Albanian Estonian German Hindi Japanese Navajo 8 1 8 4 18 91 75 5 3 1 1 2 1 85 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Languages Served District North Kitsap (cont.) Russian Samoan Spanish Tagalog Thai Vietnamese 7 3 Northshore (cont.) North Mason North Thurston District Total (1) Spanish 8 1 7 13 13 District Total (20) Amharic Cambodian Chamorro 230 Chinese-Cantonese Chungki Coptic Durcese French German Ilokano Japanese Korean Lao Papago Russian Spanish Tagalog 8 Thai Trukese Vietnamese Northshore 36 1 26 6 1 1 1 9 1 1 36 3 3 3 77 5 3 2 Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Czech Farsi 5 Educating LEP Students in Washington State Ocean Beach 42 443 Norwegian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Serbo-Croatian Somali Spanish Tagalog Thai Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese District Total (12) Bikol Dutch German Ilokano Japanese Korean Papago Salish Spanish Tagalog Thai Vietnamese 1 District Total (35) Amharic Arabic Bosnian Burmese Cambodian Fijian French German Hebrew, Modern Hindi Hungarian Indonesian Japanese Korean Kurdish Lao Oak Harbor Languages District Total (3) Chinese-Cantonese Spanish Thai Served 2 2 6 1 9 25 5 2 250 2 2 26 2 15 172 2 3 1 8 6 4 5 1 21 118 2 1 47 5 41 1 2 1 Okanogan 3 District Total (1) Spanish 184 District Total (12) Cambodian Chinese-Mandarin 155 184 1 2 Olympia 18 Egyptian-Arabic German Hindi Japanese Korean Mordvin Rumanian Samoan Spanish Vietnamese 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 13 8 1 2 3 4 9 2 3 2 34 74 4 35 3 3 92 86 Appendik D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Omak Languages District Total (3) Chinese-Cantonese Spanish Ukrainian Onalaska Served District 79 Peninsula (cont.) 1 77 1 District Total (2) Russian Spanish 23 District Total (2) Russian Thai 2 District Total (1) Spanish 147 147 Oroville District Total (1) 120 4 19 Port Angeles Orcas Orondo Spanish Orting District Total (3) Amharic Cambodian Russian Othello District Total (3) Arabic Hindi Spanish Palisades Pasco District Total (1) Spanish District Total (10) Chinese-Cantonese Korean Kurdish Lao Portuguese Russian Spanish Sudanese-Arabic Ukrainian Vietnamese Pateros Paterson Peninsula 1 1 120 Dutch Korean Portuguese Russian Spanish Tagalog Ukrainian 8 4 16 978 3 Served 1 3 1 6 17 1 4 District Total (7) 18 Bulgarian Chinese-Cantonese Czech German Japanese Unknown Vietnamese 3 7 District Total (8) 16 4 Amharic Chinese-Cantonese German Norwegian Russian Spanish Thai Vietnamese 28 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 2 973 45 45 Prescott Prosser 3,914 4 1 7 16 Pullman 83 3,779 3 7 13 39 39 District Total (1) Spanish 18 District Total (1) 118 Spanish 118 District Total (4) Chinese-Taiwanese Korean Spanish Vietnamese 636 District Total (15) 64 Amharic Arabic Chinese-Cantonese Chinese- Fukienese French Japanese Korean Pashto Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Spanish Turkish Vietnamese 1 District Total (1) Spanish District Total (10) Arabic Chamorro Chinese-Taiwanese Port Townsend Languages 18 39 1 1 1 633 1 1 5 1 11 1 5 14 1 2 1 2 4 11 1 4 4 1 93 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 87 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Appendix D e Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Puyallup Languages Served District District Total (15) 178 Renton (cont.) Albanian Cambodian Chinese-Mandarin Japanese Korean Lao Punjabi Rumanian Russian Samoan Spanish Tagalog Thai Turkish Vietnamese 3 Quillayute Valley District Total (8) Chinese-Mandarin Cowichan Hawaiian Hoh Makah Quileute Spanish Tagalog Quinault Lake District Total (1) Spanish Quincy . Raymond Renton District Total (5) Bulgarian German Spanish Tagalog Urdu 2 7 5 19 1 12 6 9 2 105 4 1 1 1 159 1 1 1 12 2 43 98 1 37 37 628 1 1 624 1 1 District Total (4) 75 Cambodian Gujarati Lao Spanish 12 District Total (46) Albanian Amharic Arabic Bisaya Bulgarian Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Czech Danish Educating LEP Students in Washington State 1 34 28 841 4 4 5 1 1 13 25 5 1 1 Richland Languages Estonian Frasi Fijian French German Hebrew, Modern Hindi Hmong Ilokano Indonesian Japanese Kazakh Kishinau Korean Lao Marathi Mien Norwegian Oromo Pahlavi Polish Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Samoan Serbo-Croatian Somali Spanish Tagalog Thai Tigrinya Tongan Turkish Ukrainian Vietnamese Served 2 3 1 3 2 2 13 6 1 1 2 3 1 14 17 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 18 18 84 3 3 50 287 21 5. 1 4 1 122 78 District Total (22) Arabic Bengali Bosnian 252 hinese-Cantonese 5 Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Czech Estonian Farsi 6 French Korean Lao Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian 5 2 7 1 1 1 3 3 7 1 1 1 1 38 88 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Richland (cont.) Ridgefield Riverview Rochester Languages Serbo-Croatian Spanish Thai Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Royal Seattle District 32 39 Seattle (cont.) 2 81 2 13 District Total (5) Lithuanian Rumanian Russian Spanish Vietnamese 18 District Total (6) Cambodian German Hmong Korean Lao Spanish 46 District Total (4) Amharic Cambodian Spanish 64 Thai Roosevelt Served District Total (1) Spanish District Total (1) Spanish District Total (57) Afrikaans Amharic Arabic Bengali Burmese Cambodian Cebuano Cham Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Fukienese Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Creole Czech Farsi Fijian French German Greek, Modern Educating LEP Students in Washington State 2 1 6 7 2 1 1 9 1 2 32 4 1 58 1 16 16 536 536 5,447 19 -155 27 2 1 Sedro Woolley 350 17 16 396 Languages Hindi Hmong Ibo Ilokano Indonesian Jamaican Japanese Kikuyu Kmhmu Korean Lao Lithuanian Malay Mien Native American Oromo Pahlavi Pashto Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Samoan Serbo-Croatian Somali Spanish Swahili Tagalog Thai Tibetan Tigrinya Toishanese Tongan Turkish Ukrainian Unknown Urdu Vietnamese Served 28 43 1 91 1 1 25 1 . 6 37 143 2 2 166 1 110 4 4 5 15 2 54 79 . 12 362 1,423 7 280 18 11 172 61 11 3 4 50 12 1,065 District Total (4) Korean Spanish Tagalog Ute 97 District Total (2) 121 Russian Spanish 120 2 93 1 1 1 Selah 112 4 4 2 9 3 9 4 Sequim 1 District Total (3) 36 Chinese-Cantonese Spanish Vietnamese 31 3 2 4 95 89 Appendii D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Languages Shelton District Total (4) Shoreline Served District 122 Snohomish Korean Russian Spanish Tagalog 118 2 District Total (44) 561 Albanian Amharic Arabic Bosnian Burmese Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Chuuk Danish Farsi German Hindi Hmong Ibo Igbo Ilokano Indonesian Japanese Khmer Korean Krio Luo Malay Marshallese Norwegian Pashto Punjabi Rumanian Russian Somali Spanish Swahili Tagalog Thai Tibetan Tigrinya Turkish 6 6 Twi Uigur Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Educating LEP Students in Washington State 1 1 14 3 1 4 36 Languages Served District Total (13) 58 Arabic Cambodian Chinese-Mandarin German Hindi Hmong Korean Lithuanian Punjabi Russian Spanish Ukrainian Vietnamese 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 40 4 1 20 1 Snoqualmie Valley District Total (3) Arabic Lao Spanish 3 1 7 15 1 1 13 1 18 8 Soap Lake District Title (3) 1 I 107 Russian Spanish Ukrainian 58 32 District Title (4) 54 17 2 5 8 South Bend Cambodian Korean Lao Spanish 1 122 3 2 1 3 48 1 1 South Kitsap District Title (10) Chamorro Chinese-Cantonese 1 2 2 12 Ha;,vaiian Hindi Japanese Korean Rumanian Spanish Tagalog Vietnamese 1 41 7 67 1 27 6 7 16 South Whidbey 3 2 1 55 6 2 1 1 1 11 2 16 14 1 District Total (4) 6 Cambodian Russian Spanish Thai 2 District Total (1) 1 Spanish 1 1 2 1 23 10 Southside 58. 96 90 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Spokane Languages District Total (32) Albanian Amharic Arabic Bulgarian Byelorussian Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Chu uk Ethiopic Farsi Fijian Georgian German Haitian Creole Hindi Hmong Hungarian Japanese Korean Lao Marshallese Moldavian Punjabi Rumanian Russian Serbo-Croatian Somali Spanish Tagalog Thai Ukrainian Vietnamese Stanwood Steilacoom District Total (4) Albanian Korean Spanish Vietnamese Served District 899 StevensonCarson 7 4 4 5 4. 2 1 Sumner 1 1 1 1 38 1 2 1 5 14 4 5 11 District Total (4) Byelorussian 18 District Total (12) Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Farsi Inuktitut Italian Korean Polish Rumanian Russian Spanish Tagalog Vietnamese 1 Sunnyside District Total (5) Arabic Korean Spanish Tagalog Yakima 4 503 84 1 31 Served District Total (1) Spanish Lao Punjabi Spanish 11 11 2 2 13 76 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 57 2 3 1,211 4 1,203 2 1 1 1 Tacoma 91 55 45 1 2 41 1 District Total (13) 55 Chinese-Cantonese Dutch German Hindi Inuktitut Korean Russian Samoan Spanish Tagalog Ukrainian Unknown Vietnamese 4 Educating LEP Students in Washington State Sultan 8 Languages 1 1 1 1 11 2 6 9 2 10 1 6 97 District Total (31) Afrikaans Arabic Bulgarian Cambodian 2,029 Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Fukienese Chinese-Mandarin Czech Estonian Farsi French Hawaiian Ilokano Japanese Korean Kurdish Lao Moldavian Nigerian Portuguese Rumanian Russian Samoan 2 1 2 1 497 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 57 3 23 9 1 4 5 351 60 91 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Languages Tacoma (cont.) Somali Spanish Swahili Tagalog Thai Ukrainian Vietnamese Yoruba Tahoma District Total (10) Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Italian Korean Rumanian Russian Spanish Ukrainian Vietnamese Tenino District Total (3) Cambodian Dutch Spanish Thorp Toledo Tonasket Touchet Trout Lake Tukwila District 1 Tukwila (cont.) 532 1 15 3 112 334 1 36 1 1 1 1 3 2 5 6 9 7 21 6 2 13 District Total (1) 1 Spanish 1 District Total (1) 5 Spanish 5 District Total (1) Spanish Toppenish Served 2,417 Chinese-Cantonese Sahaptian Spanish 346 2,417 Farsi Korean Lao Samoan Spanish Tagalog Tamil Vietnamese 2 District Total (1) Spanish 42 42 Union Gap District Total (1) 3 University Place Spanish 3 District Total (36) Albanian Amharic Armenian Bosnian Bulgarian Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Educating LEP Students in Washington State 688 1 7 3 131 5 35 7 Ethiopic Farsi Fijian German Haitain Creole Hindi Hmong Ilokano Indonesian Khmer Korean Kurdish Lao Mien Oromo Pali Pashto Polish Punjabi Russian Samoan Somali Spanish Tagalog Thai Tigrinya Tongan Ukrainian Vietnamese Tumwater District Total (8) 90 90 District Total (3) Languages Served 4 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 2 2 1 1 6 17 31 14 50 280 16 6 10 2 6 25 53 1 14 1 2 15 4 1 15 District Total (1) 88 Spanish 88 District Total (14) Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Egyptian-Arabic French Italian Japanese Korean Russian Spanish 141 1 4 3 1 1 1 4 77 10 5 92 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District Univ. Place (cont.) Vancouver Languages Sudanese-Arabic Tagalog Ukrainian Vietnamese District Total (38) Albanian Amharic Arabic Armenian Bosnian Bulgarian Cambodian Chamorro Chinese-Cantonese Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Danish Estonian Ethiopic Farsi Georgian German Gujarati Hindi Japanese Korean Kru Lao Lithuanian Mien Portuguese Punjabi Rumanian Russian Serbo-Croatian Spanish Swedish Tagalog Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Vashon Island District Total (6) Bulgarian German Russian Spanish Tagalog Thai Educating LEP Students in Washington State Served District 1 Wahkiakum 1 Languages Served District Total (1) Spanish 1 District Total (2) Japanese Spanish 885 District Total (9) 630 1 21 Wahluke 11 2,121 1 884 1 Walla Walla 1 Chinese-Cantonese Chinese- Fukienese Hungarian Japanese Punjabi Russian Spanish Thai Vietnamese 5 1 47 1 28 1 7 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 607 1 5 1 Wapato 5 2 1 District Total (2) Ilokano Spanish 1,032 District Total (2) Korean Spanish 309 District Total (5) 55 18 1,014 2 Warden 3 1 11 5 16 Washougal Cambodian Hindi Korean Russian Spanish 1 10 3 3 3 5 19 1 308 2 1 1 40 11 Waterville District Total (1) Spanish Wenatchee District Total (11) Arabic 1,343 Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Chuuk Hindi Italian Russian Spanish Thai Ukrainian Vietnamese 2 887 34 34 2 737 3 4 2 2 238 1 59 13 2 1 11 1 2 1 1 13 1,308 2 1 1 1 5 3 1 99 93 Appendix D Districts Operating Programs for LEP Students District West Valley (Spokane) West Valley (Yakima) White River Languages District Total (7) Chinese-Mandarin Hmong Polish Russian Spanish Tagalog Wolof District Total (2) Korean Spanish District Total (4) Korean Polish Russian Spanish White Salmon Valley Win lock Yelm 1 31 19 1 10 89 4 85 8 1 1 2 4 Spanish 222 District Total (2) District Total (1) 1 53 4 49 36 36 District Total (15) Arabic 4,600 Cambodian Chinese-Cantonese Gujarati Japanese Korean Lao Manchu Punjabi Russian Serbo-Croatian Spanish Thai Urian Vietnamese 2 4 District Total (4) Cambodian Spanish Tagalog Thai Zillah 1 6 223 Spanish Yakima 69 District Total (2) Russian Estonian Spanish Woodland Served Spanish (all) Educating LEP Students in Washington State 9 1 1 2 2 7 3 2 3 4,556 2 2 4 36 2 32 1 1 94 I 00 94 APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ON PROGRAMS FOR LEP STUDENTS CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary, Reading and Second Language Learners: Research Report Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, April 1999. 2. How LEP Students Can Meet High Standards (Summary of School Reform and Student Diversity, Volumes I and II, U.S. Department of Education, April 1997). 3. Creating Opportunities for the Academic Success of Linguistically Diverse Students: What Does the Research Say? Prepared for OSPI by Thomas Stritikus, University of Washington and Patrick Manyak, California State University/Fullerton, November 2000. 101 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 95 Appendix E Stimmary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Reading and Second Language Learners Research Report Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction April 1999 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document provides a synthesis of the research on teaching and learning to read in English as it relates to students in U.S. public schools who speak little or no English. Focusing attention on children of primary acquisition age (the period between birth and the onset of puberty during which many researchers and theorists consider children to be natural language acquirers), this research summary addresses the following questions: What are the prerequisites that children need to meet in order to become proficient readers in English-as-a-second language? If English-language learners (ELLs) are experiencing difficulties reading in English, is it a language problem or a reading problem? What are the school, program, and classroom characteristics that support the reading development of ELLs? The following is a summary of the primary findings. For children, the acquisition of English-as-a-second language is a developmental process that is similar in many respects to the first-language acquisition process. As a developmental process, second-language acquisition cannot be rushed (although it can be facilitated through effective instructional techniques, the creation of supportive classroom environments, etc.). In fact, research has shown that even in those educational contexts most conducive to second-language acquisition, initially non-English speaking children require five to seven years to acquire a level of English proficiency that allows them to sustain academic achievement at a level equivalent to that of their native-English speaking peers. As with their first language, children learn a second language as a result of their need to communicate with others. Their emphasis, particularly during the early stages of the acquisition process, is on getting the meaning of messages across rather than on grammatical form. Because second-language acquisition is a developmental process, the linguistic "errors" made by individual ELLs are usually not random, but instead are indicative of the learner's present knowledge of English. These errors provide a picture of the child's growing language proficiency and should be used as insight into the instructional needs of the child. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 102 96 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Children acquire language naturally and, in the long run, often obtain a higher level of proficiency in a second language than adults. Over the short run, adults learn second languages more quickly than young children. Common misconceptions about the ease with which children acquire second languages are harmful when they produce expectations that are impossible for children to meet. Educators should understand that learning a second language is a process that is just as difficult for a child as it is for an adult, if not more so. The ability of an ELL to participate in seemingly effortless communication with his or her peers on the playground or in other "context-embedded" situations is often wrongly perceived as an indication of readiness for English-only instruction in the regular classroom. In fact, the language skills needed by an ELL in such situations are simplistic in terms of their linguistic and cognitive characteristics and should not be considered sufficient for effective functioning within the specialized, "context-reduced" discourse of the mainstream classroom. The completion of the first-language acquisition process among ELLs (normally occurring around the age of puberty) is of vital importance. The failure to complete this process may result in cognitive difficulties for the child as well as difficulties in acquiring a second language. Children with strong first-language skills will acquire a second-language more quickly than children with less developed first-language skills. Many of the language skills learned in the first language will transfer to the second language. Linguistic development, cognitive development, and academic development are interdependent processes and must all be supported simultaneously if educators are to succeed in developing deep levels of English proficiency among ELLs. To do this, schools should provide ELLs with cognitively complex academic instruction through their first language for as long as possible, while providing cognitively complex instruction through the second language for part of the school day. In addition, educators should employ interactive discovery learning approaches to teaching the academic curriculum through both languages. ELLs face a number of challenges in learning to read in English. Among these challenges is limited English proficiency itself, due, to the critical role English proficiency (especially vocabulary size) plays in reading comprehension. Similarly, ELLs initially lack the phonemic and phonological awareness, as well as an understanding of the alphabetic principle, requisite for learning to read in English. Another challenge involves the fact that the background knowledge that ELLs bring to the reading process is usually very different from the background knowledge presupposed in the English reading material they encounter in the classroom; such a mismatch can interfere with reading comprehension. Finally, ELLs often face sociopolitical challenges such as discontinuities between the culture of their school and that of their home in terms of educational values and expectations. Initial reading instruction should be conducted in an ELL's first language whenever possible. Many of the reading skills and strategies acquired in a student's first language can be transferred to English reading. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 103 97 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Initial reading instruction in an ELL's first language is not detrimental to the child's acquisition of English. On the contrary, initial instruction in the second language can have negative short-term and long-term impact on student achievement. Formal reading instruction in English should be delayed until a reasonable level of oral proficiency in English is acquired by the student. During this period, the ELL must be supported in acquiring the requisite "reading readiness" for English, including a sufficiently developed English vocabulary (approximately several thousand words), phonological and phonemic awareness in relation to the English language, and initial awareness of the alphabetic principle. The complex process of providing such support should be carried out while incorporating the students' background knowledge. Furthermore, this process should simulate the developmental process that native-English speakers experience while developing reading readiness at an earlier age. It is recommended that this process be implemented in an age-appropriate way through a challenging curriculum in non-threatening, enriched classroom environments. Both before and after the introduction of formal reading instruction in English, ELLs should be immersed in language learning experiences that provide optimal conditions for building the English vocabulary necessary for the domain of school. These activities should be purposeful, meaningful, challenging, contextually rich, and age appropriate. Immigrant ELLs who arrive in the United States during their teenage years need extra support to meet high school requirements. It is particularly important that these students receive instructional support through their first language or through intensive sheltered English to do grade level work in that language. Testing should emphasize how much an ELL has learned and not how much the child does not know in comparison to a native-English speaker. The standards developed for state and school district performance assessments are based on the typical performance of native-English speakers on these assessments. But because ELLs' lack of English proficiency places them at a disadvantage when taking standardized tests conducted in English, many of these students initially achieve well below this level of typical native-English speaker performance on such assessments. Because of this, while the average native-English speaking student needs to make only ten months worth of academic progress in each ten-month school year to meet these standards, these ELLs must make substantially larger yearly gains to "catch up" with their nativeEnglish speaking peers. Given this fact, assessment data reflecting such gains should be viewed as positive, irrespective of whether or not the ELL has achieved the performance standards set for native-English speakers. Recent comprehensive studies of programs serving ELLs confirm a strong positive correlation (1) between the long-term academic achievement of ELLs and the degree of instructional support these students receive in their first language and (2) between the amount of formal school ELLs experience in their first-language and the rate at which they acquire English as a second language. In contrast, several earlier studies had reported little difference between various program models (i.e., early exit bilingual, ESL, structured immersion, etc.) in terms of ELL academic achievement and English acquisition outcomes. These studies lack validity due to both their short-term perspective and their limited focus on student achievement in the early grades. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 104 98 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Programs that provide ELLs with long-term first-language instructional support (i.e., late-exit [developmental] bilingual education and two-way developmental bilingual education) have been shown to succeed in producing long-term ELL achievement in English reading and other academic areas that reaches parity with that of native-English speakers, while programs with little or no first-language support (e.g., structured immersion and early-exit [transitional] bilingual education) do not. Programs are not unitary but a complex series of components; programs that share the same nominal label can vary greatly, both in terms of these underlying components and in terms of student achievement outcomes. Therefore, a more sophisticated approach to finding effective methods of educating ELLs is to go beyond a debate over broad programmatic categories to an effort to identify those school- and classroom-level factors that support the academic achievement of these students. Research suggests that the following school- and classroom-level factors are effective in supporting the academic achievement of language-minority students: positive classroom and schoolwide climates; the use of effective grouping strategies; instructional strategies that enhance understanding; the provision of cognitively complex, on-grade-level instruction; the provision of a balanced curriculum; the provision of ample opportunities for students to practice English; school efforts to build school-home collaboration; and effective staff development. Several popular reading programs are used to instruct ELLs. Many of these lack published research data to support their effectiveness with this student population. Both Success for All and Reading Recovery have published research relative to these students. While indicators are that both these programs have been used successfully, some findings remain contentious especially with regard to Reading Recovery. 105 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 99 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students HOW LEP STUDENTS CAN MEET HIGH STANDARDS The U.S. Department of Education recently reported the results of a study that examined exemplary school reform efforts involving the education of LEP students. The study noted "lessons learned" about what helps LEP students master English while being held to high content standards. These lessons were based on an intensive analysis of eight schools that showed exemplary results in their education of LEP students. This appendix briefly summarizes these lessons.36 LEP students can and should be expected to participate in high-quality curriculum instruction and performance. It is not unreasonable to expect good academic achievement and personal development from these students. If a curriculum is properly designed for LEP students, they can learn challenging content in language arts, mathematics, and science while gaining literacy in English. Most schools tend to treat the education of LEP students as a remedial issue, assuming LEP students must learn English before they can learn the standard curriculum designed for "mainstream" students. The exemplary schools show that assumption is not warranted. A comprehensive schoolwide vision that includes high expectations for all students is essential to the success of both mainstream and LEP students. The entire school community needs to have a shared vision of high expectations, cultural recognition and validation, community involvement and commitment, openness to external partnering and research. In addition, school staff need to be empowered to be leaders, given the time and resources to learn and the freedom to adjust programs as needs change, and involve the whole community in embracing all cultures and languages. A schoolwide approach to restructuring teaching units and time enhances the teaching and learning environment for LEP students. The schools with exemplary programs worked as a team to restructure their organizations to implement their shared vision. This allowed schools to create and use innovative learning environments that worked for LEP and mainstream students. The schools organized schooling into smaller units to create a more personalized and cooperative learning setting. The schools also promoted teacher collaboration, extended the school day and year, broadened inclusive decision-making structures, and integrated social and health services into school operations. Qualified staff need to engage LEP students in meaningful, in-depth learning opportunities across subject areas. Trained teachers developed curricular and instructional strategies that put learning in context. Students worked both independently and in heterogeneous groups. The learning situations included hands-on experience and active discovery methods across subject areas. These strategies were effective as long as they were taught by trained and qualified teachers 36 For more information on the findings, conclusions, and case studies, see School Reform and Student Diversity, Volumes I and II, U.S. Department of Education, April 1997. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 106 100 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Language development strategies can be adapted to ensure LEP students have access to core curriculum while developing their English language skills. The eight case study schools all used the LEP students' primary language as a tool to deliver core curriculum instruction. Such instruction was integrated into bilingual programs that gradually transitioned the LEP students into mainstream classes. The transition from classes where instruction was delivered in the primary language to mainstream classes was carefully planned and supported with activities such as after-school tutoring. External partners can have a direct influence on improving educational programs for LEP students. All the exemplary schools used outside educational research and/or resources to meet their various needs. The partnerships brought new ideas, helped the schools apply the research, and reduced isolation. Using outside resources allowed schools to develop better curriculum, implement instructional strategies, and design effective and meaningful assessment systems. Districts play a critical role in supporting quality education for LEP students. Districts can actively support schools with LEP students by helping with teacher and aide recruitment, providing professional development opportunities, ensuring access to a high-quality curriculum for all LEP students, providing high-quality instruction materials and assessments in native languages, setting high content and performance standards, and aligning language programs across school levels. 107 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 101 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Creating Opportunities for the Academic Success of Linguistically Diverse Students: What Does the Research Say? Prepared for OSPI by Thomas Stritikus University of Washington and Patrick Manyak California State University/Fullerton November 2000 Abbreviations Used ELL ESL English language learners English-as-a-second language MBE maintenance bilingual education TBE transitional bilingual education 4.08 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 102 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper consists of a review of the current research regarding the schooling of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students. The review draws from seminal studies in the fields of second-language development, education, psychology and linguistics. It is intended to serve as a guide for those charged with program development and implementation for LEP students. The discussion in this report centers on three main topics: The effectiveness of various instructional programs for LEP students The length of stay of LEP students in various program types Factors which influence program implementation for LEP students The major findings of this report are summarized below: Effectiveness Since bilingual education programs differ widely in quality, poor programs have tended to cancel out the effects of successful programs in evaluation studies and reviews. The majority of the studies compare transitional bilingual education and submersion or largely undefined ESL programs. Less data exists to assess the effects of well-defined ESL, structured immersion, maintenance bilingual education, and two-way developmental bilingual programs. Primary-language instruction has beneficial effects in programs labeled "bilingual" and programs labeled "immersion." The use of primary-language instruction with LEP students contributes to their development of and academic achievement in English. Length of Stay LEP students require several years of support before they develop full English proficiency. Successful development of "academic English" requires cognitively demanding curriculum for LEP students. Continued development of a child's first language plays a positive role in the development of English. Program Characteristics Programs, which view students' home languages and cultures resources, have achieved successful academic results. The education of LEP students requires a school-wide commitment. Well-trained and qualified teachers play a vital role in the education of LEP students. 109 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 103 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS FOR ENGLISH-LANGUAGE LEARNERS According to the 1990 U.S. Census, 6.3 million children in the United States spoke a language other than English at home. In 1993-94, State Education Agencies reported that 7% of all U.S. schoolchildren were English-language learners and that the number of such students was increasing by 10% annually. A variety of instructional programs have been devised and implemented over the last several decades with the goal of effectively instructing this large population of linguistically diverse students. This paper reviews the results of existing research that has evaluated the academic achievement of English-language learners in relation to these instructional programs. In the following box, we identify the six types of programs that appear in this review (labels and descriptions closely follow those provided by August and Hakuta, 1997, pp. 19-20). Instructional Programs for English-Language Learners in the U.S. Submersion: Students are placed in regular English-only classrooms and are given no special instructional support. (This approach is illegal in the U.S. as a result of Supreme Court decision in Lau v. Nichols.) English as a Second. Language (ESL): No instruction in a student's primary language; ESL is taught either through pullout programs or is integrated with academic content throughout the day. Structured Immersion: Instruction conducted in English to a classroom of English-language learners. An attempt is made to adjust the level of English so that subject matter is comprehensible. Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE): Students receive some degree of instruction in their primary language for a period of time; however, the goal of the program is transition to English-only instruction as rapidly as possible (within 1-3 years). Maintenance Bilingual Education (MBE): Students receive instruction in their primary language and in English throughout the elementary school years (K-6) with the goal of developing academic proficiency in both languages. Two-Way Developmental Bilingual Programs: Language majority and language minority students are instructed together in the same program with the goal of each group achieving bilingualism and biliteracy. A Summary of Key Studies and Reviews Since the receipt of federal funding for bilingual education requires some form of program evaluation, hundreds of small-scale studies on the effectiveness of bilingual programs have been done over the last 30 years. However, since the late 1970's, a small number of national-level evaluation studies and several reviews of small-scale evaluation studies have dominated the debate about the effectiveness of instructional programs for English-language learners (ELL). While these studies and reviews represent influential scholarly efforts, they reach highly contradictory conclusions. Critics have pointed out a number of serious flaws in each project. Table 1 presents a concise summary of the studies and reviews, their main conclusions, and the significant criticisms leveled against them. Following this table, we discuss several issues raised by the studies and reviews in more detail and draw several conclusions from this discussion. 110 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 104 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Table 1 Key Studies and Reviews of Research on the Effectiveness of Instructional Programs for English-Language Learners Stud AIR (Dannoff, 1978) Baker & Dekanter (1981) Willig (1985) Scone and Method Evaluation of students in 38 federally funded SpanishEnglish bilingual programs and comparable students not in such programs. (Students were tested twice during one school year.) Review of 28 "methodologically acceptable", studies on bilingual education programs that asked whether TBE was more effective than other instructional programs. Meta-analysis of 23 of the 28 studies reviewed by Baker & Dekanter (eliminating studies done outside the U.S.). Ramirez (1992) Longitudinal comparison of over 2000 Spanish-speaking students in structured immersion, TBE, and MBE programs at nine sites. (Five had only one type of program.) Rossel & Baker Review of 72 "methodologically acceptable" studies that compare student achievement in TBE and alternative instructional programs. (1996) Conclusions Bilingual education had no consistent impact on Englishlanguage learners' academic achievement. No consistent evidence to support the superiority of TBE over alternative forms of instruction. 1) Small to moderate effects in favor of bilingual education. 2) The better the research design of a study, the more supportive its findings were of bilingual education. 1) After four years, students in structured immersion and TBE programs demonstrated comparable achievement in English. 2) Students in MBE programs showed the most growth in English reading and language skills, and math. 1) TBE was only occasionally better than submersion and ESL and never better than structured immersion. 2) TBE was worse than structured immersion with regard to English reading achievement in 83% of the cases. Critiques . 1) Lumps together a wide variety of programs under the label "bilingual education." 2) Two-thirds of the children in the "control group" had previously been in bilingual programs. 1) Inappropriate or misleading labeling of programs. 2) Double standard of methodological acceptability excludes studies favorable to bilingual education and includes those that found TBE harmful. 1) Lack of data in the studies jeopardizes the meta-analysis process. 2) Includes the same study more than once in the analysis. (A common practice in metaanalysis that may compromise the validity of the inferential statistical analysis.) 3) May control for variables that affected program outcomes. 1) Conclusions compromised by non-comparability of sites. 2) No random assignment to immersion and TBE programs within schools. 3) Excessive use of statistical methods to overcome basic design flaws. 1) Inaccurate and arbitrary labeling of programs. 2) Criteria for methodological acceptability are unclear and applied arbitrarily. 3) 90% of the studies demonstrating the superiority of "structured immersion" were interpreted by their authors as supporting bilingual education. 4) Inaccurate reporting of data from French immersion programs. . 1i Educating LEP Students in Washington State 105 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP. Students Stud August & Hakuta (1997) Scope and Method Federally funded report of research on language minority schooling that includes a review of national-level and smallerscale program evaluations. NYC Public Schools' Division of Assessment & Accountability (2000) Examined the number of years students were served in ELL programs, their longitudinal progress after exiting, and the characteristics of those who passed the English Regents exam. Texas Education Agency and Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi (2000) Review of the significant features of seven elementary school sites with successful LEP programs Conclusions Critiques 1) National-level & smallerscale evaluations suffer from methodological flaws. 2) There is evidence for the benefits of primary- language instruction in various types of programs. 3) Instead of conducting evaluations to determine one best program, research should discover sets of program components that work in particular settings. 1) Consistency of programmatic approach was an important determinant of exit rate. 2) ELL students may require special accommodations to meet the Regents English requirement for graduation. The report focuses on research in isolation from theory. Thus, it does not sufficiently consider the research support for theoretical positions that could in turn inform policy. 1) Extensive training and staff development in bilingual education was important for both teachers and administrators. 2) Effective instruction was not dependent on a specific model of bilingual education, but on instructional focus appropriate for the language and academic levels of students. 3) Parents were supportive and actively involved in the school. There was consistent teacher/parent communication. 4) Spanish and English were used as languages of instruction. Learning from the Research Although the studies and reviews described in Table 1 represent the principal scholarly attempts to address the comparative effectiveness of instructional programs for English-language learners, they clearly fail to resolve the issue. Nevertheless, taken together the research offers a number of lessons regarding the debate over bilingual education and the nature of the research that has fueled it. Building on the information presented in Table 1 and other studies of LEP programs, the following discussion draws conclusions on the effectiveness of programs serving English-language learners. Sampling. The AIR study (Dannoff, 1978) makes particularly salient the possibility for flaws in the creation of equivalent treatment and control groups necessary for program' evaluation. A majority of the students in the Educating LEP Students in Washington State 112 106 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students study's control group i.e., children who were not in bilingual programs during the year of the study had previously been in bilingual programs. As a result, it is uncertain whether these students' achievement was due to the instruction they received in English-only classrooms or to their earlier experience in bilingual programs. Therefore, as August and Hakuta (1997) conclude, "the AIR study did not compare bilingual education with no bilingual education" (p. 140). Despite this rather fatal flaw, Baker and Dekanter (1981), Willig (1985), and Rossel and Baker (1996) include the AIR study in their reviews of "methodologically acceptable" studies because it did, ostensibly, include a control group. The past educational experience of children reflects just one of the many factors that could render a control group unsuitable and jeopardize the validity of program evaluations. Since random sampling is virtually impossible in the evaluation of instructional programs for English-language learners (parents of English-language learners have choice over the type of instruction their children receive), these factors will likely continue to plague such studies. Program Labels. The reliance on program labels with little control for the vagaries of implementation in the evaluation studies and the inaccurate and arbitrary use of such labels in the research reviews critically compromise the conclusions of both types of projects. As a program evaluation, the AIR study (Dannoff, 1978) lumped together a wide variety of programs under the label "bilingual education" and made no effort to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality bilingual programs. Thus, as Gray (1977) points out, poorly designed, poorly implemented, and under-resourced programs cancelled out the positive effects of high-quality programs. The reviews undertaken by Baker and Dekanter (1981) and Rossel and Baker (1996) reveal another problem with program labeling: labels appear inaccurately and arbitrarily assigned and thus mislead readers with regard to the instructional programs that they designate. For example, Krashen (1996) and Cummins (1999) point out that the El Paso Independent School District (1987) program and the Pena-Hughes and Solis (1980) program that Rossel and Baker labeled respectively as submersion and structured immersion actually included a consistent primary-language instructional component through Grade 4. Several scholars have also pointed out Rossel and Baker's problematic inclusion of Canadian French immersion programs in the category "structured immersion" (Cummins, 1999; Dicker, 1996; Krashen, 1996). This critique represents a particularly weighty concern since, as Cummins (1999) points out, "Seven of the 10 studies that Rossel and Baker claim support structured immersion over TBE were studies of French immersion programs in Canada" (p. 29). Bilingualism is the explicit goal of the French immersion programs, which typically immerse English-speaking students in French during kindergarten and Grade 1 and then begin English language arts instruction in Grade 2. While Rossel (1996) has argued that these programs can be considered "structured immersion" up until the point that English-language instruction occurs, they are bilingual enrichment programs designed to promote bilingualism among children who speak the majority language and are members of the majority culture in Canada. The students in these programs experience what Lambert (1975) referred to as additive bilingualism. Additive bilingualism occurs when learning .a second language does not threaten the learners' native language. In contrast, subtractive bilingualism takes place when minority-language speakers learn the majority language and in the process lose proficiency in their native language. August and Hakuta (1997) cite the distinction between additive and subtractive bilingualism as an explanation of why: ...an immersion program in Canada succeeds in teaching French to English-speaking students who continue to maintain full proficiency in English and to function at a high academic level, while an immersion program to teach English to Spanish-speaking immigrants in the United States often results in both a shift to monolingualism in English and academic failure. (p. 32) Thus, Rossel and Baker's (1996) conclusion about the promise of structured immersion programs for language minority children in the U.S. is actually based on studies that offer little insight into the suitability of immersion instruction for such children. In addition, their claims were based on programs that actually involved primary-language instruction. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 113 107 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Recognizing this type of inaccurate and misleading use of program labels, August and Hakuta (1997) call for careful documentation of program implementation through classroom observation in future evaluation research. More generally, they argue for the need to consider programs according to the specific components rather than comparing programs based on imprecise labels. Based on the evidence, we concur with these conclusions and echo August and Hakuta's well-stated position: ...the key issue is not finding a program that works for all children and all localities, but rather finding a set of program components that works for the children in the community of interest, given the goals, demographics, and resources of that community. (p. 147) Lack of Data on Alternative Programs. The vast majority of the evaluation research has compared students in TBE programs with students in no program (submersion) or vaguely defined ESL programs, largely ignoring MBE and two-way developmental bilingual programs. While Ramirez (1992) included MBE programs involving 170 students from three school districts in his evaluation, only programs in one district consistently met the established criterion of 40% Spanish-language instruction throughout the study. Because Ramirez did not compare these MBE programs directly to immersion or TBE programs, the findings regarding the achievement of the students in these programs are bitterly contested. Ramirez emphasized that the growth curve for the students in the MBE program that utilized the most primary-language instruction showed "continued acceleration in the rate of growth" compared to the national norm on an English-language standardized test (p. 25). In contrast, the growth rate of the children in the immersion and TBE programs slowed as grade level increased. Ramirez concluded, "late-exit students appear to be gaining on students in the general population" (p. 25). However, critics of the study suggest that the growth patterns may indicate that the students in the MBE program fell behind peers in other programs during the early grades and thus had to catch up during later grades (Baker, 1992; Rossel, 1992). The point that we consider salient with regard to this dispute is that while the findings suggest that MBE may represent a promising instructional approach for English-language learners, there is no data that incontrovertibly substantiates its effects. Similarly, although many supporters of bilingual education consider the two-way developmental bilingual program as an ideal, there is little data available to assess this model. Mahrer and Christian (1993)"reviewed evaluation studies of two-way programs and found that many of the programs evidenced positive language development and achievement outcomes for both English-language learners and native English speakers. However, since most of the studies did not utilize a control group, they do not provide definitive evidence of the superiority of twoway bilingual programs when compared with other approaches. Longitudinal Data. Many of the evaluation studies have conducted relatively short-term assessment of children in bilingual and English-only programs, measuring achievement over a one- to two-year period. This approach appears particularly dubious in light of the limited longitudinal data available on the achievement of Englishlanguage learners. As mentioned previously, Ramirez (1992) found important differences in the growth curves of children in immersion, TBE, and MBE programs during the later elementary grades that favored the children in MBE programs. Similarly, preliminary findings from a study-in-progress analyzing achievement data from a series of 3-6 year longitudinal studies involving 24,000 language minority students indicates that children in two-way developmental bilingual and MBE programs experience a sharp increase in Englishlanguage achievement after five to seven years of schooling (Thomas & Collier, 1997). These data suggest that children in certain bilingual programs may make significant gains in English-language achievement toward the end of elementary school gains that are undetected by program evaluations focused on short-term achievement. Primary-Language Instruction. Like August and Hakuta (1997), we conclude that Willig's (1985) metaanalysis and Gersten and Woodward's (1995) analysis of the El Paso bilingual immersion programs demonstrate the beneficial effect of primary-language instruction for English-language learners regardless of whether it occurs in programs labeled bilingual or immersion. . Educating LEP Students in Washington State 114 108 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students In the following box, we succinctly state four key conclusions drawn from the preceding discussion. These conclusions reveal our conviction that existing program evaluation research suffers from a number of serious shortcomings and that by itself provides little conclusive evidence about the relative merit of the range of instructional programs designed for English-language learners. However, in order to bypass this roadblock, the next section presents an alternative perspective on research regarding the schooling of English-language learners that offers important insights into policy and practice. Conclusions Regarding Program Effectiveness for English-Language Learners Existing studies and reviews on program effectiveness for English-language learners are seriously compromised by a number of flaws, including but not limited to the following: 1) lack of random sampling; 2) inaccurate and misleading program labeling and/or widely divergent forms of implementation of similarly labeled programs; 3) lack of longitudinal data; 4) over-reliance on statistical manipulation to correct weaknesses in research design. Since bilingual education programs differ widely in quality, poor programs have tended to cancel out the effects of successful programs in evaluation studies and reviews. The majority of the studies compare TBE and submersion or largely undefined ESL programs. Less data exists to assess the effects of well-defined ESL, structured immersion, MBE, and two-way developmental bilingual programs. Primary-language instruction has evidenced beneficial effects in programs labeled "bilingual" and programs labeled "immersion." The Instruction of English-Language Learners: Research, Theory, and Policy The belief that tightly controlled program evaluations can directly inform policy decisions on the schooling of English-language learners represents a fundamental assumption underlying the research reviewed in the preceding section. Cummins (1999) calls this orientation to research the "Research-Policy" paradigm. The Research-Policy paradigm holds that "methodologically acceptable" research that carefully controls for intervening variables can compare student outcomes across programs and thus identify the program that produces superior achievement. Based on findings from such studies, policy-makers can then confidently anoint one instructional program as the best for English-language learners despite differences in settings and situations. Cummins argues that this is an unrealistic and unhelpful way to view research on language minority schooling and the relation of this research to policy. First, he points out that it has proven virtually impossible to conduct the kind of rigorously controlled studies that the Research-Policy paradigm requires. Second, he questions the premise that educational research can be translated directly into policies that apply uniformly across dissimilar settings and circumstances. Third, he suggests that the Research-Policy paradigm's narrow focus on controlled program evaluations ignores a large body of research on the instruction of Englishlanguage learners that could inform policy in important ways. After discussing these shortcomings of the Research-Policy paradigm, Cummins argues that an alternative "Research-Theory-Policy" paradigm proves more adequate for understanding the role of research in determining educational policy. The Research-TheoryPolicy paradigm assumes that "Research findings cannot be directly applied across contexts" (Cummins, 1999, p. 26). Instead, the findings from individual research studies serve to construct and test theories, which, in turn, can inform policy decisions in different settings. Table 2 summarizes the differences between the ResearchPolicy and Research-Theory-Policy paradigms. BEST COPY AVAILABLE 11.5 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 109 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Table 2 A Summary of Two Paradigms of the Relationship between Research and Policy Paradigm Research-Policy Paradigm Research-Theory-Policy Paradigm Role of Research in Determining Polic Research directly guides policy by identifying the superior program model. Research Viewed as Valuable for Polic Rigorously quantitative studies that compare outcomes of programs while controlling for all intervening variables, Research contributes to and tests theoretical principles that explain diverse phenomena. These theoretical principles inform policy All research that confirms or disconfirms theoretically generated predictions (including evaluations that compare students' progress to norms and case studies of effective programs). decisions. Strengths and/or Weaknesses 1) Rigorously controlled studies are virtually impossible to conduct. 2) Findings may not generalize across contexts. 3) Ignores a large body of relevant research. 1) Includes all relevant research. 2) Theoretical principles can be applied flexibly across contexts. 3) Requires carefully considered policy decisions that take into account different local conditions. As the preceding chart indicates, we find that the Research-Theory-Policy paradigm offers a more powerful way of interpreting educational research and applying it to policy. In the following section, we consider the evidence for three competing theories that could serve inform policy regarding the instruction of Englishlanguage learners. Three Theories Explaining the Academic Achievement of English-Language Learners Three basic theories have been offered to explain research on the language development and academic achievement of English-language learners: the "maximum exposure" theory, the "linguistic interdependence" theory, and the "spaced learning" theory. Based on the Research-Theory-Policy paradigm, we suggest that if one of these theories proves superior to the other, this theory should play a significant role in informing policy regarding the instruction of English-language learners. The maximum exposure theory holds that despite a number of intervening variables, the quantity of a learner's exposure to a language will determine his or her success in acquiring that language. Thus, more exposure to English will result in superior acquisition of and academic performance in English. In contrast, the linguistic interdependence principle argues that developing proficiency in one language promotes the development of proficiency in a second language, provided that the learner has sufficient exposure to the second language (Cummins, 1991, 1996). The spaced learning theory (Rossel, 1992; Rossel and Baker, 1996) represents an alternative to the first two opposing theories. This alternative posits the notion of diminishing returns with regard to continuous exposure to a second language in early stages of learning. Two types of data testify to the explanatory potential of the linguistic interdependence hypothesis. First, as Cummins (1999) points out, data from studies on well-implemented bilingual programs around the world consistently reveal that "Students do not lose out in their development of academic skills in the majority language despite spending a considerable amount of instructional time learning through the minority language" (p. 31). Troike (1978), Krashen and Biber (1988), and Mahrer and Christian (1993) document this kind of pattern for students in bilingual education programs in the U.S., while Cummins and Corson (1997) provide similar evidence from bilingual programs in a number of other countries. Since many of these studies lack control groups, they are ignored in discussions dominated by the Research-Policy paradigm. However, when viewed from the Research-Theory-Policy persliective, these cases provide important evidence supporting the Educating LEP Students in Washington State' 116 110 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students linguistic interdependence hypothesis. Studies aimed at discovering the relationship between reading across languages represent a second category of findings that support the notion of linguistic interdependence. For instance, studies on Spanish-speaking children in the U.S. (Durgunoglu, 1998; Durgunoglu, Nagy, HancinBhatt, 1993; Faltis, 1986) and on Turkish-speaking children in Holland (Verhoeven, 1994) confirm that children's reading skills in their primary language effectively transfer to reading in a second language. These findings demonstrate that the development of literacy in a primary language contributes to the development of literacy in a second language. While data from these sources support the linguistic interdependence theory, the maximum exposure hypothesis does not hold up well in the face of evidence from successful bilingual programs. The maximum exposure hypothesis predicts that every program utilizing primary- language instruction (thus decreasing the quantity of children's exposure to the second language) will inhibit students' achievement in the second language. Since a number of studies contradict this prediction (Cummins & Corson, 1997; Gersten & Woodward, 1995; Krashen & Biber, 1988; Troike, 1978), the maximum exposure hypothesis seems to hold little explanatory power. Rossel and Baker (1996) have introduced a third theory that seeks to explain how children in successful bilingual programs can achieve as well as or better than children in English-only programs on Englishlanguage assessments without resorting to the principle of linguistic interdependence. Having described a series of older psychological experiments that show that subjects engaged in highly repetitive tasks, such as memorizing nonsense syllables, perform better when practice is interrupted by rest, they conclude that "a constant barrage of material to learn overloads the memory process and interferes with learning" (p. 38). Rossel and Baker then suggest that this conclusion may explain the experience of language learners who are confronted with continuous instruction in the new language at early stages of acquisition. Since this continuous instruction does not allow the learners to rest "between new words" (p. 39), it may hamper their acquisition of the language. Based on this view, Rossel and Baker suggest that "bilingual education programs, because they provide a needed rest from constant exposure to the new language, can produce better learning at the early stages of learning a second language" (p. 39). We find Rossel and Baker's (1996) application of the theory of spaced learning to the research on children in bilingual education programs highly speculative. First, there is little reason to believe that findings from experiments involving tasks such as memorizing lists of nonsense syllables contribute any insight into the process of learning a second language. Rossel and Baker themselves point out that "learning a language is not exactly identical" (p. 38) to the boring, repetitive tasks used in the psychological research that. they cite. Second, the spaced learning theory simply does not address the transfer of literacy skills across languages or the achievement of children in successful bilingual programs that involve years of primary-language instruction both phenomena are well-explained by the principle of linguistic interdependence. Linguistic Interdependence and the Instruction of English-Language Learners The preceding discussion demonstrates the solid evidence supporting the principle of linguistic interdependence and the lack of support for the theories of maximum exposure and spaced learning with regard to the language acquisition and academic achievement of English-language learners. Consequently, we believe that the theoretical principle of linguistic interdependence represents an important tool for policy-makers and educators concerned with the schooling of English-language learners. While the Research-Theory-Policy paradigm does not seek to provide a definitive conclusion about a single type of instructional program that will be successful for English-language learners in all situations, the principle of linguistic interdependence does contribute the following important insights: The use of primary-language instruction with English-language learners contributes to their development of and academic achievement in English; Educating LEP Students in Washington State 117 111 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Instructing English-language learners only in English does not in and of itself result in superior achievement in English; and Children in effectively implemented bilingual programs develop language and literacy skills in two languages and benefit from the transfer of these skills across languages. While these insights do support the value of bilingual enrichment programs aimed at fostering bilingualism and biliteracy, they must be considered alongside the values, goals, and resources of local settings in order to determine the most appropriate instructional programs for English-language learners. Such an approach would foster flexible policy decisions that are informed by the best research knowledge on the linguistic and cognitive consequences of learning in two languages, and also account for the numerous context-specific factors that influence the academic success of linguistically diverse children. (See Attachment I for a discussion of the legal obligations placed upon districts by the Office of Civil Rights.) LENGTH OF STAY IN PROGRAMS As the debate over bilingual education has developed, one criterion that has been presented to assess the effectiveness of particular program types serving LEP students has been the length of time students stay in the particular programs in question. (See Attachment II for a discussion of the 1998 California law which attempts to end bilingual education.) One perspective has held that programs, which exit students at higher and faster rates, are more effective than programs in which LEP students spend more time. From a research perspective, the "faster is better" approach overlooks several important questions related to the way students develop a second language and the amount of time required to do so. In this section of the report, we review how secondlanguage development research informs the discussion regarding factors, which influence the length of stay in programs serving LEP students. The discussion will center on the following questions: How long does it take students to develop a second language? What is "academic English?" How is it relevant to LEP students' stay in programs?; and What are the characteristics of programs, which best facilitate proficiency in a second language? The Development of "Academic English:" How Long Does it Take? For many second-language learners, American schools provide the first significant contact with English (Garcia, 1999). This has raised the question of how long it takes for students to develop proficiency in English. It is a truism of first-language research that most students learn the language spoken in their homes to more or less the same degree. The apparent ease of first-language development has obscured many important facts about the complexity of the process of second-language development (McLaughlin, 1984; de Villiers & de Villiers, 1979; Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994). Several major studies in the area of second-language development have emphasized the long-term nature of the process (Cummins, 1981; Collier, 1987; Snow 1987; Thomas & Collier, 1997; Hakuta, Butler & Witt, 2000). Making the task even more difficult for LEP students is that their development of English occurs in the context of school, which requires a particularly demanding type of language usage. Colliers (1987) explains how the context of schooling confounds the difficulty of learning a second language: Immigrant students of school age who must acquire a second language in the context of schooling need to develop full proficiency in all language domains (structures and semantics of phonology, inflectional morphology, syntax, vocabulary, discourse, pragmatics, and paralinguistics) and all language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing, and metalinguistic knowledge of the language) for use in all the content areas (language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies). Language used in school is unique to that context, and it becomes increasingly complex from one grade to the next (p. 618). Educating LEP Students in Washington State 118 112 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Simply put, LEP students must not only learn the structure of their new language and how to use it a variety of situations, but also how to use it in educational situations. Knowing a language well enough to be able to participate in school contexts requires more than structural knowledge. James Cummins (1981; 1991), based upon his study of second-language development in children, developed a model introducing two distinct stages of language proficiency. The first stage involves second-language proficiency in an interpersonal level of communication (termed basic interpersonal communications, or BICS). During such communication, language is deeply embedded in context and the language learner is able to rely on nonlinguistic information such as gestures, intonation, and facial cues to facilitate understanding. The second stage involves the second-language proficiency needed for success in school (termed cognitive academic language proficiency, or CALP). Once the learner enters into the dimension of CALP, he or she needs to have mastered higher levels of vocabulary (very often technical in nature), more advanced listening skills, increased reliance on print, and decreased reliance on contextual clues (including nonverbal communication). The tasks the learner is faced with become more cognitively, academically, and linguistically challenging. This transitional developmental "moment," when second-language learners acquire CALP, is the threshold in Cummins' model. The distinction between these two types of second-language proficiency is of particular importance to LEP students' length of stay in programs. These findings suggest that oral proficiency is not a predictor of success in cognitively demanding learning situations. The findings support the research that in order to build "academic English" of the kind necessary to succeed in programs, students need multiple years of support. De Avila (1997) documents that LEP students, especially those at intermediate levels of language development, exhibit a large discrepancy between oral language development and reading and writing skills. The author documents that for LEP students who enter school in kindergarten, it is not until grade 5 that lagging reading and writing abilities merge with oral abilities. These finding suggest that removing academic support from students too early might limit their chances to fully develop the range of language skills needed to be successful in academic settings. In a study of 1,548 advantaged LEP students, Collier (1987) documented that it took between four and eight years to reach the 50th NCE on standardized tests across all subject areas. It is important to note that the students in the sample were receiving significant second-language development support and came from advantaged backgrounds in their home country. The study indicates that even when academic support and home variables are favorable, the process of fully developing a second language takes several years. Collier's findings are significant due to both the size of the sample and the range of ages within the study. Wong-Fillmore's (1983), qualitative study of four classrooms over three years, examined the language development of Cantonese and Spanish speaking kindergarten students in both bilingual and English immersion classrooms. Using extensive classroom observation data, the study found that 90% of the students had not developed the English proficiency level necessary to "handle its full use in the classroom or in text books" (p. 169). The study confirmed the finding of many of the large quantitative studies that LEP students need several years of cognitively demanding curriculum before their second language is fully developed. Using quantitative data on 1,210 immigrant students in Canada, Cummins (1981) analyzed the amount of time needed to learn English based on the age upon arrival and the length of residence in Canada. The study showed that it took five to seven years for immigrant students to approach grade level norms on cognitive-academic measures. This study made the initial distinction between "Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills" and language use that is more cognitively and academically demanding. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 113 119 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Hakuta, Butler, and Witt (2000), using recent data gathered from the San Francisco Bay Area and data collected from the Canadian studies (Cummins, 1981), examined English proficiency as a function of length of exposure to English. Examining several factors of student language development, the study concluded that English oral proficiency requires a period of three to five years, and academic English proficiency requires between four and seven years. These data make the case that even in the best case scenario, second-language development is a process that takes time. We believe that oversimplification of the process of second-language development is in part responsible for the spate of state and national proposals to provide as little as one year of academic language development for LEP students in America. Based on the conclusions of studies related to the length of time required to develop both oral and academic proficiency, we find these proposals to be inadequate in addressing the needs of the LEP students. Consequently, any policy-based discussion of the "length of stay in program" must be rooted in what we know about the time needed to develop a second language. Factors Which Influence Length of Stay Much of the early research on language development concentrated on the role that individual differences play in second-language development. This translated to school responses focusing on the "critical period" for second-language learning. The assumption existed that the younger the learner the better. However, several reviews of major research studies concluded that while a critical period exists for first-language learning, this does not apply to the learning of a second language (Bialystok and Hakuta, 1994; August and Hakuta, 1997). The Role of First-Language Development. Some evidence suggests that continued development of the first language plays a large role in contributing to successful second-language development. Collier (1987) found that LEP children in English-only settings took longer to develop grade appropriate language skills than did LEP students who began English instruction in grades 2-6. Garcia (1999) notes that an LEP students' home language is a tremendous instructional resource. The cognitively demanding task of developing a first language plays a significant role in how a second language is developed. Garcia's findings offer a way of interpreting the findings of Collier (1987). Students who are introduced to a second language before their first language is fully developed may miss out on developing the full range of cognitive skills that comes from complete firstlanguage development.. August and Hakuta (1997) concluded that children's native language proficiency is a predictor of their future English language development. Similarly, Thomas and Collier (1997) found that age of arrival is not an accurate predicator of length of stay in programs because of the significant role that formal schooling in the first language plays in second-language development. In their study, students who arrived from their home country and were placed in ESL classes between the ages of eight and 11 had significant differences in the amount of time needed for English-language development based the amount of schooling they had in their first language. Along these lines, August and Hakuta (1997) added that use of first-language instruction does not hinder English-language development. In a qualitative study of classroom practice, Wong-Fillmore & Valadez (1986) have shown that the context and nature of instructional settings for immigrant students play a large role in second-language development. They found that students often are placed in instructional settings where the emphasis is exclusively on English, limiting the opportunity for second-language learners to engage in cognitively demanding curriculum. These studies make the case that continued primary-language development, particularly in literacy and cognitively demanding content areas, can have potential long-term benefits for the development of English (Cummins, 1991; Garcia, 1988, and Wong Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). Educating LEP Students in Washington State 120 .114 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Summary The research reviewed in this report broadens the question regarding length of stay in programs serving LEP children. The report stresses that developing English is a complex developmental process that lasts several years. Major studies in the area of second-language development have documented that even under ideal language learning conditions (advantaged students, support of the home language, and cognitively demanding curriculum) the process can take up to ten years for students to fully develop an academic knowledge of English. In addition to the time of development, the studies reviewed in this report have highlighted the positive role that first-language literacy and development play in the development of a second language. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION A growing body of research has concerned itself with coming to an understanding of school-wide characteristics that shape program implementation in positive ways. This research has shifted the emphasis away from program types and labels to consideration of the characteristics of schools that contribute to exemplary teaching practices. In addition, the research related to program implementation has examined the role that teacher training and school staffing have played in the effective implementation of programs. We examine two areas of research to address the issue of program implementation and student achievement: School-wide characteristics influencing program implementation; and The role of properly trained teachers. School-wide Characteristics Research on'effective implementation of programs has highlighted the connection between students' home culture and the nature of school instruction. Both the National Council of the Teachers of English and the International Reading Association have stated that a school's orientation to a student's home language and culture was vital to successful program implementation. The notion that schools must be responsive to the needs of students and the cultural resources they bring to the classroom is highlighted in a report of the National Association of the Education of Young Children (1997): Early childhood education can best help linguistically and culturally diverse children and their families by acknowledging and responding to the importance of the child's home language and culture. Administrative support for bilingualism as a goal is necessary within the educational setting. Educational practice should focus on educating children toward the "school culture",while preserving and respecting the diversity of the home language and culture that each child brings to the early learning setting. (p. 12) Rather than program name, this analysis indicates that policy-makers must concern themselves with the culture behind particular programs and their orientation toward the students they teach. A second aspect of successful program implementation is related to school-wide commitment to the goals of successful second-language development. The length of time needed to develop a second language requires that the education of LEP students be the responsibility of the entire school. In an extensive case study of two elementary schools and one middle school, Miramontes, Nadueau and Commins (1997) detailed the process by which exemplary practices for LEP students were connected to school-wide decision-making. In studying the three schools, the authors identified basic premises for effective instruction for LEP students. Their analysis offers policy-makers guiding principles that will influence not only the length of stay in programs but also the nature of the educational experiences within the various program types. Educating LEP Students in Washington State. 115 .121 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Active learning. Knowledge is best acquired when learners actively participate in meaningful activities that are constructive in nature and appropriate to the level of development. The primary-language foundation. The more comprehensive the use of primary language, the greater the potential for linguistically diverse students to be academically successful. There are always ways to nurture the primary language regardless of school resources. Strategies for second-language development. Second-language development creates an added dimension to instructional decision-making. Instruction must reflect specific strategies designed to meet the needs of second-language learners. Contexts for second-language development. Second-language instruction must be organized to provide students with the time, experiences, and opportunities they needed to fully develop language proficiency. This requires a range of social and academic contexts in which both language and content are emphasized. Sociocultural and political implications. Sociocultural factors and political context must be considered in making decisions regarding every aspect of the program planning. Teachers as decision-makers. Teachers are decision-makers. As part of the learning community, they are all equally responsible for decisions regarding the instructional program for linguistically diverse students. The components outlined for effective programmatic implementation are based upon actual practices that worked in diverse schools with limited resources. They are based in a commitment to viewing the home language and culture of LEP students as an important instructional resource. In addition to the basic premises highlighted by the work of Miramontes et al. (1997), several studies have highlighted school-wide characteristics that facilitate the education of LEP students. While not dealing with program implementation in a narrow sense, these studies offer a framework for effective program development and implementation. In the following box, we summarize their findings. Characteristics of Effective Schools Cultural Validation. Students' home cultures and languages are viewed as instructional resources. In addition to the use of first language in instruction, effective schools supported and developed ethnic identities in students. Crosscultural understandings were built and maintained (California Tomorrow, 1995; Berman, 1992; Thomas & Collier, 1997). Shared Vision. Members of the school community shared a commitment to unified goals related to the education of LEP students. This included teachers serving as key decision-makers. The academic success of LEP students was treated as school-wide goal. All teachers in the school community felt responsible for the education of LEP students (Lucas, 1997; Berman, 1992; McLeod, 1996; U.S. Department of Education, 1998; Garcia, 1988). Protection and Extension of Instructional Time through Coordination. Schools utilized after school programs, crossage tutoring, and voluntary Saturday school in a highly coordinated fashion to pool resources to serve LEP students (Berman, 1992; McLeod, 1996). The considerable body of data related to effective schooling for LEP students makes the case that schools must not only be concerned with ensuring that children develop the English-language skill necessary for successful participation in schools, but must also consider the nature of the environment in which that learning takes place. The body of literature reviewed here makes the case that the way the school views the home language and culture of students and the nature of decision-making play significant roles in successful program implementation. In addition, these data make the case that the education of LEP students must be a schoolwide endeavor. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 122 116 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Issues Related to Teacher Training A second issue related to overall program effectiveness relates to the quality of the personnel working in the program. A growing body of research focuses attention on the role that qualified and well-trained teachers play in educational change (Hanushek, 1986, 1992). Research conducted in Tennessee found that teachers defined as "least effective" had actualized only minor gains with their students as compared to teachers defined as "most effective." A recent study commissioned by the State of Texas (2000) found that high teacher expectations played a role in student success. Teachers in the study were committed to high expectations for their students and this translated into effective practice. August and Hakuta (1997) highlight the role that teacher expectations play in students' development of a second language. Both the role of high expectations and the complexity of secondlanguage learning processes create the need for well-trained and qualified teachers. Garcia (1992) and Villegas (1991) examined teachers who were identified as "effective" by their schools and districts. The two studies identified distinct and interlocking domains related to effective teaching for LEP students. Three are summarized below. Knowledge. Credentialed teachers with specific training in multicultural and bilingual education, high degrees of content area competency, and knowledge of specific strategies for second-language development. Skills. Teaching techniques that allow students to focus on meaning, thematic instruction, instruction focused on demanding academic content, and English taught through content areas. Disposition. Teachers with a personal commitment to seeing their LEP students become high academic achievers. Research on teachers' role in academic achievement of LEP students makes a clear case that LEP students need access to properly qualified, highly skilled teachers. The teaching of LEP students has for too long been relegated to uncredentialed teaching assistants. In the face of the research evidence supporting the need for properly trained and highly qualified professionals, it is our conclusion that this trend clearly limits the potential academic success of future generations of students. 123 Educating LEP Students in Washington State;, 117 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students ATTACHMENT I Office of Civil Rights Guidelines for Programs. Serving English-Language Learners To be in accordance with the OCR, districts' ELL programs must include the following components: The district's educational theory and goals for its program of services; The district's methods for identifying and assessing the students to be included in the district's ELL program; The specific components of the district's program of English language development and academic services for ELL students; The specific staffing and other resources to be provided to ELL students under the district's ELL program; The district's method and procedures for transitioning and/or exiting students from its ELL program, and for monitoring their success afterward; The district's method for evaluating the effectiveness of its program for ELL students. 1 24 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 118 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students ATTACHMENT II California's Proposition 227 Proposition 227, known by its proponents as the "English for the Children" initiative, passed with a 61% majority of California voters on June 2, 1998. The initiative was an example of "people making law," written in response to apparent widespread discontent with the state's policies regarding the education of Englishlanguage learners in public schools. The passage of Proposition 227 marked a significant event in California's educational history. Never before had the voting public been asked to vote on a specific educational strategy. Curriculum and programmatic decisions for students have generally been the responsibility of the education community. Proposition 227 marked a reversal of this trend. Gandara, et al., (2000) argue that because of this, the law was opposed by every major educational association in the state. The intent of the Proposition was to end bilingual education. Specifically, the law required that "All children in California public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English" (California Education Code, Chapter 3, Article I. Section 305). The law represents the latest policy move in a long and often contentious debate surrounding bilingual education. California, one of the first states to enact a comprehensive bilingual education bill, has been at the center of that debate. Following the historic Lau vs. Nichols (1974) Supreme Court decision requiring schools to take affirmative steps to ensure the meaningful participation of English learners, the Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bicultural Act of 1976 was passed. It declared that "the primary goal of all programs under this article [was], as effectively and efficiently as possible, to develop in each child fluency in English" (California Education Code, 1976, Section 52161), while at the same time ensuring that they had access to the core curriculum. The law established that the preferred manner for doing so was the primary-language instruction. Rumberger and Gandara (2000) argue that because of the controversy surrounding the preference toward primary-language instruction, no policy action was taken to provide certified bilingual teachers for all English learners. In 1998, only one-third of California's 1.5 million English learner students were in classrooms taught by teachers who held the Bilingual Crosscultural, Language and Academic Development (B-CLAD) credential. Gandara, et al., (2000) stress this point as a crucial part of exposing some of the faulty logic behind Proposition 227: Proponents of Proposition 227 contend that bilingual education had failed as a pedagogical strategy and should be abounded. Evidence for its failure was found in the continuing underachievement of English learners and the low rate that English learners were reclassified as Fluent English Proficient. Yet, the fact was, less than one-third of all English learners were enrolled in a bilingual program prior to the passage of Proposition 227, so their poor academic achievement could not be attributed to these programs (Gandara, et al., 2000, p. 5). Although such information was made available to the California electorate, Proposition 227 passed. The assumption underlying the initiative was that teaching children in their native language served only to hold them back in their acquisition of English and therefore in their future success. Upon its passage, Proposition 227 became a part of the California Education Code (#300-340). As required within its text, districts throughout the state were given only 60 days for implementation. Under this new education code, children entering California Public Schools with very little English must be "observed" for a period of 30 calendar days. Generally this observation period occurs in an English-language classroom (Gandara, et al., 2000). After 30 days, school personnel must decide if children have enough fluency in English to manage in a mainstream English classroom. If not, they are eligible to receive one year of "Sheltered English Immersion," also referred to as "Structured English Immersion." A program of English language Educating LEP Students in Washington State 125 119 Appendix E *. Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students instruction not described in detail in the law except for the requirement that instruction be "nearly all" in English (with the definition for the term "nearly all" left up to the district's discretion). After one year, children are normally expected to integrate into mainstream English classrooms, where instruction is required to be "overwhelmingly" in English. If parents or legal guardians find that district or school personnel, including classroom teachers, "willfully and repeatedly refuse" to provide English instruction as required, they have the right to sue for damages. Thus, in order to avoid legal liability it was necessary for teachers and district personal to understand and to implement the law fully. Given the ambiguity of many of the law's provisions, the threat of legal sanction created a great sense of insecurity with many district and school personnel across the state (Stritikus & Garcia, in press). The only legal alternative to Sheltered English Immersion and/or mainstream English classrooms is the parental waiver process. According to the new law, children who have special language needs, or whose parents specifically request it, can be placed in "Alternative Programs," most likely some form of bilingual program which includes instruction in the child's primary language. In order for a child to be enrolled in an Alternative Program, the parent or guardian must visit the school annually and sign a waiver requesting the placement. However, the first year a child enters California schools she must go through 30 days of "observation," generally conducted in English language classrooms, even if she has a signed waiver. Once the 30 days is completed, the child can enroll in an Alternative Program. Despite its attempt to prescribe a uniform solution for the education of linguistically and culturally diverse students across the state, the law's impact on educational services for language minority students has varied widely from district to district, school to school, and in some cases classroom to classroom. Garcia, CurryRodriguez, & Stritikus (in press) report that some districts across the state have used the waiver clause of the law to pursue district wide waivers, others have implemented the English Only provisions of the law, and a third group has left the primary decisions up to individual schools. Districts with longstanding histories of bilingual programs were more likely to pursue parental waivers in order to maintain their existing programs than were districts with weaker primary-language programs (Gandara, et al., 2000; Garcia, et al., in press). The Gandara, et al. study of the initial implementation of Proposition 227 in 22 schools in California found that the new law and the statewide emphasis on high stakes assessment caused teachers to shift their focus from broader meaning based literacy activities such as story telling and reading-for meaning, to skill-based literacy activities to be tested on the statewide assessment. In classrooms observed in the study, literacy instruction became more reductive and narrow in scope. Language and literacy were rarely used as tools in overall academic development. Heavy emphasis was placed on decoding and oral development. Making Sense of Test Data Several national newspapers including The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times ran stories in the days following the release of California's SAT-9 scores. A headline on the front page of The New York Times read, "Increase in Test Scores Counters Dire Forecasts of Bilingual Ban" (The New York Times, 2000, August 20). Bilingual education has taken a front and center position in national discourse. As an excerpt from the Mercury News indicates, the examination of the influence of Proposition 227 has focused on rising test scores. Student performance on the SAT-9, a test considered by many test experts to be an inaccurate and inappropriate measure of culturally and linguistically diverse students' academic achievement (Garcia, 2000), has become the yardstick by which the success of Proposition 227 is being measured. Further analysis of the test data raises some important critiques about the accuracy of such claims. Analysis of statewide scores by Hakuta and his colleagues (2000) revealed the following problems with the claim regarding the success of Proposition 227 based on test scores: Educating LEP Students in Washington State. 126 120 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students SAT-9 scores increased just as much in some school districts that retained bilingual education. SAT-9 scores increased in school districts that never had bilingual education, and therefore were not impacted by Proposition 227. SAT-9 scores rose for both LEP students and native English speakers. In fact, the rise for native English speakers from poor performing schools was dramatic and larger than for LEP students The analysis of test scores and the influences that Proposition 227 had on teachers, and classroom practice through the implementation of the law indicates that Proposition 227 is not the "magic bullet" for the education of LEP students. Educating LEP Students in Washington State- 127 121 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students ATTACHMENT III References August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schools for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Baker, K. (1992). Ramirez, et al.: Led by bad theory. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 91-104. Baker, K. & Dekanter, A. (1981). Effectiveness of bilingual education: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Berman, P. (1992). Meeting the challenge of language diversity: An evaluation of California programs for pupils with limited proficiency in English. Presented at American Educational Research Association. Bialystok, E. & Hakuta, K. (1994). In other words. New York: Basic Books. California Tomorrow. (1995). The unfinished journey: Restructuring schools in a diverse society. San Francisco, CA: Author. Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641. Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second-language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 132-149. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press Inc. Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario, CA: CABE. Cummins, J. (1999). Alternative paradigms in bilingual education research: Does theory have a place. Educational Researcher, 28, 26-32. Cummins, J. & Corson, D. (Eds). (1997). Bilingual education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dannoff, M. (1978). Evaluation of the impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish-English bilingual education programs. Technical Report. Washington DC: American Institutes for Research. De Avila, E. (1997). Setting expected gains for non and limited English Proficient students. NCBE Resource Collection Series (8). de Villers, P.A. & de Villiers, J.G. (1979). Early language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Edikating LEP Students in Washington State 32.8 122 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Dicker, S. (1996). RTE Forum: Letters from readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 373-376. Durgunoglu, A. (1998). Acquiring literacy in English and Spanish in the United States. In A. Durgunoglu & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Literacy development in a multilingual context. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Durgunoglu, A., Nagy, W., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psycholo.y, 85, 453-465. El Paso Independent School District. (1987). Interim report of the five-year bilingual education pilot 19861987 school year. El Paso, TX: Office for Research and Evaluation. Faltis, C. (1986). Initial cross-linguistic reading transfer in bilingual second grade classrooms. In E. Garcia, & B. Flores, (Eds.), Language and literacy research in bilingual education (pp. 145-158). Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., Garcia, E., Asato, J., Gutierrez, K., Stritikus, T., & Curry, J. (2000). The Initial Impact of Proposition 227 on the Instruction of English Learners. Santa Barbara, CA: Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Available on the www at uclmrinet.ucsb.edu. Garcia, E. (1988). Effective schooling for language minority students (NCBE Focus: Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education No. 1) (Online). Washington, DC: The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Available: http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/classics/effective.html. Garcia, E. (1992). Effective instruction for language minority students: The teacher. Journal of Education, 173 (2), 130-141. Garcia, E. (1999). Understanding and meeting the challenge of student cultural diversity. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Garcia, E. (2000). API test is an injustice to students with limited English. San Francisco Chronicle, January 31, guest editorial, Section A, 19. Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1995). A longitudinal study of transitional and immersion bilingual education programs in one district. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 223-239. Gray, T. (1977). Response to AIR study "Evaluation of the impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish/English bilingual education program." Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Hakuta, K., Butler, Y.G., & Witt, D. (2000) How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy Report. http://www.lmri.ucsb.edu/RESDISS/hakuta.pdf Hanushek, E.A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of economic literature, XXIV, 1141-1177. Hanushek, E.A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of political economy,1992. Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. Educating LEP Students in Washington State 129 123 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Krashen, S., & Biber, D. (1988). On course: Bilingual education's success in California. Sacramento, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Lambert, W. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A. Wolfgang, (Ed.), Education of immigrant students (pp. 55-83). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S. Ct. 786, 39 L. Ed. 2d1 1974. Lucas, T. (1997). Into, through, and beyond secondary school: Critical transitions for immigrant youths. The National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching. Teachers College, NY: Columbia University. Mahrer, C., & Christian, D. (1993). A review of findings from two-way bilingual education evaluation reports. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second-language acquisition in childhood: Vol. 1 Preschool children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLeod, B. (1996). School reform and student diversity: Exemplary schooling for language minority students. Washington, George Washington University: Institute for the Study of Language and Education. Miramontes, 0., Nadeau, A., & Commins, N. (1997). Linguistic diversity and effective school reform: A process for decision making. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1997). Leadership in early age and education. Washington, D.C.: Authors. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1994). Mini-digest of educational statistics 1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1999). The NAEP 1998 reading report card. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. New York City Board of Education (2000). ELL subcommittee research studies progress report. Prepared by the New York Public Schools Division of Assessment and Accountability. http: / /www.nycenet.edu /daa/ reports /ELL_Research_Studies.pdf Pena-Hughes, E., & Solis, J. (1980). ABCs. Unpublished report. McAllen Independent School District. Ramirez, D. (1992). Executive summary. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 1-62. Rossel, C. (1992). Nothing matters? A critique of the Ramirez longitudinal study of instructional programs for language-minority children. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 159-186. Rossel, C. (1996). RTE Forum: Letters from readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 376-385. Rossel, C., & Baker, K. (1996). The effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 7-74. 130 Educating LEP Students in Washington State "1 124 Appendix E Summary of Research on Programs for LEP Students Rumberger, R. and Gandara, P. (2000). The schooling of English learners. In G. Hayward and E. Burr (Eds.) Conditions of Education 2000. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. Snow, C.E. (1987). Beyond conversation: Second-language learners' acquisition of description and explanation. In J.P. Lantlof & A. Labarca (Eds.), Research in second-language learning: Focus on the classroom (pp. 3-16). Norwood: NJ, Ablex. Stritikus, T., & Garcia, E. (ippress). Education of limited English proficient students in California schools: An assessment of the influence of Proposition 227 on selected teachers and classrooms. The Bilingual Research Journal. Texas Education Agency. (2000). The Texas successful school study: Quality education for limited English proficient students. Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language-minority children. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Troike, R. (1978). Research evidence for the effectiveness of bilingual education. NABE Journal, 3, 12-24. United States Department of Education. (1998). No more excuses: Final report of US Hispanic dropout project. Washington, DC: Author. Verhoeven, L. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development. Language Learning, 44, 381-415. Villegas, A. M. (1991). Culturally responsive pedagogy for the1990's and beyond. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55(3), 269-317. Wong-Fillmore, L. (1983). The language learner as an individual: Implications of research on individual differences for the ESL teacher. In M. Clarke & J.Handscome (eds.), in TESOL '82. Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Wong Fillmore, L. and Valadez, C. (1986). Teaching bilingual learners. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 648-685). New York: Macmillan. 131 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 125 APPENDIX F END OF YEAR REPORT FORM SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 Educating LEP Students in Washington State 132 126 ESD Co is OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Special Populations Old Capitol Bldg., PO BOX 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200 (360) 864-0655 or TOD (360) 684-3631 1999-00 TRANSITIONAL BILINGUAL INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM END-OF-YEAR REPORT TRANSMITTAL SHEET District Name Name and Position of Person on Record to Complete Report Telephone Number ) The signature below is an assurance that Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program (TBIP) guidelines have been followed in collecting and reporting the data submitted for this report. Signature Date Please report the number of different buildings by level in which a TBIP was operated. Number of Buildings Grades Served Elementary Building Jr. High/Middle-Level Building High School Building Other (please indicate grade span) RETURN ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY OF THIS COMPLETED REPORT NO LATER THAN AUGUST 2. 2000, TO: HELEN MALAGON SUPERVISOR, BILINGUAL EDUCATION OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OLD CAPITOL BUILDING PO BOX 47200 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7200 133 FORM SPI 1051E (Rev 6/00) CoDist ESD Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program I 1 I SECTION ISTUDENTS SERVED Report the total number of students served in bilingual programs funded by TBIP funds during the time period of July 1, 1999, through June 30,2000. These figures are unduplicated counts. Each participant is counted only once regardless of the number of days of service, number of subjects, or number of times the student enters or leaves the program. Please check your entries carefully, the totals for A, B, and C (section C is on pages 3-7, the final total is on page 7) must be equal. For each grade level, in section A report the number of students who were new to the TBIP this year, and in section C (pages 3-7) report the number of students new to the TBIP by language code. A. Total number of students served by grade and gender., Number New* to Program Number Served Grade Male Female Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded Total Number of students served by time span in the TBIP. B. Number Served Time Span 1. 1-180 days (1 year or less) 2. 181-360 days (more than 1, up to 2 years) 3. 361-540 days (more than 2, up to 3 years) 4. 541-720 days (more than 3, up to 4 years) 5. 721-900 days (more than 4, up to 5 years) 6. More than 5 years Total The totals for A, B, and C must be equal (Note: Final total for C can be found on page 7) * New means the first time served in program in Washington. 134 FORM SPI,1051E (Rev 6/00) Page 2 ESD CoDist Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program SECTION ISTUDENTS SERVED (Continued) C. Number of Students Served by Primary Language Background 1999-00 Number Served Code 344 094 284 018 037 113 103 203 205 024 321 345 098 281 285 311 081 105 112 237 516 021 265 041 236 197 139 158 215 267 025 325 043 509 443 254 510 026 181 161 013 029 032 303 155 019 165 144 123 315 031 Number New to Program Participants: number served beyond 3 years Estimated # to be served in the 2000-2001 school year Estimated # of students to be served in excess of three years in 2000-2001 Acholi Afrikaans Akan Albanian Arabic Amharic Armenian Aymara Ayula-Bambara Azerbaijani Balinese Bamana Bambara Bantu Bashkir Bassa Bemba Bengali Berber Bikol Bosnian Bulgarian Buriat Burmese Byelorussian Cakchiquel Cambodian Cebuano Chagatai Chamorro Cheremis Chewa Chinese-Cantonese Chinese- Fukienese Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Taiwanese Chungki Chuvash Coptic Cornish Czech Danish Dutch Efik Egyptian-Arabic Estonian Ethiopic Ewe Farsi Fijian Finnish FORM SPI 1051E (Rev 6/00) 135 Page 3 Co ESD Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program I I SECTION ISTUDENTS SERVED (Continued) C. Number of Students Served by Primary Language Background 1999-00 Number Served Code 034 002 096 342 308 115 004 009 136 147 077 011 337 238 039 346 183 015 082 062 100 192 048 064 005 042 044 294 511 242 128 250 319 208 326 347 132 302 122 332 047 260 148 218 259 074 222 054 020 186 056 Number New to Program Participants: number served beyond 3 years Estimated # to be served in the 2000-2001 school year Estimated # of students to be served in excess of three years in 2000-2001 Flemish French Fula Fulfulde Ge-Kayapo Georgian German Greek, Modern Gujarati Haitian Creole Hausa Hebrew, Modem Herero Hiligaynon Hindi Hmong Hokkien Hungarian Ibo Icelandic (Old) Igbo Ilokano Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Judezmo Kakwa Kamba Kannada Kashmiri Kazakh Khalkha Khmer Kikamba Kikuyu Kinyarwanda Kirgiz Kongo Korean Kpelle Krio Kru Kumeyaay Kurdish Lao Lapp Latvian Lingala Lithuanian FORM SPI 1051E (Rev 6/00) 136 Page 4 ESD Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program SECTION ISTUDENTS SERVED (Continued) C. Number of Students Served by Primary Language Background 1999-00 Number Served Code 129 111 274 275 504 276 277 189 137 168 187 256 071 322 512 199 117 296 264 506 513 049 050 248 320 057 316 030 273 266 078 162 088 175 269 297 289 016 091 170 514 127 036 503 185 012 006 343 505 502 172 Luchuan Luganda Luhya Luo Makah Makonde Makua Malay Malayalam Manchu Mandingo Maori Marathi Marquesan Marshallese Maya-Quiche Mende Meru Michif Mien Moldavian Mongolian Mordvin Mundu Nanai Nepali Niuean Norwegian Nyanja Oromo Osmanli Pahlavi Pali Papago Pashto Pedi Pima Polish Portuguese Provencal Pulau-Guai Punjabi Quechua Quileute Romansch Rumanian Russian Rwanda Sahaptian Salish Samoan FORM SPI 1051E (Rev 6/00) Number New to Program Participants: number served beyond 3 years 137 Estimated # to be served in the 2000-2001 school year Estimated # of students to be served in excess of three years in 2000-2001 Page 5 ESD Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program Col;M I SECTION ISTUDENTS SERVED (Continued) C. Number of Students Served by Primary Language Background 1999-00 Number Served Code 040 014 163 270 090 193 130 271 201 220 101 003 291 221 145 086 028 087 305 278 072 089 287 279 045 051 507 070 106 515 085 119 053 166 097 230 017 080 204 079 046 146 095 501 280 084 286 Number New to Program Participants: number served beyond 3 years Estimated # to be served in the 2000-2001 school year Estimated # of students to be served in excess of three years in 2000-2001 Sanskrit Serbo-Croatian Shona Sindhi Sinhalese Slovak Slovenian Sogdian Somali Sonrai Sotho Spanish Stoney Sudanese-Arabic Susu Swahili Swedish Tagalog Tajiki Tamazight Tamil Telugu Temne Teso Thai Tibetan Tigrinya Tocharian Tongan Trukese Tswana Turkic Turkish Tuvin Twi Uigur Ukrainian Urdu Urian Uzbek Vietnamese Wolof Xhosa Yakima Yao Yoruba Zezeru 138 FORM SPI 1051E (Rev 6/00) Page 6 Co ist ESD Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program 1 SECTION ISTUDENTS SERVED (Continued) C. Number of Students Served by Primary Language Background 1999-00 Participants: Number Served Code Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Number New number served to Program beyond 3 years Estimated # to be served in the 2000-2001 school year Estimated # of students to be served in excess of three years in 2000-2001 Total All, Pages 3-7 The totals for A, B, and C must be equal (Note: Totals for A and B can be found on page 2) Check Totals Number Served Number New To Program Total A (pg 2) Total B (pg 2) Total C (above) Are the numbers in each column the same? Yes (continue on to page 8) No (review and correct data) 139 FORM SPI 1051E (Rev 6/00) Page 7 ESD Co Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program SECTION IIPROGRAM STAFF A. (Teachers) For all teachers providing direct instructional services to students in the TBIP, complete the following information. Column 1: Indicate the total number of bilingual-funded teachers employed in the district, regardless of the amount of time they work. Column 2: Column 3: Column 4: Indicate the total number of the teachers from Column 1 who have an ESL endorsement. Indicate the total number of the teachers from Column 1 who have a bilingual endorsement. Indicate the total number of district supported inservice clock hours, paid for by the TBIP, for ESUbilingual education that teachers from Column 1 received during the time period from July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. Column 5: Indicate the total number of district-supported inservice clock hours for multicultural education, paid for by the TBIP, that teachers from Column 1 received during the time period from July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. Column 6: Indicate the total bilingual-funded teacher FTE. (2) (1) TBIP Funded Total Teachers (Head Count)* Number of Teachers From Column 1 Who Are ESL Endorsed (3) (4) (5) (6) Number of Teachers From Column 1 Who Are Bilingual Endorsed Total hours of Inservice Training in ESL/bilingual the Teachers in This Program Received Total hours of District Supported Inservice in Mulitcultural Teachers in This Program Received TBIP Total Teacher FTE (Instructional Assistants) B. For all instructional assistants providing direct instructional services to students in the TBIP, complete the following information. Column 1: Indicate the total number of bilingual-funded instructional assistants employed in the district, regardless of the amount of time they work. Column 2: Indicate the total number of bilingual-funded instructional assistants from Column 1 who are working toward a degree. Column 3: Indicate the total number of district supported inservice clock hours, paid for by the TBIP, for ESUbilingual education that instructional assistants from Column 1 received during the time period from July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. Column 4: Indicate the total number of district-supported inservice clock hours for multicultural education, paid for by the TBIP, that instructional assistants from Column 1 received during the time period from July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. Column 5: Indicate the total bilingual-funded instructional assistant FTE. (1) Total TBIP Funded Instructional Assistant (Head Count)* (2) Total Number of Instructional Assistants From Column 1 Working Toward a Degree (3) (4) Total hours of Inservice Training in ESL/bilingual Instructional Assistants in This Program Received Total hours of District Supported Inservice in Mulitcultural Instructional Assistants in This Program Received (5) Total TBIP Instructional Assistant FTE Include only those persons who have direct instructional contact with students in the TBIP. Do not include building or district staff who have general administrative (i.e., rioninstructional) responsibilities. FORM SPI 1051E (Rev 6/00) 140 Page 8 in [ft Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program SECTION IIIPROGRAM DESCRIPTION A. For each instructional focus, For each service delivery, indicate the total number of students served from July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. indicate the total number of students served from July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. Service Delivery Code** Instructional Focus Code* (1) (2) (3) Total Served * (4) (1) (5) (2) (3) (4) (6) (5) Total Served Instructional Focus Codes 1. Primary Language Development: Language development in both English and the primary language of the student is the focus of the program. The goal is to enable the student to become academically and socially fluent in both languages. 2. Academic Language Development: Academic skills and literacy are provided in the primary language with additional intensive English-as-a-second language (ESL) instruction. When the student reaches moderate English reading competency, academic instruction in the primary language is discontinued. 3. Limited Assistance in the Primary Language: Intensive ESL instruction is provided with additional basic skills and literacy offered in English and with limited assistance in the primary language. This may include academic tutoring provided by noncertificated personnel, translations, interpretations, etc. 4. No Primary Language Support: The student is provided with intensive ESL and may receive other special instructional services which enable the student to participate in regular all-English classrooms. 5. Alternative Instructional Program. ** Service Delivery Codes 1. Self-Contained Classroom: Eligible students are assigned to a bilingual classroom which offers instruction in English reading/language arts appropriate for the student's level of English competency and, in some cases, academic instruction in the primary language. The bilingual reading/language arts program is parallel to the program offered in mainstream regular classes. 2. Center Approach: Non-English speaking students are assigned for a large portion of the school day to a bilingual center offering intensive English language development and, in some cases, academic instruction in the primary language. Students participate in the regular school program only in those classes not requiring a great deal of English language interaction. 3. In-Classroom: Eligible students who have attained some English language proficiency are provided, within the context of the regular mainstream classrooms, with ESL instruction by a specialized instructor and, in some cases, with academic instruction in the primary language. 4. Pull-Out: Eligible students are taken out of mainstream classrooms for ESL and, in some cases, for regular academic instruction in the primary language. Instruction is delivered in small groups or on an individual basis. 5. Tutoring: Eligible students are provided with a bilingual tutor who assists individuals or small groups in completing class assignments or provides limited assistance in ESL. 6. Other 141 FORM SPI 1051E (Rev 6/00) Page 9 ESD Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program CoDist SECTION III - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION (continued) Students who have left the TBIPtransitioned and nontransitioned. B. A transitioned (exited) student is one who has met state and local bilingual program exit criteria and is presumed able to function successfully in a regular, all-English classroom setting. Please report, by the number of days enrolled and the grade-level span at exit, the number of students who were transitioned between July 1,1999, and June 30,2000. Jnclude all students who graduated from high school. Note that students who are promoted to the next grade but are still enrolled in the bilingual program have NOT been transitioned. ri Check here if no students were transitioned or graduated from high school from July 1,1999, through June 30,2000. Do not complete any additional information below. Number of Students Transitioned and Graduated by Grade Span Overall Days Served in Bilingual Program in the State of Washington 1. Grade K Grades 1-4 Grades 5-8 Grades 9-12 1-180 days (1 year or less) 2. 181-360 days (more than 1, up to 2 years) 3. 361-540 days (more than 2, up to 3 years) 4.541-720 days (more than 3, up to 4 years) 5. 721-900 days (more than 4, up to 5 years) 6. More than 5 years Total number of Transitioned and Graduated students. Note: This total must be equal to the total number of students reported as transitioned and graduated in item 2 of page 11. Total Transitioned/Graduated Total-pg 10 Item2-pg 11 These totals MUST, be equal X42 FORM SPI 1051E (Rev 6/00) Page 10 ESD Co Dist Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program SECTION IVADDENDUM 1. Please provide a count of all students served in the TBIP (from Section I.C.) who were also served in each of the following federal, state, or local programs (students may be reported more than once.) Number Served Program Title I Title I Migrant Education Program Special Education, Federal or State Learning Assistance Program (LAP) 2. Please indicate the status of all students served in the TBIP during the 1999-00 school year. Number Served Status of Students Served Graduated* Transitioned* This total must be equal to the total reported in B Dropped Out on page 10* Continuing in ProgramRetained Continuing in ProgramPromoted Left for Unknown Reasons . Left for Other Reasons Total Number of Students Served (This total must be the same as the totals reported on pages 2 and 7.) Total Transitioned/Graduated Total-pg 10 Item2-pg 11 These totals MUST, be equal 3. Of the students reported as new to the program this year (A. on page 2), how many students in middle and high school had no prior formal education? Grade Number New to Program With no Prior Formal Education 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 143 FORM SPI 1051E (Rev 6/00) Page 11 U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OEM) National library of Education (N11) Educational Resources Informatibn Center (8c) NOTICE REPRODUCTION BASIS. This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a "Specific Document" Release form. This document is Federally-ftmded, or carries its own permdssion to reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domai:a and, therefore, may be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release. form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket'). EFF-O9 (9/97) (AD Educating Limited-English-Proficient U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Students in Washington State 61( This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY B.1" PA-ties-son WiAsttiitIoL) n %IN% c, tt.S.perietima TO THE E CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1 N 7t1 Cr) CD Dr. Terry Bergeson December 2000 State Superintendent of Public Instruction BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2 About This Document This document can be obtained by placing an order on our Web site (www.k12.wa.us); by writing the Resource Center, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, PO Box 47200, Olympia, WA 98504-7200; or by calling the Resource Center toll-free at (888) 595-3276. If requesting more than one copy, contact the Resource Center to determine if printing and shipping charges apply. This material is available in alternative format upon request. Contact the Resource Center at (888) 595-3276, TTY (360) 664-3631, or e-mail erickson @ospi.wednet.edu. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction complies with all federal and state rules and regulations and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, or marital status. For more information about the contents of this document, please contact: Helen Malagon, Supervisor Bilingual Education Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction PO BOX 47200 Olympia, WA 98504-7200 E-mail: hmalagon @ospi.wednet.edu The contents of this document can be reproduced without permission. Funding for this project was provided by the Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program, a state-funded program. Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Pete Bylsma, Director of Research and Evaluation. Many other staff at the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction helped prepare this document, including Debora Merle, Lisa Ireland, Tani Schwent, Sherrie Keller, Helen Malagon, Richard Gomez, Steve Shish, and Mike Dooley. The review of research related to length of stay and program effectiveness issues was conducted by Thomas Stritikus from the University of Washington and Patrick Manyak from California State University/Fullerton. Staff in 46 districts provided student-level data on LEP students in certain grades. 3

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Educating Limited-English-Proficient Students in Washington State

Educating Limited-English-Proficient Students in Washington State

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS