Anne Whiteside City College of San Francisco (San Francisco State University) awhitesi@ccsf

1. Adult immigrant language education in California: policy, politics & the role of practitioner research, a case in point Anne Whiteside City College of San Francisco (San Francisco State University) awhitesi@ccsf.edu Kings’ College November 2, 2011

2. Grassroots language planning “Language Planning from the Bottom up” Nancy Hornberger (1996)“Indigenous Literacies in the Americas:Language Planning from the Bottom up”Contributions to the Sociology of Language, 75. Mouton de Gruyter • Educating policymakers: representing practice issues at the policy level, advocacy • Educating/empowering practitioners

3. Outline • General US context for immigration • Socio-economic changes & globalization 2. California: the Sociolinguistic context • Immigration to California: some demographics • Reception of immigrants at 3 levels: policy, politics, communities 3. Practitioner Research: the CCSF ESL Study • Study rationale, design, data collection findings • What we learned in the process • Future directions 4. General discussion: advocacy/pragmatic issues

4. Part 1. US contextSocio-economic change and globalization • Post-industrial economy: loss of manufacturing jobs • Growth of professional, business sector/ low skilled labor/service sector • Increased income disparity

5. Foreign-born in US at historic high 40,000,000 FB 12.9% of US population Growth in immigration: 1990-2000= +57.45% 2000-2010= +28.4% Highest growth states: S. Carolina (88.4%) Tennessee (81.8%) Arkansas (78.7%) Kentucky (75.1%) Source: 2010 American Community Survey (ACS)

6. Globalization & the informal economy: To stay competitive internationally • cheap labor • reliance on undocumented immigrants

7. Undocumented/unauthorized immigrant pop. Pew Hispanic Center estimates US: (in millions) • 2000: 8.4 • 2007: 12 • 2009: 11.1 • (28% of foreign born)

8. US: major events & immigration policy NAFTA 1993 • Increased regional interdependence btw Mexico, US, Canada, • flow of Information/human & economic capital Sept. 11, 2001 • Emphasis on security and control INS(Immigration and Naturalization Service) becomes ICE(Immigration Control Enforcement) Under the Department of Homeland Security

9. Whole US:National origins of immigrants 2009

10. Part 2. CaliforniaNational origins of immigrants in California: 2009

11. Immigration to CAIncrease despite tighter controlsSource: MPI fact sheet

12. California: Foreign-born &legal status • btw 2.5-2.7 million undocumented • 9.3% of labor force 2007 to 2009: declined by 8%

13. Foreign-born in California& schooling 2008 Immigrants accounted for: • 30.1 % of college-educated workers age 25+ • 78.8% of civilian employed workers with no high school degree • Source MPI fact sheet

14. California is multilingual! California Foreign-born &language: Source MPI American Community Survey 2009, 1990,2000 census

15. Linguistic assimilation: Alba 2005 • Bilingualism more common than in the past • most children of immigrants speak L1 at home, particularly children of Latin American immigrants (L1 Spanish)

16. How immigrants are received/perceived? Concepts from Alejandro Portes(1995) • “assimilation”/”acculturation” vs “modes of incorporation”= processes that structure integration 3 levels of incorporation: • Policy • Mainstream society (political discourse) • Local community • economic embeddedness, nested economies

17. Federal level: immigration policy • Homeland Security & ICE: control, increase in deportation, particularly criminals • Federal comprehensive reform continues to fail • Republicans divided: business vs “nativists” • Democrats divided: labor vs rights

18. Federal level: Language policy • no explicit, formalized language policy at the federal level • attempts to pass “English-only” federal laws have failed • default policy: linguistic status quo • English as a symbolic “imagined community” • Monolingualism the norm • American =Monolingual speaker of English

19. Federal funding for ESOL 1998: Federal Adult Education &Family Literacy Act, Title II Workforce Investment Act (WIA) WIA funds • Adult Basic Education (ABE) • English as a Second Language (ESL) • Adult Secondary Education (ASE) Goal “to enable adults to become more employable, productive, and responsible citizens through literacy”

20. Language of WIA • “increase the basic reading, writing, speaking, and math skills necessary for adults to obtain employment and self-sufficiency and to successfully advance in the workforce” • “assist immigrants who are not proficient in English in improving their reading, writing, speaking, and math skills and acquiring an understanding of the American free enterprise system, individual freedom, and the responsibilities of citizenship.”

21. Mainstream society: Political frames Liberal: “equity” “level playing field” “rights & responsibilities” Conservative: “freedom (from government interference)” “accountability” “security”

22. Attitudes related to economic changes 2000-2005 economic boom • low-wage immigrant workers, in particular Mexican/Central American, contribute to construction and service sectors immigrants=good 2007-2011 bust • high unemployment rates immigrant competition immigrants=bad

23. Mainstream discourses of immigration:“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” Worthy: hardworking “up by your own bootstraps” American Dream Unworthy: “illegal aliens” don’t pay taxes freeloaders

24. Education policyBush-era legacies No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 2001 Title III Goal= “equity” • Funds limited-English proficient (LEP) Student Program • “ensure that all …attain English proficiency, develop high levels of academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging state academic standards as all other students” Title III =“accountability” • Move through the sequence one year per level. General • Emphasis on empirical research to justify spending • “Science-based”, “evidence-based” i.e. quantitative

25. U.S. Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) Accountability: National Reporting System Definition of “success” Outcome measures • Gain/Enter /Retain Employment • ObtainaSecondaryCredential or GED • EnterPostsecondaryEducation

26. Stae level: California language policy: 1986 Constitutional amendment: English the Official language of the government Ballot initiatives: 1994 Proposition 187 SOS prohibits undocumented immigrants from using health, education and other social services won but found unconstitutional in federal court 1998 Proposition 227 “English for the Children” requires all public schools to conduct instruction in English, that ELLs be taught “overwhelmingly in English”

27. California Dream Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Passed Oct. 2011 California students who are undocumented immigrants will qualify for state-funded financial aid for college “equity”

28. California: Funding for Adult education Adult ed (Title 5) • based on average daily attendance (a.d.a.) ESOL • State formula driven by # of LEP adults with less than HS education • 47% of LEP adults had HS or more Underweighted for those who need basic skills

29. California initiatives:Career & Technical education (CTE) Liberal agenda: the EDGE campaign “California’s Future Workforce—Who Will Staff Our Economy” • “Increasingly global markets and international competition, rapid technological advancement and an aging workforce confront this state with a critical challenge. If we do not meet it…theconsequenceswill be borne by all of the state’s residents”— • “CTE including a focus on adults is a criticalpart of the response to globalization”

30. Local level: “ethnic enclave” communities spaces where immigrants may have little economic capital but lots of social capital “Embeddedness” • Social capital: • Networks provide jobs, housing, protection • layered, embedded identities • “co-ethnic” ties between immigrants (Smith 2006) • Symbolic capital: L1 • ethnic businesses

31. Data from my dissertation: Whiteside (2006) “We are the Explorers: Yucatec Maya-speaking transnational migrants negotiating multilingual California”

32. Increase in workplace/community multilingualism: Site A: Mongolian, Czech, Chinese, Tagalog, Spanish, Maya Site B: Greek, British English, Spanish, Site C: Chinese, Malay, Singlish(Singaporean English) Spanish Maya Site D: Italian, Arabic, Spanish, Maya Site E: Wolof, French, Spanish, Maya • use of lingua franca English • linguistic “crossing”: Don Francisco & the Vietnamese merchant

33. Translocalspeech communities • phone cards, skype, extended Maya-Spanish daily communication with home, participation at parties • watch home videos, apartments with 18 people • read Diario de Yucatan online to find out about Yucatecans in North Bay Area

34. Time-scales & immigrant jobs JS: changed restaurant jobs 6 times in 2 years

35. In practice… Normalized: hiring domestic, day labor, agricultural, janitorial, construction, and contractors Two-tiered civil rights: Documented vs undocumented immigrants • Right to own, but not drive cars • Right to protection of police, tenant/labor laws, but afraid to report abuse • Right to assemble, but worry about arrest and deportation

36. Linguistic effects of embeddedness • value of L1 • linguistic and cultural “crossing”, genres, styles • competence in lingua franca varieties • truncated repertoires, checkered competencies” (Blommaert 2010) Where does Standard English fit in this picture?

37. Modes of incorporation: Summary Policy themes: punitive/control & equity • “English only” as a security, policing linguistic boundaries • “equity” ignores the starting point • “accountability” but measures based on what? Macro, mainstream social themes: ambivalent • changes with economic outlook • benefits of cheap labor/threat of competition Local themes: security/ social obligations tied to L1 • nested economic ties • value of L1 and Culture1 • nested affiliations/ crossings

38. Part 3. Practitioner research the California Community College context • 110 Colleges • 2.9 million Ss • “providing workforce training, basic skills education and preparing students for transfer to 4-year institutions” Incoming Ss and basic skills • 75% unprepared for college English • 90% unprepared for college math Source: CDE ESL Basic Skills report 2010

39. Practitioner research the 2010 CCSF ESL Study Context: City College of San Francisco • 110,000 Ss ESL department • 23,000 Ss • credit division: tuition • 3,000 Ss • non-credit division: open enrollment, free • levels literacy, 1-9 • 20,000 Ss

40. Political context for ESL study Issue: equity • Ss taking “too long” to get through basic skills classes, low completion rates CCSF Board member • Pressure to get more ESL Ss into CTE CBOs • document needs of ESL Ss >Funding from CCSF Chancellor’s Office for ESL study

41. Context for CCSF ESL Study The problem : Accountability 1. ARC = Accountability Reporting for the California Community Colleges • AB 1417 Focus on Results Career Development and College Preparation (CDCP) Progress and Achievement rate= • # of CDPC Sswho • transitioned to credit • transferred to a 4-year institution • received a noncredit certificate of completion or competency. CDCP rate CCSF • 6.3% of the 2004-05 cohort • 7.1% in 2006-07.

42. Prior CCSF study/report 1998-2007 Spurling, Seymour & Chisman 2008 Findings • 80% of non-credit ESL students started at levels 1-4, more than 50% in Level 1 or Literacy • only 9% of these advanced to “Intermediate” levels or above (5-9) Conclusion • lack of advancement to higher levels represents a failure of the ESL program to provide students with “means to succeed”

43. The elephant in the room Undocumented Ss • needed for ADA • “Don’t ask don’t tell” about legal status BUT • must pay prohibitive out-of-state tuition for credit classes ($108 vs $669 per 3 unit class) • Obstacles for taking CTE classes: ESL level, out of state status

44. ESL Study: Purpose • Document Ss characteristics associated with movement through ESL sequence • Understand why so few students continue beyond beginning level classes (1-4) to intermediate and advanced levels (5-9)

45. Study design Research questions: • Do non-credit ESL levels 5-9 have proportionately more students with secondary education prior to coming to the US than levels 1-4? • Which other factors might affect whether students with less formal schooling participate in intermediate and advanced classes? • What are some reasons ESL students give for dropping out after level 4, and what motivated them to return?

46. Quantitative pieceCapture Ss characteristics, one “day in the life” • Survey, 13 questions • Classes randomly sampled (day only for sampling reasons) • 16 classes, 2 per level (1,3,5,8) • Four campuses, 2 to reflect distribution of linguistic diversity of whole college, 2 to represent 2 dominant language groups • Surveys translated into 7 languages for levels 1 and 3. • 650 respondents

47. Findings: education in L1 • Increasing proportion of students with secondary & post-secondary schooling with each level • level 1, a majority of students students > 3 years HS • level 8, few Ss > 3 yrs HS

48. Chart 1. Survey data (N=650 days students only)

49. CASAS* Test data: more dramatic N=1630 day + eve Ss Level 1 • 33% of Ss only primary schooling • 60+% less than 10th grade level 5 • 70% 10th grade and above Level 8 • 80% secondary+ • almost 50% post-secondary *(Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems)

50. Chart 2. CASAS data (N=1,630 day and evening students)