Presentation Transcript

1. Please check, just in case…
2. APA Tip of the Day: Where to find help for formatting references The APA handbook provides examples of just about every kind of reference that you might cite in a paper. You might need to look at several different examples to figure out exactly what you need to do (single author, multiple authors). Do not rely on the reference list that some faculty give you – you are expected to learn to use the manual.
3. Steps in using your manual: Figure out what kind of a reference you are using (e.g. authored book, edited book, journal article). Use chapter 7 (‘reference examples’) to find an example that is similar to the one you are going to cite. Follow the specified format carefully – look for periods, italics, and spacing. For clarification, look at chapter 6 (‘reference components’).
4. Announcements Please turn in your readings reviews now. Language resources inventory due in two weeks.
5. Quick questions or quandaries?
6. February 17, 2014 Rules and Regulations Today’s Readings: NMPED Multicultural Education Technical Assistance Manual; Diaz-Rico (2012, pp. 115-130); Ragan & Lesaux (2006)
7. Legislative Foundation for ALS Civil Rights Act, Title VI (1964) Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1968, Title VII (Bilingual Education Act) Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 1975 Improving America’s Schools Act, 1994, Title VII (Bilingual Education, Language Enhancement, and Language Acquisition Programs) and I (Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards) No Child Left Behind, 2001, Title III (Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students).
8. Civil Rights Act, 1964 Act under Department of Justice, not Department of Education. Title VI specifically prohibited discrimination in federally funded programs “on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” General and Special Education programs are supported with federal monies and therefore, come under this requirement.
9. ESEA, 1968, Title VII Provisions changed over time, including who is included (e.g. students in poverty only or not) and priority given to bilingual education. Funding available for programs to address language needs of students identified as limited English proficient, including for bilingual education programs. 1974 Congress established OBEMLA.
10. 1970 OCR Memorandum Office for Civil Rights Students’ civil rights are violated when: students are excluded from effective participation in school “because of their inability to speak and understand English” and “national-origin minority students are misassigned to classes for the mentally retarded” because of their lack of English skills. Affirmed by US Supreme court in Lau v Nichols, 1974. Additional memorandums issued in 1975 (Lau remedies), 1985, 1990 and 1991
11. 1970 OCR Memorandum, cont. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/lau1970.html "where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national-origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open the instructional program to the students."
12. Lau v Nichols, 1974 http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/edlite-glossary.html “A class action suit brought by parents of non-English-proficient Chinese students against the San Francisco Unified School District. In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that identical education does not constitute equal education under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that the district must take affirmative steps to overcome educational barriers faced by the non-English speaking Chinese students in the district.”
13. Additional OCR Memorandums 1975 compliance standards were later found to “undue Federal influence over educational judgments that could and should be made by local and state educational authorities”. 1985: case-by-case determination of district’s compliance. Program should follow the Castañeda standard. 1991: Expansion of 1985/1990 memorandums, addressed special education programs as well.
14. Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), 1975 “Section 1703(f) of the EEOA requires state educational agencies (SEAs) and school districts to take action to overcome language barriers that impede English Language Learner (ELL) students from participating equally in school districts’ educational programs.” “Section 1703(f) of the EEOA does not require schools to adopt a particular type of language acquisition program such as an English as a Second Language (ESL) program.” http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/types.php
15. Castañedastandard Castañeda v Pickard (1981) “Three-part test to evaluate the adequacy of a district's program for ELL students: (1) is the program based on an educational theory recognized as sound by some experts in the field or is considered by experts as a legitimate experimental strategy; (2) are the programs and practices, including resources and personnel, reasonably calculated to implement this theory effectively; and (3) does the school district evaluate its programs and make adjustments where needed to ensure language barriers are actually being overcome?” http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/edlite-glossary.html
16. Casteñeda v. Pickard, 1981 648 F.2d 989; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 1206. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/LAU/IAPolicy/IA1bCastanedaFullText.htm Raymondville, Texas Independent School District Alleged racial discrimination against Mexican-Americans in: Ability grouping, resulting in segregation Hiring and promotion of faculty and administrators, Failure to implement adequate bilingual education “to overcome the linguistic barriers that impede the plaintiffs' equal participation in the educational program of the district”.
17. 1991 OCR Memorandum: Special Education http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/lau1991.html “school systems may not assign students to special education programs on the basis of criteria that essentially measure and evaluate English language skills” Compliance reviews: Inappropriate placement in special education Failure to address students’ “inability to speak or understand English” “Whether there are “policies of ‘no double services’: that is, refusing to provide both alternative language services and Special education to students who need them.”
18. Improving America’s School Act, Titles I & VII, 1994 The purpose of this part is to educate limited English proficient children and youth to meet the same rigorous standards for academic performance expected of all children and youth, including meeting challenging State content standards and challenging State student performance standards in academic areas by– developing systemic improvement and reform of educational programs serving limited English proficient students through the development and implementation of exemplary bilingual education programs and special alternative instruction programs; developing bilingual skills and multicultural understanding; developing the English of such children and youth and, to the extent possible, the native language skills of such children and youth; providing similar assistance to Native Americans with certain modifications relative to the unique status of Native American languages under Federal law.... “Limited English proficient” children included under Title I.
19. NCLB, 2001 Title III: English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act Part A: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students (formerly Title VII) Part B: Improving Language Instruction Educational Programs, Part C: General Provisions Emphasis on ELA, no mention of bilingual education.
20. NCLB, 2001, cont. NCLB, Title III: drastically cut funding for bilingual programs, limited the length of these programs, and did not endorse the three criteria set up by the Castaneda v. Pickard case for determining quality bilingual programs – unclear whether they are supported or not. Federal funds for bilingual and bicultural projects are available under Title VII: Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education.
21. Quick Write: When an English language learner is identified as needing special education services, would he/she still need to receive some type of ALS? Why or why not?
22. Major Points The right to educational programs to overcome educational barriers due to limited English proficiency is well established. Most/all states have procedures to (a) identify ELLs and (b) provide some form of ALS. The form(s) that ALS can/should take has been debated since prior to the inception of Civil Rights legislation. This is not an issue that research on best practices can resolve alone.
23. NM Process for ID’ing ELLs Home Language Survey PHLOTE or not? If PHLOTE, administer ACCESS English ALS required? Level 1 – Entering: yes Level 2 – Beginning: yes Level 3 - Developing: yes Level 4 - Expanding: yes Level 5 – Bridging: NO
24. Language Proficiency Assessment WIDA ACCESSsince 2009-2010 Test Window: 1/13/2014 to 2/21/2014 Four language domains: Listening Speaking Reading Writing
25. Spanish Language Proficiency Assessment Instruments Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey Language Assessment Scales (LAS) Individualized Proficiency Test (IPT)
26. Small Group Discussion APS has a form available that allows parents to exempt their children from ALS. If students are receiving special education, parents may be encouraged to do so, because of (a) complications of scheduling, (b) a priority in receiving special education services, and (c) a perception that if students are receiving special education, ALS is not necessary. What are your thoughts on this?
27. Looking ahead… Topic: Overview of program models Read: NMPED MC Ed Tech Assistance manual – particularly model descriptions, and Mcleskey et al (2013) ch 1. NOTE: Bring the handout from the course outline to class
28. Please take a minute for the minute paper.