Redesignation Process in June, 1998,

Redesignation Process

In June, 1998, a Proposition was passed in California that significantly changed how English learners (ELs) were given instruction. This reversed two decades of bi-lingual education in the classroom and required all Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students to be taught English by immersion. Proposition 227's requirements included guidance that ELs be taught predominantly English, primarily, by sheltered or structured English immersion (SEI) programs for a limited time period. This transition period was intended to last one year, and then the ELs would be put into mainstream English-language classrooms (American Institutes for Research, 2006, p. vii).

The California Department of Education "California English Language Development Test (CELDT) Assistance Packet for School Districts/Schools (February 2005) gives the following definition of reclassification: "…Reclassification/Redesignation is the process through which students who have been identified as English learners are reclassified as fluent English proficient (RFEP) when they have demonstrated that they are able to compete effectively with English-speaking peers in mainstream classes" (Mora, 2006, para. 2).

The Legislative Analyst's Office Report (January 2006) contains the following language:

Reclassification/Redesignation Process: English learners are reclassified as "fluent" when they have sufficient English skills to learn in a regular classroom with extra assistance and perform in academic subjects at approximately "grade level" (Mora, 2006, para. 3).

Process

Almost half of public school students in California live in homes where the most frequently spoken language is not English. Students whose primary language is not English

take the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) within 30 days of their initial enrollment in the state's public schools. About 1.7 million students took the test in 2006-07. The CELDT tests different material at each of four grade spans (kindergarten through grade 2, grades 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12) and assesses four skill areas: listening, speaking, reading and writing. Students who achieve specified scores overall and in each skill area on their initial test are identified as initially fluent English Proficient (IFEP).The remaining students are designated as English learners and must take the CELDT each year until they meet all district-specified criteria and are reclassified as fluent English proficient (RFEP). Most students entering California's schools with primary languages other than English are identified as English learners (Edsource, 2008, para. 1-3 & Diagram).

Demographics

Data from the school year 2006-2007 show that, of the 6.3 million K-12 students in California, 1.6 million, or about 25%, were considered ELs. This percentage has been fairly stable over the decade prior to this school year. A somewhat surprising number is that

California's ELs actually comprise almost one-third of the nation's English learners. While it is true that state definitions of ELs are similar, the criteria and assessment tools used to determine who is and who isn't, vary quite a bit.

The large majority of ELs in California are Spanish-speaking (85%), which should not come as a surprise. Statistics show that the other 15% speak 50 different languages. A significant portion of these ELs enter the system in kindergarten (42%), so the early grades have a disproportionate share. The share of ELs in later grades decrease, of course, due to the success of the program to integrate students into English-speaking classes, which eliminates their categorization as ELs. Unfortunately, some of the lower numbers of ELs in upper grades are caused by the fact that the student drops out of school. By 12th grade, the percentage of ELs in school plunges to 11%. (EdSource Inc., 2008, pp. 1-3)

There is no pattern as to how ELs are distributed geographically through the state. And they are not just in inner-urban areas or rural agricultural areas. The majority are in Southern California with a higher percentage around Los Angeles (32%). However, there is also a significant contingent of ELs in the San Francisco area (13%) and in the Central California valley (19%).

In California, the five most populated counties are Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside -- all in the southern part of the state. These counties hold about 54% of California's total population and 55% of its children. And approximately 59% of the state's ELs are located in these same five counties (EdSource, Inc., 2008).

It's interesting to note that the state's ten largest school districts instruct only 21% of the state's total student population, but about 28% of the ELs. Santa Ana Unified School District in Orange County is the largest by percentage of ELs (54%) -- almost twice the average. By percentage the LA School District is second (38%) (EdSource, Inc., 2008, pp. 5-6).

Debate

The originator of the Proposition 227 was Ron Unz. He claimed, prior to passage, that a five per cent reclassification/redesignation rate of ELs to fluent proficient English indicated that the current bilingual education was a failure. Critics, after the passage of 227, said that redesignation rates had not improved. They also claimed that the rates, prior to 227, were around seven per cent, not five per cent, and that they were increasing before 227. Secondly, they said that that rates after 227 passed were about eight per cent, further establishing the fact that there was no improvement in redesignation rates (Grissom, 2004).

It is a debate between English bi-lingual education and English immersion and which works best. Prop. 227 supports immersion; many educators, test results, and conclusions about the effectiveness of 227, support either bi-lingual or immersion -- but neither one by any significant margin over the other.

Unfortunately, this debate, like many others, has been dragged across emotional, political, and interest group borders to the point that the facts are difficult to discern. So, we will first analyze the results of Proposition 227 after it had been in effect for several years to attempt to determine accurate data as to its success or failure.

To do this, we'll utilize an evaluative study contracted by the California Department of Education with American Institutes for Research (AIR) and accomplished independently after Prop. 227 had been effect for five years. Next, we will analyze a study based on ten individuals from a foreign country who were indoctrinated in the 1980s into English through a more standard bi-lingual classroom atmosphere (Obudo, 2007).

Evaluating Proposition 227

Proposition 227 was introduced at a time when the California school system was undergoing reform efforts in many areas and there was a heightened attention to accountability. A number of programs and policies were all being put into action at the same time, and there was a significant amount of pressure on school districts and individual schools to show improvement in concrete ways. To say the least, the atmosphere was highly politicized and the implementation process complicated.

Probably the most significant change in policy that impacted 227 as it was being implemented was an initiative to reduce class sizes. This initiative also gave schools considerable financial incentive to, not only reduce the size of classes, but do it quickly. The legislation applied to grades K-3 and called for a reduction in class size to no more than 20 students. This had an enormous impact on the hiring of teachers in the state. Some 28,000 needed to be hired to fill the extra classrooms required to handle the smaller class sizes. And this impact was felt in the first three years. The impact felt by students, including ELs, and their quickly trained dual-language teachers, was huge.

These complicated sets of impacts, along with new state assessment tools, additional policy reforms and the creation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 -- all occurring within about a five-year period after passage of 227, did have a significant effect on EL instruction. When respondents to the American Institutes for Research study responded to questions about how serious the impacts were, the majority said they believed that all of these issues, occurring within a short timeframe affected EL education in the state at least as much as Proposition 227. Lest there be any doubt, this was no positive intent meant by these respondents!

Given some context by this previous information, we can move on to look at the basic affectivity of Prop. 227 and its impact on the successful resignation/reclassification of ELs to fluent English proficient status (RFEP). This is the key indicator of the success of EL programs, and it is these numbers that always take a prominent role in any debate -- and there are many of them -- about Proposition 227 vs. bi-lingual classroom education.

One statement I found consistent about any evaluation of the success of both the English immersion and bi-lingual classroom programs is that it is a complicated business. Without going into an extensive list of complications, I will note here that everything from the basic definition of what an EL is, to the criteria used to establish success or not, to the measurement tools used to evaluate, to the lack of accurate, effective assessment tools, and more, are open to question. The main problem created by all this, is that comparing apples to apples is a shot in the dark. Coming up with accurate success rates of redesignation is a shot in the dark without a bullet. It is that complex (American Institutes for Research, 2006, pages V2-3).

Only recently (2008), the U.S. Department of Education has proposed mandates under Title 3 of the Elementary Secondary Education Act/NCLB, which concerns English learners, that California is requesting relief from. Bottom line of these mandates is that they will cost significant sums of money and time to implement and further complicate the most sophisticated EL program in the country (ACSA, 2008).

Results

In a 381-page report prepared for the California Board of Education in 2004, American Institutes for Research reached the following conclusions regarding the affectivity and success of the EL program in the state of California as mandated by Proposition 227:

Meeting the Needs of California ELs. "While we see evidence of improved academic success with ELs in California, substantial gaps in achievement remain" (American Institutes for Research, 2006, p. VII-1). The study indicated strongly that the special needs of ELs in California were not being met. It pointed out that most ELs are poor, and that they face the challenge of learning English and their school courses at the same time. With California's high academic standards, the report made it clear that there is much work to be done in these areas for ELs to have an optimum learning environment.

The Bottom Line. The question is if it was wise to enact Prop. 227, and has it been effective? Does it compare favorable with bi-lingual methods? The answer, from the AIR report:

"Very little evidence can be found in the empirical analyses conducted during this study that its basic premise was correct (i.e., that immersion methods of instruction are

uniformly superior to bilingual methods in enhancing educational outcomes for ELs). It is not possible to unambiguously resolve the question of the relative superiority of immersion vs. bilingual approaches given the shifting definitions associated with various instructional approaches for ELs in state data over the years, and the inability to track individual student-level data over time. Nevertheless, the best analyses we have been able to conduct given data limitations indicate that differences across models of instruction -- holding constant such critical factors as student demographics -- are minimal or nonexistent" (American Institutes for Research, 2006, p. VII-2).

Further, the extensive report stated:

"...based on our overall achievement findings, we conclude that Proposition 227 focused on the wrong issue... A new paradigm, shifting away from the immersion/bilingual debate, is needed to focus more on the larger array of factors that make a difference for EL achievement" (American Institutes for Research, 2006, p. VII-3).

We will return to this study's recommendations later.

Evaluating Bi-Lingual Methods

The second study results presented here involved the bi-lingual classroom education of ten Cambodian students who spoke no English (Obudo, 2007).

These students attended a large, urban school in Southern California in the 1980s, prior to the passage of Proposition 227 and the mandate of English-immersion. Their prior schooling ranged from zero to five years. Since we are using these ten students as a random sample of how the bi-lingual program worked, we must note that all ten were placed in English-only classes with instructors who were not trained to teach English Language Learners. All of the students were moved from class to class within the same school year in an attempt to find the grade level that they fit best. They received little or no language support. That is, the instructors were not proficient in teaching these students the English language.

Now, at this point, we might say, well, what's the point? The point is that these circumstances occurred more frequently than we think with bi-lingual classroom education. Remember, the point was to place students in "normal" classrooms and have them learn English by osmosis and with as much help as possible by teachers who had 30 other students to teach.

And, according to Rhodes, Ochoa, and Ortiz (2005), "...only 19 states provided certification or endorsement for teachers in the field of bi-lingual education, and only 17 legally mandate this training be provided" (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005, p. 60). They further report that a signficant number of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in this country is not being taught by certified ESL and bi-lingual teachers.

The Bottom Line. All the participants had difficulty understanding the lessons, leading to frustration and lack of confidence. The research on immersion vs. bi-lingual education is inconclusive. For every study that supports one or the other, there is another, usually just as valid, that does not support it. Obudo concludes that it is not the system used that counts, but the quality of instruction -- basically the same general conclusion that AIR came to in its far more extensive research on Proposition 227.

After test results showed that English learners in California had made "negligible progress in mastering English since last year," on May 2, 2009, California State Senator Gloria Romero, Chair of the State Committee on Education, said, "the California Department of Education can't keep doing the same things and expect different results" (Romero, 2009). This becomes just further confirmation that it is a complex problem, and positive results are not easy, politics aside.

It also casts more doubt on the affectivity of Proposition 227.

Now What?

AIR endorses the following recommendations to the California Department of Education: (American Institutes for Research, 2006, pp. VII5-12).

The state should identify school sites and districts that are successfully educating ELs at all grade levels, and create opportunities for their educational peers to learn from them.

The state should take steps to standardize and clarify alternative instructional program waiver provisions of Proposition 227.

The state should focus monitoring efforts to ensure that language status does not impede full, comprehensible access to core curriculum.

The state and districts should foster data use to guide EL policy and instruction.

District leaders need to ensure that their plan of instruction for ELs is carefully articulated across classes within grades, across grades within schools, and across schools within the district.

The state and districts should support the professional development necessary to promote ELs' English language development and academic achievement, ensure appropriate deployment of skilled teachers to schools where they are most needed, and foster development of English Language Development (ELD) curriculum and instructional plans aligned to the state's ELD standards.

The legislature should clarify Community-Based English Tutoring (CBET) goals, and continue funding with ongoing evaluation.

The state should continue English Language Acquisition Program (ELAP) funding with added flexibility.

San Joaquin Valley Learner's Academy

Recognizing the failure of Proposition 227 to carry out the mission of educating ELs, the San Joaquin Valley's school districts have come together with a program called the English Learner's Academy to ensure ELs have the resources to obtain "native-like" English skills while they also develop academic language necessary to completely access core content.

The reason they are developing this Academy is that they feel California school districts are focusing on ELs learning English to their own detriment. The idea is that the ability to grasp and successfully pass core content courses is equally as important as learning English. Data in California has shown that, by focusing more heavily on English competency and reaching a certain competency level, students capability and desire to keep going and to conquer core courses dissipates (Central Valley Educational Leadership Institute, 2009).