CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM AND ITS COMPONENTS

Introduction

Living in America means equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream. That dream is the right to achieve professional success to the extent that it allows each citizen to adequately meet their physiological, safety and security, social belonging, esteem and prestige needs, and in so doing, achieve self-actualization.

One of the most important skills that must be acquired if self-actualization is to be attained is reading. Good reading skills—specifically comprehension of what is being read—provide the foundation for success in education and employment through the processes of understanding and evaluating written material. Based on this, it can be said that it is not the role of education to ensure self-actualization but rather to make available the opportunity for students to develop their reading skills to the extent that they aid each individual in his or her quest to achieve self-actualization. The federal government of the United States has mandated in the No Child Left Behind Act that all public school students in the United States must have equal access to the tools necessary to develop these skills, which include a command of the English language in both the written and spoken form. Moreover, the federal government requires states to attain certain minimum standards as is evidenced in the National Assessment of Educational Progress:

“The Nation's Report Card," as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is often called, is the leading national assessment of what America's students know and can do in reading, mathematics, and many other academic subjects. NAEP, a program of the U.S. Department of Education, provides information on state and national student achievement, and how that achievement has changed over time. (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction [OSPI], n.d.b, para. 1).

Schools that do not meet minimum requirements forfeit federal funding or must “make dramatic changes to the way the school is run” (U.S. Department of Education, n.d., para. 2).

In Washington State, reading achievement is measured by the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (the WASL), the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (the ITBS), and the Iowa Test of Education Development (the ITED). The WASL is administered to Grades 4, 7, and 10 and measures achievement in reading (Washington State Board of Education, n.d.). The ITBS is “a norm-referenced test given to third- and sixth-grade students in our state [in which] students demonstrate their grasp of foundational skills such as reading . . .” (OSPI, n.d.a, para. 2). The ITED, which “has been given to Washington ninth-graders each spring since 2000 . . . measures a student’s understanding of fundamental skills in reading . . .” (OSPI, n.d.a, para. 3).

Washington State has implemented several programs in an effort to bring its English Language Learners (ELL) up to state standards in reading—and therefore to federal standards. However, because of a number of different factors, including insufficient funding of learning resources (Campaign for Fiscal Equity, 2004), these programs have not been successful. Nowhere is this failure more evident than in Western Washington State’s dismal standardized testing statistics in reading for English Language Learners. (See Appendixes A, B, and C)

Problem Background

Minority student populations are growing rapidly in Washington State. According to “Washington State Public School October Enrollment Comparisons: 1971–2001” (2002), there has been a steady increase in the number of minority students attending public schools in the thirty years since 1971. For example, in October 1971 the Asian student enrollment population was 11,145 and in 2001 it was 75,919 (p. 1). Hispanic enrollment rose from 15,411 in October 1971 to 110,474 in October 2001, and American Indian enrollment increased from 12,398 in October 1971 to 27,647 in October 2001 (p. 1).

Some of these growing populations have a notably lower rate of self-actualization, as measured by drop-out rates. Although the data shows that the Hispanic population is approximately 23% higher than the Asian populations, the annual student drop-out rate shows that about 50% more Hispanic students are likely to drop out of school than Asian students: Table 4: “State Summary for Grades 9–12 (School Year 2001–2002)” shows an annual drop-out rate for Hispanics of 12.5% and 6.8% for Asians (Bylsma & Ireland, 2003, p. 14). This data is supported by Washington State’s unemployment statistics. According to a press release titled “Unemployment Rate Down Slightly in March as State Gains Jobs” (2004), as of March 2004, Washington State had an unemployment rate of 6.1% or 194,817 (p. 1). Of this 6.1%, 7.4% or 14,416 are of Hispanic origin (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004, p. 1). A compilation of statistics from the nine Congressional Districts in Washington State as of 2003 shows unemployment claimants by language include: Chinese, Korean, Laotian, Polish, Russian, Other, Unknown, and Vietnamese (Washington State Employment Security Department, 2003, Tables “Unduplicated Claimants, by Language Preference”). One provision made to address this problem in education is the implementation of the state’s ESL program. Western Washington has established four teaching methodologies in an effort to educate its rapidly growing and highly diverse student populations: ESL Pull-Out, Two Hour Block, Self-Contained and Immersion. These methodologies are considered to be compensatory education. Not all school districts utilize these methodologies; rather, due to lack of ELL enrollment, students in these districts are immediately immersed into the student body.

The efficacy of Washington State’s ELL Pull-Out, Two Hour Block, and Self-Contained and Immersion methods are currently measured by the WASL, and these scores indicate that these approaches are not bringing students up to state or federal standards.

Literature Review

In “Educating All Our Students: Improving Education for Children from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds,” McLaughlin and McLeod (1996) say,

The linguistic and cultural diversity among students in American schools is greater now than at any time since the early decades of this century. If students were distributed evenly across the nation’s classrooms, every class of 30 students would include about 10 students from ethnic or racial minority groups. Of these 10, about 6 would be from language minority families; 2–4 of these students would have limited English proficiency (LEP), of which 2 would be from immigrant families. Of the 6 language minority students in the class, 4 would speak Spanish as their native language, and 1 would speak an Asian language. The other language minority student would speak any one of more than a hundred languages. (section, Introduction, para. 1)

To ensure equal opportunity in education, schools must take steps to enable these students to perform to standards set by both the state and the federal government. Preliminary research indicates that appropriate learning resources plays a major role in learning process. Further research needs to be undertaken to clearly understand:

1. The collection and distribution of general education funds, specifically as they pertain to student learning resources.

2. The process by which County Assessor Treasurers invest collected monies.

3. Various learning resource options, notably the consequences of requiring all ELL instructors to use textbooks.

4. The option of using a coherent set of stratified textbooks—suitable for beginner, intermediate, and advanced ELL students.

5. The consequences and benefits of increasing professional training as they pertain to the Essential Academic Learning Requirements.

6. The Washington State Teaching Certification Program.

7. The necessity of Washington State administrators and educators knowing the Washington legal history of the state’s position on textbooks and learning resource materials.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to determine the nature of the relationship between Western Washington State’s funding model for student learning resources and ELL student achievement in reading. The study will aid in uncovering the problems and issues that may be associated with ELL students’ low-test scores in reading in Western Washington State.

Research Questions

1. To what extent does the current system of distribution of school funds support quality learning resources for ELL students?

2. What are the trends in reading achievement (student performance in reading) for ELL students?

3. Are ESL/ELL teachers sufficiently trained and/or certified to support quality instruction for ELL students?

4. Are sufficient resources available to schools to support effective instruction for ELL students?

5. What is the relationship between the processes of second language acquisition and ELL student achievement in reading?

6. What is the relationship between parental involvement and ELL student achievement?

7. Do laws governing textbooks and other learning resources support effective instruction for ELL students?

Limitations/Delimitations

1. Sources disagree on the actual population numbers and growth rate for Washington State.

2. The study addresses only public school data. The investigation limits the exposure of possible successful ELL reading programs that may be in place in private or independent school systems.

3. The study is limited by the extent to which teachers properly implement ELL reading instruction.

4. The study does not address currently planned or recently implemented transactions that occur within the program or within the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

5. The cost of providing textbooks will not be researched.

6. Investment funds revenues will be limited to the General Education funds only. This study does not take into account other existing investment revenues that the individual school districts receive.

7. The leadership of Washington State ELL Programs includes the District Superintendent, the Special Programs Administrator, principals, assistant principals, teachers, communities, students, and parents: all of these participants determine the program outcome.

8. The researcher was responsible for full funding of this study. This means that the study was prepared with limited financial resources.

Definitions

AYP: Adequate Yearly Progress

Complete Observation: The researcher is a member of the group but did not participate.

Content Analysis: A subjective analysis of documents provided by Washington State OSPI, individual schools, and individual instructors.

EALRs: Essential Academic Learning Requirements

ELL: English Language Learner

ESD: Educational Service District

ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act

ESL: English as a Second Language

FTE: Full Time Enrollment

IEP: Individualized Education Plan

ITBS: Iowa Tests of Basic Skills

ITED: Iowa Tests of Educational Development

Learning Resources: All monies, the level of expertise and the nature of the credentials of ELL instructors, and those physical materials used by instructors to aid in the development of ELL student reading skills.

LEP: Limited English Proficient

NAEP: National Assessment of Educational Progress

NCLB: No Child Left Behind

OSPI: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

Reserved Funds Balance: Those funds that show on budget reports as being allotted for specific purposes but as of the date of the report have not yet been disbursed.

Selected Sources: Selected sources refer to documentation, information, communications, etc. that are available to the public or voluntarily provided by the schools, programs, districts, administrative bodies, teachers or students.

Unreserved Funds Balance: Those funds that show on budget reports as being not yet allotted for a specific purpose.

Washington State ELL Pull-Out Program: A program that removes ELL students from the mainstream classroom for the purpose of allowing the students to place intensive concentration on the development of their English skills. Pull-Out lasts for one hour then the students are mainstreamed back into the general student body.

Washington State Two Hour Block Programs: An extension of the Pull-Out Program. Instead of the students being pulled out for one hour they are pulled out for two hours and then mainstreamed back into the general student body.

Washington State Self-Contained Program: A program designed to work in conjunction with the mainstream classrooms. The Self-Contained Program is an all day program. The ELL instructor designs the curriculum to support the content that is being taught in the general population classrooms until the ELL instructor assesses that the ELL student is ready to be mainstreamed.

Washington State Immersion: ELL students are immediately placed in with the general education students and are not offered additional ELL instruction.

WAAS: Washington Alternate Assessment System

WASL: Washington State Assessment of Student Learning

WLPT: Washington Language Proficiency Test

Importance of the Study

The significance of the study lies in its assessment of the current funding issues facing the education of ELL students in Western Washington State as they strive to develop their reading skills. ELL students are failing the reading component of the state’s WASL in overwhelming numbers. Action must be taken to improve the learning resources that are made available in order for test scores to rise. This rise in test scores will ensure continued federal funding, the reduction of school closures, and a greater opportunity for ELL students to gain a higher self-actualization status.

This study will make recommendations for redefining funds allocation for ELL learning resources needed to accommodate diverse students in Western Washington State and in so doing, will help to disclose ways to close the gap between education, employment, and self-actualization.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Reading Research—General

False Claims About Literacy Development

In “False Claims About Literacy Development,” Krashen (2004) disputes some of the claims made by the 2000 National Reading Panel regarding phonemic awareness, the need for systematic phonics instruction, the superiority of skills-based approaches, and the value of reading more in school.

According to the National Reading Panel (2000) training in phonemic awareness—the ability to separate a word up into its sounds—is important for literacy skills like spelling and reading comprehension. Krashen’s (2000) own reviews on studies of “pure phonemic awareness” (cited in Krashen, 2004, p. 18) showed that though there were some positive effects noted in the small number of existing studies on this subject, they were statistically insignificant: “No reasonable person would conclude on the basis [of the evidence] that phonemic awareness training is essential or even particularly important” (p. 19).

Krashen (2004) also contends that the National Reading Panel’s (2000) finding that “. . . systematic phonics instruction makes a bigger contribution to children’s growth in reading than alternative programs” (cited in Krashen, 2004, p. 19), is overstated. First, Krashen says the level of effect noted for systematic phonics curriculums depended on the whether the student tested was reading individual words in a column or reading texts. Moreover, the relationship between systematic phonics training and performance on reading comprehension tests for older students were statistically insignificant (p. 20). Krashen states that the work of other researchers—Camilli, Vargas, and Yurecko (2003)—confirm his findings and that “the effect of systematic phonics instruction was considerably less than that reported by the National Reading Panel . . . other factors . . . had a significant effect as well” (cited in Krashen, 2004, p. 20).

While the National Reading Panel (2000) claimed that phonics approaches were more effective than whole language approaches, Krashen (2004) notes that the panel did not “analyze effect sizes separately for each kind of measurement” (p. 20). This would have entailed segregating results for different kinds of testing, for example whether the student was reading single words or whole texts. Krashen also suggests that what is most important in this investigation is the amount that students are reading. In Krashen’s own 2002 study, this researcher reanalyzed the studies using only those tests based on reading comprehension, and determined that whole-language methods showed “a small advantage” (p. 20).

Finally, Krashen (2004) questions the National Reading Panel’s (2000) claim that “there is no clear evidence that encouraging children to read more in school improves reading achievement” (p. 20) on the basis that the panel did not credit the fact that all the studies showed a positive difference or no difference at all in those groups that did sustained silent reading. Krashen also contends that the panel considered too few studies, neglected some important ones, misinterpreted some, and included some that should have been left out.

Bilingualism and Bilingual Education

New Language Learning

According to a study from McGill University (Canada), language experience in the early years during brain development influences the capacity to acquire new languages—“regardless of the specific form of the language experience” (New Language Learning, 2002, para. 1). The researchers, under Rachel Mayberry of McGill University, studied both “deaf and hearing adults to see how the onset and type of initial language experience affects ability to learn a new language” (para. 2).

Findings showed that those who had little early experience of language were less able to acquire skills in a new language as adults, regardless of whether that experience was in spoken language or sign language. Mayberry says, “The timing of our initial language experience during our development—whatever the form of those experiences—strongly influences our capacity to learn language throughout our lives” (cited in New Language Learning, 2002, para. 4). This suggests that “when the young brain learns language, it develops a lifelong capacity to learn language. When the young brain does not experience language, this learning capacity does not fully develop” (Mayberry, n.d., cited in New Language Learning, 2002, para. 5).

Because all babies who hear experience language, the researchers also worked with deaf subjects and those who were born without hearing, because this second group frequently does not experience language until entered in programs for the deaf.

There were two parts to the study: in the first part “two groups of deaf adults, one of which was born hearing, were tested for their performance in American Sign Language, which all had learned at school and had used for more than 20 years” (New Language Learning, 2002, para. 7). Those subjects who were born without hearing had lower results than the other group in their levels of attainment.

Second, the researchers

compared three groups of adults who had learned English in school between the ages of 4 and 13 and had used it for more than 12 years. Deaf and hearing adults who had experienced either a signed or spoken language in early life showed similar high levels of performance in the later-learned language, English. (New Language Learning, 2002, para. 8)

Adults who had limited language experience in their early years achieved lower performance levels.

How Do English Language Learners Learn to Read?

As the number of culturally diverse students has increased, and as NCLB has demanded that these students meet achievement quotas,

educators and researchers have struggled over the question of whether bilingual or English-only methods are more effective in teaching children to read. In “How Do English Language Learners Learn to Read?” Slavin and Cheung (2004) summarize the findings of their earlier 2003 study on the conflicting claims of bilingual and English-only studies with regard to reading ability. They also discuss their findings on a review of effective reading programs.

Slavin and Cheung (2004) first offer some definitions. They explain that there are two types of bilingual reading programs: transitional and paired. In the first type, students are taught to read in their own language and “only after the student is proficient in spoken English should he or she be transitioned into English-only reading instruction” (p. 53). In paired bilingual instruction students are taught for part of the day in their native language and part of the day in English. A two-way bilingual program uses paired instruction for all students—both English language learners and native speakers learn both languages. English-only instruction uses English instruction with some minimal support. Structured-immersion is a type on English-only program which “presents reading in a systematic, structured sequence” (p. 53).

In their 2003 study, Slavin and Cheung reviewed 17 quantitative studies of one-year-or-longer elementary reading programs that compared equivalently skilled readers in bilingual and English-only instruction (cited in Slaven & Cheung, 2004, p. 53). They determined that bilingual programs were the most effective, with two-way bilingual programs producing the best results: “the results were surprisingly favorable to bilingual approaches . . . even more surprising . . . was the strength of the evidence in favor of teaching students to read in both their native language and in English at different times of the day” (p. 54). The authors note differences in such factors as sample sizes and the length (some were conducted over a period of years) of the various studies they reviewed. In all cases, the studies either reported bilingual programs as being beneficial or having no effect: “in no case[s] did the positive results from an English-only strategy exceed those from a bilingual strategy” (p. 54).

The authors also discuss methods of instruction as a pivotal part of effective reading programs. The studies used for this review evaluated several experimental studies on a number of programs including Success for All, Jolly Phonics, Direct Instruction, and a Spanish adaptation of Reading Recovery. They determined that many of the methods effective for native English speakers were also effective with English language learners: “all but one of the programs [the researchers] found to be successful with English language learners were adaptations of programs also found to be successful with English-dominant students” (Slaven & Cheung, 2004, p. 55). They suggest that personal tutoring and a focus on systematic phonics were as helpful for English language learners as they were for native speakers.

Teaching Reading to Early Language Learners

In “Teaching Reading to Early Language Learners” Gersten and Geva (2003) discuss some of the findings of researchers who have studied the English acquisition of LEP students in primary grades. They point out that many of the same skills needed to learn to read are the same for both native speakers and students with other language backgrounds. One of these skills is phonological awareness, comprehension of individual speech sounds, which fosters reading and spelling ability. Gersten and Geva state that this awareness is used in both an LEP student’s native language and in the new language. Because each language employs different sounds, students may experience specific challenges when their own language differs from English; however, “these difficulties are fairly predictable . . . and should lead to proactive teaching that focuses on potentially problematic sounds and letter combinations” (p. 44). Gersten and Geva cite research (Geva, 2000; Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis, & Kouzenkanani, 2003) that proposes that English learners can decipher speech sounds and learn decoding skills “as rapidly as native English speakers can” (p. 44).

Gersten and Geva (2003) also cite two studies that conclude that literacy skills develop similarly for both native English and non-English speakers. In one study, conducted by Wang and Geva (in press), native Cantonese language students and English speaking students developed spelling ability at the same rate over a period of two years. “Specific spelling errors made by the Cantonese group—such as a difficulty distinguishing the sounds /th/ and /s/ in think and sink—disappeared by second grade” (cited in Gersten & Geva, 2003, p. 45).

Gersten and Geva (2003) also cite studies (Baker, Gersten, Haager, Goldeberg, & Dingle, in preparation; Chiappe et al., 2002; Gersten & Baker, 2003; Geva, 2000) that show that distinguishing between limited English proficiency and reading disabilities is possible in the early grades while oral language skills are growing. “Assessing letter-naming fluency and phonological skills early in first grade can predict moderately well the English learners’ future reading achievement—word reading, oral reading fluency, and comprehension” (p. 45). Moreover, because this is so, these researchers suggest that early-literacy intervention studies conducted with native English speakers may apply to English learners.

In their own study on first grade classrooms with a large percentage of LEP students, Gersten and Geva (2003) attempted to “link specific instructional strategies to reading growth among English learners” (p. 46). They found that effective strategies included systematic teaching of phonological and decoding skills, “brief and lively” (p. 46) lessons that included review of the subject matter, and “[reinforcement] of phonological and word-attack skills” (p. 46). Writing activities, including journaling and taking dictation, also proved helpful. Moreover, Gersten and Geva note that “effective teachers emphasized vocabulary and language, and they integrated vocabulary with other lessons” (p. 46). Many teachers used pictures to teach vocabulary, but others also relied on kinetic demonstration, using hand gestures or acting out meanings.

These researchers also found that effective teachers frequently required students to use the vocabulary—“to define words, to use words in sentences, and sometimes to answer sophisticated questions involving those words” (Gersten & Geva, 2003, p. 47). These teachers also stressed reading comprehension, using reading “as a vehicle for language development by emphasizing vocabulary for English learners” (p. 48).

Teaching Reading to LEP Students

Non-English-speaking children must generally attain some proficiency in speaking before they can learn to read:

Learning to speak English first contributes to children’s eventual fluency in English reading because it provides a foundation to support subsequent learning about the alphabetic principle through an understanding of the sublexical structure of spoken English words and of the language and content of the material they are reading. (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 2004/1998, section, Findings)

In other words, it is helpful for children to understand how the written language corresponds to a spoken language with which they are already familiar, and knowledge of spoken language ensures that the students can understand the meaning of what they are learning.

Although Snow et al. (2004/1998) claim that the research is lacking, they advocate a bilingual approach whenever possible: “there is evidence that initial reading instruction in a child’s home language . . . makes a positive contribution to literacy attainment (both in the home language and in English) and, presumably, to the prevention of reading difficulties” (section 2, Findings). If students arrive at school without English skills, Snow et al. suggest that the school—if it is equipped to do so—teach these children to read in their native language while teaching them to speak English. Teachers should then use these skills to promote English reading ability. If the school does not have the requisite bilingual teachers or materials, Snow et al. still recommend developing the students’ ability to speak English prior to teaching them to read: “Although print materials may be used to support he development of English phonology, vocabulary, and syntax, the postponement of formal reading instruction is appropriate until an adequate level of oral proficiency in English has been achieved” (section 1, Recommendations).

Typical ESL Problems

According to the University Writing Center at California State University, Los Angeles (n.d.), non-native speakers typically encounter problems with articles and determiners, prepositions, the use of certain tenses, and vocabulary.

The rules for articles are complex and have many exceptions. For this reason, the Writing Center deems it “impractical” (University Writing Center, n.d., para. 3) to try to teach article usage through rules. One problem, says the author, is that the use of articles is frequently dependent on a larger context. For instance, when an item is first mentioned it will usually take an indefinite article; however, once that item has been mentioned, later references to it will take a definite article. An example is provided: “Yesterday I bought a car. The car is red with black upholstery” (para. 3). Moreover, many other languages do not use articles at all, or use them much differently than they are used in English. Students whose first language is one of the Asian languages “tend to leave articles out entirely at first” (para. 4). The author notes that the lack of articles can produce odd sentences: “For example, the difference between ‘the man’ and ‘Man’ is the difference between an individual and a philosophical abstraction” (para. 4).

Count and non-count nouns also provide difficulties for non-native speakers as some words that are considered non-count in English are considered countable in other languages: “‘Information’ is non-count in English but countable in French and Spanish. ESL Students will often talk about doing ‘a homework,’ or how many ‘vocabularies’ they have to learn” (University Writing Center, n.d., para. 5).

Prepositions define relationships between things, and pose an obstacle for ESL students because many languages use few prepositions and have other ways of describing these relationships. “In many languages this kind of information is coded in an inflection on a noun” (University Writing Center, n.d., para. 6). Not only does English contain many prepositions, the author says, but “if you look a preposition up in the dictionary you are likely to find twenty or thirty meanings, all rather vaguely defined” (para. 6).

Tense provides another area of difficulty for ESL students. “In English we pay a lot of attention to the order of events . . . what happened first, what happened before that, what is happening now, and what will happen” (University Writing Center, n.d., para. 7). Some languages do not use tense but have other means of conveying time. Simple past confuses students who “believe that things expressed in the past tense are no longer true” (para. 8) when instead it merely reflects a situation or condition of the past.

The perfect tenses, while necessary for academic writing, are usually avoided by native speakers in everyday conversation because they tend to seem overly formal. Native speakers also tend to avoid perfect tenses in writing as well because people generally write the way they speak. “Non-native speakers have generally been taught all about perfect tenses, but have not become fluent enough to use them correctly” (University Writing Center, n.d., para. 10).

According to the University Writing Center (n.d.), “lack of vocabulary probably causes more syntactic difficulties than any other single problem” (University Writing Center, n.d., para. 11). When a word is not known there are only two ways to find it. The first is to use a bilingual dictionary, a strategy that frequently generates words with unintended connotations. The second way is to describe the idea, an approach that “often produces a complex and tangled sentence structure” (para. 12).

ESL Standards

The ESL Standards

According to Short (2000), while the number of English language learners (ELLs) grew substantially during the 1990s, federal legislation ignored ESL as a subject content area and indicated that the needs of this group should be addressed by content areas such as the language arts. Because this strategy did not appear to effectively educate or include ELLs, a taskforce created by the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) developed the Access Brochure, “an advocacy tool to help programs and schools examine and adjust the opportunities they provide for ELLs to learn to high standards” (TESOL, 1993, cited in Short, 2000, section 1, para. 3). TESOL also created a second taskforce to develop a theoretical framework that outlined the ideal conditions and standards for effective ESL education. This framework includes a number of factors such as the responsibilities of staff, types of services, and the principles of ESL. It also “explains the benefits of bilingualism and the contribution of native language proficiency to the development of English” (Short, 2000, section 1, para. 3).

In 1995 TESOL used the ESL Standards and Assessment Project to study ESL content standards and program models, including “self-contained ESL, sheltered instruction, [and] transitional bilingual education” (Short, 2000, section 2, para. 1). The resulting publication, ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students (TESOL, 1997), organizes content standards under three educational goals. The content standards “state what students should know and be able to do as a result of ESL instruction and set goals for students’ social and academic language development and sociocultural competence” (section 2, para. 3).

The first goal is for ESL students to use English in social situations. The standards listed under this goal focus on students’ use of English for personal interaction. The second goal is for students to use English to develop in all subject areas. The standards in this area require use of English in the classroom and “to obtain, process, construct, and provide subject matter information in spoken and written form” (Short, 2000, section 3). The third goal focuses on “socially and culturally appropriate” (section 3) use of English, and contains standards for audience appeal, non-verbal communication, and extension of “sociolinguistic and sociocultural competence” (section 3) through use of suitable learning strategies.

According to Short (2000), these goals and standards “represent a profound shift in how English must be viewed in U.S. schools” (section 4, para. 1) because they do not relegate English to a single, discrete subject but encourage its development across all content areas. Short explains the importance of each goal—social, academic, and cultural—to show that “each goal includes one standard that focuses on learning strategies to help students extend their language development once they exit a language support program” (section 4, para. 2).

Short (2000) further describes the standards as having descriptors and progress indicators that help teachers establish objectives, plan lessons, and provide activities that can measure progress towards standards. Short also describes the variety of vignettes included in ESL Standards, which she says “illustrate the standards . . . represent good pedagogical advice . . . . [and] call particular attention to ways that teachers can work effectively with ELLs to help them meet the standards” (section 4, para. 3).

The standards, along with the information and methods pertaining to them, are grouped according to a range of grade levels to ensure that language learning is linked with age-appropriate instruction. Instruction strategies within each group are further characterized as “beginning, intermediate, and advanced” (Short, 2000, section 4, para. 4). Also included are suggestions pertaining to those students who have not had much formal education and those who have learning disabilities.

The purpose of the ESL Standards was to “have individual states or districts develop curricula based on the standards and describe their own proficiency levels and benchmarks of performance” (Short, 2000, section 4, para. 5).

As states, schools, and teacher training programs have been adopting the ESL Standards, TESOL has developed additional tools to inform “curriculum development, assessment practice, teacher education, and classroom implementation” (Short, 2000, section 5, para. 1). These tools include training manuals, assessment tools, classroom-focused books, parent guides, and so on. TESOL and the National Association for Bilingual Education also offer curriculum and professional development activities. Short claims that the establishment of ESL standards has “opened many doors for dialogue” (section 5, para. 4) between ESL teachers and those in other subjects about how to best assist ELL students.

Short (2000) suggests that a great deal more needs to be done on behalf of ELLs and proposes a number of channels through which this can take place. First, according to Short, the ESL standards should become a part of all teacher-training curriculums so that all teachers in all subjects can facilitate ELLs’ progress and learn appropriate accommodation strategies and assessments. Because of the current emphasis on high-stakes testing, Short also advocates increased collaboration between ESL teachers and those in other subject areas regarding the strategies employed in the ESL Standards: “it is imperative that ELLs receive the best content instruction possible while they are learning English. The ESL Standards can show content teachers the functional uses of language that can be developed through content topics and tasks” (section 5, para. 2). Third, Short encourages textbook publishers and test developers to recognize the ESL Standards. Finally, Short notes that for ELLs to meet state and local assessment standards, ESL classes will have to “become more rigorous” (section 5, para. 4).

Classroom Considerations and Parent Involvement

Guidelines for Language Classroom Instruction

Crookes and Chaudron (2001) see classroom instruction as primarily the process of teachers interacting with students. As this process occurs, teachers must make constant decisions, some of which will be guided by “professional judgment” (p. 29) and others by personal experience or personal judgment. Crookes and Chaudron initially break down the process of second-language classroom instruction into three general parts: presentation of the elements or skills to be emphasized, the learning of these skills or elements, and the “correction or feedback” (29) to students from the teacher.

Language presentation involves three parts: deciding the objectives of the lesson, choosing “modalities” (p. 30), and determining what activities will help students meet the objectives set.

Crooks and Chaudron (2001) cite O’Malley, Chamot, and Walker (1987) in saying that second language is increasingly recognized as a “process of skill acquisition” (p. 30) and that the students should “move on to practice phases of a lesson as soon as possible” (p. 30) after the teacher has decided what the objectives are for a class period. The materials or modalities used are divided into two types, “non-technical aids and technical aids” (Celce-Murcia, 1979, cited in Crookes and Chaudron, 2001, p. 30). The use of technical aids such as “the overhead projector, audio and video recordings, CD-ROM and Internet” (p. 30) should be decided by the teacher based on a number of considerations including whether they will assist student understanding and whether they “constitute an efficient use of class time, particularly taking into account the teacher time required to produce them or the logistics of setting up or removing any necessary equipment” (p. 30).

Crookes and Chaudron (2001) also discuss the textbook as a material. New teachers can use a textbook much like a syllabus while more experienced teachers “can use it as an aid” (p. 30) or “dispense with it completely” (p. 30). While the authors maintain that “the utility of the average textbook for a typical present-day ESL/EFL course is normally unquestioned” (p. 30), they also remind teachers that textbooks are essentially “the product of pressures of the market” (p. 30) and may not work to their intended purpose.

Teachers have a great deal of latitude in how they present lessons. While textbooks frequently offer suggestions, instructors may find other methods equally well suited. For example, the authors say, second-language textbooks often “present the material via dialogue” (Crookes & Chaudron, 2001, p. 31) and the students repeat it out loud. Yet another option is for the students to pair up and read it to each other “while the teacher circulates and checks individual performance” (p. 31).

While some research indicates that teachers should immediately “focus on the target points” (p. 31) of a lesson, the authors note that second language learning “does not take place in simple linear fashion” (p. 31), and that students learn skills at different rates. For this reason, the objectives of a lesson should come up a number of times, even in subsequent lessons. When presenting lessons, instructors should also “consider what little is known about the learner’s development of control over the pragmatic aspects of the SL” (p. 31).

The final part of presentation is “rule presentations and explanations” (Crookes & Chaudron, 2001, p. 31). There is some controversy as to whether grammar rules should be presented “explicitly” (p. 31); however, “research has increasingly established the legitimacy of a focus on form” (p. 31). The authors suggest that teachers should

be aware of options in how to make a rule explicit or not; whether or not to isolate a rule, whether an explanation should involve an inductive or deductive presentation; who should give the explanation—the teacher, the text, or another student; whether the language is abstract or not; and whether the explanation is provided orally or in writing. (p. 32)

Teachers must also establish how well the students have understood the explanation.

Crookes and Chaudron (2001) also mention the presentation models designed by Yee and Wagner (1984) for presentation of vocabulary and grammar rules, and a functional sequence in rule presentation observed by Faerch (1986). Yee and Wagner’s model contains “a framing stage, a focusing stage, the explanation itself, and a restatement . . . with several subcategories as optional features” (p. 32). The sequence of Faerch’s observation includes “‘a Problem-formulation’ . . . an Induction . . . [and] the teacher’s ‘Rule formulation’ followed optionally by . . . ‘Exemplification’ by the teacher or students” (p. 32).

In the section on “tasks” (p. 32) Crookes and Chaudron (2001) distinguish between activities and tasks, with “activity” being a broader term and “task” referring to “a separable element of a lesson that is primarily geared to practicing language presented earlier . . . usually involving students working with each other, to achieve a specific objective” (p. 32). They then present activity types as categorized by Valcárcel et al. (1985) in the order in which they might be sequenced in a lesson.

The first of the activity types categorized by Valcárcel et al. (cited in Crookes & Chaudron, 2001, 1985) is the “Information and Motivation” (p. 33) phase, which is supposed to stimulate student interest. These include (1) warm up, (mime, dance, song . . . etc.) which is not always related to the lesson; (2) setting, “either verbal or non-verbal evocation” (p. 33) which provides some context for the topic; (3) brainstorming; (4) story telling; and (5) “a propos” (p. 33), a “conversation” (p. 33) or other socially oriented interaction” (p. 33).

The second activity type appears in the “Input/Control Phase” (p. 33). These activities might be (1) organizational, which connotes the “managerial structuring of the lesson or class activities” (p. 33); (2) content explanation, which might provide a general overview of the lesson or present specific rules; (3) role-play demonstration, which is used to “illustrate the procedure(s) to be applied in the following lesson segment” (p. 33); (4) recognition, an activity in which students “identify a specific target, form, function, definition, rule, or other lesson-related item . . . without producing language as a response” (p. 33); (5) language modeling, which involves the teacher presenting isolated sentences which the students repeat, answer, or translate; (6) dialogue/narrative presentation, in which students read or listen to something; (7) question-answer display, a “controlled activity involving prompting of student responses by means of display questions” (p. 34); (8) review, a summary or review of previous material.

The third activity type appears in the “Focus/ Working Phase” (p. 34). These activities include (1) translation from either the first or second language; (2) dictation; (3) copying; (4) reading aloud; (5) drill; (6) dialogue/narrative recitation; (7) cued narrative/dialogue, in which students “build up a dialogue or piece of narrative following cues from miming, cue cards, pictures . . . or other stimuli related to narrative or dialogue” (p. 34); (8) meaningful drill, which involves the “exchange of a limited number of fixed patterns of interaction” (p. 34); (9) preparation, where pupils plan for an activity; (10) identification, students identify a “specific target form, function, definition, or other lesson-related item” (p. 34); (11) a game; (12) referential question-answer, which involves asking questions to solicit responses; (13) checking, the correcting of a previous assignment; and (14) wrap-up, a summary of the main points of a lesson.

The final activity phase, the “Transfer/Application Phase” contains ten possible types of activities: (1) information transfer, where students take one kind of information and transfer it to another form, for example from “oral” to “written” (p. 34); (2) information exchange, “one-way or two-way communication such as information gap exercises, in which one or both parties must obtain information from the other to achieve a goal” (p. 34); (3) role play; (4) report, for example, a “prepared oral exposition of students’ previous work . . . and elaborated on according to students’ own interpretation” (p. 35); (5) narration, a story in the students’ “own words and without previous preparation” (p. 35); (6) discussion; (7) composition; (8) problem solving, where “students work on an activity in which a problem and some limitations on means are established” (p. 35); (9) drama; (10) simulation, an “activity that involves complex interaction between groups and individuals based on simulation of real-life actions and experiences” (p. 35).

Crookes and Chaudron (2001) also mention testing, which is a “Borderline Activity” (p. 35). Testing can be integrated into any phase as a means of determining students’ understanding.

The authors then return to the definition of tasks, which they discuss in terms of “types and parameters” (p. 35). Three definitions are provided from various researchers. According to Long (1985), a task is “a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some reward . . .” (cited in Crookes and Chaudron, 2001, p. 35). Another definition is supplied by Skehan (1996): “a task is . . . an activity in which meaning is primary; there is some sort of relationship to the real world; task completion has some priority; and the assessment of task performance is in terms of task outcome” (cited in Crookes and Chaudron, 2001, p. 35). The definition most specific to the realm of second-language classroom instruction comes from Nunan (1989), who says that a task is “the smallest unit of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing, or interacting in the target language” (cited in Crookes and Chaudron, 2001, p. 35).

Tasks can be considered in terms of “task complexity, task conditions, and task difficulty” (Robinson, 2000, cited in Crookes and Chaudron, 2001, p. 36). Issues of task complexity, according to Robinson, include “those factors that affect learners’ cognitive resources for attention and processing of information and therefore affect the accuracy, fluency, and complexity of their production” (p. 36). Task conditions include those “‘participation variables’ such as open and closed tasks, one-way and two-way tasks, and convergent and divergent tasks” (p. 36) which affect the interaction of the learners. Task difficulty refers to the “learner-internal factors” (p. 36) that affect the student’s ability to carry out the task. Crookes and Chaudron also suggest that any study of tasks must regard task sequence as an essential element: “implementation of tasks in pedagogically rational sequence can establish a great deal toward ensuring learner success on a given task” (p. 36).

In the section “Relevant Characteristics” Crookes and Chaudron (2001) discuss the various conditions and characteristics of tasks. “Information structure” (p. 36) tasks are designed so that participants have information which must be shared in order to complete the tasks. These can be completed in one-way or two-way activities. Most studies show, however, that two-way work increases the level of “interactional modification (repetitions, expansions, confirmation checks, etc.)” (p. 37).

“Shared assumptions” (p. 36) refer to the level of understanding between participants that affects the amount of “negotiation of meaning” (p. 36) they will have to engage in. For example, some researchers contend that if the learners “have a very clear idea of the structure of one another’s information, there will be less likelihood of partial or complete meaning breakdowns” (Gass &Varonis, 1985, cited in Crookes and Chaudron, 2001, p. 37). Likewise, if the students know each other well, they will not need to make as much effort in the process of meaning negotiation (Gaies, 1982, cited in Crookes and Chaudron, 2001, p. 37). The authors report that this characteristic may also “apply to the availability of visual support for a task” (p. 37).

“Recycling” is a characteristic of using the same language element repeatedly in a conversation or other discourse. The repetition of the element makes it “potentially more useful to the [non-native speaker] than one in which many items occurred once only” (p. 37).

Communicative tasks can also have the quality of being convergent or divergent. Reviews conducted by Duff (1986) show that many convergent tasks assigned to second-language students require the students to determine an agreed-upon solution, “often in solving some values clarification problem” (Crookes & Chaudron, 2001, p. 37). Convergent tasks provide more opportunity for short dialogue and “more communication units” (p. 37), while divergent tasks “lead to longer turns of greater syntactic complexity” (p. 37); however, divergent tasks, because of their complexity, “[reduce] . . . the amount of comprehensible input available” (p. 37).

In their discussion of facilitation, Crookes and Chaudron (2001) cover the principles of class organization, the dynamics of interaction between students and teachers, and the choosing of learning tasks.

The “key participants” (Crookes & Chaudron, 2001, p. 38) in the classroom include “the teacher, the teacher aide or trainee, the individual student and groupings of students, the class as a whole, the language presentation materials used . . . and any visitors or outsiders” (p. 38). Modern second-language classrooms are “student-centered” (p. 38) where students work on activities individually or in pairs or groups. While teachers should “remain conscious of their students’ need for guidance in setting objectives, for appropriate models of and feedback about the target language, and for constructive and supportive evaluation of their progress” (p. 38), student-centered instruction provides a number of advantages over the traditionally teacher-centered organization.

The authors suggest that “pair and group work” (Crookes & Chaudron, 2001, p. 38) allows the students more occasions to use the target language themselves. Moreover, students still “manage to perform equally successfully in terms of grammatical accuracy as when the teacher is leading the discussion” (p. 38). In addition to speaking more, group work also enables students to speak more freely than they might otherwise do in a larger class discussion: “the observable inhibitions to speak in larger classes tend to disappear in small group work” (p. 38). Crookes and Chaudron (2001) note that as groups differ, so do their achievements. Instructors can either have the groups compete with each other to reach some objective or have them work on different parts of a project “to generate whole-class tasks and objectives” (p. 38).

Two elements of “Teacher-fronted” (Crookes & Chaudron, 2001, p. 39) or teacher-centered class organization are discussed: question type and wait time. “Display questions” (p. 39) are those whose answers are already known by the questioner. Crookes and Chaudron (2001) cite studies by Brock (1986) and Long and Sato (1983) that show that second-language teachers ask more of these types of questions “than do ordinary [native speakers] talking to [non-native speakers]” (p. 39). The authors point out that there are two problems with the overuse of this type of questioning. First, they say, this type of interaction is not modeled on real-life situations, and second, “if teacher-student interaction is predominantly through display questions, relatively little communication is going on” (p. 39). In these situations, claim the authors, it is possible that the student is not “receiving useful input” (p. 39); moreover, students who believe the teacher is just checking their comprehension will “produce less complex language” (p. 38) than if they believe the teacher wants “a proper and complete answer to a real question” (p. 38).

“Referential questions” are “those to which the questioner does not already know the answer” (Crookes & Chaudron, 2001, p. 39). Referential questions may be either “closed”—meaning there are a limited number of answers, or “open”—meaning that any number of answers may exist. The authors cite a study by Long et al. (1984) which showed that more complex answers were solicited by open referential questions.

“Wait-time” (Crookes & Chaudron, 2001, p. 39) is the amount of time that elapses between the time a question is asked and the time that either a response is given or another question is asked (or a comment is made by the original questioner). The authors cite Rowe (1969) to show that teachers generally wait about a second. A longer wait-time—three to five seconds” (p. 39)—leads to “improvement in learning and in the quality of classroom discourse” (p. 39). Another study of wait-time (Long et al., 1984, cited in Crookes & Chaudron, 2001) “found that increased wait time after teacher questions resulted in longer [second-language] student utterances” (p. 39); however, because of some of the variables of this study, Crooks and Chaudron suggest that the element of wait-time requires more study.

In the section on “Correction and Feedback” Crookes and Chaudron (2001) say that this element of classroom instruction is valuable, whether or not it is part of a formal focus. “Even in the most learner-centered instruction, learners need feedback in order to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable target language use” (p. 40). The authors say that there is a range of options available to instructors with regard to how they provide feedback. They do note, however, that “recasts” (p. 40), or repeating an incorrect statement with some small modification, are not usually properly understood by the student. The authors give an example through the following dialogue:

STUDENT: I can no go back home today early.

TEACHER: You can’t go home early today?

STUDENT: No. (p. 40)

In such an instance, the corrections should be more direct, “emphasizing and isolating the modeled forms” (Chaudron 1977, cited in Crookes & Chaudron, 2001, p. 35). Recasting is effective about 20 to 25 percent of the time (p. 41), and the authors propose that this method might be effective when the student has reached a stage of language comprehension that allows understanding of small distinctions.

Lyster and Ranta (1997), who conducted French language immersion studies, contend that their findings show “the positive value of explicit correction and negotiated feedback in guiding learners to the correct use of target forms, since ‘uptake’ of correct grammatical forms occurred more frequently following such corrective moves” (cited in Crookes & Chaudron, 2001, p. 41). The authors say that “a considerably higher rate of uptake of pronunciation and lexical errors occurred in [the] data” when the instructors gave feedback through recasts. Other studies, however, show that learners may retain more when they are urged to “self-correct” (p. 40) or when peers assist in correction. The authors remind readers that an important limitation to the productiveness of feedback “is the natural order of acquisition of a given structure or function” (p. 40) and advise teachers to keep up with research findings in this area.

The authors conclude that teachers should be aware of what “relatively firm information does exist” (p. 40) on classroom instruction and also where information is lacking. This awareness will help them in the constant process of decision-making required in the classroom. Crookes and Chaudron (2001) cite Clark and Lampert (1986) and Leinhardt and Greeno (1986) in noting that while being informed is important, “teaching will always be a series of judgement calls; its real time cognitive complexity means it will never be just a science, and will always remain something of an art” (p. 41)

Contextual Factors in Second Language Acquisition

According to Walqui (2000), there are three contextual factors that affect second language learners: “individual, social, and societal” (section 1, para. 1). These factors should be considered from the standpoint of the language, the student, and the learning process. Walqui describes and explains several of these factors from each of the three perspectives. Contextual factors from the language perspective include

the linguistic distance between the two languages, students’ level of proficiency in the native language and their knowledge of the second language, the dialect of the native language . . . the relative status of the language in the community, and societal attitudes toward the students’ native language. (section 2, para. 1)

Linguistic distance means how similar or dissimilar two languages are from each other. Walqui provides an illustration from the Defense Language Institute of Monterey, California, which categorizes languages in four levels according to their similarity to English. For instance, languages more closely comparable to English—like Spanish—are considered much easier to learn, while languages which have different origins and writing systems—like Arabic or Korean—are considered more difficult.

The students’ mastery of their own native language also contributes to language acquisition. The elements of native language proficiency are described as including literacy, “but also metalingusitic development, training in formal and academic features of language use, and knowledge of rhetorical patterns and variations in genre and style” (Walqui, 2000, section 2, para. 3). Walqui believes this accounts for the relative success of foreign exchange students, who can already be assumed to have at least high-school level academic abilities in their own language.

Students’ knowledge of the second language varies depending on the length and context of the students’ prior experiences. Walqui (2000) notes that some students’ experience may be primarily social while others may be exclusively academic. The varying knowledge that students bring to the classroom requires special attention: “the extent and type of prior knowledge is an essential consideration in planning instruction” (section 2, para. 4).

The dialect and register of academic language may be different than that the student experiences in everyday life. Changing these patterns may be especially difficult if they are substantially different from the ones the student values and is accustomed to. Dialect and register, as marked components of language, are also part of the perceived status of the language. Walqui (2000) states that “Consideration of dialects and registers of a language and of the relationships between two languages includes the relative prestige of different languages and dialects and of the cultures and ethnic groups associated with them” (section 2, para. 6). If a student’s native language has a relatively lower social standing, the student is more likely to abandon their first language in an effort to assimilate with what he/she perceives is the more “prestigious society” (section 2, para. 6).

Walqui (2000) believes that the attitude of the language learners themselves and those around them—the school, their peers, the community—make a huge impact on the process of language acquisition. Walqui urges teachers and students to explore these attitudes, especially those that harm students’ desire to continue their first language: “If their ways of talking outside of school are valued when used in appropriate contexts, students are more likely to be open to learning a new language or dialect . . .” (section 2, para. 8).

Contextual factors from the learner’s perspective include such things as “peer pressure, the presence of role models, and the level of home support” (Walqui, 2000, section 3, para. 1). Because all students, and particularly English language learners, have diverse backgrounds and needs, Walqui states that they need “a different conception of curricula and a different approach to materials” (section 3, para. 3).

The students’ goals frequently dictate the extent to which students master the various components of language. Walqui (2000) cites Gardner (1989) in pointing out that students who wish to fully assimilate will have a different view of the language learning process than those who take a more practical view. Instructors must also take into account the level of acceptance these students get from their communities.

Because of the high level of influence exerted by peers, especially in secondary school, peer groups are another factor that instructors must consider. Walqui (2000) states that “peer pressure often undermines the goals set by parents and teachers” (section 3, para. 4), and students may see proficiency or correct pronunciation as excluding them from their native-language-speaking peers. One way to combat a negative image of the target language is through role models: “Students need to have positive and realistic role models who demonstrate the value of being proficient in more than one language” (section 3, para. 5). Walqui also suggests that students read about the experiences of others from different language backgrounds in order to more clearly understand their own situations.

Another significant factor in students’ language acquisition is the level of support they receive from their families. Walqui (2000) states that regardless of the level of English spoken in the home, it is important for parents to value both English and the native language and show interest in the student’s progress.

The learning factors as viewed from the perspective of the learning process focus on the ideas that “students have different learning styles, that intrinsic motivation aids learning, and that the quality of the classroom interaction matters a great deal” (section 4, para. 1). Walqui cites Skehan (1989) in stating that students learn a second language in a variety of different ways. Some focus on the use of analytical skills while others learn more visually, kinetically, or through auditory means.

According to Deci and Ryan (1985) “intrinsic motivation is related to basic human needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness” (cited in Walqui, 2000, section 4, para. 3). This type of motivation provides increased learning through activities that appeal to the student’s interests and personal need for challenge.

The final factor is classroom interaction. Language skills are best developed through meaningful communication. Walqui (2000) suggests that one-way communications, like lecturing, are “not the most appropriate [means]” (section 4, para. 5) of teaching second language learners, and urges educators to employ more interactive methods.

Walqui (2000) concludes that in addition to the contextual factors and perspectives discussed, “the larger social and cultural contexts of second language development have a tremendous impact on second language learning, especially for immigrant students” (section 5, para. 1), and that the relative position of students’ cultural group compared to that of mainstream society can have profoundly positive or negative effects on the students’ ability to learn a second language.

Teaching ESL Students in the Mainstreamed Classroom

In “Teaching ESL Students in the Mainstreamed Classroom,” Wallace (n.d.) provides the levels of second language acquisition, gives some suggestions on communicating with ESL students, recommends some ways in which teachers can prepare the classroom for ESL students, and discusses some ESL teaching strategies.

According to Wallace (n.d.), there are four stages of language acquisition: preproduction, where the student is beginning to understand the language but cannot use it; production, in which the student comprehends some of what is said and can produce short responses; speech emergence, the stage at which students are capable of longer sentences and have increased understanding; and intermediate fluency, where the student has higher levels of comprehension and speech.

Wallace (n.d.) also lists some of the common myths regarding ESL students: that “children learn second languages quickly and easily” (section 2, para. 3); that students learn faster the more they are in a second language environment; and that students “[all] learn a second language in the same way” (section 2, para. 3).

Wallace (n.d.) stresses that learning a second language is difficult—either as an adult or a child—and that it can take up to six years to learn a second language to academic proficiency. Moreover, the way students learn a second language is largely dependent on their native language patterns and their level of proficiency in that language. How a student initially learns a language is also a factor: “The more technologically advanced the culture [of the first language], the more likely children are taught through language. Children from lower socioeconomic levels, different cultures, or where technology is not a factor, usually learn through non-verbal means such as observation or practice” (section 2, para. 5).

Teachers must recognize that many ESL students “use a different cultural-based experience pool” (Wallace, n.d., section 2, para. 6) from their own, and to this end, Wallace urges teachers to provide appropriate vocabulary and context material before lessons that require an understanding of the cultural perspective. When possible, teachers should also seek to accommodate ESL students by adapting materials to their comprehension.

Communicating with a new ESL student so that the student understands is important. Wallace (n.d.) suggests “the use of drawings, gestures, actions, emotions, voice variety, sketches, and pictures” (section 3, para. 2). Teachers should use simple vocabulary, avoid using too many pronouns, and speak at a “slow-to-normal pace” (section 3, para. 3). They should not force eye contact, which in some cultures is construed as rudeness. Teachers should also ask uncomplicated questions that require only “yes” or “no” responses, and “accept one-word responses or gestures such as pointing or nodding” (section 3, para. 4). Other strategies include allowing the new pupil to consult a bilingual dictionary or listing useful phrases so that the student can learn them.

To prepare for ESL students, teachers can arrange the classroom effectively and learn more about ESL instruction. Wallace (n.d.) advises teachers to have regular routines, “effective room arrangements” (section 4, para. 1), and learning environments in which students feel safe. “Routines provide structure and a sense of belonging; effective room arrangements provide needed opportunities for peer interactions, while safe classroom environments support the acceptance of differences and taking risks” (section 4, para. 1).

Teachers can learn more about ESL instruction by “joining professional organizations dedicated to the Bilingual/ESL student, developing good relationships with Bilingual/ESL instructors, and starting or joining a support group of general education classroom teachers” (Wallace, n.d., section 4, para. 2). This can assist teachers’ understanding of the needs of ESL students, research on ESL issues, and various teaching methods.

Wallace (n.d.) offers some strategies to consider when teaching ESL students. Sensitivity to ESL students and their different ways of learning, Wallace says, is of utmost importance. One way to establish an understanding of students is to learn about other cultures and the teaching techniques they use, as students may be unfamiliar with western teaching methods. Another suggestion is to have ESL students use tape recorders to record vocabulary words or sentences that they can listen to again. Wallace also suggests reading “any story or poem that is repetitive or has predictable patterns . . .” (section 5, para. 3) or to use stories or poems translated from the student’s native language. Learning strategies such as “looking at the headings or bold-faced print, skimming the text, and making predictions” (section 5, para. 3) should be taught along with reading. Index cards can be used for teaching reading skills because they “can be used to make flash cards, concentration games, matching games, word order practice, pair work, information-gap activities, and sequencing games” (section 5, para. 4).

Teaching strategies, research findings, and information about ESL instructional materials can be found on the Internet, and Wallace (n.d.) provides a list of Internet addresses she considers helpful. Compiling and organizing ESL instructional methods and lesson plans is also suggested. In evaluating lesson plans, teachers should determine whether the lesson is “visible” (section 5, para. 6), whether the vocabulary can be made more understandable with props or other items, whether the lesson allows for “student pairing/sharing” (section 5, para. 6), and whether the teacher can assess learning outcomes in ways other than by verbal or written means. Teachers should also seek to incorporate technology so that ESL students can “preview lessons, review previous lessons, and email other classes when researching their regional areas or doing other kinds of research” (section 5, para. 7).

Teaching LEP Students

Because it is increasingly common for teachers to have one or more LEP students in their classrooms, many of these teachers circulate suggestions for accommodating LEP students and including them in the class. While some of the ideas provided offer something in the way of teaching strategies, most of them focus on allowing for cultural differences and helping LEP students participate socially: “isolating LEP kids can make them feel different—and make English speakers feel they’re different too” (Schall, 2004, section 2).

There are a number of factors that influence LEP student achievement; however, “the personal and academic relationships between teachers and their students may be most influential” (Burnette, 1999, section 1). Burnette lists a number of teacher behaviors and instructional strategies that assist teachers in building relationships with their LEP and other culturally diverse students. Many of these suggestions are somewhat general and “exemplify standard practices of good teaching” (section 1). General suggestions include teaching students context-appropriate behaviors, developing relationships with students, using a variety of teaching strategies to appeal to different learning styles, including objectives for personal development, communicating expectations and rules, providing frequent reviews of material, facilitating student independence, and keeping students on-task. Suggestions more specific to LEP students include “appreciat[ing] and accommodat[ing] the similarities and differences among the students’ cultures” (section 2) and “consider[ing] students’ cultures and abilities when setting learning objectives and activities” (section 2). These tasks mean identifying and enthusiastically accepting individual and cultural differences. “Positive identification creates a basis for the development of effective communication and instructional strategies. Social skills, such as respect and cross-cultural understanding, can be modeled, taught, prompted and reinforced by the teacher” (section 2).

Schall (2004) offers a compilation of strategies employed by three teachers to assist their LEP students. Many of these strategies focus on collaboration and inclusion in the classroom. Some of the inclusion strategies include finding someone from the community who can speak the child’s language to come into the classroom and enlisting the help of other students who speak the student’s language. The ability to communicate with the student—even if it is through translation—allows the teacher to show interest in the child and learn more about the student’s culture. Having a bilingual volunteer available also allows the LEP child to “preview” a lesson through means of a brief summary and then review the lesson afterwards. Two of the teachers cited by Schall adopt a “buddy system,” pairing students with others to act as mentors, “whether they speak each other’s language or not” (Quintana, cited in Schall, 2004, section 2).

Another aspect of including LEP students in the classroom involves raising the awareness of the other students through role reversal, for example, inviting a volunteer who speaks another language to give a short lesson in that language and later clarifying the lesson in English:

[Initially] we give no explanation to the students and keep this up for about 15 minutes. Kids get blown away . . . . Everyone is reminded how difficult learning can be. And if one child speaks the language, he or she can help others for a change. (Quintana, cited in Schall, 2004, section 2)

Student awareness is also raised through such activities as having all students trace their family histories and mark where they are from on a map posted in the classroom. “The goal is for all students to understand that we all come from different places” (Quintana, cited in Schall, 2004, section 2). Another inclusion strategy requires having students copy sentences from the board in several languages so that “children can experience what it’s like to try to write in another alphabet” (Clovis, cited in Schall, 2004, section 3).

These teachers advocate offering alternative assignments to LEP students who are unable to participate in regular class activities. For example, LEP students who cannot participate in journal writing are asked to choose pictures and write about them in their native language, eventually changing their entries to English to the extent possible.

Most helpful are these teachers’ suggestions regarding language acquisition. For example, Clovis (cited in Schall, 2004, section 3) recommends reading poetry—or anything with a distinct rhythm—aloud to the class to help LEP students learn intonation. Anything with a repetitive pattern offers students the opportunity to join in (section 3). Clovis also labels objects in the room and posts visuals like photographs and drawings. “This is especially important . . . for children whose language is based on a different alphabet” (section 3). A similar visual strategy is used to teach vocabulary. Students make picture cards with both the word and a drawing representing the object. Quintana (cited in Schall, 2004, section 2) emphasizes the use of body movements to help LEP students understand meaning. These strategies, which Quintana refers to as Total Physical Response, include modeling actions and using the body to “get across concepts such as above/below or over there” (section 2).

According to Hernandez (2004, cited in Schall, 2004, section, Language Acquisition), there are four stages of language acquisition. The first stage is called preproduction. Children are capable of recognizing and understanding language, but they can’t articulate themselves and should not be required to respond to questions. At this stage the child should be engaged primarily in listening activities. Next comes early production. This stage is marked by increased understanding and limited verbalization. Children in early production can usually offer short (one- or two-word) answers. The next stage is speech emergence, which is characterized by a higher level of comprehension and the ability to speak in simple sentences. According to Hernandez, children at this stage should be encouraged to “retell and define, explain, compare, and describe” (qtd. in Schall, 2004, section, Language Acquisition). Children subsequently may reach intermediate fluency. Children at this level are able to construct and speak in more complex sentences, and are capable of “analyzing, examining, and justifying” (section, Language Acquisition).

While researchers generally bemoan the insufficiency of research available on language acquisition for ELL students—and this can be assumed to be an exceedingly complex subject—most of those involved in educating ELL students agree that teacher instructional strategy and parent involvement are critical.

Parent Involvement

In 1999, Richard W. Riley, the U.S. Secretary of Education, announced two new student reading tools, both of which involved the participation of family members: “Parents, grandparents, teachers and communities all have a role to play in making sure all children learn to read well” (U.S. Department of Education, 1999, para. 2). The first tool, titled Start Early, Finish Strong, was a report that made a case for mobilizing family and community efforts to help children learn to read. “The report provides action steps for parents and policymakers, child care practitioners, and school personnel, citizens, colleges, and businesses” (U.S. Department of Education, 1999, para. 3). The second tool, The Compact for Reading, is a kit that helps families, schools, and other members of the community cooperate to improve student reading. It includes ways to develop written agreements between schools and families, and “provides teachers with 400 activities to link the family at home with the classroom curriculum” (para. 4). Riley also announced Child Care READS, an initiative privately funded by the President’s Coalition for America Reads, a grassroots organization formed in 1997. This initiative introduced child care workers to reading skills and promoted extra-curricular and summer reading programs for older children. Riley also took this opportunity to criticize a proposed tax cut that would affect a number of educational programs including reading (para. 7).

LEP Student Parent Involvement

While politicians may champion parent involvement as a new breakthrough, most educators have always understood the value of parent participation in their children’s education. Studies conducted over the last twenty years repeatedly show that parent involvement improves elementary student achievement (Simich-Dudgeon, 1999, section 1). More recently, according to Simich-Dudgeon, researchers have tackled the question of the effects this type of involvement has on older children and those with different backgrounds. Results indicate that the benefits are numerous regardless of student age, family income, socioeconomic status, or even the parents’ ability to speak English. In “Parent Involvement and the Education of Limited-English-Proficient Students,” Simich-Dudgeon lists helpful parent activities, special aspects of parent involvement for non-English-speaking parents, and research results that advocate parent participation.

Parent involvement comes in a number of forms. In general, parent involvement includes “providing a home environment that supports children’s learning needs” (Simich-Dudgeon, 1999, section 2), offering to volunteer at school, becoming active in school organizations, going to school-sponsored activities, communicating with the child’s teacher, keeping track of the child’s progress in school, and “tutoring the children at home, using specific learning activities designed by the teacher to reinforce work being done in school” (Simich-Dudgeon, 1999, section 2). Simich-Dudgeon notes that while most of these activities are instated and monitored by parents, teachers should take the first steps in involving parents in tutoring. Parents frequently want to help their children but don’t know how to go about doing so. To parents of elementary-age children, teachers can provide support by keeping in contact and providing specific materials and techniques that will reinforce classroom learning (section 2). For older students, parent involvement requires “that the parent become co-learner, facilitator and collaborator, a means of support as the high-school age student develops independence and explores future educational options” (section 2).

Parents of LEP or non-English-proficient (NEP) students are frequently hesitant to participate in their children’s education, seeing it as a type of interference. (Simich-Dudgeon, 1999, section 3). Many parents believe that it is the school’s function and responsibility to educate their children. The first task, then, according to Simich-Dudgeon, is to “acculturate parents to the meaning of parent involvement in their new social environment” (section 3).

Findings regarding parent involvement seem uniformly positive. Simich-Dudgeon (1999) cites studies that show the following: that parental involvement and encouragement produce higher student achievement levels regardless of families’ socioeconomic status (Epstein, 1985); that helping their “children at home consistently and significantly improves parents’ knowledge and expertise in helping their children as well as their ability to effectively evaluate teachers’ merits” (Bennett, 1986); that it has a positive effect on “attendance, classroom behavior, and parent-teacher relations” (Gillum, 1977); and that it improved students’ reading achievement (Hewison & Tizard, 1980). These benefits applied across the board, regardless of the parents’ own language ability. Simich-Dudgeon notes that in the study conducted by Hewison and Tizard, “several of the participating parents were non-English proficient and/or illiterate, a condition that neither prevented the parents from collaborating with the school, nor the children from showing marked improvement in reading ability” (section 4).

Collaboration with teachers, perhaps through bilingual assistants, allow LEP parents to help strengthen educational concepts in either their own language or in English and enrich their own knowledge of language and culture (Simich-Dudgeon, 1999, section 3). Moreover, one study that researched the effects of the collaboration of parents on a specifically designed home curriculum showed that even when parents were not available, the involvement of guardians and siblings provided equally positive results (section 4).

State and Federal Expectations: Reading

The State of State English Standards

In the section of The State of State English Standards 2005 that focuses on Washington State, Stotsky (2005) reviews and evaluates the state’s current standards documents and compares them with earlier versions. The author divides scoring into five sections: purposes and expectations, organization, disciplinary coverage, quality, and negative criteria.

While Stotsky (2005) claims that the current standards have some strengths—“systematic instruction in decoding skills is clearly set forth, there is a strong vocabulary strand over the grades, and most areas of the English language arts and reading are covered well” (p. 69)—she points out what she sees as serious shortcomings. First, she says, the set of language arts and reading standards is confusing, with a “poorly conceptualized” (p. 69) organizational scheme. She also points out that some objectives overlap in some areas but are listed separately in others; for instance, “Writing mingles objectives for literary and non-literary writing, even though the document lists the genres for each separately” (p. 69).

In addition to the difficulty of navigating the document, Stotsky (2005) claims that the 2004 standards are “less rigorous” (p. 69) than those in earlier versions and that though a few grade-level expectations are understandable and useful for assessments, many are “processes, strategies, or pretentious statements with no clear academic objective—reductionist in goal and often incomprehensible” (p. 69). Worse, she says, the standards imply an unnecessarily restrictive view of culture, “a condescending and limiting perspective on what children are capable of reading and should be exposed to” (p. 69).

The standards documents do not provide specific examples of texts that would illustrate the grade-level expectations. Instead, says Stotsky (2005), they supply “social and political topics to guide literary reading” (p. 69). Stotsky suggests discarding “those standards for the English language arts that seem to serve as expressions for some person’s or group’s particular political and social goals” (p. 70), in favor of recognized works that exemplify the expectations:

Without a few content-rich and content-specific standards pointing to a group of culturally and/or historically significant authors, works, literary periods, and literary traditions . . . that outline the essential substantive content of the English curriculum . . . [the] standards cannot lead to uniformly high academic expectations for all students . . . . (p. 70)

Stotsky (2005) awards the Washington State standards 27 points out of a possible 112: an F.

In the general section on “Teacher Training and Professional Development,” Stotsky (2005) explains the importance of aligning teacher training and professional development to the states’ standards. Because classroom objectives reflect what teachers themselves have been taught, Stotsky believes that their training should be influenced by the states’ standards. Moreover, “because NCLB explicitly links student achievement . . . to teacher quality and to ‘high quality’ professional development” (p. 73), states should specifically require that their new teachers are prepared to reach these standards and that “current teachers address these standards in the course of their professional development” (p. 73).

The author grades each state’s use of its E/LA/R standards in its training and professional development programs using five criteria. First, the state expects teacher training programs “to include coursework that shows pre-service teachers how to teach to its K-12 standards” (Stotsky, 2005, p. 73). Second, the state requires teacher training programs to demonstrate that their students—future teachers—are learning the essential knowledge in arts and sciences that will allow them to teach to the state’s standards. Third, student teachers are required to “use the state’s K–12 reading and English language arts standards in developing and teaching lessons in practica for licensure in any position addressing them” (p. 73). Next, to obtain licensure, preservice-teachers must take appropriate subject matter tests based on the state’s standards. The author notes that to meet this criterion there must be a specific subject matter test that addresses reading pedagogy. Finally, the state’s K–12 standards are used as professional development objectives in “reading pedagogy, literary study, composition teaching, and research processes” (p. 73).

Table 4 of section F shows that Washington State received a score of 1 (of 4 possible points) on the first criterion pertaining to the use of standards in the teacher training programs and another score of 1 (of 4 possible points) on the third criterion that addressed the use of standards by student teachers. The state received zeros in the other categories, giving it a total of 2 points (of a possible 20 points), or an average of 0.40—an exceptionally low score. Only three states—Arkansas; North Dakota; and Washington, DC—rated lower, and two other states—Arizona and Delaware—received the same rating (Stotsky, 2005, p. 74).

In the general comments, the author points out the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of putting off teacher training in the state standards until after licensure, the more so because of the costs of professional development. Standards training, she says, should be mandatory in the teacher-training programs “unless states want their local school districts and departments of education to shoulder the burden and expense of retraining already licensed elementary and special education teachers via professional development workshops” (Stotsky, 2005, p. 77). The author also finds it “alarming” (p. 77) that many states do not “require evidence of where prospective English and elementary teachers have acquired the content knowledge needed for addressing their K–12 literature standards” (p. 77). The author claims that not only do the standard subject matter tests used by the states (like the PRAXIS) fail to address “content specific literature standards” (p. 77) but many of the states’ subject matter tests are not informed by the K–12 standards either. The author suggests that, for licensure, teachers should be required to pass subject matter tests that “address the requisite content knowledge” (p. 77).

Though Stotsky (2005) notes that many states’ professional development activities focus on their K–12 standards, she points out that they have no means of monitoring their use. “States tend to be wary of requiring rigorous pre/post tests in professional development, and they are unlikely to have funds for hiring independent evaluators to assure that ‘high quality’ professional development has indeed taken place” (pp. 77–78).

K-10 Grade Level Expectations: A New Level of Specificity

The Washington State Essential Academic Learning Requirements, the EALRs, are the benchmarks of what students in Washington State “should know and be able to do” (OSPI, 2004c, p. 1). The original EALRs “defined . . . cumulative indicators for grades 4, 7, and 10” (p. 1). To provide school districts with flexibility, these were written “in very broad terms” (p. 1), and each district could decide learning expectations for its other grade levels. The Grade Level Expectations further clarify and specify skills in each content area covered by the EALRs. The EALRs, along with the new Grade Level Expectations, “now form the basis of the written curriculum” (p. 3) and will also be used to create assessments.

The Reading EALRs are as follows:

EALR 1: The student understands and uses different skills and strategies to read.

(Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary)

EALR 2: The student understands the meaning of what is read. (Comprehension)

EALR 3: The student reads different materials for a variety of purposes. (Types of text, literary and informational)

EALR 4: The student sets goals and evaluates progress to improve reading. (Self-monitoring, goal setting, personal evaluation of text). (p. 6)

Because of the general nature of the EALRs, the Grade Level Expectations provide “the next logical step to provide educators with greater specificity . . .” (OSPI, 2004c, p. 2). A Grade Level Expectation is “a statement of cognitive demand, using Bloom’s Taxonomy, and the essential content or process to be learned. The statement, specific to one or more grades, defines the component” (p. 7). In the table provided for Grade Level Expectations of EALR components, the Grade Level Expectations are followed by Evidence of Learning lists. These are “common illustrations of the learning” (p. 7) that educators can use to determine students’ comprehension.

With regard to reading, the Grade Level Expectations “describe a connected series of learning competencies necessary to create proficient readers” (OSPI, 2004c, p. 4). Many of these learning competencies remain the same from grade to grade but increase in sophistication. For example, the expansion of vocabulary remains a component in all grades. Other competencies, like phonemic awareness, are essential only in the early grades. Because of the limited number of skills needed in kindergarten, this grade will be used as an illustration of how the Grade Level Expectations work for one component of one EALR.

One of the EALRs, as mentioned above, is that students “Use word recognition skills and strategies to read” (OSPI, 2004c, p. 8). Under this EALR are four components that state what this entails for kindergartners. These are to “Use word recognition skills and strategies to read and comprehend text, . . . Use vocabulary (word meaning) strategies to comprehend text, . . . Build vocabulary through wide reading, . . . [and] Apply word recognition skills and strategies to read fluently” (p. 8–14).

Under each component are the Grade Level Expectations. Under the first component, which is to “Use word recognition skills and strategies to read and comprehend text,” there are four Grade Level Expectations: to “Understand and apply concepts of print, . . . Understand and apply phonological awareness and phonemic awareness, . . . Apply an understanding of oral language skills to develop reading skills, . . . [and] Apply understanding of phonics” (OSPI, 2004c, p. 8). Each of these expectations is followed by the Evidence of Learning list. For example, under the first Grade Level Expectation, “Understand and apply concepts of print” (p. 8), the Evidence of Learning list is as follows:

Use directionality when listening to or following text.

Identify front cover, back cover, and title of books.

Recognize that print represents spoken language (e.g., environmental print and own name).

Recognize letters and spaces between words. (p. 8)

Under the next Grade Level Expectation, “Understand and apply phonological awareness and phonemic awareness” (p. 8), the evidence of learning is as follows:

Substitute auditorially one phoneme for another to make a new word (e.g., beginning and end sounds; oddity tasks).

Discriminate auditorially rhyme and identify rhyming words in response to an oral prompt.

Manipulate and segment words orally by onset and rime.

Segment and blend two and three phoneme words orally. (p. 8)

To meet the expectation that requires students to “Apply an understanding of oral skills to develop reading skills” (p. 8), the evidence of learning is that students

Participate orally in discussions/interactions (e.g., contribute descriptions, explanations, and details) when listening to stories read aloud and/or during shared reading. (p. 8)

Evidence of learning for the Grade Level Expectation which requires students to “Apply an understanding of phonics” (p. 8) include the following:

Identify letters of the alphabet.

Identify common consonant sounds and short vowel sounds.

Use common consonant sounds with short vowel sounds to decode three- and four-letter words

Use knowledge of phonics to read unfamiliar words in isolation and in context.

The publication notes that the Evidence of Learning lists “are not exhaustive” (OSPI, 2004c, p. 7) and it encourages teachers to look for “additional evidence of student learning” (p. 7).

Reading First Initiative: Overview

The Reading First initiative, through support to schools and educational agencies, is intended to ensure that children learn to read by third grade. The program emphasizes the use of “the best and most rigorous scientifically based reading research” (OSPI, n.d.c, para. 1) to meet this objective. Competitive grants are awarded to “eligible schools within eligible districts” (para. 1) to fund reading programs that adhere to Reading First requirements.

There are five components considered essential to reading ability: “phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension” (OSPI, n.d.c, para. 2). All of these areas require mastery for students to become successful readers. Reading First “focuses K-3 research-based instructional methods and materials, assessments and professional development on these key areas” (para. 2).

A maximum of 53 Washington State schools will be appropriated sub grants of “up to $275,000 a year for at least three years to systematically use research based programs, practices, and tools . . .” (OSPI, n.d.c, para. 3). Subsequent funding is dependent on each school’s demonstrated improvement in reading achievement.

OSPI will support schools by helping them choose “effective materials, programs, learning systems, and strategies” (OSPI, n.d.c, para. 4) to implement proven methods. Reading assessments, including “screening, diagnostic, and classroom based instructional reading assessments . . .” (para. 4) will be guided with the assistance of Reading First.

Reading First will provide several different types of support including “the design of a K-3 reading delivery system” (OSPI, n.d.c, para. 5), a selection of approved reading materials, a selection of approved interventions, full time reading coaches, approved assessments, and site visits. It will also require the annual attendance of K-3 staff at its “Summer Reading Institute” (para. 5), the attendance of Reading First coaches at periodic training sessions, and the attendance of coordinators and principals at bi-monthly training sessions.

As of May 1, 2003, 51 schools in Washington State were given Reading First Grants (OSPI, n.d.d).

Reading First and English Language Learners

In “Reading and English Language Learners,” Antunez (2004) explains the components of Reading First reading instruction in relation to their use for ELL instruction. Antunez agrees with research that suggests that students’ literacy in their native language assists the development of literacy in English and supports the idea that the development of oral language should precede the introduction of reading skills.

Research conducted by the National Research Council (NRC, n.d.) suggests that “hurrying young non-English-speaking children into reading in English without ensuring adequate preparation is counterproductive” (cited in Antunez, 2004, section, Introduction). The NRC report recommends that whenever possible, ELLs should be taught in their own languages while learning spoken English. They should subsequently move these skills into the realm of English literacy. If the school cannot provide such accommodations, the priority should be to teach the students spoken English. “Although print materials may be used to support the development of English phonology, vocabulary, and syntax, the postponement of formal reading instruction is appropriate until an adequate level of oral proficiency in English has been achieved” (NRC, n.d., cited in Antunez, 2004, section, introduction).

Antunez (2004) notes that even though almost 4.5 million ELLs attended public schools in the 1999 to 2000 school year, “neither the NRC nor the resulting Reading First legislation examines or makes recommendations specific to reading instruction for ELLs” (section, introduction). Antunez describes each of the five Reading First components and offers considerations for their instruction to ELLs.

The first component is phonemic awareness. Phonemes, says Antunez (2004), are “the smallest units making up spoken language” (section, Phonemic Awareness). Combinations of phonemes create syllables. Phonemic awareness, then, is the capacity to recognize and use these sounds to form words. Some phonemes do not exist in other languages, making them difficult for some pupils to either hear or pronounce. Correlation with meaningful language assists with this skill, “so that the words and sounds students are manipulating are familiar” (section, Phonemic Awareness). Teachers can help students become aware of phonemes while teaching vocabulary.

Children first learn to distinguish phonemes in their native language, which may make it difficult for them to understand sounds that differ in English. It is helpful if the teacher is familiar with the “linguistic characteristics of students’ native language, including the phonemes that exist and do not exist in the native language” (Antunez, 2004, section, Phonemic Awareness).

Meaningful activities that center on language, “especially when the activities are consistent and focus on particular sounds and letters” (Antunez, 2004, section, Phonemic Awareness) assist student understanding. Antunez recommends songs and rhymes because they have regular rhythms and are easy to commit to memory. “These rhymes exist in every language and teachers can ask students or their parents to share these culturally relevant and teachable rhymes with the class, and build phonemic awareness activities around them” (section, Phonemic Awareness).

Phonics, the second component, is the correlation between phonemes and “graphemes” (Antunez, 2004, section, Phonics). Graphemes are the “letters and spellings that represent [phonemes] in written language” (section, Phonics). Phonics is used to recognize and decode words, so reading skills are often taught through phonics.

Students who do not know how to read in their native language may have difficulty understanding the correlation between words and text, and “may need to be taught about the functions of print” (Peregoy & Boyle, 2000, cited in Antunez, 2004, section, Phonics). Moreover, in some languages words or parts of words are represented with a single character. Antunez again cites Peregoy and Boyle (2000), who contrast different writing systems:

alphabetic writing systems such as . . . English, Greek, and Russian, represent speech sounds . . . with letters or letter sequences. In contrast, in logographic writing systems, such as Chinese, each written character represents a meaning unit or morpheme; while in syllabic writing systems, such as kana in Japanese and Sequoyah’s Cherokee syllabify, each written symbol represents a syllable. (cited in Antunez, 2004, section, Phonics)

In Spanish, many of the consonants translate almost directly to English. On the other hand, many vowels, though they are written identically in English, have different names and stand for different sounds. This may pose difficulties for Spanish students who already know how to read in their own language “because the one-to-one correspondence between vowel letters and vowel sounds in Spanish does not hold true in English” (Peregoy & Boyle, 2000, cited in Antunez, 2004, section, Phonics).

The third Reading First component is vocabulary development, which is “the knowledge of stored information about the meanings and pronunciations of words necessary for communication” (Antunez, 2004, section, Vocabulary Development). Vocabulary development is necessary for the practice of reading decoding skills as well. Antunez states that vocabulary development is “one of the greatest challenges to reading instruction for ELLs” (section, Vocabulary Development) because text comprehension requires an understanding of context as well as an understanding of the correlation of words with sounds. “It is possible for students to read completely phonetically and not comprehend what they have read because they do not have the vocabulary” (section, Vocabulary Development). Antunez advises daily instruction in vocabulary development.

Most of a child’s vocabulary is learned indirectly, either through conversations, reading, or listening to someone read (Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement [CIERA], cited in Antunez, 2004, section, Vocabulary Development). The parents of ELLS and others in their communities may not know English, and so this means of vocabulary expansion is not an option for these students. For this reason, it is essential that instructors know how to teach these skills directly. Some of the methods offered by Antunez include “explicitly teaching vocabulary words before students read a text, how to use dictionaries, how to use prefixes and suffixes to decipher word meanings, and how to use context clues” (CIERA, 2001, cited in Antunez, 2004, section, Vocabulary Development).

In the section on Vocabulary Development, Antunez (2004) states that it is helpful for instructors to distinguish the difference between conversational English (which she calls “Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills”) and academic English (which she refers to as “Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency”). This distinction “highlights the fact that some aspects of language proficiency are considerably more relevant for students’ cognitive and academic progress than are the surface manifestations commonly focused on by educators” (section, Vocabulary Development).

The fourth component, reading fluency, is the capacity to read quickly and correctly. Fluent readers are able to “recognize words and comprehend them simultaneously” (Antunez, 2004, section, Reading Fluency). Fluency, therefore, enables reading comprehension. Antunez states that there are two common approaches to teaching this component. One encourages reading aloud and the other requires reading silently.

If students do not learn to read in their own languages, they “need to see and hear literally hundreds of books over a school year in order for fluency to be modeled to them” (CIERA, n.d., cited in Antunez, 2004, section Reading Fluency). ELLs are generally encouraged to “participate in read-alouds of big books, read along with proficient readers, and listen repeatedly to books read aloud in order to gain fluency in English” (CIERA, n.d., cited in Antunez, 2004, section Reading Fluency).

Antunez (2004) cautions readers that fluency is not the same as accent. Many ELLs will have an accent even after they have achieved fluency.

The final Reading First component is reading comprehension. Reading comprehension “is the culmination of all the reading skills and the ultimate goal of learning to read” (Antunez, 2004, section, Reading Comprehension Strategies). At this point the skills are used together to read for meaning.

All the Reading First components are related to the ability to comprehend text. The NRC states that “learning to read for meaning depends on understanding the language and referents of the text to be read. To the extent possible, ELLs should have opportunities to develop literacy skills in their home language as well as in English” (cited in Antunez, 2004, section, Reading Comprehension Strategies).

Figurative expressions can be difficult for ELLs. Antunez (2004) cites Hiebert et al. (1998) who recommend that teachers read the assigned text and determine what terms may come up. Teachers should also discuss the difference between literal and illustrative expressions with their students.

Federal Mandate

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Under the No Child Left Behind act the driving vision for reform is the policy of “linking federal dollars to specific performance goals” (NCLB, n.d, p. 2). The proposal notes that while Congress has created numerous programs and agencies to improve the quality of education in this country, minority and disadvantaged students fail to meet the levels of academic achievement reached by their peers: “the academic achievement gap between rich and poor, Anglo and minority is not only wide, but in some cases growing wider still” (p. 1). Most components of the policy address the means by which states and school districts will be held answerable for improving the performance of their students. These include provisions for assessments, timelines for implementation, and systems of sanctions and rewards.

As the title “No Child Left Behind” suggests, one of the central tenets of the act—in addition to improving education for all students—is to close the achievement gap between those types of students who have traditionally performed well and those who have traditionally performed poorly. This task is specifically assigned to the states, school districts, and schools, all of which must show yearly progress. The law requires states to administer annual academic assessments in math and reading, designed by the states, which will provide annual data by which to measure improvement. The federal government further assesses progress by administering the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to samples of 4^th and 8^th grade students from each state. Schools that fail to make progress the first year are provided additional aid. Subsequent failures are sanctioned with the reduction of administrative funds. If a school cannot meet standards for progress in three consecutive years, students from that school may use Title I funds to transfer to other schools or retain their own supplemental educational services (NCLB, n.d., p. 3). On the other hand, high performing states are offered financial incentives for efficiently meeting goals. States that establish annual assessments for grades 3 through 8 and meet other accountability requirements within the first two years of the plan’s enactment are offered one-time bonuses. Schools that make exceptional progress will receive No Child Left Behind School Rewards.

A second component of the policy aimed at closing the achievement gap is improving literacy in the early grades. Under Title I, Part B, grants are made available to states that implement comprehensive reading programs in the early grades—kindergarten through second grade—and further grants are available to fund “Early Reading First” programs, which target pre-school programs.

NCLB also seeks to reduce the paperwork and administrative costs currently required to apply for educational grants. According to the Executive Summary, “there are hundreds of education programs spread across 39 federal agencies at a cost of $120 billion a year” (NCLB, n.d., p. 1). Streamlining this process will free schools from submitting numerous grant applications to fund certain areas of need. In particular, funds appropriated for technology will be consolidated and sent to the states for distribution to local districts, although all “overlapping and duplicative categorical grant programs” (p. 4) will be overhauled as well.

Other components of NCLB have to do with improving the environment and quality of the schools themselves. One component promotes parents’ access to information about the schools their children attend, provide increased choices, and assists charter schools. Another focuses on increasing teacher quality through professional development. “States and localities will be given flexibility in the use of federal funds so that they may focus more on improving teacher quality. States will be expected to ensure that all children are taught by effective teachers” (NCLB, n.d., p. 5).

The plan is organized under seven performance-based titles: Title I moneys are aimed at improving the academic performance of those students whose families fall below the poverty level; Title II funds are for improving teacher quality; Title III funds are intended to move LEP students to English proficiency; Title IV funds are spent in efforts to provide information to parents and promote parental choice; Title V funds address school safety issues; Title VI provides funding for impact aid; and Title VII funds are steered toward establishing a system of accountability for states and school districts.

Title I, Part A, funds are used in efforts to improve student achievement, especially in those areas that have a comparatively high number of families whose incomes fall below the poverty level. NCLB expands the number of schools who qualify for Title I funding by expanding the “school-wide poverty threshold from 50 percent to 40 percent” (NCLB, n.d., p. 8). NCLB attempts to improve the academic achievement of children in poorer families by requiring states to set standards for their students and make progress toward meeting them. Toward this end, the law requires states to establish reading and math assessments for students in grades 3 through 8 which are administered annually. States are permitted to create their own assessments and their own definitions of annual yearly progress; progress toward achievement is measured by comparing annual results with previous years. Results must be reported to the public and “desegregated by race, gender, English language proficiency, disability, and socio-economic status” (NCLB, n.d., p. 8). One important change in the law is that the state’s definition of annual yearly progress must now also apply to disadvantaged students as well as other students. “This expectation will serve to hold schools and districts accountable for improving the performance of disadvantaged students and to help educators, parents, and others discern whether achievement gaps are closing” (p. 8). Schools that do not make acceptable progress will initially receive assistance; if they fail to make progress after the second year, the district must allow other options to the students and take corrective action to improve the school. After three years, students may use their Title I funds to transfer to other schools.

The second component of NCLB, early literacy, is provided for in Title I, Part B. The Reading First Initiative funds programs that invest in effective, researched programs that help young children learn to read. Reading First also funds programs that assist with family literacy.

Title II, Part A, is aimed at improving teacher quality and seeks to consolidate federal funding for this purpose. According to the NCLB proposal “there are 28 programs within the Department of Education that spend a significant portion of their funds on teacher training. A total of 87 programs support teacher training, administered by 13 different programs” (NCLB, n.d., p. 12). By consolidating federal programs, the administration hopes to provide more flexible funding. Title II, Part A, establishes high standards for training teachers, principals, and administrators, but requires that “federal funds promote the use of scientific, research-based and effective practice in the classroom” (p. 13). States must develop plans to ensure effective teachers are hired to teach all students.

Provisions for ELL students are made in Title III. There are over 3 million ELL students in the U.S. (NCLB, n.d., p. 16), and in all cases, one of the goals for their education is English proficiency. Research shows that LEP students are not successfully making the transition to English classrooms: “English–language learners, when compared with their English fluent peers, tend to receive lower grades and often score below the average on standardized math and reading assessments” (p. 16). Title II attaches performance-based measures to federal funding. In addition to streamlining funding for bilingual programs, Title III requires states to set performance objectives, imposes sanctions for failing to meet improvement standards, and allows school districts to use federal bilingual funding for a number of different types of ELL instruction.

Title V, Part B, streamlines duplicative technology programs and directs funds to schools based on need. “Consolidating the technology grant programs and allocating with E-rate funds by formula ensures that schools will not have to submit multiple grant applications and incur the associated administrative burdens to obtain education technology funding” (NCLB, n.d., p. 22). Creating one program will further “facilitate comprehensive and integrated education technology strategies that target the specific needs of individual schools” (p. 22). The Title “allows funds to be used for Internet filters” (p. 22).

Title VII establishes a system of accountability for states and school districts by which they report student achievement, and rewards progress with flexibility in their use of federal funds. This Title creates a charter option for schools and school districts which frees them from grant program requirements “in return for submitting a five-year performance agreement to the Secretary [of Education]” (NCLB, n.d., p. 26). The bulk of Title VII, however, addresses guidelines and laws for states and public schools. States must develop a consolidated plan that reports standards and assessments for students in grades 3 through 8, establishes methods of reporting results, and determines consequences for schools that fail to make progress. The states must publish school-by-school report cards that provide desegregated results according to minority, gender, income level, disability, and LEP status. States must also participate in the NAEP.

“Sanctions and rewards will be based on state assessment results as confirmed by the results of an annual sample of students in each state on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 4^th and 8^th grade assessment in reading and math” (NCLB, n.d., p. 26). The Secretary of Education may reduce funding for administration of ESEA programs if the state does not meet objectives for improving the achievement results of LEP and disadvantaged students. Monetary rewards are given to those states that implement assessments in grades 3 through 8 within two years of the enactment of the program and to schools that “make significant progress in closing the achievement gap” (p. 28).

Accountability is accomplished through standards and assessments which are “developed, designed, and determined” (“Charting the Course,” 2004, section, Standards, para. 1) by the states themselves. “States have always had and continue to have at their discretion the determination of their content and achievement standards and the design of their assessments” (section, Standards, para. 1). States may also designate the number and names of their achievement levels. Most states have between three and five achievement levels, but other states have more. Kentucky, for example, has four general achievement levels and a number of sub-levels within the general ones (section, Standards, para. 3).

A fundamental component of accountability under the NCLB law is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). States have a great deal of latitude in “setting . . . minimum group sizes for AYP determinations, reporting, and the participation rate” (“Charting the Course,” 2004, section, Elements, para. 1). Deciding minimum group sizes for AYP determinations required considerations of average school size, student diversity, subgroup accountability, and whether to apply such statistical tests such as confidence intervals to their calculations. Confidence intervals indicate the statistical validity of results within a range. States with smaller schools tended toward selecting smaller group sizes “while ensuring reliable decisions with the application of a confidence interval” (section, Elements, para. 1). Other states rely only on a confidence interval and set no minimum group size. (section, Elements, para. 1). Because a confidence interval range is higher or lower depending on the size of the group, this was a particularly important consideration. States also had the option to set a different group size for special education students.

States also define what constitutes their academic year. In determining AYP, states are only permitted to include the assessment scores of those students who have attended the same school for a full academic year (“Charting the Course,” 2004, section, Elements, para. 3). This protects schools’ achievement results from fluctuating populations: “The application of this definition means that schools are only held accountable for those students they have had an opportunity to teach for at least a full academic year” (section, Elements, para. 3).

While under NCLB states are required to desegregate achievement results “by race, gender, English language proficiency, disability, and socio-economic status” (NCLB, n.d., p. 8), states may individually define what makes up a major racial or ethnic subgroup “based on demographic factors within their borders” (“Charting the Course,” 2004, section, Elements, para. 4). “Charting the Course” provides an example with Texas, which only “designates subgroups as major racial or ethnic groups when they constitute a certain percentage of the state population. In practice, there are only three ethnic subgroups in Texas’ AYP definition: African American, Hispanic, and white” (section, Elements, para. 4).

States are held to equal-increment intermediate goal increases until 2013–2014 at which time they are expected to reach 100 percent proficiency; however, they may determine how frequently—one, two or three years—their intermediate goals increase. (“Charting the Course,” 2004, section, Elements, para. 5). Some states have created trajectories that increase in equal amounts, while others have created trajectories that expect accelerated progress in the early, late or middle years of the plan. Trajectories may be used for all schools levels or specified for separate grade levels (section, Elements, para. 6).

States may also decide whether to use “one, two, or three years of data in calculating AYP” (“Charting the Course,” 2004, section, Elements, para. 8). In other words, they may compare one year of data to the previous year, or to the previous two or three years. “This flexibility enables a state to give schools the benefit of recent improvements (with one year) or limit the effect of a poor achievement in one year (with two or three years)” (section, Elements, para. 7).

In making AYP determinations, states have the option of whether to apply statistical tests to their calculations, and, if they choose to do so, what kind they will use (“Charting the Course,” 2004, section, Elements, para. 8). They may also apply other academic indicators such as attendance rate, retention rate, or achievement on subject-specific assessments. NCLB stipulates that at the high school level, graduation rate must be used as the indicator or one of the indicators. Under certain conditions states may use an “index” score to receive credit for student improvement. Additional provisions are made for schools without tested grades (K-2 schools) and small schools (section, AYP for Unique Schools).

States have some flexibility with regard to how they report scores for those students with special needs. In their AYP results, states may currently include 1% of proficiency results from alternate achievement standards for students with cognitive disabilities. Most states have chosen this option, but a few hold all students to the same standards. In the 2002–2003 school year, as a transitional consideration, states were permitted to include students who had taken off-level tests as participating but not reaching proficiency. In some instances, states were allowed—as a temporary measure—to include off-level assessments as proficient (“Charting the Course,” 2004, section, Special Instructional Needs, para. 2).

Title IX of NCLB provides a broad definition of LEP students, and this allows states flexibility in defining which students are included in its LEP subgroup:

for example, a state has the flexibility to define narrowly the LEP subgroup as only those students receiving direct daily LEP services . . . a state could also define the group more widely to include both students receiving direct services and students being monitored by virtue of their achievement on several important assessments. (“Charting the Course,” 2004, section, Special Instructional Needs, para. 4)

Moreover, a number of testing accommodations are available to LEP students. Some of these include use of translators or a bilingual dictionary, or additional time. Alternative tests are also available in the form of either a native-language version of the test or a simplified “plain language” English version (section, Special Instructional Needs, para. 3). For language arts, states may test students using native language assessments for up to three years, and may in some instances continue to test certain students with these tests for another two years. Mathematics is not subject to the same restriction (section, Special Instructional Needs, para. 3).

Under NCLB, all teachers must have a bachelor’s degree, be competent in subject matter, and be fully licensed. New teachers must demonstrate subject matter competency by way of state tests or through advanced certification or a graduate degree. Subject matter competency for current teachers is frequently determined through the “high, objective, uniform state standard of evaluation” (HOUSSE) model (“Charting the Course,” 2004, section, Highly Qualified Teachers, para. 1). This model includes factors such as years of teaching experience, student achievement, additional coursework, participation in professional development, and so on (section, Highly Qualified Teachers, para. 1). States may use their Title II funding—in the form of professional development, recruitment efforts, and so on—to help teachers meet standards (section, Highly Qualified Teachers, para. 4). “Other funds . . . may also be used to meet these requirements” (section, Highly Qualified Teachers, para. 4), for example, Title III funds may be used to provide training or professional development for teachers of LEP students (section, Highly Qualified Teachers, para. 4).

States must also develop plans for “improving the quality of teachers and increasing the number of highly qualified teachers” (section, Highly Qualified Teachers, para. 2). States’ efforts may be guided by state reform efforts and must adhere to existing state law. Districts that accept Title I funding must give notice to parents that they may request information about the qualification of their children’s teachers. Parents must also be notified if “their child has been taught for four consecutive weeks by a teacher who is not highly qualified” (section, Highly Qualified Teachers, para. 3).

Paraprofessionals supported with Title I funds must also meet standards. New paraprofessionals must have an associate’s degree, completed two years of undergraduate study, or meet state-defined standards of quality. Paraprofessionals currently working in the field must complete these requirements before January 2006 (“Charting the Course,” 2004, section, Highly Qualified Teachers, para. 5).

Educating LEP Students in Washington State

Educating LEP Students in Washington State

The Annual Report of the State Transitional Bilingual Program is submitted to the legislature by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. This report uses data recorded by the districts to review the program. The most recently published report, entitled Educating English Language Learners in Washington State, provides data for the 2001–2002 school year. It covers such issues as funding, staffing, student eligibility, instructional strategies employed by the state, and demographic data.

In the 2001–2002 school year 77% of the funding for LEP students, about $44 million, came from the state. The state program allots funding to districts that offer approved programs. In the 2001–2002 school year, 187 districts qualified for state funding. (Bylsma et al., 2003, p. 6). Additional funding for the education of LEP students is also provided by the federal government and the districts themselves: In 2001–2002, the federal government provided $2.7 million (5% of all funding) and the districts gave $12.7 million (19% of all funding) (p.1).

Most funding was spent for staff salaries and benefits. Of the total 2001–2002 budget, 93.3 % was used to staff LEP programs. Other moneys were spent for instructional supplies and other expenses (Bylsma, et al., 2003, p. 7).

Washington State experienced a number of difficulties with regard to program staffing, the primary one being the shortage of qualified staff. Of state-funded staff, 49% had an ESL endorsement and 32.6% had a bilingual endorsement (Bylsma et al., 2003, p. 7); these percentages do not reflect the qualifications of the many teachers and aides whose salaries are not funded by state programs, and whose qualifications are assumed to be lower. Of the 2,621 people hired to staff LEP programs, a large portion, 1,799, were instructional aides (p. 9).

Lack of staff training was also an issue. Of the 187 districts that had LEP programs, only 106 (57%) provided in-service training to teachers and 124 (66%) offered in-service training to instructional aides (Bylsma et al., 2003, p. 9).

This particular issue is expected to become a larger problem under the federal requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. This Act stipulates, “teachers of LEP students [must be] ‘highly qualified’ if they teach core academic subjects” (Bylsma et al., 2003, p. 8). This condition will “put an additional strain on the supply of teachers for [LEP] students” (p. 8).

Student Eligibility

Not every student who has a native language other than English is eligible for LEP programs. For students to qualify for these programs, their English skills must be “deficient or absent” (Bylsma et al., 2003, p. 5). Individual districts administer their own initial oral assessments before students are placed and afterwards conduct annual re-assessments. As of 2002 this re-assessment tool is the Language Proficiency Test Series, which is administered statewide (p. 5). Students must leave the program when they score a Level IV on the reading test and a Level III on the writing test. Students must also transfer out of the program if they meet WASL standards in reading and score slightly below WASL standards for writing, or if they “reach the 35^th percentile on a nationally normed test of reading and language arts” (p. 6).

According to budget guidelines, “No moneys shall be allocated . . . to fund more than three school years of bilingual instruction for each eligible pupil within a district . . .” (Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program, RCW 28.A.180.080); however, students are retained if they are “unable to demonstrate acceptable improvement” (Garcia & Morgan, 1997, section, Washington State) and the school district has “empirical evidence” (Bylsma et al., 2003, p. 5) to advocate the student’s continuation in the program.

Factors Influencing Instructional Strategies

There are a number of different factors that influence the type of ESL programs implemented in any given district. McKeon (1987) states that some of these factors include the district demographics, the prior academic preparation of the students, and the resources available to the district.

District demographics play a large role in the type of LEP education available to students. The characteristics of LEP populations include how many students there are and what languages they speak, the size of the language group, and whether the group remains somewhat stable in the district:

Some districts have large, relatively stable populations of LEP students from a single language or cultural background. Others have large groups of LEP students representing several language backgrounds. Still other districts may experience a sudden increase in the number of students from a given group . . . in direct response to political or social changes in the students’ countries of origin. On the other hand, some districts have very small numbers of LEP students from many different language groups. (McKeon, 1987, section 2, para 2)

Demographics are unquestionably an enormous influence on the LEP education available to students in Washington State school districts. For example, the state may only have one or two students who speak a certain language. Out of the 190 languages spoken by LEP students, 31 of those languages were each spoken by only one student in the state, and 20 languages were each spoken by only two students in the state (Bylsma et al., 2003). Other languages may have a few more students who speak them, but those students may be scattered: for instance, there are 11 Tamil-speaking students in the state, but they are spread out over 6 school districts. Some school districts have the benefit of large numbers of LEP students who speak the same language: the Orando school district, for example, served 90 students, all of whom spoke Spanish. Most districts, however, must educate students who speak a range of languages. The Pullman school district served 89 LEP students—about the same number of students as the Orando district—but these students spoke 14 different languages.

The prior education of ESL students plays another major factor in the type of ESL program appropriate for a district (McKeon, 1987; Rennie, 1993). Some students entering LEP programs already have substantial academic experience in their own languages. They have “attended school in their own country, have learned to read and write well in their first language, and are at comparable (or better) levels in such content areas as mathematics (McKeon, 1987, section 2, para. 3). Others have little or no academic preparation, either because it was unavailable to them or because social or political factors interfered with their education (McKeon, 1987). The needs of these different types of students make implementing a successful ESL program more complicated.

Personnel and material resources also affect ESL programs. Districts with large, stable minority population enrollments are likely to have recruited and/or further trained qualified staff while other districts, some of which experience sudden or fluctuating LEP enrollments, have trouble finding teachers or volunteers (Rennie, 1993). Material resources include issues like the amount of classroom space available to LEP students. Lack of space may preclude separate ESL facilities.

Different Types of ESL Programs

There are two general types of ESL programs: stand-alone ESL or ESL-plus (McKeon, 1987). Stand-alone ESL programs generally address the needs of limited-English speakers who lack the language proficiency to benefit from regular classrooms. In these programs LEP students are generally kept together and are taught English-language skills. Washington State programs that fall under this category include pullout programs and center approaches. ESL-plus programs may include English language instruction, but they generally focus on developing English language skills across the curriculum. In Washington State, bilingual education programs fall under this category.

Instructional Strategies in Washington State School Districts

ESL programs employ a number of different instructional strategies: There are two types of instructional strategies used for the education of LEP students in Washington State school districts. The first, instructional focus, emphasizes the methods by which LEP students are taught, while the second, program model, emphasizes the setting in which learning takes place.

“Districts report their instructional focus in four categories . . . primary language development, academic language development, limited assistance in primary language, [and] no primary language support” (Bylsma et al., 2003, p. 12). Primary language development focuses equally on student development “in both English and the student’s primary language” (p. 12). In the 2001–2002 school year, 4.6% of LEP students in Washington State received this type of instruction (Bylsma et al., 2003, Table 2-4). Academic language development focuses on developing academic skills and literacy in the primary language accompanied by ESL instruction. This instructional strategy was used to educate 13.2% of the LEP population (Table 2-4). After a student has gained moderate competency in English, the student is instructed in English. The most widely used instructional focus is limited assistance in the primary language, and this strategy relies heavily on ESL instruction but provides additional support for basic skills, such as tutoring or translation services. This strategy was employed for 41.3% of LEP students (Table 2-4). The final strategy, used for 31.5% of students, provides no primary language support (Table 2-4). These students are taught in all-English classrooms and are provided ESL and other additional services.

Program model strategies focus on the circumstances in which learning takes place. Program models for Washington State school districts fall into one of five categories—self-contained classroom, center approach, in-classroom, pull-out, or tutoring (Bylsma et al., 2003, p. 13)—however, some students engage in instruction in more than one model.

All-bilingual classrooms are considered to be self-contained. According to Bylsma et al. (2003), 15.1% of LEP students received instruction in this type of setting in the 2001–2002 school year. (Table 2-5). The center approach requires students to remain in regular classrooms for subjects not requiring extensive English-language proficiency, but students are scheduled for most of the school day in bilingual centers that offer ESL instruction and/or instruction in the student’s primary language. This type of setting was used for 3.8% of all LEP students (Table 2-5). In-classroom instruction, which was provided to 28.4% of LEP students (Table 2-5), requires students to remain in regular classrooms but supplements this with specialized ESL instruction and/or instruction in the student’s primary language. In the most common instructional model, pullout, students are taught in a regular classroom setting but are taken from the classroom for special ESL and/or primary language instruction. Slightly more than 32% of students (32.3%) were in pullout sessions (Table 2-5). Tutoring, which was provided to 18.4% of LEP students (Table 2-5), furnishes students with bilingual tutors who assist students to complete assignments or provide some ESL instruction.

Regardless of program type or instructional category, all LEP programs ultimately intend for students to become proficient in English. It is essential that tests that measure such proficiency be administered in English. Not surprisingly, there is a great deal of controversy surrounding the issue of determining at what level a student is considered English-proficient and how best to empirically establish that proficiency through testing.

Washington State Test Result Trends

WASL Trend

The Washington State Report Card shows that while WASL scores have steadily improved for limited English students over the last 6 years, the percentage of students who pass the reading portion of the text remains low (OSPI, n.d.j). Fourth-grade students have maintained the highest passing rates and achieved the highest rate of improvement. The WASL “4^th Grade Reading Trend” (OSPI, n.d.j) shows that in the 1998–1999 school year, these students attained a 14.8% passing rate. This went up to 20.9% in 1999–2000 and 24.0% in 2000–2001, followed by passing rates of 24.8%, 23.7%, and 36.6% in the following school years (section, “4^th Grade Reading Trend”). Of the 36.6% of Grade 4 students who passed in 2003–2004, 32.2% were classified as meeting standard and 4.2% were classified as testing above standard (OSPI, n.d.i, section, “4^th Grade WASL”).

Grade 7 students have also shown some improvement in reading, but these students have the lowest passing rates. The “7^th Grade Reading Trend” (OSPI, n.d.j) indicates that in the 1998–1999 school year, Grade 7 students had a 5% passing rate. This went up only 0.4% in the 1999–2000 school year, to 5.04%, and then dropped to 3.8% in the 2000–2001 school year. The passing rate increased to 6.7% in 2001–2002 and remained there in the following year. These results jumped almost 10%, for a passing rate of 16.5% in the 2003–2004 school year (section, “7^th Grade Reading Trend”). Of the 16.5% of seventh-grade students who passed in 2003–2004, 13.5% met standard and 2.8% were above standard (OSPI, n.d.i, section, “7^th Grade WASL”).

The“10^th Grade Reading Trend” (OSPI, n.d.j) shows that the passing rate for high school sophomores has gone up 10% in the last 6 years. The percentage of these students who passed the reading portion of the WASL in the 1998–1999 school year was 6.8. Rates moved up to 12.2% in 1999–2000 and then to 17.8% in 2001–2002. In the following years, rates went down to 13.0% and then to 11.7% before moving up to 16.8% in the 2003–2004 school year (section, “10th Grade Reading Trend). Of the 16.8% of Grade 10 students who passed the reading portion of the WASL, 7.8% met standard and 8.6% tested above standard (OSPI, n.d.i, section,“10^th Grade WASL”). See Appendixes A and D for the WASL Trend and WASL Detail Charts.

Washington Alternate Assessment System Trend

The Washington Alternate Assessment System (WAAS) is an alternative test given to students with disabilities who are unable to take the WASL. Like the WASL, the reading portion of the WAAS is administered to 4th-, 7th-, and 10^th-grade students. The WAAS “4^th Grade Reading Trend” (OSPI, n.d.h) shows 3 years of results. Fourth-grade students who took the WAAS show remarkable improvement over the 3 years between 2001−2002 and 2003−2004; however, their current passing rate is only slightly above 50%. The passing rate for reading in 2001–2001 was 9.8%. It increased to 25.4% for 2002−2003, and was up to 50.9% in 2003–2004 (section, “4^th Grade Reading Trend”).

Seventh-grade reading results show a similar improvement. In the 2001−2002, the passing rate was 9.5%. It jumped to 20.3 % in 2002−2003, and jumped again to 46.2% in 2003–2004 (OSPI, n.d.h, section, “7^th Grade Reading Trend”).

Tenth-grade reading results improved the most. Starting out with the lowest passing rate in 2001−2002, these students achieved a 25.4% passing rate in 2002–2003, and a 50.3% passing rate in 2004−2004 (OSPI, n.d.h, section, “10^th Grade Reading Trend”). See Appendix B for WAAS results.

Adequate Yearly Progress

In the State of Washington, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is measured by the WASL along with other indicators. Annual progress goals must be made by individual schools and districts as well as specific populations including limited English students. The OSPI Web site reports two years of desegregated AYP results. In the 2002−2003 school year, limited English students in Grades 4,7, and 10 met the participation goals in reading, but did not meet the proficiency goals (OSPI, n.d.f, section, “Adequate Yearly Progress Summary, [2002−2003]”). Overall, the State did not meet either improvement or progress goals (section, Adequate Yearly Progress Summary, [2002−2003]”).

Summary results are identical for the 2003−2004 school year: limited English students in all three grades met the participation goal but failed to meet the proficiency goal (OSPI, n.d.f, section, “Adequate Yearly Progress Summary, [2003−2004]”). See Appendix E for AYP results.

The ITBS and the ITED

The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) tests third- and sixth-grade students. The Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITBS) tests ninth-grade students. Results are shown as “National Percentile Ranks” (OSPI, n.d.g, section “ITBS/ITED Trend”). In the school years between 1998 and 2004, third-grade reading National Percentile Rankings have remained between 55 and 58, moving from 55 to 56 in the 1999−2000 school year, to 57 in the 2000−2001 and the 2001−2002 school years, to 58 in the following three years (section, “3^rd Grade ITBS Trend”).

Sixth-grade students’ ITBS performance in reading was slightly lower. Six years of results are shown in the “6^th Grade ITBS Trend” (OSPI, n.d.g). Starting at 54 in 1999−2000, the National Percentile Rank moved down to 53 in 2000–2001 before moving back up to 54 in 2001−2002. The National Percentile Rankings moved up1% to 55 in 2002−2003, and remained there for the next 2 years (section, “6^th Grade ITBS Trend”).

Grade 9 reading results were similar to that of the sixth-grade students. Five years of results are shown in the “9^th Grade ITED Trend” (OSPI, n.d.g). The National Percentile Ranking vacillates between 53 and 54. In 1999−2000, ninth-grade students received an NPR of 54, in 2000−2001, 53; in 2001−2002, 54; in 2002−2003, 53, and in 2003−2004, 53 (section, “9^th Grade ITED Trend”). See Appendix C for ITBS/ITED results.

School Funding

The Washington State Constitution

The Washington State Constitution is the “primary legal foundation for the state’s public schools” (OSPI, 2004b, p. 8). Article IX of the state constitution provides for the education of all children who reside in the state. Section 2 charges the legislature with providing a uniform system of public schools including “common schools, and such high schools, normal schools, and technical schools as . . . may be established” (Washington State Constitution, 1889/n.d.). Money derived from common schools and state tax for common schools must go exclusively for their support. Section 3 of the Washington State Constitution deems “the principal of the common school fund” (1889/n.d.) as it existed on June 30, 1965, as “permanent and irreducible” (1889/n.d.) and names the sources of revenue for that fund. These include appropriations and donations made by the state, donations from individuals, proceeds from all property falling to the state from estates or by forfeit, proceeds of property given to the state if there is no other stated purpose for them, accumulated funds in the state treasury, “proceeds from the sale of stone, minerals, or property other than timber and other crops from school and state lands other than those granted for specific purposes” (1889/n.d.), money from persons trespassing on school or state lands, 5% of proceeds from the sale of Washington state lands by the U.S. government, and the principle from the sale of lands “granted to the state for the support of common schools” (1889/n.d.). This section also allows the legislature to make future provisions to increase the fund.

Funding for the construction of common schools is also set out in Section 3. Moneys raised by the sale of timber or other crops from state land go for this purpose, as does interest that accrues on “the permanent common school fund from and after July 1, 1967” (Washington State Constitution, 1889/n.d.) along with all rental and other revenue from land and property designated to fund the common schools. The legislature is permitted to appropriate other funds for construction. Money that comes from interest on the permanent school common fund can be used to “retire such bonds as may be authorized by law” (Washington State Constitution, 1889/n.d., section 3) to finance common school construction. Funds over and above those needed to run the public schools can be deposited or made available for their use.

Section 4 prohibits “sectarian control or influence of schools” that receive public funds (Washington State Constitution, 1889/n.d.).

Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution (1889/n.d.) states that losses to the permanent fund that occur through the mismanagement or fraud of the fund’s agents or officers are considered debts against the state and are to be paid along with 6% annual interest. With some exceptions, the amount of liability is not counted as part of the indebtedness.

The State of Education Funding

“The State of Education Funding: Washington State 2002” provides a timeline showing the history of education funding and states that funding is increasingly reliant on local property tax levies. The Washington State Constitution makes education “the paramount duty of the state” (cited in League of Education Voters Foundation, n.d., section 1, para. 1), but inflation and other factors have kept funding from keeping pace with educational needs.

The Education Reform Act of 1993 created the WASL tests and higher standards; however, state appropriations were cut. Voters passed I-728 and I-732, to reduce class sizes and to provide cost-of-increases for educators. “Unfortunately, these gains have been . . . offset by cuts in other state K–12 funding in 2001 and 2002” (League of Education Voters Foundation, n.d., section 1, para. 3) The timeline shows that in 2002 this cut, made to balance the budget, was $173 million. “In ten districts, these cuts were larger than the I-728 gains” (League of Education Voters Foundation, n.d., section 1, para.3).

Schools rely more and more on local levies, which account for up to 25% of the budget in some schools (League of Education Voters Foundation, n.d., section 1, para. 5). For most schools this percentage is closer to 15.2% (section 1, para. 5). Levies, “which must be renewed every two to four years” (section 1, para. 5) must be approved by at least 60% of the voters (section 1, para. 5).

The League of Education Voters Foundation (n.d.) suggests that school financing must keep up with the new standards. “As we approach the 10^th anniversary of education reform, Washington does not have a K-12 finance system that is aligned with the new standards, and the need for ample, equitable and stable school funding remains” (League of Education Voters Foundation, n.d., section 2, para. 2). The timeline shows that by 2008 high school students must meet all standards to graduate, and shows that in 2001, only 29.5% of tenth graders met these standards.

Furthermore, as property tax levies are aligned with property values, “inequalities between property poor and property rich districts have developed” (League of Education Voters Foundation, n.d., section 3, para. 3). Districts in which levies fail provide per-student funding that is lower than the national average (section 3, para. 3).

Educational funding is needed to provide assistance to students who require it, reduce class sizes, increase the professional development available to teachers, provide “full-day kindergarten” (League of Education Voters Foundation, n.d., section 4, para. 1), and support early childhood education programs.

Financing of Washington Public Schools

Funding for Washington State’s Public Schools come from a number of sources. Over 70% of the school district General Fund comes from the state, 9.5% comes from federal sources and the rest comes from various local resources (OSPI, 2004b, p. 3, 79). The legal foundations of public school finance as they pertain to the state of Washington is defined by the State Constitution, state law, regulations passed down from the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board of Education, and court decisions.

The State Constitution, Article IX, section 1 places priority on “making ample provisions for the education of all children residing within it borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex” (cited in OSPI, 2004b, p. 8), and makes this provision the responsibility of the state. Section 2 of Article IX provides for “a general and uniform system of public schools” (p. 8). Article III states that the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be an elected official, which gives the Superintendent “somewhat more autonomy” (p. 8) than would be given a Superintendent who was appointed to this office, as is done in some other states. Article III also identifies the role of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and gives the Superintendent supervision over all affairs related to public schools.

State laws governing financing of public schools are the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Appropriations Acts. The RCW details the organization of the school system and the duties of the Superintendent, the State Board of Education, educational service districts, school districts, and school boards. The RCW also states requirements—teacher certifications, instructional requirements, the rights of students and parents, and so on—for districts that receive school funding.

The Appropriations Acts are the budgets enacted by the Legislature. The OSPI prepares a budget request and submits it to the governor, who considers the request and includes it in the budget proposal made to the Legislature. The Legislature enacts the state operating and capital budgets, which provide two-year funding schedules called Biennial Appropriations Acts. (OSPI, 2004b, pp. 8–9)

“Washington ranks seventh in the nation in the percentage of school district operating fund revenue provided from state funding” (OSPI, 2004b, p. 10). This financial commitment from the state to education is largely the result of the educational reform movement and court decisions (notably the1976 Doran decision) made in favor of Washington school districts.

In 1976 Superior Court Judge Doran “directed the state legislature to define and fully fund a program of basic education for all students in Washington” (OSPI, 2004b, p. 9). The Legislature subsequently passed the Basic Education Act of 1977. This act specifies requirements of a basic education program and prescribes state minimums for number of school days, instructional hours, instructional content, and staff and student ratios (p. 9). The State Board of Education has the responsibility of assessing which programs meet requirements and qualify for state funding.

Educational reform began in 1991 with Governor Booth Gardner (OSPI, 2004b, p. 10). The 1992 Legislature established the Commission on Student Learning, which was charged with developing “clear challenging academic standards; standards based assessments . . . and recommendations for an accountability system to hold schools and school districts accountable for results” (p. 10). The Commission on Student Learning defined the Essential Academic Learning Requirements (the EALRS) for reading, writing, math, and other subjects, and developed the WASL to measure skills and progress in those areas.

The second major reform bill, adopted in 1993, made changes to the earlier bill and “created new learning goals, the Student Learning and Improvement Grants (SLIGs) program, and other programs intended to assist educators in helping students meet new academic standards” (p. 10). The Basic Education Act was revised to replace the instructional content requirements with the EALRs. Changes were initially slated for 1998, but were later changed to take effect September 1, 2000 (OSPI, 2004b, p. 11).

Modern education reform emphasizes a number of strategies that frequently compete for federal and state dollars. Some of these strategies include increasing student/staff ratios, improving the quality of teachers, providing additional instructional hours for students who have difficulties, setting goals for student achievement in math and reading, building charter schools, promoting student learning through the use of technology, developing accurate and useful assessments, and interceding when schools fail to meet certain standards (OSPI, 2004b, p. 11). In the last ten years a number of programs and grants authorized by the federal government and state legislature have been geared toward improving schools through these strategies; however, “education reform remains a work in progress” (p. 11). Current federal reform stresses increased flexibility of funds and resources in return for increased accountability. The state has concentrated on the development and implementation of assessments, and aligning curriculums and lesson plans to meet the EALRs.

Appropriations for school financing go into a number of funds including the General Fund, Capital Projects, the Debt Service Fund, the Transportation Vehicle Fund, and trust funds. This section will concentrate on revenue generated for the school district General Fund, which funds the daily operation and maintenance of schools, and the expenditures of that fund that affect Basic Education and instruction for LEP students.

State Financing of Washington Public Schools

Funds for the financing of Washington public schools come predominantly from the state. About 55.5% of all State General Fund expenditures are for public education programs, which makes Washington schools “among the highest in the nation for the proportion of state funding received” (OSPI, 2004b, p. 4). State General Fund revenue is received primarily from retail sales tax (53.2%), business and occupation tax (18.58%), and property tax (11.04%). State General Fund revenue for the 2003–2005 biennium totals $22,451,500,000 (p. 6). Approximately 55% of those funds are appropriated for education, with K-12 programs receiving about 43.8% ($10,104,649,000) of that money in the 2003–2005 biennium (p. 6, 40).

Appropriations to K-12 education for the 2003–2004 state fiscal year are expected to total $5,205,800,000. Of that amount, Basic Education will receive approximately 76.71% ($3,993,500,000) and Bilingual Instructional Programs will receive approximately 0.96% ($50,100,000) (p. 43). More specific figures are available from the 2004 Washington State Legislative Budget Notes. According to section 514 of the Operating Budget, the General Fund state appropriation for Transitional Bilingual Instruction in 2004 will be amended to $50,678,000. Appropriations for the 2005 fiscal year will total $54,050,000 (2004, p. 170).

State funding is distributed to school districts by OSPI through a number of formulas and grants. Formulas acknowledge a number of variables including the number of students enrolled, the varying costs of districts, the types and qualifications of employees, staff-student ratios, and the higher costs of educating students with special needs (OSPI, 2004b, p. 4, 43). In the 2002–2003 school year OSPI administered 15 formula-based state programs.

Most state formula allocations are funded as entitlements. “Once a program is defined as ‘basic education’ it becomes part of a state ongoing entitlement program. The state may not reduce the funding level due to state revenue problems” (OSPI, 2004b, p. 9). This arrangement guarantees at least regular minimal funding for services deemed essential. The state’s basic educational responsibilities include special education, bilingual instruction, learning assistance programs, and pupil transportation services, and the state allocates funding to these programs and services according to the appropriate formulas. Although entitlements are ongoing, the funding formulas are subject to change: “The basic education funding formula is not ‘cast in concrete’; it is the continuing obligation of the Legislature to review the formula as the educational system evolves and changes” (p. 10).

The average basic allocation per full time student in the 2002–2003 school year was $4,139 (OSPI, 2004b, p. 44). Bilingual funding was provided at an average rate of $713.71 per eligible student (p. 4).

Many of the smaller state programs are funded through competitive grants, which local districts must apply for. Approved applicants are reimbursed their expenses for running the program (OSPI, 2004b, p. 5). In the 2002–2003 school year OSPI administered 16 state grant programs (p. 2).

Financial management of the state’s public schools is the responsibility of the 296 school boards and the superintendent of each district;

however, the district’s financial management is regulated by state law and supervised by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. School districts must follow uniform guidelines for budgeting; accounting, and financial reporting practices . . . [to] ensure consistent and comparable data for each of the state’s school districts. (OSPI, 2004b, p. 32)

Moreover, school districts must abide by federal and state law, and regulations and guidelines set down by the U.S. Department of Education, OSPI, and the State Board of Education.

School districts record expenditures in five funds, the largest of which is the General Fund. The school district General Fund is allocated for the maintenance and operation of schools and accounts for about 78% of all expenditures (OSPI, 2004b, p. 2). The General Fund flows to a number of programs, including Basic Education, as determined by the established formulas and grants.

Basic Education received 54.06% of the school district General Fund ($3,910,000,000) in the 2002–2003 school year (OSPI, 2004b, p. 3). Other programs allocated smaller percentages from the school district General Fund include special education, vocational education, compensatory education, various instructional programs, pupil transportation, food services, community services, and other support (p. 2).

Federal Financing of Washington Public Schools

It is impossible to review federal financing of public schools without discussing recent key federal legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This act made fundamental changes to already existing legislation, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The NCLB emphasizes “four central themes . . . accountability for results; flexibility and local control, parental information and options; and an emphasis on teaching methods that have proven to work” (OSPI, 2004b, p. 13). As school districts frequently point out, the mandate is largely under-funded; that is, school districts must find moneys from other sources—state and local—to fund the efforts and programs that will allow them to be in compliance with the law. Moreover, federal money will be withheld from schools and programs that do not meet standards for progress.

About 9.5%—$691,500,000—of school district General Fund revenue for the 2002–2003 school year came from federal sources. (OSPI, 2004b, p. 79). There are a number of federal grant programs; 28 of these programs are administered by OSPI (p. 2). Those that most affect LEP students include certain Title I funds for Basic, Reading First, and Comprehensive School Reform programs, and Title III funds for English Language Acquisition, Enhancement and Academic Achievement.

Title I, Part A, Basic funding is flexible funding that is used in efforts to improve student achievement. These efforts may include adding staff, providing professional development courses or implementing extended-time programs for schools that have higher levels of students whose families fall below poverty level. The purpose is to “ensure that poor and minority children have the same opportunity as other children to meet challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards” (OSPI, 2004b, p. 81). Most new provisions in the NCLB law regarding these funds have to do with adding new standards and assessments, instituting new reporting requirements, providing more accountability for results, and establishing higher qualifications for teachers and staff (especially paraprofessionals).

Federal funds are distributed according to four formulas: Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Educational Finance Incentive. Basic and concentration allocations are based on the number of children who come from families that fall below the poverty line in each school district as determined by the U.S. Census:

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 directs the Department of Education to distribute

Title I basic and concentration grants directly to school districts on the basis of the most recent estimates of children in poverty available from the Census Bureau. [The Census Bureau provides] three estimates . . . for each school district: total population, number of school-age children (ages 5-17), and the number of related school age children in families in poverty. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003b, para. 2–3)

In the 2002–2003 school year, the state of Washington received $143 million in Title I, Part A Basic funds. (OSPI, 2004b, p. 79)

While the NCLB law “made few direct changes to the extremely technical and complex rules governing distribution of Title 1, Part A funds” (OSPI, 2004b, p. 81) to schools, it added a number of provisions that may considerably decrease the share or use of funds available for individual schools.

Title I Reading First funds are earmarked for K through 3 comprehensive reading instruction. These funds are distributed to states based on the state’s number of children ages 5 to 17 who come from families that fall below the poverty line (OSPI, 2004b, p. 82). Eligible school districts may compete for sub-grants, with priority going to districts that have more than 15% of their students’ families below the poverty line (p. 82). Washington State received $2.6 million for Reading First programs in the 2002-2003 school year (p. 79).

Title I Part F, Comprehensive School Reform funds go for the development and implementation of educational practices that research and practice have proven to boost academic achievement. Distribution is made to states by formula based on previous Title I Basic grants (OSPI, 2004b, p. 83).

Title III, English Language Acquisition, Enhancement and Academic Achievement “consolidates 13 previous separate bilingual and immigrant education programs into a state formula program” (OSPI, 2004b, p. 84). Allocations are made based on the state’s number of immigrant and LEP students. The money is then distributed to school districts according to their share of LEP students. At their discretion, the state has the option of reserving up to 15% of money for school districts that have “experienced significant increases in the percentage or number of immigrant students or that have limited or no experience in serving immigrant students (p. 84). LEP programs in Washington State received $6 million in Title III federal funds (p. 79).

School District and Educational Service District Financial Report for 2002–2003

The State of Washington School District and Educational Service District Financial Reporting Summary: District Fiscal Year September 1, 2002–August 31, 2003 shows the revenues and expenditures for the state of Washington’s school districts’ and educational service districts’ (ESDs) general funds. School districts and ESDs each have their own general fund, but many of the reports included in this publication combine these balances to reflect “Total Expenditures,” which “refer to all public school districts’ general fund expenditures in the state” (OSPI, 2004d, section, Introduction, p. 1).

Table Four, “General Funds Expenditures by Program Groups” shows that out of a total educational budget of $7,232,688,322, 8.4% or $607,202,560 of the budget was allocated to Compensatory Education (OSPI, 2004d, p. 6). Out of this amount, $66,437,428 or 0.9% was allocated to Bilingual Education (p. 6). A review of Table Five, “General Fund Expenditures by Activity Groups” shows that $5,012,977,394 of the total budget of $7,232,688,322 was allocated for Teaching and Teaching Support (p. 7). Out of this $5,012,977,394 (or 69.3% of the budget) $148,262,632 or 2.0% was allocated for Learning Resources (p. 7).

Table Seven, “Total General Fund Expenditures, Revenues, and Other Financing Sources per FTE Student by School District Enrollment Groups” (OSPI, 2004d, p. 10) shows that Washington State has traditionally had more revenues than expenditures per full-time student. For example, for a group size of 20,000 and over, the Total Expenditure per student was $7,693.53 with a Total Revenue and Other Financing Sources per student of $7,797.60. For a group size of 10,000 to 19,999 the Total Expenditure per full-time student was $7,239.58 with a Total Revenue and Other Financing Sources per student of $7,288.42 (p. 10). Further, a review of Table Nine, “Ten-Year Comparison of State-Wide General Fund Ending Total Fund Balance” (p. 12) shows that as of the 1993–1994 school fiscal year, Washington State has maintained a steady Fund Balance of 7.0% ($347,736,593) to 7.5% ($403,325,300) with a peak in the 1996–1997 fiscal year of 8.0% ($445,308,720) (p. 12). The report also shows that for fiscal year 2002–2003 the Ending Total Fund Balance was $548,920,937, representing a 7.6% Fund Balance as a percentage of the total expenditure (p. 12). Table Ten, “State-Wide General Fund Reserved, Unreserved, and Total Fund Balance” shows that out of the $548,920,942 Fund Balance, $128,366,053 or 23.4% is reserved for such things as Debt Service, Inventory, Uninsured Risks and Other items (p. 13). This means that there is a total of $420,554,889 or 76.6% of the Fund Balance that is unreserved (p. 13). Of these unreserved funds, $344,554,727 or 62.8% is listed as “Unreserved [and] Undesignated” with $8,356,884 or 1.5% listed as “Unreserved, Designated for Contingencies” and $67,643,277 or 12.3% listed as “Unreserved, Designated for Other Items” (p. 13).

Table Eleven, “Ten-Year Comparison of Tax Collections” of the Financial Reporting Summary (OSPI, 2004d) shows that Washington State’s lowest tax collection year was 1996, with a 99.0% rate or $803,338,381 (p. 14). Fiscal year 2003 tax collection is the highest with a total of 99.58% or $1,166,878,163 in taxes collected (p. 14).

A review of the report “State Summary – General Fund Expenditures by Program” shows that in fiscal year 1998–1999, the actual dollars spent for Limited English Proficiency (formerly Bilingual) programs totaled $2,527,667 or 0.04% (OSPI, 2004d, p. 26). This amount was received from federal funding. Washington State contributed $45,352,394 or .75% of Compensatory funds to the program (p. 26). In the fiscal year 1999–2000, federal funds received for the program amounted to $2,063,579 or 0.03% of Compensatory funding (p. 26). Washington State contributed $50,292,726 or 0.79% to the overall Transitional Bilingual budget (p. 26). Fiscal year 2000–2001 reflects federal revenues of $2,578,057 or 0.04% with a contribution by Washington State of $54,778,013 or 0.82% (p. 26). Fiscal year 2001–2002 indicates revenues of $2,677,885 or 0.04% from federal funding with Washington State providing $56,728,119 or 0.81% of the overall budget (p. 26). Fiscal year 2002–2003 reveals that $6,790,301 or 0.09% was received from federal funding with $59,647,127 or 0.82% from the state (p. 26). The report titled “State Summary: General Fund Expenditures by Program” under the section “Compensatory Education” indicates that for the year 2002–2003, $6,346,360 or 0.08% of federal funds was budgeted with $58,240,456 or 0.77% budgeted state funds (p. 26). Fiscal year 2003–2004 shows $7,443,507 or 0.10% budgeted federal dollars and $61,995,763 or 0.81% budgeted state dollars (p. 26).

The financial report titled “State Summary – General Fund Expenditures by Activity” under “Learning Resources” shows actual dollars spent as follows: For fiscal year 1998–1999, $134,453,332 or 2.23%; for fiscal year 1999–2000, $136,876,830 or 2.16%; for fiscal year 2000–2001, $141,345,865 or 2.11%; for fiscal year 2001–2002, $144,394,354 or 2.06%; for fiscal year 2002–2003, $148,262,632 (OSPI, 2004d, p. 27). The “State Summary: General Fund Expenditures by Activity” under “Budget” shows budgeted funds for 2002–2003 as $146,783,641 or 1.94%; and for 2003–2004 as $148,124,581 or 1.93% (p. 27).

A review of the report titled “Washington State School Districts: General Funds Expenditures, Revenue, and Ending Total Fund Balance Per Pupil by Enrollment Groups, Fiscal Year 2002–2003” shows that enrollment group size has a great impact on the amount spent per pupil. Washington State has 9 districts that have student populations of 20,000 or more with an Ending Total Fund Balance of $136,291,750 or $564.38 per pupil (OSPI, 2004d, p. 55). There are 20 districts that have student populations of 10,000 to 19,999 with an Ending Total Fund Balance of $142,928,375 or $511.90 per pupil (p. 55). The state has 27 school districts with student populations of 5,000 to 9,999 and an Ending Total Fund Balance for these districts of $93,813,510 or $506.84 per pupil (p. 55). School districts with a population of 3,000 to 4,999 number 23, with an Ending Total Fund Balance of $42,607,668 or $469.74 per pupil (pp. 63–64). Districts with a population of 2,000 to 2,999 number 28 with an Ending Total Fund Balance of $32,480,866 or $481.96 per pupil (pp. 56–57). Washington State has 41 districts with student populations of 1,000 to 1,999, carrying an Ending Total Fund Balance of $49,529,297 or $846.21 per pupil (pp. 58–59). There are 45 districts with student populations of 500 to 999 with an Ending Total Fund Balance of $23,271,304 or $728.48 per pupil (pp. 60–61). The state has 65 districts with student populations of 100 to 499 with an Ending Total Fund Balance of $18,668,922 or $1,147.08 per pupil (pp. 62–63). Finally, Washington State has 38 school districts with student populations under 100 with an Ending Total Fund Balance of 9,329,244 or $4,665.37 per pupil (pp. 63–64).

A review of “Washington State School Districts Percent and Per Pupil of General Fund Expenditures by Program Groups by County, Fiscal Year 2002–2003” (OSPI, 2004d, p. 105) revealed that under the category “Compensatory Education” the counties did not break down allocations to specific programs, thereby making it impossible to track the Transitional Bilingual Program funds at the county level.

The financial report titled “Washington State School Districts General Fund Expenditures, Revenue, and Ending Total Fund Balance Per Pupil by County” (OSPI, 2004d, p. 65) was used to determine the fund status for ESDs 189 and 121. For ESD 189: Whatcom County had an Ending Total Fund Balance of $15,058,067 or $599.80 per pupil (p. 74); San Juan County had an Ending Total Fund Balance of $1,096,704 or $646.60 per pupil (p. 71); Skagit County had an Ending Total Fund Balance of $6,249,983 or $340.68 per pupil (p. 71); Island County’s Ending Total Fund Balance was $3,240,786 or $352.16 per pupil (p. 68); and Snohomish County had an Ending Total Fund Balance of $56,444,790 or $546.24 per pupil (p. 72).

Those districts located in ESD 121 report the following Ending Total Fund Balances: King County, $120,473,001 or $496.78 per pupil (OSPI, 2004d, p. 68); and Pierce County, $68,582,556 or $554.90 per pupil (p. 71).

“Washington State School Districts Percent and Per Pupil of General Fund Expenditures by Object by Enrollment Groups, Fiscal Year 2002–2003” (OSPI, 2004d, p. 195) reports that Certificated Salaries take up 48.82% of the budget or $3,630.68 per pupil; Classified Salaries take 18.36% of the budget or $1,365.50 per pupil; Employee Benefits take 15.24% of the budget or $1,133.55 per pupil; Supplies and Instructional Materials take 6.27% of the budget or $466.19 per pupil; Purchased Services take 9.85% of the budget or $732.46 per pupil; Travel takes 0.32% of the budget or $24.01 per pupil; and Capital Outlay takes 1.13% of the budget or $83.74 per pupil (p. 195).

The financial report “Washington State School Districts Percent and Per Pupil of General Fund Expenditures by Object by County, Fiscal year 2002–2003” (OSPI, 2004d, p. 205) shows that school districts in ESD 189 reported their expenditures as follows:

Whatcom County used 48.78% or $3,571.44 per pupil for Certificated Salaries; 18.40% or $1,347.16 per pupil for Classified Salaries; 15.28% or $1,118.95 per pupil for Employee Benefits; 5.80% or $424.97 per pupil for Supplies and Instructional Materials; 9.78% or $716.17 per pupil for Purchased Services; 0.33% or $24.09 per pupil for Travel; and 1.62% or $118.72 per pupil for Capital Outlay (OSPI, 2004d, p. 214).

San Juan County reported using 46.20% or $4,025.97 per pupil for Certificated Salaries; 19.10% or $1,664.79 per pupil for Classified Salaries; 14.63% or $1,274.71 per pupil for Employee Benefits; 5.61% or $488.85 per pupil for Supplies and Instructional Materials; 11.88% or $1,034.93 per pupil for Purchased Services; 1.08% or $94.45 per pupil for Travel; and 1.50% or $130.64 per pupil for Capital Outlay (OSPI, 2004d, p. 211).

Skagit County reports spending 45.75% or $3,506.71 per pupil for Certificated Salaries; 18.33% or $1,404.84 per pupil for Classified Salaries; 14.26% or $1,093.33 per pupil for Employee Benefits; 7.15% or $547.73 per pupil for Supplies and Instructional Materials; 13.08% or $1,002.54 per pupil for Purchased Services; 0.36% or $27.39 per pupil for Travel; and 1.07% or $82.21 per pupil for Capital Outlay (OSPI, 2004d, p. 211).

Island County reports spending 50.05% or $3,461.27 per pupil for Certificated Salaries; 16.97% or $1,173.45 per pupil for Classified Salaries; 15.01% or $1,038.11 per pupil for Employee Benefits; 6.16% or $426.08 per pupil for Supplies and Instructional Materials; 10.35% or $716.01 per pupil for Purchased Services; 0.24% or $16.92 per pupil for Travel; and 1.20% or $83.11 per pupil for Capital Outlay (OSPI, 2004d, p. 208).

Snohomish County shows spending 49.97% or $3,465.39 per pupil for Certificated Salaries; 18.19% or $1,261.76 per pupil for Classified Salaries; 15.28% or $1,059.50 per pupil for Employee Benefits; 5.90% or $409.06 per pupil for Supplies and Instructional Materials; 9.53% or $661.09 per pupil for Purchased Services; 0.22% or $15.41 per pupil for Travel; and 0.91% or $63.32 per pupil for Capital Outlay (OSPI, 2004d, p. 212).

School districts in ESD 121 report the following:

King County shows expenditures as 48.99% or $3,675.39 per pupil for Certificated Salaries; 19.16% or $1,437.33 per pupil for Classified Salaries; 15.49% or $1,162.53 per pupil for Employee Benefits; 5.42% or $406.59 per pupil for Supplies and Instructional Materials; 9.96% or $747.15 per pupil for Purchased Services; 0.21% or $15.52 per pupil for Travel; and 0.78% or $58.42 per pupil for Capital Outlay (OSPI, 2004d, p. 208).

Pierce County reports spending 49.40% or $3,674.06 per pupil for Certificated Salaries; 19.38% or $1,441.37 per pupil for Classified Salaries; 14.41% or $1,071.59 per pupil for Employee Benefits; 6.39% or $475.34 per pupil for Supplies and Instructional Materials; 8.95% or $665.29 per pupil for Purchased Services; 0.26% or $19.68 per pupil for Travel; and 1.21% or $90.23 per pupil for Capital Outlay (OSPI, 2004d, p. 211).

A review of “Washington State School Districts Percent and Per Pupil of General Fund Reserved, Unreserved to Total Fund Balance by County Fiscal year 2002–2003” (OSPI, 2004d, p. 285) shows a Total Ending Fund Balance of $548,920,942 (p. 285). Of this sum 23.39% or $131.98 per pupil is listed as “Reserved” with 76.61% or $432.29 per pupil designated as “Unreserved” (p. 285). Within the Unreserved category, $76,000,161 is listed as “Designated” with $344,554,727 as “Undesignated” (p. 285).

Individual School Districts within EDS 189 report the following regarding their Fund Balances:

Whatcom County School Districts report maintaining a Fund Balance of $15,058,067 (OSPI, 2004d, p. 294). Of this sum, 5.15% or $30.88 per pupil is reported as Reserved and 94.85% or $568.92 per pupil as Unreserved (p. 294). Of the Unreserved funds (which total $14,282,937) $1,912,187 has been Designated with $12,370,750 reported as Undesignated (p. 294).

San Juan County School Districts report maintaining a Fund Balance of $1,096,704 (OSPI, 2004d, p. 291). Of this sum, 0.91% or $5.90 per pupil is reported as Reserved and 99.09% or $640.70 per pupil as Unreserved (p. 291). All of the Unreserved funds ($1,086,704) are reported as Undesignated (p. 291).

Skagit County School Districts report maintaining a Fund Balance of $6,249,983 (OSPI, 2004d, p. 291). Of this sum, 8.24% or $28.09 per pupil is reported as Reserved Funds and 91.76% or $312.60 per pupil as Unreserved (p. 291). Of the total Unreserved funds ($5,734,732) $1,290,752 has been Designated with $4,443,980 reported as Undesignated (p. 291).

Island County School Districts report maintaining a Fund Balance of $3,240,786 (OSPI, 2004d, p. 288). Of this sum, 7.91% or $27.87 per pupil is reported as Reserved and 92.09% or $324.30 per pupil as Unreserved (p. 288). Of the total Unreserved funds ($2,984,349) $50,000 has been Designated with $2,934,349 reported as Undesignated (p. 288).

Snohomish County School Districts report maintaining a Fund Balance of $56,444,790 (OSPI, 2004d, p. 292). Of this sum, 12.51% or $68.33 per pupil is reported as Reserved and 87.49% or $477.91 per pupil as Unreserved (p. 292). Of the total Unreserved funds ($49,384,090) $17,406,228 has been Designated with $31,977,862 reported as Undesignated (p. 292).

Individual School Districts within EDS 121 reports the following regarding their Fund Balances:

King County School Districts report maintaining a Fund Balance of $120,473,001 (OSPI, 2004d, p. 288). Of this sum, 28.5% or $141.83 per pupil is reported as Reserved and 71.45% or $354.96 per pupil as Unreserved (p. 288). Of the total Unreserved funds ($86,078,970) $22,744,649 has been Designated with $63,334,321 reported as Undesignated (p. 288).

Pierce County School Districts report maintaining a Fund Balance of $68,582,556 (OSPI, 2004d, p. 291). Of this sum, 52.69% or $292.40 per pupil is reported as Reserved and 47.31% or $262.50 per pupil as Unreserved (p. 291). Of the total Unreserved funds ($32,443,555) $6,037,804 has been Designated with $26,405,751 reported as Undesignated (p. 291).

A deeper understanding can be gained of unreserved funds balances by reviewing the County Treasurers’ monthly report on investment earnings.

Budget and Finance Department County Treasurer’s Monthly Report

In Washington State, each County Treasurer is required to file Apportionment Report 1197 each month with every ESD for each school district in the state. This report is issued for many reasons but the one most important to this study is the category of “Investment Earnings.” A review of “Pierce County Treasurer’s Monthly Report Summary for ESD No. 121” (Budget and Finance Department [Pierce County], 2003, Acct. No. 2300, of each ESD No.121—Tacoma School District #10 monthly report) shows that Tacoma School District #10 recorded the following Investment Earnings between September 2002 and August 2003:

General #1 Funds

August 2003 $30,458.05 (p. 3)

July 2003 $38,973.32 (p. 3)

June 2003 $32,067.35 (p. 3)

May 2003 $23,030.77 (p. 3)

April 2003 $19,876.13 (p. 3)

March 2003 $56,872.29 (p. 3)

February 2003 $42,316.53 (p. 3)

January 2003 $37,703.26 (p. 1)

December 2002 $45,606.30 (p. 1)

November 2002 $8,771.16 (p. 1)

October 2002 $14,948.22 (p. 1)

September 2002 $40,837.51 (p. 1)

Based on these statistics it can be said that from September 2002 to August 2003, Tacoma School District #10 received a total investment earnings of $6,962,248.53.

The ESD 121 report further shows that School District #400, Clover Park School District, received recorded the following Investment Earnings from September 2002 through August 2003 (Budget and Finance Department [Pierce County], 2003, Acct. No. 2300, of each ESD No. 121—Clover Park School District #400 monthly report):

General #1 Fund

August 2003 $13,322.22 (p. 10)

July 2003 $18,464.24 (p. 10)

June 2003 $18,740.44 (p. 10)

May 2003 $15,260.61 (p. 10)

April $19,517.09 (p. 10)

March 2003 $16,422.15 (p. 10)

February 2003 $17,102.44 (p. 10)

January 2003 $25,219.55 (p. 4)

December 2002 $22,406.29 (p. 4)

November 2002 $19,300.12 (p. 4)

October 2002 $17,442.86 (p. 4)

September 2002 $17,317.33 (p. 4)

Based on these statistics it can be said that from September 2002 to August 2003, Clover Park School District #400 received a total investment earnings of $286,295.00.

A review of Skagit County Treasurer’s Report for ESD 189 (Budget and Finance Department [Skagit County]) shows the schools located in Skagit received $126,743.72 with the ESD receiving $95,213.57 (p. 11) for a total of $221,957.29 in interest income for Fiscal Year ending August 31, 2003. A review of the Treasurer’s report for Fiscal Year ending August 31, 2002, shows the schools located within ESD 189 received interest income in the amount of $287,827.10 and the ESD received $331,935.77 for a total of $619,762.87 (p. 12).

Based on these statistics it can be said that for Fiscal Year 2002 schools located within ESD 189 received a combined total investment earnings of $414,570.82 and for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 with the ESD receiving the total combined investment earnings of $841,720.16.

A Short Washington State Legal History of Texts and Materials

AGO 51-53 No. 494: Regarding a Fee for Instructional Materials

In a 1953 letter to the Prosecuting Attorney of Kitsap County, John C. Merkel, from the Attorney General’s Office, the Attorney General provides an opinion regarding whether a school district may collect a $3.00 fee from each pupil to offset expenses of instructional materials. These include “art paper, penmanship paper, chart paper, tagboard, paints, ink, modeling clay, yarn, paper fasteners, pins, and other similar items” (AGO 51-53 No. 494, p. 1). The Attorney General concludes that “the levy and collection” (p. 1) of such a fee is unlawful, and provides an analysis of the applicable law, RCW 28.58. 100, which states that

Every board of directors, unless otherwise specially provided by law, shall . . . provide free textbooks and supplies to be loaned to the pupils of the school, when in its judgment the best interests of the district will be subserved thereby . . . (pp. 1–2).

The Attorney General states that if the school does not have the funds to provide such materials, “it need not undertake to do so” (AGO 51-53 No. 494, p. 2). He further notes that such items must be supplied by the “board of a first class school district” (p. 2) if it has been ordered to do so by the electors. Moreover, the school district is required to supply textbooks to “children of indigent parents . . . irrespective of any vote of the electors” (p. 2) and, based on prior case law, that “the term ‘textbooks’ [is] comprehensive enough to include globes, maps, charts, pens, ink, and paper and all other ‘apparatus and appliances which are proper to be used in the schools in instructing youth.’” (p. 2).

The letter is dated March 12, 1953, and is signed by the Attorney General, Don Eastvold, and William C. Hallin, the Assistant Attorney General.

AGO 65-66 No. 113: Regarding Fees for Tuition and Textbooks

A letter from the Attorney General’s Office dated October 13, 1966, and addressed to State Representative Frank B. Brouillet, Chairman of the Interim Committee on Education discusses the laws applicable to the Chairman’s queries regarding general or special fees for “certain required or elective courses” (AGO 65-66 No. 113, p. 1), fees for books and other supplies, and deposits against damage to school-loaned supplies.

In reference to the first subject of “general and tuition fees” (AGO 65-66 No. 113, p. 2), the Attorney General advises that as school districts are “municipal corporations” (p. 2), they are subject to the legislature and are open to “all children . . . who are residing in the district” (p. 2). These children cannot by law be charged tuition fees. The school district may, however, charge a “reasonable” (p. 3) tuition fee to nonresident students “who wish to attend a school in a district other than in the one in which they are residing” (p. 3) when no “express arrangement” (p. 3) has been made with school officials. This applies to students from non-adjoining districts as well.

With respect to the second question on textbooks and other supplies, the Attorney General quotes RCW 28.58.100, which states that “unless otherwise specially provided by law” (AGO 65-66 No. 113, p. 4), the board must loan—free of charge—textbooks and other supplies to students, “ . . . prescribe rules and regulations to preserve such books and supplies from unnecessary damage” (p. 4), and “require all pupils to be furnished with such books as may have been adopted by the lawful authority of the state” (p. 4). The Attorney General explains that with some legal exceptions the “board of directors of every class of district” (p. 4) determines whether it will loan books and supplies to pupils. He notes that first class districts must furnish free supplies when the electors authorize it to do so, and all school districts are obligated to provide supplies to children whose parents cannot afford them. When the school district has not been ordered by the voters to provide materials, it may direct students to purchase them; however, “the school district cannot require students to purchase the same from the district” (p. 5). Requiring students to purchase materials “does not legally change the ‘free’ characteristic of our public schools” (pp. 5–6).

In the third question on textbook and equipment deposits, the Attorney General again quotes the part of the law that allows districts to “. . . prescribe rules and regulations to preserve such books and supplies from unnecessary damage” (AGO 65-66 No. 113, p. 7). Based on the forgoing law and subsequent case law, the Attorney General concludes that the school district may charge “a reasonable deposit fee . . . to cover textbooks and supplies loaned to students” (p. 7).

The letter is signed by the Attorney General, John J. O’Connell, and the Assistant Attorney General, Charles F. Murphy.

AGO 1979 No. 18: Evaluation of Teaching Materials

An opinion letter sent to State Senator Kent Pullen dated September 26, 1979, addresses four topics: first, whether teaching material evaluations “may be conducted either by the school board or by the administrative staff of a school district” (AGO 1979 No. 18, p. 1); second, if “the evaluation of teaching materials in the case of complaints by parents [must] take place in public hearing” (p. 5) or whether the school board can use an alternative system; third, if films used for instruction fall under the term “‘teaching materials’ as used in RCW 28A.58.758 (2) (f)” (p. 1); and fourth, if the law has provided procedural rules “to govern the conduct of an evaluation of teaching materials in public hearing” (p. 1).

The Attorney General’s Office provides an analysis of the applicable statutes, specifically those that dictate the responsibilities of school boards. The original governing statute, the 1969 recodification of the Education Code, states that the board has a duty to create a policy for instructional materials that provides a system for dealing with complaints. A later enactment of the 1977 Washington Basic Education Act “expanded upon the duty of school boards, in connection with complaints regarding teaching materials” (AGO 1979 No. 18, p. 3). The Basic Education Act states that “each common school district board of directors shall be vested with final responsibility for the setting of policies ensuring quality in the content and extent of its educational program” (p. 3); Moreover, the board, “acting through its administrative staff” (p. 3) must evaluate instructional materials “in public hearing upon complaint by parents, guardians or custodians of students who consider dissemination of such material to students objectionable” (p. 3). The Attorney General suggests that these provisions do not conflict with each other.

Regarding the Senator’s first question, the Attorney General states that either the district board or its agents—“its respective administrative staff” (AGO 1979 No. 18, p. 4)—may conduct evaluations; however, the board remains accountable for its actions or those taken on its behalf by administrative staff.

In reference to the second question the Attorney General replies that the procedure for complaints about materials from parents or guardians always require a public hearing. On the other hand, complaints regarding materials made by persons other than a parent or guardian may be provided an alternate process.

The Attorney General confirms that the term “teaching materials” applies to films as posed in the Senator’s third question. He writes, “it is not difficult to ascertain the general meaning of the term ‘teaching materials.’ It seems apparent the ordinary, everyday meaning of that term includes both written materials such as textbooks and motion pictures or other types of films instructing students” (AGO 1979 No. 18, p. 5). The question, he says, is whether the context of the statute limits its definition to “printed material, which is physically distributed to students” (p. 5). This poses, in effect, two issues: whether the term “textbooks” limits the meaning to printed items, and whether “the fact that actionable complaints must address the ‘dissemination’ of materials to students limits the meaning of ‘teaching materials’ to materials which are physically distributed to students” (p. 6).

The Attorney General advises that neither term is limited by statutory context. “Materials” under RCW 28A. 58.758 (2) (f) are described as “including textbooks, teaching aids, handouts, or other printed materials . . .” (AGO 1979 No. 18, p. 5). With regard to the first term in question, the context “in which the delineation of ‘textbooks’ and other types of materials appear indicates . . . that the legislature intended the enumerated types of materials to be examples only” (p. 6). The Attorney General believes this is so because of the word “including” (p. 6) in the text of the statute. In all likelihood, he says, if the legislature had meant to limit the definition of “teaching materials” (p. 6) it would not have used this term since “the legislature is presumed to have used no superfluous words” (p. 6). Moreover, he indicates that the legislature would have specified the items had they wished to limit its meaning.

With regard to the second term, “dissemination,” the Attorney General confirms that the term “as commonly defined, is not limited to an act of physical distribution, particularly when used in context with teaching” (AGO 1979 No. 18, p. 7).

To the Senator’s fourth question about the procedure of materials evaluations conducted in a public hearing, the Attorney General replies that “the law does not prescribe any particular rules of procedure to govern the conduct of an evaluation of teaching materials in public hearing pursuant to RCW 28A. 58.103 (1)(f)” (p. 8), and that it is the school district’s responsibility to prepare its own procedural rules.

This correspondence is signed by the Attorney General, Slade Gorton, and the Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Patterson.

House Bill Report 1027

House Bill 1027 proposed to cut state-level administrative costs for education and channel saved money into school textbooks. The House Bill Report first lists the agencies, the number of staff currently running these agencies, and their costs. Three agencies govern public school policy and funding. These are the OSPI, the Washington State Board of Education (SBE), and the “Workforce Training and Education Board” (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, State-level Governance). There is also the “Commission on Student Learning” (section, State-level Governance), and the Educational Service Districts (ESDs).

The OSPI distributes funds from both state and federal sources, collects and reports information regarding the schools, and renders “technical assistance” (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, State-level Governance). The office is run by 165 full-time staff members who are funded by the state and 100 full-time staff members who are funded by the federal government. The biennial “general fund agency budget [for 1993 to 1995] is approximately $22 million” (section, State-level Governance).

The SBE is made up of eleven members, nine of whom are selected by the school districts’ board (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, State-level Governance). One member represents the interests of private schools, and the final member is the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The SBE is concerned with policies governing construction of schools, teaching credentials, certification programs, “basic education compliance” (section, State-level Governance), and graduation requirements. The board has “4.5 staff plus certification personnel” (section, State-level Governance), and its budget for the 1993 to 1995 period was $800,000 (section, State-level Governance).

The “Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board consists of nine members who represent business, labor, the Department of Employment Security, and education” (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, State-level Governance). The purpose of the board is to oversee the “state’s training system” (section, State-level Governance). The board is served by about 30 staff (section, State-level Governance). About 90 percent of the board’s $4 million budget for 1993 to 1995 was provided for with federal funds (section, State-level Governance).

The Commission on Student Learning is responsible for identifying the state’s EALRs and creating assessment and accountability methods. The budget for 1993 to 1995 was $5 million (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, State-level Governance).

The state has nine ESDs, which provide “cooperative and informational services to school districts” (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, State-level Governance), provide assistance to other state administrative boards, and “provide services to districts to assure equal educational opportunities” (section, State-level Governance). The state general fund appropriated $10 million for the ESDs’ 1993 to 1995 budget (section, State-level Governance).

The House Bill Report states that school districts have a number of costs including “teaching, teaching support, administration, food services, grounds care, utilities, transportation, data processing, and insurance” (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, School District Expenditures). According to the 1993 to 1995 biennial budget, 6 percent of funds were spent on school administrative staff, 7 percent were expended on state administration, and 68 percent went for instruction and support.

The intent of HB 1027 is to trim the state administrative budget and divert those funds to schools for teachers and materials such as “textbooks, supplies, and technology” (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, Summary of Substitute Bill). To do this the legislature proposes to direct the “Joint Select Committee on Education Restructuring” (section, Summary of Substitute Bill) to assess the duties of the previously mentioned state educational agencies and submit a recommendation for “creating a revised state-level education governance system” (section, Summary of Substitute Bill) before December 15, 1995. This committee is also charged to review laws that either impede, or fail to enhance, learning. The committee, along with OSPI and SBE, would review and comment on suggested changes.

The Legislature also charges school districts to examine their expenditures and divert savings to classroom support. To this end, the “school district financial review program” (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, Summary of Substitute Bill) will fund reviews. This program “is to be administered by OSPI, or a contractor as designated by the superintendent” (section, Summary of Substitute Bill). Large districts that spent more than a third of their budget on administrative expenses have first access to these grants. Districts receiving funds must report their plans to increase classroom support funding by January 16, 1996. The same process was scheduled to be repeated in 1997 (section, Summary of Substitute Bill).

The original bill provided for a task force “to conduct a review of the rules of the office of the superintendent of public instruction and the state board of education to identify rules that inhibit, or do not enhance student learning, including rules that place unnecessary procedural, governance, and paperwork burdens on school districts” (H.R. 1027, 1995, section 4.1). The Substitute Bill, instead of creating a new task force, refers this review to the Joint Select Committee on Education Restructuring. Moreover, the original bill mandated districts specified by OSPI to perform financial reviews (H.R. 1027, 1995, section 3). The substitute bill “encourages” (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill) this type of financial review and provides funds to assist with such reviews.

The Legislature appropriated “$50,000 from the general fund to OSPI” (H. R. 1027, 1995, section, Appropriation).

In the section titled “Effective Date of Substitute Bill” it states that the bill “contains an emergency clause and takes effect on May 1, 1995” (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, Effective Date of Substitute Bill”).

Testimony offered on behalf of the bill suggests that the educational system has too long focused on administration and must now put priority on materials. “A 30 percent cut in administrative expenses is a reasonable target” (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section “Testimony For”).

Testimony against the proposed bill includes the arguments that “the original legislation creates an unfunded mandate on school districts, and would create more paperwork” (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, Testimony Against).

The House Committee Appropriations Report appended to the same House Bill Report approves the second substitute bill; however, this committee, in contrast to the recommendation from the Committee on Education, eliminates the appropriation to OSPI noted earlier, and “null and void language requiring reference by bill number is added” (H. Rep. No. 54-1027, 1995, section, Summary of Recommendation of Committee on Appropriations).

Reflection

The literature associated with financing ELL programs and ELL student achievement in reading illustrates a universality of problems within an educational system endeavoring to adhere to the federal mandates of No Child Left Behind. The literature review for this study addressed the following: research driven studies demonstrating the idea that instructors can aid ELL student achievement in reading through the adoption of the theory of multiple intelligences; a clear understanding of the fallacies of literacy development; the problems and pitfalls ELL students face when trying to acquire a second language; the classroom considerations and parental involvement that is necessary if ELL students are to be successful; the state and federal expectations for LEP readers; what it means to educate ELL students in Washington State; the testing and assessment of LEP students; and finally, how Washington State finances its ELL program and the learning resources associated with these programs. This review of literature indicates the following:

1. The primary reason for the desire of educational institutions and both local and national governments for English Language Learner students to development strong reading skills is to aid in the student’s quest for self-actualization and in so doing making them productive members of society.

2. As the number of culturally diverse students continues to increase in Washington State, and as NCLB has demanded that these students meet achievement quotas, school administrators and researchers continue to struggle over the best method of teaching ELL students reading.

3. There is general agreement in the scientific and academic communities that non-English-speaking students must attain some proficiency in speaking before they can learn to read.

4. In the past students in reading programs were generally taught using sets of textbooks that contained collections of literature and related instructional activities. In recent years these textbooks have included culturally diverse material as a means of making them more authentic. The problem with the majority of reading programs is that the success rate is measured on students’ progress in taught skills and not as achievement on standardized tests.

5. The goals of the ESL Standards and Assessment Project are for ELL students to learn to use English in social situations and for ELL students to develop socially and culturally appropriate use of English. Short (2000) says, “the purpose of the ESL Standards was to have individual states or districts develop curricula based on the standards and describe their own proficiency levels and benchmarks of performance” (section 4, para. 5).

6. Washington has failed to align the state’s EALRs with state curriculum. This means that although Washington State considers itself to have a “standardized” curriculum that administrators and instructors follow, this is not always the case. Onsite observation revealed that State Standards are bound together in a book “that is convoluted and extremely difficult to follow” (Personal Communication, School District Superintendent, March 23, 2005). Administrators are not given guidance on how to decipher the standards. This lack of clarity leads many districts to design their own curriculum and hope that it comes close to state standards.

7. Individual, social and societal factors affect second language learners. The student may view these contexts as peer communication and degree of parental support. Students’ knowledge of a second language varies depending on the length and context of the students’ prior experiences.

8. There are many different strategies used when teaching ELL students in the mainstream classroom. Onsite observation disclosed that some instructors rely on their experience to determine what students need and then develop an IEP for each student. Yet other instructors subscribe to second language learning materials such as the “Easy English News” in an effort to help children learn both reading and critical thinking skills. There is also the “prescribe as you go” method. This method involves determining what each child needs on a daily basis and developing a lesson plan on the spot, regardless of how many students are in the class or what languages they speak.

9. The benefits of parental involvement in a LEP students’ education are varied but numerous, and parental involvement must take place if ELL students are to be successful.

10. A maximum of 53 Washington State schools will be appropriated sub grants of “up to $275,000 a year for at least three years to systematically use research based programs, practices, and tools . . .” (OSPI, n.d.c., para. 3). As of May 1, 2003, 51 schools in Washington State were given Reading First Grants (OSPI, n.d.d.).

11. The Washington State Reading Intervention Material Review Panel for Grades 4-12 noted that effective reading instruction required “scientifically based materials, well-informed teachers, and focused informed leaders” (OSPI, 2004a, p.1).

12. States must develop plans to ensure qualified teachers and paraprofessionals to teach all students in accordance with NCLB.

13. Western Washington State’s practice of ESL Pull-Out, Two Hour Block, Self-Contained and Immersion are ineffective. Western Washington does not have a Transitional Bilingual Program in place. The variety of languages and distribution of ELL students throughout the districts make it financially impractical to implement a transitional bilingual program even though a review of test scores reveals that the current methods are failing.

14. In Washington State not all students who have a native language other than English are eligible for ELL programs. If students are to qualify, their English skills must be either deficient or absent.

15. There are many factors that affect the type of ESL program that is implemented within the different school districts in Washington State. Demographics play the largest role. Prior education is another major factor. Personnel and material resources are yet another factor.

16. ELL students in Washington State are held to the same standards as other students and must pass the WASL.

17. The Washington State Constitution clearly states that it is the state’s responsibility to provide all materials and instruction necessary for students in Washington to receive the best education possible.

18. Funding for Washington State Public Schools comes from the state, federal sources, and various local resources.

19. The history of funds allocation for Washington State education shows that Washington State holds hundred of millions of dollars of unspent and unallocated funds in a designated “Unreserved Fund Balance” each year.

20. The history of tax collection in Washington States reveals that the state consistently collects no less than 99% of all property taxes. This collection represents billions of dollars to the state.

21. Washington State has consistently allocated 2.5% or less of its General Education budget to student learning resources. The State does not break out how much of this 2.5% is allocated to ELL student learning resources.

22. The Budget and Finance Department County Treasurer’s Monthly Report shows interest revenues in the millions of dollars that the state receives on its fund balance investments.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The objective of ELL education is to ensure that second-language students do not fall behind in reading because of a poor command of the English language. The proponents of the current ELL methodologies in Western Washington State are as scattered and diverse as the methodologies themselves; however, administrators and educators agree that while some programs or methodologies may be better than others, they all ultimately fail ELL students.

The researcher took the view of Miles and Huberman (1994) that “The researcher’s role is to gain a holistic (systemic, encompassing, integrated) overview of the context under study: its logic, its arrangements, its explicit and implicit rules” (p. 6). Based on the data collected and the documents reviewed, the researcher will issue a report designed to offer recommendations for improvement of ELL learning resources.

Using qualitative research as defined by Ravid (1994)—“Qualitative research is based on holistic inquiry and is context specific, acknowledging the uniqueness of individuals and settings” (cited in Lyon & Chhabra, 2004, p. 14)—this study will determine if there is a relationship between funding models for ELL learning resources and ELL student achievement in reading in Washington State. The results of this study may be used in efforts to improve the utility of the current methodologies by providing an analysis of the effectiveness of current funding resources, offering an alternative means of providing funding for the current learning resources, and providing recommendations as to how to apply these funds for optimum effectiveness.

Research Design

According to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003) “qualitative research is multi-method in its focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (p. 24).

This study is based on a limited collection of qualitative data that addresses the funding models used for ELL learning resources and ELL student achievement in reading. Therefore, the focus of this study is on discrepancies that are immediately visible to the researcher and will not offer firm or specific connections to the overall Washington State educational system.

The research was conducted utilizing information from all levels of Washington State’s educational system including the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Educational Service Districts, school districts, and individual schools. Overall, this research should be viewed as a qualitative study supported by informal questionnaires, a Web survey, and an on-site review of actual learning resources being utilized in the schools.

***Selection of* *Participants***

Participants will include ELL educators and para-educators and administrators.

1. ELL educators and para-educators were selected who teach reading or Language Arts to public school students in grades 1 through 12. Participants must currently teach in Western Washington State school districts and have accessible e-mail addresses posted on their school Web sites.

2. Participating administrators and principles were selected from those who currently work in Western Washington public schools and have accessible e-mail addresses posted on their school Web sites.

3. Classrooms chosen for learning resources review purposes were based solely on availability. Participants will be instructors who teach reading and /or ESL-related classes to grades 1 through 12 in Western Washington public schools.

Instruments/Instrumentation

The study uses three types of instruments to collect data necessary to complete the research: a Web survey, an e-mail questionnaire, and on-site classroom observations. (See Appendixes F, G, and H.)

1. The Web survey was sent to ELL instructors in selected school districts in Washington State who have accessible e-mail addresses on their school Web sites. This survey will be anonymous—that is, respondents will not be asked for their names, schools, or school districts—and will be designed solely to confirm or negate the researcher’s interpretative analysis. The quality and quantity of responses will be dependant on the willingness of respondents to complete and return the survey.

2. The e-mail questionnaire will be informal and sent to selected school administrators and principals. The quality and quantity of responses will be dependent on the willingness of respondents to complete and return the questionnaire.

3. The on-site classroom observations will be informal and consist of elementary, middle school, and high school ELL classrooms.

4. All three of the instruments are intended to be used as a means to gather data that confirms, negates, or exposes potential flaws in the researcher’s interpretive analysis.

Assumptions or Limitations

1. Certain components are from archival records and therefore subjective in nature.

2. Selective documentation review may lead the researcher to miss important information.

3. Documents selected for analysis may not be the most current. For example, Title IV is now titled “21st Century Schools” and Title V now includes “Promoting Informed Parental Choice and Innovative Programs.”

4. One year after the initiation of this study, eleven school districts filed suit against Washington State for failure to live up the Washington State Constitution in providing the funding necessary for Special Education students. This law suit had a strong negative impact on the researcher’s ability to gain information from local and regional school districts.

5. The recent race for the position of Washington State’s Superintendent of Public of Instruction made it difficult to contact persons employed by the OSPI and to obtain documents that were perceived as “sensitive” in nature.

6. The nature of the Washington State Transitional Bilingual Program has changed since the inception of this study. The Transitional Bilingual program is currently only implemented on the Eastern side of the state. The state now refers to the former Transitional Bilingual Program of Western Washington simply as ESL instruction.

7. The analysis of Washington State’s five interest earning revenue accounts will be limited to one: the General Education Fund.

8. Not all County Treasurers use the same reporting format or accounting codes, making it difficult to distinguish between types of funds accounts.

9. The ESD budget reports do not list interest earnings or how those earnings are allocated.

10. The informal questionnaire and Web survey instruments in the study will be inherently biased by this researcher.

11. The sample of subjects for this study will be restricted to selected school districts located in Eastern Washington.

12. The integrity of interview research will depend on the honesty of those responding to the questions.

13. The quality and quantity of responses to the e-mail questionnaire will depend on the respondents and their willingness to complete and return the questionnaire.

14. Many of the school Web sites do not list principal, teacher, or para-educator e-mail addresses. When they do, many do not specify the type of courses the individuals teach or administer. This will make it difficult to create an adequate and authoritative population selection for the Web survey.

Procedures

Because of the qualitative nature of this study and the limitations imposed by the complexity of the school funding systems, the current political climate, lack of uniformity among ESL programs, and varying school district resources, the researcher will use “selected” information—that information which is available to the public or voluntarily provided by the schools, programs, districts, administrative bodies, teachers, or students.

In order to make determinations and recommendations, the researcher will collect and perform in-depth analyses on the following documents:

1. Selected WASL test scores for ELL students in reading;

2. Selected County Treasurer’s Report 197;

3. Selected ESD financial reports;

4. State of Washington OSPI financial reports;

5. Washington State teacher certification guidelines;

6. Selected Washington State legislation, both past and present, regarding the financing of student learning resources.

The determinations and recommendations will also be supported and validated by the following:

1. An interpretative analysis of an informal Web survey to be sent to selected ELL educators.

2. An interpretative analysis of an informal questionnaire designed to be sent to selected school administrators and principals.

3. Informal review of selected elementary, middle school, and high school ELL learning resources that are currently being used in the classroom.

Data Processing and Analysis

Data collection methods to be utilized include obtaining hard copies of reports and expenditure patterns, use of the Internet, e-mail, telephone contact, Web survey, and on-site reviews.

Data analysis will be conducted by utilizing Denzin’s (1978) basic foundational definition of triangulation: “the data source, by method, by researcher, and by theory” (cited in Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 267). First the federal mandate No Child Left Behind, and the theory behind it, specifically the bilingual education component as it relates to reading, will be examined. Next an analysis of Washington State’s implementation of the mandate will be conducted, followed by an analysis of how Washington State funds this mandate. The researcher will examine how the principals of these schools utilize financial resources to implement their districts’ directives and how classroom instructors utilize their financial resources to implement the principals’ directives.

Data processing and analysis will rely on the use of simple logic. The first is to perform literature reviews using simple logic to analyze and summarize each document. Once completed, a Web-survey and e-mail questionnaire will be developed from these summaries for the purpose supporting or negating the literature analysis. The responses to the survey and questionnaire will then be analyzed and summarized and cross-referenced with the literature review. Finally, on site reviews of learning resources will be conducted with the intent to cross reference this data with the literature reviews, Web survey, and e-mail questionnaire. When satisfied that all logical discrepancies have been identified and resolved, the researcher will then analyze and summarized all data sources from which finding and conclusions will be drawn.

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

Restatement of the Purpose

The purpose of the study is to determine the nature of the relationship between Washington State’s funding models for student learning resources and ELL student achievement in reading in Western Washington State. The study will aid in uncovering problems and issues that may be associated with ELL students’ low-test scores in reading in Washington State. As stated in chapter one, learning resources are defined as the level of expertise and the nature of the credentials of ELL instructors, and those physical materials used by instructors to aid in the development of ELL student reading skills. All of these resources are funded in whole or in part by Washington State. To ascertain the relationship between these resources and ELL student achievement, the researcher first sought to determine the current state of funding allocated to reading resources for ELL students in Western Washington. The researcher then constructed an e-mail questionnaire to find out which entities have the authority to allocate resources and the allocation processes within the individual Educational Service Districts. A Web survey was constructed to assist with the second level of analysis. This survey was designed support a qualitative analysis of the literature and the e-mail questionnaire. The final level of analysis required on-site reviews of learning materials and informal discussions with the classroom instructors.

Selection of Subjects

This study is interested in ELL learning resources in Western Washington. Western Washington consists of five ESDs. Within these ESDs there are 160 school districts. Within these districts there are 2,193 schools. Subject schools were chosen based on availability of ESD, district, and school personnel. ESD administrators were asked to contact teachers in their districts who might be willing to have someone come into their classroom and review the learning resources used. District Superintendents were asked to participate in an informal e-mail questionnaire. ELL teachers and administrators were asked to participate in a Web survey. The information gathered was then triangulated with informal on-site reviews of learning resources. There were 25 e-mail questionnaires sent with 15 returned; 130 requests for participation in a Web-survey were sent out with 112 respondents; and finally, reviews of ELL learning resources in six classrooms ranging from grades K-12 were conducted. The triangulation of this data served as a positive support to the qualitative analysis.

Instrumentation

The Web survey and e-mail questionnaires were constructed by the researcher using information taken from the literature review section of this study. These two instruments along with on-site reviews of learning resources served to confirm, negate, or otherwise expose defects in the qualitative analysis of the literature. This then allowed the researcher the opportunity to go back and review or further research particular components of the literature. Because of the qualitative nature of, and the type of instrumentation utilized, this study should not be considered reliable. The Web-survey and e-mail questionnaires are only as valid as the researcher’s ability to develop questions that extract specific information relating to the analysis of the literature review. There was no panel of experts, to evaluate the instruments for face validity. The nature of these instruments made it of moderate risk to the human subjects’ participation in the study.

Data Collection Procedures

The instruments used for data collection required the development of specific release forms. These forms include “Research Participant Informed Consent and Privacy Authorization Form for Web Survey” (see Appendix F), “Research Participant Informed Consent and Privacy Authorization Form for E-mail Questionnaire” (see Appendix G), and “Research Participant Informed Consent and Privacy Authorization Form for Administrators” (see Appendix H). These forms were submitted to the Argosy University Internal Review Board for approval (see Appendix I). Once the forms were approved, the researcher e-mailed the questionnaire to selected subjects, posted the Web survey, sent an e-mail requesting participation in the survey, and made appointments for on-site reviews.

Assumptions

The researcher believed that each respondent would respond honestly and to the best of his or her ability. It was also believed that triangulation of the data would provide adequate information to support the qualitative analysis of the research questions. The researcher further assumed that ELL WASL scores would be directly related to the level and type of learning resources provided by each program.

Findings

Research Question One

Research Question 1: To what extent does the current system of distribution of school funds support quality learning resources for ELL students? A review of public documents and the general fund balances for Western Washington State school districts, along with results from the e-mail questionnaire and Web survey, was used to determine how monies are allocated for learning resources and the fund status for ESDs. Findings indicated that the current system of distribution of school funds does not consistently support the use of quality learning resources for ELL students.

Public documents showed that individual schools are responsible for allocating monies for learning resources based on their individual budgets. Monies are disbursed from the state of Washington to the ESDs, which then allocate these monies to individual school districts, which in turn distribute funding to each school.

A review of the Western Washington ESDs general fund reports revealed that there are millions of dollars sitting in unreserved fund balances. These funds are slated for emergencies.

Findings from the e-mail survey showed that school districts in Western Washington have at least three types of management models. Eight districts controlled the funding at the district level, five were site-based managed, and two were a combination of district control and site-managed.

The decision as to how to spend state-allocated money is based on many factors, most importantly the general education dollars budgeted at the district level. In about half the cases (7 of 15 reported) respondents indicated that principals played an important role in determining fund allocation. In the other 8 instances, principals were perceived to have no say in how funds for their schools are distributed. The amount allotted to learning resources in particular appears to be a team-based decision, as indicated by all 15 respondents who answered this question on the e-mail survey.

Onsite reviews of selected individual school budgets and allocations further confirmed that each district sets its learning priorities differently. One district placed more importance on professional development for teachers while another allocated more funds to such physical learning resources as textbooks. Each district also had different ideas as to what textbooks should be used, with the price of the book playing a key determining role.

Research Question Two

Research Question 2: What are the trends in reading achievement (student performance in reading) for ELL students?

A review of Washington State’s WASL, ITBS/ITED, AYP, and WAAS Trends showed that most ELL students failed reading. The highest passing rates on the WASL (36.6%) belonged to fourth graders (OSPI, n.d.i, section, Reading—Grade 4). The ITBS/ITED trends, while not breaking out ELL students from the general population, showed that Grades 3, 6, and 9 failed reading, with the highest passing percentage (58%) belonging to third graders (OSPI, n.d.g, section, “Grade 3). AYP results indicated that some adequate yearly progress was made by ELL students at the fourth grade level, but that all other grades were failing even though they were meeting participation levels (OSPI, n.d.f). The WAAS scores, like the ITBS/ITED scores, were not desegregated; however, these scores also showed that most students failed reading, with the highest passing rate in 2003-2004 (50.9%) attributed to fourth graders (OSPI, n.d.h, section, “4^th Grade Reading Trend”).

Onsite reviews and observations supported the statistics showing that ELL students in Western Washington State were failing reading in record numbers. Educators freely discussed the fact that they felt powerless to raise ELL student scores because of lack of funding for textbooks and other learning resources. They also expressed concern about the different levels of ELL student abilities in their classrooms: some students are at a fourth-grade reading level while others are higher or lower. One specific textbook cannot respond to these individual needs.

Research Question Three

Research Question 3: Are ESL/ELL teachers sufficiently trained and/or certified to support quality instruction for ELL students?

Specific Web survey questions sought to examine the credentials, experience, and reading-related professional development training of those teachers with ELL students.

Responses to the Web survey questions revealed that while most reading and language arts teachers who teach ELL students in Western Washington State were certified in reading and have taught for more than four years, most did not have an ESL endorsement, were not fluent in a second language, had minimal training in application of the EALRs, and were not members of a TESOL organization. This suggests that that while most teachers are qualified to teach reading, most do not have the credentials or experience to provide for the specific needs of ELL students.

Of the 102 respondents who teach ELL students reading in Western Washington, 98 had current reading endorsements, and of those 98, 24 also reported having ESL endorsements. Fifteen of these instructors indicated that they hold language-specific endorsements, and a slightly higher number (27 of the107 respondents) reported fluency in a second language; however, for those instructors who were fluent in a second language, most did not teach students who speak that second language.

The findings further showed that Western Washington has a number of students who speak a wide variety of languages. Languages spoken by students included Korean, Serbian, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Spanish, Cambodian, Ethiopian, Albanian, Kiswahili, Arabic, Tagalog, Erdu, Mandarin, Filipino, Bosnian, Ukrainian, Loatian, Pashto, Hindi, Amharic, Tigrinya, Somali, and Krio. These responses are in line with findings in the literature review, which showed that while some school districts have the benefit of large numbers of ELL students who speak the same language, most districts must educate students who speak a range of languages.

Data showed that the majority of ELL instructors who responded to the Web survey—more than 70%—had been teaching reading within the Washington State educational system for four years or more; however, 44% of the instructors who responded to the question, “How many years have you specifically taught reading in Washington States’ ESL Program?” indicated that they had taught reading in Washington State’s ESL program for less than 1 year, and most—87 of the 93 instructors who responded to this question—were not members of a TESOL organization.

Since ELL students in Washington State are held to the same standards as other students and must pass the WASL with minimal accommodations, it appears that teacher training in the EALRs would be an important element of students success; however, respondents to the Web survey questions suggested that the educational system had not required continuous professional development as it relates to the EALRs. Of the 72 respondents, 14 reported having received between 0 and 4 hours of training in the EALRs since 1998, 15 received between 5 and 12 hours, 13 received between 13 and 24 hours, 9 received between 25 and 40 hours and 21 received more than 40 hours. Training was provided by district staff, and the primary trainees were teachers and administrators.

Onsite review and observation further confirmed that teachers in Western Washington were not adequately prepared to teach the ELL student populations they worked with. For example, one classroom teacher spoke fluent French and possessed an endorsement in Middle School Education, Arts and Humanities; however, her student population was a mix of Cambodian, Japanese, Korean, and Russian. Another middle school teacher, who was in charge of the school’s ELL program, held an ESL endorsement but was not fluent in a second language and did not have time to keep up with his professional development. In both cases lesson plans were not used; rather, students were “taught to the test.” When asked whether they had a specific teaching methodology that they followed, both responded that they “prescribed as they went,” giving students whatever they thought was needed at a particular time.

A visit with one school district administrator revealed that the administrator herself designed the high school’s ELL reading list. Upon reviewing the list it was noted that there were many sophisticated readings not traditionally offered at high school level. Upon further inquiry it was discovered that the students read these books in their native languages and that the administrator allowed the students to use such texts as “Cliff Notes,” “Spark Notes,” and “Book Rags” to help the students understand what the text meant because she was not familiar with the majority of the books on the list.

Research Question Four

Research Question 4: Are sufficient resources available to schools to support effective instruction for ELL students?

Web survey questions inquired about the way texts and resources were chosen, their usefulness, and their availability. Findings indicate that the availability and use of learning resources was inconsistent, and therefore may not support effective, quality instruction in all schools.

There is no specific textbook required to teach students to ELL students. Results showed an almost even split between the number of instructors who use textbooks (46.9%) and the number of those who don’t (53.1%). Of the instructors who do use textbooks, the majority of them reported having a sufficient number to supply one for each of their students. For those that do not, funding and suitability issues were cited.

Textbooks that are used were selected in a variety of ways. When asked, “Is this textbook required for use by all ELL instructors teaching reading in your district?” 18 of the 57 respondents indicated that the textbook was chosen for use by the school district while 39 indicated that it was selected by other means. Textbooks were selected in a variety of ways: by the instructors themselves (4 of 60 respondents), by a teacher committee (26 of 60), by a program chair or director (9 of 60), or yet another source (21 of 60).

The textbooks were also supplemented with an array of materials: most instructors (78% of those who responded) reported that they used supplemental materials including handouts that they had created themselves, handouts from conferences or workshops, activities from the instructor’s manual for the textbook, software produced by the publisher of the textbook, workbooks by the publisher of the textbook, ideas or activities from teacher resource books, ideas from journals or newsletters, and articles and materials taken from the Internet. No respondents used handouts created by colleagues or the textbook publishers’ Web sites.

A majority of instructors indicated that they did not bear the cost of supplemental materials. Of 55 respondents who answered the question that pertained to reimbursement for supplemental materials, 34 indicated they were reimbursed for money spent on supplemental materials and 21 indicated they were not. The 34 respondents who answered affirmatively were reimbursed to different degrees and from different sources. Reimbursements came from districts, PTAs, and grants. Dollar amounts permitted ranged from $50 to $300. Some teachers indicated that they were allotted money for supplies or received a stipend that covered these expenses.

Of those who said they bore the cost of supplemental materials, the amount of money spent per year ranged from $50 to $1200. The most common amounts reported ranged between $200 and $300.

An onsite review supported the sentiments reflected in the Web survey. All of the observed instructors said that they did not receive reimbursement for their resource-related expenses and that they spent an average of $300 per year for student supplies.

Research Question 5

Research Question 5: What is the relationship between the processes of second language acquisition and ELL student achievement in reading?

This research question was not part of the e-mail questionnaire or the Web survey. Instead, the researcher relied solely on published studies and incorporated this question as part of the on-site reviews. Findings indicate that many of the same skills needed to learn to read are the same for both native speakers and students with other language backgrounds; however, there are some additional considerations related to ELL student achievement.

Research cited in the literature review found that language experience in the early years during brain development influences the capacity to acquire new languages; consequently, adults who have little early experience of language are less able to acquire skills in a new language.

Moreover, studies showed that non-English-speaking children must generally attain some proficiency in speaking before they can learn to read: it is helpful for children to understand how the written language corresponds to a spoken language with which they are already familiar, and knowledge of spoken language ensures that the students can understand the meaning of what they are learning.

With regard to second language learning, there were a number of common factors in the transfer of language skills including the level of mastery of the first language, the length of time in instruction in the new language, and the teaching of cognitive and literacy skills in the first language. Researchers disagreed about how bilingual education should be conducted and how long a student should remain in a bilingual program; however, most research indicated that educating students in a non-primary language is most effectively done through bilingual programs that provide instruction in both the primary language and in the adopted language, encourage mastery of both languages, teach literacy and subject content areas in the primary language, and extend this instruction over a period of between 4 and 7 years.

Studies indicated that many ELL students encounter similar problems with English grammar and usage. ELL students typically encounter problems with articles and determiners, prepositions, the use of certain tenses, the use of count and non-count nouns and unfamiliar vocabulary.

On site reviews support the sentiments found in the literature review.

Research Question Six

Research Question 6: What is the relationship between parental involvement and ELL student achievement?

This question was not included as part of the e-mail questionnaire or the Web survey. Instead, the researcher relied solely on published studies and incorporated this question as part of the on-site reviews. Findings showed that parental involvement, even by those parents who cannot speak English, contribute to students’ progress in reading.

Research cited in the literature review showed that parents of ELL or non-English-proficient students are frequently hesitant to participate in their children’s education, seeing it as a type of interference; however, findings regarding parent involvement were positive regardless of student age, family income, socioeconomic status, or even the parents’ ability to speak English.

Parents of ELL students were able to boost their children’s academic achievement by providing a positive and supportive environment, participating in school activities, communicating with the child’s teacher, keeping track of the child’s progress in school, and providing specific materials and techniques that reinforced classroom learning.

These efforts improved students’ reading achievement, regardless of the parents’ own language ability.

On site reviews support the sentiments found in the literature review.

Research Question Seven

Research Question 7: Do laws governing textbooks and other learning resources support effective instruction for ELL students?

Findings from the literature review, and results from the Web survey and onsite observation indicated that though Washington State laws that apply to learning resources do generally support effective instruction for ELL students, instructors are not familiar with these laws, and so may not use them to benefit ELL student instruction.

Findings from a review of legal documents showed that the state of Washington employs broad definitions of the terms “textbooks” and “teaching materials.” The term textbooks can include, but is not limited to, such items as globes, maps, ink, paper, and pens. The term teaching materials refers to printed materials such as textbooks and handouts, and it also applies to non-print materials such as films used for educational purposes.

Review of the literature indicated that in Washington State public schools the collection of fees for textbooks and other learning resources is unlawful, and that such materials must be supplied by the board of directors of first class school districts if they have been ordered to do so by the electors. When the school district has not been ordered by the voters to provide materials, it may direct students to purchase them; however, students are not required to purchase them from the district. All school districts are obligated to provide supplies to children whose parents cannot afford them. The school districts may charge deposits for loaned materials to preserve them from damage.

Each school district board of directors is ultimately responsible for setting policies that guide the quality, content and scope of its educational program. Moreover, the board—or the board through its agents—must review instructional materials in a public hearing if there is an objection from parents or guardians. Either the district board itself or its administrative staff may conduct evaluations; however, the board remains accountable for its actions or those taken on its behalf by its staff.

A review of Washington State legislation showed that in 1995 the Washington

State Legislature proposed at least one bill to cut state-level administrative costs for education and channel saved money into school textbooks. The original House Bill 1027 proposed trimming the budgets of administrative agencies such as OSPI, the Washington State Board of Education, the Workforce Training and Education Board, the Commission on Student Learning, and the ESDs, and diverting those funds to schools for teachers and materials.

The original legislation charged school districts to examine their expenditures and divert savings to classroom support and provided grants for these reviews to large districts that spent more than a third of their budget on administrative expenses. The Substitute Bill subsequently “encouraged” districts specified by OSPI to perform financial reviews. The Second Substitute Bill, as it was passed by the legislature, eliminated funds for financial reviews.

Web-survey question 28, “Are you familiar with the following legislation? AGO 51-53 No. 494?” (The text of this legislation was provided on the survey questionnaire. See Appendix F) was designed to determine instructors’ knowledge of Washington State’s legal position on textbooks and learning resources. Results showed that most respondents (87.5%) were not familiar with the State’s provisions for learning resources, and the respondents indicated that they pay for instructional materials out of pocket.

During the onsite observation process all instructors and administrators stated that they had no idea what the law was regarding student learning resources.

Conclusions

Findings indicated that the quality and effectiveness of Western Washington’s ELL programs as measured by ELL student WASL scores may be compromised by the current system of distribution of school funds, the insufficient certification and training of teachers who teach reading to ELL students, the inconsistent availability and use of learning resources, and the unfamiliarity of instructors with Washington State law as it pertains to learning resources. Findings also indicated that though all students need to develop the same skills in order to read, there are a number of considerations that account for the progress—or lack of progress—of second language acquisition. Findings also showed that parental involvement contributes to ELL students’ achievement in reading. Accommodating the special considerations of second language acquisition and promoting parental involvement may improve ELL student achievement in reading and subsequently improve their scores on the WASL.

Results showed that the current system of distribution of school funds does not consistently support the use of quality learning resources for ELL students. In Washington State, the individual County Assessor Treasurer Offices are responsible for collecting and investing state property taxes. Washington State collects, on the average, 99% of all property tax due. The monies are then broken into various funds, one of which is the Washington State General Education Fund. These monies are invested by each County in an effort to gain more revenues through interest earnings. Funds are then distributed to individual school districts based on FTE numbers. Individual school districts are responsible for their budgets and as such have control over the amount of money allocated for learning resources. These funds are managed in several different ways: there is no consistent method of managing district funds. Furthermore, there is no common method of determining how funds will be allocated for ELL student learning resources across the districts. Washington State’s funding model has not been changed since the year 2000 (School District Superintendent, personal communication, March 15, 2005).

Trends in reading achievement for ELL students clearly showed that ELL students are failing in large numbers, regardless of the type of test administered. While there has been some improvement in passing rates over the last few years, the highest passing rates are still too low, and the only students showing signs of making AYP are fourth graders. (See Appendixes A, B, C, and E)

Findings also indicated that most reading teachers in Western Washington State are not well prepared to teach reading to ELL students. Research in the literature review indicated that optimal reading ability for ELL students comes by way of bilingual education in which students are taught in both English and their native language (Slaven & Cheung, 2004); however, the reality is that less than half of the instructors teaching reading to ELL students hold ESL endorsements and only slightly more than half of these instructors hold language-specific endorsements. Less than a third of these instructors have fluency in a second language. Of this group, most speak Spanish as their primary second language. Yet, of those fluent in Spanish, less than half taught ELL students whose native language was Spanish. Not only are most teachers not equipped for second-language teaching, teachers also appear to lack sufficient resources to deal with the issues of ELL students: An overwhelming number of instructors do not hold membership in any TESOL organization.

Moreover, teachers and administrators did not appear to have sufficient training in implementing the EALRs. Since the WASL is based on mastery of the EALRs, achievement on the WASL would have a direct relationship to instructors’ ability to integrate these requirements into the curriculum. The ELL instructors in Western Washington are not kept abreast of Washington State’s EALRs for reading. Less than 35% of survey respondents report having received more than 40 hours of training in the EALRs since 1998. Administrators find it difficult to understand how the curriculum is to be implemented according to the standards because, as one administrator stated, “we are handed a big book full of Washington State law and hidden somewhere within the pages are the standards that we are supposed to extrapolate and develop the curriculum from” (personal communication). Therefore, there are serious discrepancies between the EALRs, the district curriculum, and what the instructors are actually teaching. Lack of training in this area has significant implications for all students who must take the WASL.

The primary source of professional development for Western Washington ELL educators in Washington State EALRs are seminars and workshops provided by the state. Less than 10% of instructors were trained by ESL or bilingual trainers. Further, these workshops are attended by a mix of instructors and administrators alike: there is no professional development program in place specifically for ELL or bilingual instructors in Western Washington.

Findings indicated that the availability and use of learning resources is inconsistent and therefore may not support effective, quality instruction in all schools. Most ELL instructors are not required to use textbooks. Of those that do, the majority of instructors have enough textbooks for students; those that do not indicate that this is because of limited funding or because textbooks suitable for various competency levels are not available. Textbook selection was determined in several different ways: there is no uniform method of selecting textbooks. Adding to this diversity of learning resources is the use of supplementary materials; most instructors used supplementary materials, and these materials were usually created by the instructors themselves using a variety of methods. Less than 10% of the instructors used activities from their textbooks’ instructor’s manual, and less than 1% used software or workbooks produced by the textbooks’ publishers.

Less than one half of instructors spent personal funds on supplemental materials, with more than half of these instructors (68.1%) reporting that they were reimbursed for their expenditures.

Research showed that students who are permitted to take their textbooks and other learning materials home have a higher graduation and employment rate regardless of the language spoken. However, none of the instructors interviewed allowed their students to take their textbooks home.

Findings suggested that the four compensatory models implemented to raise ELL student achievement in reading do not work. Though many of the same skills needed to learn to read are the same for both native speakers and students with other language backgrounds, there are some additional considerations related to ELL student achievement. Because it is not financially feasible for the State to implement bilingual programs for all second language students, Western Washington public schools rely primarily on ESL models. Though many ELL grammar problems emerge similarly in English (University Writing Center, n.d.), research shows that non-native English speakers must master their own native language if they are to successfully transfer their skills to English (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 2004/1998): there are no programs in place to help students master their native language prior to transferring to English.

Another possible factor in the low reading achievement demonstrated by ELL students is the seeming under-utilization of parental involvement. Findings showed that parental involvement, even by those parents who cannot speak English, contribute to students’ progress in reading. There are a number of ways for parents to become involved in their child’s reading education, and many of them require only a positive and supportive environment: they do not require knowledge of English (Simich-Dudgeon, 1999). In spite of the overwhelming evidence in support of parental participation in children’s education (Simich-Dudgeon, 1999), Western Washington lacks in programs addressing parental involvement in reading for ELL students.

Finally, findings showed that though Washington State laws that apply to learning resources do generally support effective instruction for ELL students, instructors remained largely unaware of legal requirements regarding student learning resources. When the school district has not been ordered by the voters to provide materials, it may direct students to purchase them; however, students are not required to purchase them from the district. In addition, all school districts are obligated to provide supplies to children whose parents cannot afford them (AGO 65-66 No. 113). Instructors do, in fact, require students to purchase individual resources, not only for themselves but for other students. Included in these resources are funds for authoritative publications such as National Geographic and various school generated publications. This is in violation of Washington State law.

Rosemary R. Reigle

George Reid, Ph.D., Chair date

Introduction

Problem Background

Importance of the Study

False Claims About Literacy Development

New Language Learning

How Do English Language Learners Learn to Read?

As the number of culturally diverse students has increased, and as NCLB has demanded that these students meet achievement quotas,

Teaching Reading to Early Language Learners

Teaching Reading to LEP Students

The ESL Standards

Guidelines for Language Classroom Instruction

Contextual Factors in Second Language Acquisition

Teaching LEP Students

Parent Involvement

LEP Student Parent Involvement

State and Federal Expectations: Reading

K-10 Grade Level Expectations: A New Level of Specificity

Reading First Initiative: Overview

Reading First and English Language Learners

Federal Mandate

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

The Washington State Constitution

The State of Education Funding

State Financing of Washington Public Schools

Federal Financing of Washington Public Schools

AGO 51-53 No. 494: Regarding a Fee for Instructional Materials

AGO 65-66 No. 113: Regarding Fees for Tuition and Textbooks

AGO 1979 No. 18: Evaluation of Teaching Materials

House Bill Report 1027

***Selection of* *Participants***

Instruments/Instrumentation

Rosemary R. Reigle

George Reid, Ph.D., Chair date

Introduction

Problem Background

Importance of the Study

False Claims About Literacy Development

New Language Learning

How Do English Language Learners Learn to Read?

As the number of culturally diverse students has increased, and as NCLB has demanded that these students meet achievement quotas,

Teaching Reading to Early Language Learners

Teaching Reading to LEP Students

The ESL Standards

Guidelines for Language Classroom Instruction

Contextual Factors in Second Language Acquisition

Teaching LEP Students

Parent Involvement

LEP Student Parent Involvement

State and Federal Expectations: Reading

K-10 Grade Level Expectations: A New Level of Specificity

Reading First Initiative: Overview

Reading First and English Language Learners

Federal Mandate

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

The Washington State Constitution

The State of Education Funding

State Financing of Washington Public Schools

Federal Financing of Washington Public Schools

AGO 51-53 No. 494: Regarding a Fee for Instructional Materials

AGO 65-66 No. 113: Regarding Fees for Tuition and Textbooks

AGO 1979 No. 18: Evaluation of Teaching Materials

House Bill Report 1027

Selection of Participants

Instruments/Instrumentation

***Selection of* *Participants***