Wk1Assin

01CH_Piper_LanguageKawanda.pdf

1The Faces of Diversity

Jupiterimages/Creatas/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes By the end of this chapter you will be able to accomplish the following objectives:

1. Explain how historical patterns of immigration to the United States have shaped the current English language learner demographic.

2. Explain how the changing demographic of English language learners in the United States affects the education system.

3. Analyze the impact of the changing demographic of English language learners on classroom teachers.

4. Explain why cultural sensitivity and understanding are important.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 1 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.1 The ELL Population: A Nation of Immigrants

Introduction The United States is and has always been a land of immigrants. Some of us whose parents, or even grandparents, were born here tend to forget, but the truth is that unless our ancestors were indigenous peoples, we are descended from immigrants. This chapter begins with a brief history of cultural diversity in the United States from the European founders to the pres- ent day. Emphasizing that the linguistic and cultural makeup of the population continues to change, the chapter goes on to examine how the changing demographic of English language learners (ELLs) in the United States affects the educational system as a whole and how it impacts individual classroom teachers.

There is no doubt that our country and our schools are richer for the fact of our demography. More diversity means more options. Whether in ideology, customs, foods, sports, or almost everything that touches our lives, we are enriched by a multitude of perspectives. Over the past few decades, as schools have seen their numbers of non-English speakers increased, they have learned that the educational experience of all learners, whatever their language, benefits when every learner has equal opportunity to learn. Because ELLs face the dual tasks of learning academic content and a new language, schools have learned, and will continue to learn, how to organize programs and curricula and to prepare teachers for the reality of the diverse 21st-century classroom.

In recent years, additional pressure has been put on schools by an increased demand for reporting and “accountability” as defined and mandated by government or school districts. Already faced with declining resources and larger numbers of students identified as ELLs, schools have scrambled to adapt not only for the sake of ELLs, but so that the benefits of hav- ing a diverse school population can be fully realized. Their goal, ultimately, is that ELLs not become long-term English language learners (LTELLs) for whom, too often, the academic prognosis is grim. The purpose of this chapter is to begin the conversation about how educa- tors can help to improve the chances of success for all English language learners.

1.1 The ELL Population: A Nation of Immigrants We learned in elementary school social studies that the first European settlers to the North American continent arrived in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565. Forty-two years later, the Eng- lish settled Jamestown, Virgina, and immigration had begun to fuel the population growth and geographical expansion that created the country we occupy today.

A Brief History of U.S. Immigration People move from the land of their birth to other countries for a number of reasons. Politics, climate change, natural resources, economic conditions, and personal opportunity all play a role—and certainly have done so among those who have chosen the United States as home for the past four centuries. Indigenous peoples would likely view immigration as beginning with the arrival of the Spanish to St. Augustine, but historians generally consider those who crossed the Atlantic before 1790 to have been settlers and not true immigrants. There were approximately 1 million of these settlers, overwhelmingly from Great Britain, but the French, Dutch, and Spanish were also represented. We cannot, however, neglect to acknowledge that

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 2 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.1 The ELL Population: A Nation of Immigrants

much of early settlement and immigration were involuntary when African citizens were imported against their will to work, primarily on farms and plantations in the southern part of the country. Although Congress passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves in 1807 to take effect in 1808, and further strengthened the law in 1819, the practice continued illegally for many years afterward. At the time the U.S. Senate passed the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery in 1864 (final ratification in 1865), there were approximately 4 million slaves held in a total population of approximately 31 million people.

Population Growth in the 19th and 20th Centuries There was little immigration to the United States between 1780 and 1830, and in fact, there was a great deal of emigration from the United States to Canada by those seeking better farm- land and a closer alliance with the British crown. Nevertheless, the 19th century was a time of immense population growth fueled by immigration. The factors that led people to cross- migrate to the United States can be considered in terms of “push” and “pull” conditions. The types of things that push people toward migration to another country include famine, war, religious or political persecution, unemployment, and poverty. The types of things that pull people toward another country are increased economic opportunity, religious freedom, fam- ily unity, or cultural preferences.

Courtesy Everett Collection Large numbers of European immigrants arrived in the United States in the years following the First World War.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 3 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.1 The ELL Population: A Nation of Immigrants

Crop failures in Germany, the Irish potato famine, and general political unrest in Europe lead- ing thousands to seek a different life in the New World were some of the push factors that led people to move to the New World. Some of the pull factors included the California Gold Rush, the promise of new and cheap farmlands, and late in the 19th century, the Industrial Revolu- tion. Moreover, when the invention of the steam engine led to steam-powered ships, crossing the ocean became faster and cheaper. Improvements in farming techniques in the Russian Empire and in Southern Europe in the late 19th century created larger, underemployed popu- lations eager for a fresh start in North America, resulting in a migratory wave of Italians, Greeks, Hungarians and Poles, and other Slavic-language peoples.

Where We Came From In the latter half of the 19th century and up to about 1930, approximately 5 million Germans arrived in the United States, most of whom settled in the Midwest. The Irish arrived in large numbers between 1820 and the end of the century, mostly Protestant before 1845 and mostly Catholic thereafter (Dolan, 2010). What push or pull factors might have influenced these two groups?

In 1819, Congress passed an act that required the secretary of state to report annually on the number of immigrants admitted. The pattern of immigration during subsequent decades is illustrated in Table 1.1.

Immigration patterns were determined not just by the push and pull factors, but also by poli- cies of the U.S. government. Notice that in 1880, there were 104,000 Chinese immigrants reported by the Census Bureau, but after that, it is not until 2000 that we see the Chinese represented in significant numbers. The dramatic drop after 1880 was the direct result of a law passed by Congress in 1882, which specifically restricted the number of Chinese entering the United States for ten years. Congress renewed the Act in 1892, and made it permanent in 1902. What motivated Congress to pass such a law? There is no definitive answer, but most historians concur that it was in reaction to the perception, primarily in California, that the presence of Chinese workers was driving down wages. This was the first federal law that restricted immigration of a particular ethnic group, and the Chinese Exclusion Act was not repealed until 1943 (Kanazawa, 2005; Cole, 1978).

Congress further acted to restrict immigration in 1917, when they voted to require all immi- grants to pass a literacy test and banned all immigrants from Asian countries except Japan and the Philippines. Four years later, Congress put a temporary quota on immigration, which they made more restrictive and permanent in 1924. The later quota restricted the number of immigrants to 164,000 per year and “fixed quotas on immigration from each country, bas- ing the quota on percentage of people from that country who lived in the United States in 1890” (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2013). Note that the 1924 law neither replaced nor repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Eventually, these restrictive acts were repealed and replaced with more permissive legisla- tion. In 1965, Congress set the country on course toward the more diverse population we have today with the passage of the 1965 Nationality and Immigration Act. That act abolished the quotas set in the 1920s with a new system that was only slightly more permissive. It did abolish the earlier quota system but replaced it with a preference system that focused on needed employment skills and family relationships in the United States. The 1965 act also set the total number of visas to be awarded in any one year at 170,000, excluding immediate

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 4 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.1 The ELL Population: A Nation of Immigrants

Table 1.1: Top source countries for U.S. immigration, 1850–2000 (in thousands)*

Year/country 1850 1880 1900 1930 1960 1990 2000

Austria 717 305

Bohemia 85

Canada 148 717 1,180 1,310 953 745 678

China 104 1,391

Cuba 737 952

Czechoslovakia 492

Dominican Republic

2,000

El Salvador 765

France 54 107

Germany 584 1,967 2,663 1,609 990 712

Hungary 245

India 2,000

Ireland 962 1,885 1,615 745 339

Italy 484 1,790 1,257 581

Mexico 13 641 576 4,298 7,641

Netherlands 10

Norway 13 182 336

Pakistan 724

Philippines 913 1,222

Poland 1,269 748

Russia/Soviet Union

424 1,154 691

Sweden 194 582 595

Switzerland 13 89

United Kingdom 379 918 1,168 1,403 833 640

Vietnam 543 863

Total foreign born 2,176 6,965 8,452 11,008 6,937 8,588 18,817

*Countries without numbers did not make the top ten for that census year.

Sources: US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey; Decennial Census 2000 (see www.census.gov); Gibson, Campbell and Emily Lennon, US Census Bureau, Working Paper No. 29, Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850 to 1990, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1999 and the 2001 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 5 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.1 The ELL Population: A Nation of Immigrants

family members of legal U.S. residents. Without nationally based quotas and with the empha- sis on family unification and employability, the 1965 act became the foundation for policy that remains in place today. In 1990, Congress raised the total number of immigrants allowed, revised the grounds for exclusion and deportation, and allowed temporary protected status for residents of certain countries. The impact of the 1965 and 1990 acts has been profound: The number of arriving immigrants doubled between 1965 and 1970, and then doubled again between 1970 and 1990. In the last three decades, the foreign-born population of the United States has tripled. During the latter half of the 20th century, immigrants began arriving from many different countries than in the past, and the percentage of foreign-born residents of European descent dropped from just under 60% of immigrants in 1970 to 15% in 2000 (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2003). Moreover, over one-third of the foreign-born population of this country arrived since 2000 (U.S. Census, Bureau, 2012).

Who We Are Today We have seen how world events, as well as government action, have had a profound impact on the demographics of this country. We are, today, a very different nation than we were 100 or even 50 years ago, and we are almost certainly different from what we will be 50 years from now. According to the 2010 census, which provides data on reported ethnicity and lan- guage, 41 million residents, or 13% of the population, were born outside the United States, and approximately 44% of these people were naturalized U.S. citizens (Grieco, Acosta, de la Cruz, Gambino, Gryn, Larsen, Trevelyan & Walters, 2012). See Table 1.2.

The census did not specifically ask about immigration status, but cross-referencing of data from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on naturalization reveals that approx- imately 44% of the total foreign-born residents are naturalized citizens. Since the Census Bureau does not ask questions about immigration status, there is no way of knowing how many of the remaining immigrant population are authorized to be in the United States, but for education purposes it does not matter. Public schools require evidence of residence, not immigration status, and are required to provide education to all residents of their districts.

Country-of-origin data provide some indication of the languages spoken by the immigrant population. Spanish remains the dominant minority language spoken in this country, although it isn’t the only non-English language spoken in the United States today. Of the approximately 281 million residents (over the age of five) living in the United States in 2010, more than 55 million spoke a language other than English at home. Spanish and Spanish Creole accounted for 34.2 million of these (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), meaning that almost 21 million spoke other languages. Table 1.3 shows how these languages are distributed in the population along with the self-reported data of census respondents on their proficiency in English.

Looking closely at the data in Tables 1.2 and 1.3 reveals a very important fact: The num- ber of immigrants is much smaller than the number who reportedly speak another language at home. The number of the latter population reporting that they speak English “not very well” is the more relevant number, and it may well underrepresent the actual number who need English support. In recent decades, to accommodate students who need English sup- port schools have changed and teachers have had to make adaptations. A good illustration of this phenomenon is the story of a teacher named Ellen Rodriguez, who recently retired after 40 years. Her account begins in A Teacher’s Story: Meet Ellen, and continues throughout the remainder of this book as a personal description of and reflection on change.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 6 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.1 The ELL Population: A Nation of Immigrants

Table 1.2: Birthplace of immigrants to the United States, 2010

Country of birth Number (in millions)

Mexico 11.7

India 1.9

Philippines 1.8

China 1.7

Vietnam 1.3

El Salvador 1.2

Korea 1.0

Cuba 1.0

Dominican Republic 0.9

Guatemala 0.8

Canada 0.8

Jamaica 0.7

Colombia 0.7

Germany 0.6

Haiti 0.6

Honduras 0.5

Poland 0.5

Ecuador 0.4

Peru 0.4

Russia 0.4

Italy 0.4

Taiwan 0.4

Iran 0.4

United Kingdom 0.4

Ukraine 0.3

Brazil 0.3

Japan 0.3

Pakistan 0.3

All others (26 countries) 9.3

TOTAL 41

Source: 2010 U.S. Census

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 7 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.1 The ELL Population: A Nation of Immigrants

Table 1.3: Self-reported language proficiency level according to home language

Language spoken at home Number of speakers

Number who self- rated their English ability as less than “Very Well”

Percentage who self- rated their ability to speak English as less than “Very Well”

Spanish and Spanish Creole 34,183,747 16,120,772 47

French (including Patois & Cajun) 1,358,816 292,422 22

Italian 807,010 231,736 29

Portuguese 678,334 289,899 43

German 1,112,670 196,957 18

Yiddish 162,511 50,957 31

Other West Germanic languages 269,600 62,711 23

Scandinavian languages 132,956 17,474 13

Greek 340,028 90,360 27

Russian 846,233 430,850 51

Polish 632,362 274,693 43

Serbo-Croatian languages 273,729 115,165 45

Other Slavic languages 318,051 122,058 38

Armenian 220,922 98,041 44

Persian 359,176 137,765 38

Hindi 531,313 114,070 32

Gujarati 301,658 108,352 36

Urdu 335,213 102,364 31

Other Indic Languages 619,954 238,583 38

Other Indo-European Languages 417,706 157,533 38

Chinese, Mandarin 381,121 199,507 52

Chinese, Cantonese 437,301 273,402 63

Chinese, other 1,637,161 NA NA

(continued )

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 8 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.1 The ELL Population: A Nation of Immigrants

Language spoken at home Number of speakers

Number who self- rated their English ability as less than “Very Well”

Percentage who self- rated their ability to speak English as less than “Very Well”

Japanese 457,033 211,017 46

Korean 1,048,173 610,340 58

Mon-Khmer, Cambodian 182,387 98,764 54

Hmong 185,401 88,556 48

Thai 139,845 72,998 52

Laotian 147,865 74,772 51

Vietnamese 1,204,454 731,555 61

Other Asian languages 644,363 192,046 30

U.S. Census Bureau

Table 1.3: Self-reported language proficiency level according to home language (continued )

A Teacher’s Story: Meet Ellen

Recently graduated from college, Ellen had learned about teaching English as a second lan- guage and had taught many Spanish-speaking children as a student teacher. She found her bilingualism very helpful and was certain that the education and experience she had had in Los Angeles would serve her well. Shortly after graduation in 1971, however, she married a classmate and traveled with him to New Hampshire, where he was to study medicine. Ellen was excited to find a job teaching third grade in a school near Hanover, New Hampshire. What surprised her was that except for the French teacher in junior high, she was the only bilingual in the school where everyone spoke English—even the French teacher, most of the time.

Ellen’s grandparents escaped a war-torn Spain, arriving in the United States with their young son, Ellen’s father, in 1936. Later, he met and married Ellen’s mother, and the young couple moved to southern California where Ellen was born and where she grew up speaking Span- ish and English with equal fluency. “New Hampshire was a foreign country,” she said. “The weather was cold, there were no palm trees, and the food was strange to me. The only thing that was the same was the language, and then only half the same,” she said. Ellen enjoyed teaching and cried the day she turned in her resignation. Her husband had finished medical school, and they were moving to Boston for his residency. It was 1975.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 9 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.2 The Impact of ELLs on Schools

1.2 The Impact of ELLs on Schools For the purposes of our discussion here and throughout the book, we use the definition of the ELL used by the Educational Testing Service, who considers the ELL as one who

• Is between the ages of 3 and 21; • Is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary or secondary school; • Has one of three profiles:

• Was not born in the United States or speaks a native language other than English; • Is a Native American, an Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas,

and comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on his or her level of English language proficiency; or

• Is migratory, has a native language other than English, and comes from an envi- ronment where a language other than English is dominant.

• Has difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language that are so severe as to deny the individual one of the following:

• The ability to meet the state’s proficient level of achievement on state assessments;

• The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or

• The opportunity to participate fully in society (Educational Testing Service, 2009).

In the last three decades of the 20th century, the population of ELLs in U.S. schools grew by 84% at a time when the overall student population increased by only 12%. In the first decade of this century, the number of Latino children under the age of 17 grew by 39% (Pew Hispanic Center, 2011). Today, in some school districts, Hispanic youth comprise a quarter or more of the school population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) and are the fastest growing segment of the school population (Pew Hispanic Center, 2011).

The number of English language learners (ELLs) increased by 65% between 1993 and 2004, while the total U.S. school age population grew by less than 7% (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2006). The more than 5.1 million ELL students comprise more than 10% of the coun- try’s student population. Overall, Hispanics were much more likely to speak a language other than English at home (76%) compared with non-Hispanics. (Fenner, 2012)

Figure 1.1 illustrates how Spanish speakers are distributed in 48 states, and Table 1.4 pro- vides more detailed information in numerical form.

The growth in the ELL population is a trend that can be expected to continue, although pos- sibly not at the same rate. If it does continue at the same rate, the population of the United States will rise to nearly 440 million by 2050, and more than 80% of that increase will be due to immigrants and their U.S.-born children. Moreover, census data reveal that over 75% of ELLs in elementary school and 50% in high school were born in the United States, many to parents who had also been born here (Syrja, 2011); since English was not the language of the home, they did not learn it as a first language.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 10 6/30/15 2:10 PM

GAALMS

TN NC

VA WV

OH PA

INIL

MI WI

MN ND

OR ID

NV UT

NH MS

NJ RI

GAALMS

TN NC

VA WV

OH PA

INIL

MI WI

MN ND

OR ID

NV UT

NH MS

NJ RI

VTVT

68.12%–97.84%

36.63%–68.12%

21.21%–36.63%

10.52%–21.21%

3.97%–10.52%

>0%–3.97%

Counties

Section 1.2 The Impact of ELLs on Schools

GAALMS

TN NC

VA WV

OH PA

INIL

MI WI

MN ND

OR ID

NV UT

NH MS

NJ RI

GAALMS

TN NC

VA WV

OH PA

INIL

MI WI

MN ND

OR ID

NV UT

NH MS

NJ RI

VTVT

68.12%–97.84%

36.63%–68.12%

21.21%–36.63%

10.52%–21.21%

3.97%–10.52%

>0%–3.97%

Counties

Figure 1.1: Geographic distribution of Spanish speakers by county

This Modern Language Association language map shows where Spanish is spoken in the United States. The darker colors indicate highest density of Spanish speakers. The interactive website map (http:// arcgis.mla.org/mla/default.aspx) shows where more than 30 languages are spoken in the United States and where they are taught.

Source: Reprinted with permisson from Modern Language Association (MLA). Retrieved from http://arcgis.mla.org/mla/default .aspx

The demographic trend in this country means that our schools are and will continue to be places of ethnic and linguistic diversity. Helping teachers and schools to meet that challenge is, in a very tangible sense, the purpose of this text. In Ellen, Ten Years Later, we see how the challenge began for one teacher in 1985.

Although it is easily demonstrated that, on the whole, schools have not been optimally effec- tive in teaching English to non-English speakers, it would be a mistake to assume that they have failed entirely or that their shortcomings are the result of lack of care or effort. As we shall see, schools have struggled to cope with a more diverse student population at a time when curricular and accountability demands have been growing and resources have been shrinking.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 11 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.2 The Impact of ELLs on Schools

Table 1.4: U.S. States ranked by number/percentage of population who only speak Spanish

State # Spanish only % Spanish only

1. California 4,303,949 13.70%

2. Texas 2,369,036 12.31%

3. New Mexico 158,629 9.39%

4. Arizona 435,186 9.16%

5. Nevada 162,301 8.76%

6. Florida 1,187,335 7.89%

7. New York 1,182,068 6.66%

8. New Jersey 483,069 6.15%

9. Illinois 665,995 5.77%

10. Colorado 202,883 5.06%

11. District of Columbia 25,355 4.70%

12. Rhode Island 40,403 4.10%

13. Connecticut 116,538 3.66%

14. Oregon 116,557 3.64%

15. Utah 71,405 3.53%

16. Georgia 246,269 3.24%

17. Idaho 36,459 3.05%

18. North Carolina 218,792 2.91%

19. Washington 155,374 2.82%

20. Massachusetts 162,908 2.74%

21. Kansas 67,973 2.72%

22. Nebraska 39,825 2.50%

23. Delaware 17,116 2.34%

24. Virginia 151,938 2.30%

25. Maryland 108,578 2.20%

26. Oklahoma 65,280 2.03%

27. Arkansas 43,535 1.75%

28. Wisconsin 76,697 1.53%

29. Indiana 84,355 1.49%

30. South Carolina 53,604 1.43%

31. Minnesota 61,817 1.35%

32. Wyoming 6,223 1.34%

33. Iowa 36,606 1.34%

(continued )

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 12 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.2 The Impact of ELLs on Schools

Table 1.4: U.S. States ranked by number/percentage of population who only speak Spanish (continued )

State # Spanish only % Spanish only

34. Pennsylvania 140,502 1.22%

35. Tennessee 64,378 1.21%

36. Michigan 100,689 1.09%

37. Alaska 5,801 1.00%

38. Alabama 40,299 0.97%

39. Louisiana 38,609 0.93%

40. Missouri 45,990 0.88%

41. Kentucky 30,842 0.82%

42. Mississippi 20,856 0.79%

43. Ohio 77,394 0.73%

44. New Hampshire 6,907 0.60%

45. South Dakota 3,999 0.57%

46. North Dakota 2,762 0.46%

47. Hawaii 4,960 0.44%

48. Montana 3,411 0.40%

49. West Virginia 5,728 0.34%

50. Vermont 1,407 0.24%

51. Maine 2,664 0.22%

Source: Statistic Brain Research Institute, 2012, Spanish speaking state statistics.

The growing numbers of ELLs put pressure on schools because they have to be taught English and curricular content simultaneously, and they are an extremely heterogeneous population. According to recent research, 57% of adolescent ELLs were born in the United States and the remainder elsewhere (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010; Abedi, 2004, 2009). They all have different levels of language proficiency, content knowledge, schooling, and citizenship status, not to mention the socioeconomic variability that characterizes the entire school population. This diversity can put pressure on school resources, but there are many other factors that increase that pressure. Some of these include

1. Political pressure to dictate or change curriculum. Schools are sometimes forced to add subject matter and change curricular materials without the benefits of more time or money.

2. English-only legislation. California, Massachusetts, and Arizona have all passed laws requiring that public schools teach entirely or “overwhelmingly” in English, thus ending many bilingual programs and effectively mandating sheltered English immersion in some instances (National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2008, p. 4).

3. The emphasis on testing mandated by government and the punitive measures attached to low performance. Many educators feel that standardized testing and preparing

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 13 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.2 The Impact of ELLs on Schools

for those tests constrain teachers in what, how, and how much they teach, and also threatens their job security by holding them accountable for their students’ perfor- mance on the tests. Moreover, at the school level, many schools with substantial ELL populations feel the threat of sanctions if their ELLs do not learn “enough” English within a prescribed period of time.

4. Implementation of the government-mandated standards as well as Common Core State Standards (CCSS). While no teacher opposes high standards for their pupils, the speed with which some states have adopted and implemented the CCSS has been stressful for many. They feel that they do not have adequate professional develop- ment to prepare them either for the curricular changes or for explaining them to parents. They also fear that with the emphasis on the CCSS subjects, there is a risk that noncore subjects such as art, music, and physical education will be given even less attention, especially if a school needs to direct its resources to specialists in reading and math to assist struggling students in these core areas.

5. The global downturn in the economy and employment. Fewer people paying taxes means less money is available for public schools, and much that is available is diverted to cope with the demands of pressures 1–3, above. Schools are closed, and so classes grow with children being bused to more distant schools, changing both the size and the sense of community in the receiving school.

6. Poverty, in general. Approximately 25% of U.S. children live in poverty, and the impact of poverty on children’s ability to learn is undeniable. It is also more difficult for schools to compensate, with school meal programs, for example, when their budgets are consistently slashed.

Each of these factors has a profound impact on schools’ ability to educate effectively, but taken together they can have a devastating impact, particularly on the schools’ resources. And yet, creative school leaders find ways of reducing anxiety by engaging teachers and the commu- nity in the process and the challenges of change. Teachers find creative ways to teach their multi-level, diverse classes so that they are prepared not only for the formal assessments they face, but also for school success.

A Teacher’s Story: Ellen, Ten Years Later

Shortly after they moved to Massachusetts, Ellen gave birth to her first child and took a break from teaching. After taking off a few years to be at home with her children, she resumed her teaching career in Chicago, where the family had settled when her husband began his new medi- cal practice. It was 1985, and the world had changed. “I had had very little chance to speak Span- ish for many years,” Ellen recalled. “My parents had died and there were no family gatherings where English wasn’t spoken. I spoke Spanish at home with my children, or tried to, but once they started school they were resistant, and I didn’t push them. Then I went to work in Chi- cago.” There, she found more opportunities to speak Spanish, but when she met her fourth grade class for the first time, she discovered that knowing Vietnamese or Korean might be more useful. “What I learned very quickly,” she said, “was that I couldn’t rely on being able to communicate in the children’s home languages. I had to communicate with them and teach them English without knowing more than ‘hello’ and ‘good-bye’ and the words for a few food items in Vietnamese and Korean. I was almost mad at the two Spanish-speaking children in my class because their English was so good they didn’t need extra help! Two of the children in my first fourth grade class didn’t speak any English and had never been to school. They had so much to learn. And so did I.”

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 14 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.2 The Impact of ELLs on Schools

Diversity and Resources As noted earlier, even among ELLs of the same age and grade level, including those who speak the same home language, there will be variations in language ability in one or more domains. Some will come to school with excellent oral English but with little or no reading ability. Some will come to school with good colloquial English but without the vocabulary needed for aca- demic success, while others will be the opposite, possessing “book” English but with limited communicative ability. This variability means that as classroom teachers work hard to diver- sify instruction, they will need different, and thus more, resources because ELLs and their families have the right to expect the same quality of education as every other child. Schools may need smaller classes and more teachers, they may need more teacher assistants, and they will certainly need a larger variety of teaching materials.

Unfortunately, there are severe constraints on the budgets of nearly every public school in the country, constraints imposed by factors often beyond the school or district control. For example, the implementation of the CCSS is expected to have an impact:

Given the current economic climate, funding new initiatives such as the CCSS—that will require schools and states to develop and implement new measures—may seem impossible. State and local leaders will need to strat- egize to creatively maximize their current federal and state funding streams.

Federal funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) may be directed to support CCSS implementation. For example, Title I funds may be used to purchase instructional materials, such as curricula and textbooks; to hire new teachers; and provide professional development on CCSS academic sub- jects, such as math and reading. Title II, the main funding stream for teacher and principal preparation and training, can be used to provide professional devel- opment to teachers. Additionally, Title III may be used to provide professional development for ELL teachers. (National Council of La Raza [NCLR], 2012, p. 11)

Fortunately, many of the costs of implementing CCSS are one-time expenses, and in addition to the federal funds that can be directed to Common Core Implementation, some states, such as California, have also made additional monies available.

Diversity and Accountability The standards movement had its beginnings in 1983, with the report of the Commission on Excellence in Education titled A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. With support from the federal government, reform bills were intended to provide coherent policies to bring consistency to educational policy and practice and higher achievement for students. The first major piece of legislation with these aims came with the reauthorization of the Ele- mentary and Secondary Education Act in 1994. Then in 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which was intended to raise proficiency levels for all children.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The most sweeping government-mandated reform of public education of the 20th century, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) introduced standards-based education reform and required states to develop and administer assessment measures for basic skills at select grade levels.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 15 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.2 The Impact of ELLs on Schools

Significantly, the legislation specified punitive measures for schools that failed to meet their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets. A school that failed to meet its AYP target for three consecutive years would be required, for example, to offer free tutoring and other assistance to struggling students. If a school did not meet AYP goals for a fourth year, then the school was required to take “corrective action,” which might involve the introduction of a new curricu- lum, extending instructional time, and the replacement of staff. Five years of failure to meet AYP targets could result in a plan to restructure the entire school, and this plan would be put into place if the school failed to meet its targets for six consecutive years. Another provision of the law required districts to offer parents of children in schools that do not meet their AYPs the option of sending their children to a non-failing school in the district.

The legislation also required states to provide “highly qualified” teachers to all children in public schools, which was, no doubt, already the goal of every state and school district in the country. What NCLB did not do was to specify a national set of standards or testing instrument for either measuring teacher quality or students’ progress, leaving states on their own to figure it out. Some- times what the states “figured out” did not assist the schools so much as to place additional bur- dens on already-strained resources. The state of Wisconsin conducted a careful study of the costs associated with mandated assessments and found that they added $34 to the annual cost of edu- cating an individual student. While that may not seem a large sum, it represented approximately $15 million annually for all students in Wisconsin. But that figure only represents the direct fis- cal costs and does not account for opportunities lost, such as instructional time. The same study made the point that when teachers are testing, they are not teaching, and that as a result, ELLs lost an average of 7.4 hours of instructional time during the year (Zellmer et al., 2006).

A number of states had already embarked on an overhaul of education, and layering on addi- tional federal requirements caused confusion, duplication, and sometimes produced contra- dictory results. In Florida, for example, the state had already implemented an assessment system, one that could be utilized under the terms of NCLB. The problem was that under federal law, “schools were judged on the percentage of students who met specific goals each year” while the state “took into account the progress of individual students from one grade to the next when determining a school’s success” (Postal, 2012).

Since NCLB went into effect, states have been required to implement statewide assessment instruments to establish the acquisition levels of their ELLs. These assessments are used to judge the effectiveness of schools and, often, to determine funding levels. While on the face of it aspects of the NCLB legislation appeared to direct needed atten- tion to ELLs, in fact, the legislation put increased pressure on schools and teachers to achieve rapid lan- guage acquisition. “Do it faster, do it better” was the implied message. Many districts, beginning in Califor- nia, began to place ELLs in English

Tim Sloan/Getty Images No Child Left Behind was the most influential government reform of public education during the 20th century.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 16 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.2 The Impact of ELLs on Schools

immersion or mainstream classrooms. Research indicates, however, that while immersion may have an immediate impact and be effective in the elementary school, the gains disappear dur- ing the middle and high school years (Jost, 2001). If schools do not have the resources to continue language support, students whose language learning is subjected to such rushed treatment are at greater risk of becoming long-term English language learners, and their like- lihood of graduating high school diminishes. The effect is thus felt by the school district when their schools’ test scores decline and they fail to achieve target graduation rates.

Although NCLB did provide some additional federal funding for implementing the required assessments as well as funds for implementing particular reading and technology enhance- ment programs, for many schools and school districts the money was inadequate to meet the new requirements. As the late Senator Edward Kennedy, a sponsor of the original NCLB legislation, stated: “The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not” (Antle, 2005).

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) According to the website of the Common Core State Standards Initiative, the mission of the CCSS is to

. . . provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Coun- cil of Chief School Officers, 2010)

In broad terms, the standards define core conceptual understandings and procedures (e.g., for mathematical computation or scientific inquiry) that children need at each grade level. As of this writing, all but a few states as well as the District of Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense Education Activity have adopted the Common Core standards.

If they are implemented thoughtfully and in consultation with teachers and community stake- holders, the Common Core standards could be a vehicle for achieving educational equality for ELLs. The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) agrees:

Setting common academic standards benefits everyone by raising standards and helping all students achieve them. Specifically, the CCSS initiative holds the potential to:

• Ensure that all students, regardless of ZIP code, income, race, or ethnicity, will be taught to and held to the same, high standards that are aligned to college and work expectations;

• Ensure that all students have access to high-quality educational content, supports, and opportunities that research has demonstrated are essential to postsecondary success;

• Allow parents and caregivers to more effectively assess their child’s progress and compare their child’s education with the education of children in other communi- ties, states, and nations; and

• Free up resources to create high-quality and rich assessments that can accurately and reliably measure the progress of every student.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 17 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.3 The Impact of Increased Numbers of ELLs on Teachers

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) believes that the CCSS Initiative is crucial to improving education for Hispanic students (NCLR, 2012, p. 6).

The developers of the CCSS acknowledged the importance of taking the ELL population into account, but they did not provide specific directions for implementation except to provide some very general guidelines and suggestions for implementing the standards with ELLs. The states were left to figure it out on their own, but Stanford University stepped up to provide leadership:

Recognizing the need for guidance and resources in this area, Stanford Uni- versity launched a privately funded initiative . . . called the Understanding Language Project . . . to heighten educator awareness of the critical role that language plays in the CCSS and the NGSS [Next Generation Science Standards]. (TESOL International Association, 2013)

The project emphasized the necessity to teach content and language simultaneously

. . . by focusing on such language constructs as discourse, complex text expla- nation, argumentation, purpose. . . . According to the experts at the Under- standing Language Project, ELLs’ success in terms of the CCSS requires a different kind of collaboration at all levels, including students, teachers, site and district leaders. . . . (TESOL International Association, 2013)

What was also left to the states when CCSS was introduced was a common set of English Lan- guage Proficiency Development (ELPD) standards, but it soon became apparent that states would need help in linking their existing ELPD to the CCSS. In September 2012, the Council of Chief State School Officers released a framework to assist states in revising their standards to comply with CCSS and NGSS. The Framework for English Language Proficiency Development Standards provides guidance for schools and teachers as they modify curriculum and instruc- tion to comply with the standards. How successful schools are in implementing and in winning the support of the community and, particularly, teachers will depend on a number of factors:

• Schools’ ability to align Common Core standards with effective instructional methods,

• Their ability to provide any needed professional development, • The accuracy of tools used for assessing progress, • Strategies to engage families and communities in the process, and • Above all, effective teaching!

1.3 The Impact of Increased Numbers of ELLs on Teachers Teachers are the heart of the school, and so it is impossible to think about or discuss the impact of demographics and accountability movements without particular reference to teachers. A teacher who began teaching in 1997 and was still teaching at the beginning of the school year in September 2007, would have witnessed a 51% growth in the ELL population. During the same period, the general population of students grew by only 7% (TESOL International Association, 2013). Today, there are approximately 6 million ELLs in the nation’s schools, which represents a 100% increase since 1991. The rising numbers, along with the diverse languages and cultures these learners bring, place additional pressures on teachers, particu- larly within the context of the squeeze on public funding to education and standards-based

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 18 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.3 The Impact of Increased Numbers of ELLs on Teachers

A Teacher’s Story: Ellen and NCLB

“I should have been an art teacher,” Ellen recalls thinking a few years into the implementa- tion of NCLB. “They don’t have a standardized test for color or clay, and so nobody would be judging me on how well my class did on state exams.” Ellen said that there were weeks when she spent more time on teaching children to “bubble up,” referring to filling in the circles on the test answer sheets and how to interpret and eliminate some of the answers for multiple-choice tests, than she spent on vocabulary and reading. “And I had to forget all about individualizing instruction—this NCLB thing is one size fits all,” she added. “I feel like a cookie-cutter teacher—like I’m on an assembly line, and I don’t mean the queue wait- ing to get into the auditorium.” When asked to explain, she said, “Part of it is the testing and the test prep, but you know what the hardest part is? For years, I loved figuring out how to reach each child—I like to think I wasn’t leaving any child behind. I loved to discover the gifts each child brings and celebrate the progress they’d make. Now, they are all expected to learn the same amount of the same things in the same time, and kids just don’t work that way, especially the kids in this school.” Only about half of the children in Ellen’s school speak English at home, and she assessed the reading level of her third-grade class as well below grade level. “Some are barely reading at first-grade level,” she said. “But they all have to take the same tests and be scored with everyone else. It’s not fair, and it’s got to be demoralizing for the kids, too.”

A Teacher’s Story: Ellen and CCSS

George, a recent graduate of a university teacher education program, completed his final semester as an intern with Ellen Rodriguez. Their experience working together in her third- grade class affected how each of them viewed teaching. One of their first conversations was about the CCSS.

Third grade is the first year in which students write the state-mandated achievement test, and George quickly observed that preparing her class for the test was occupying much of Ellen’s time. He understood the importance of the test, but he didn’t understand her anxiety. She pointed out that nine of her students, one-third, were second-language learners. “Are you wor- ried that you’ll lose your job if your students don’t do well?” he asked. She laughed at that.

“I suppose that’s possible, but that’s not what worries me. I just hate the thought that they are judged on the basis of a single test when I know that they have learned so much more than the

(continued)

reform. A few years into the implementation of NCLB, Ellen Rodriguez felt its impact, as we see in Ellen and NCLB.

Given her experience with NCLB, it is not surprising that Ellen was skeptical about the state’s adoption of the CCSS. Gradually, however, she began to change her views, in part because of the influence of her teaching intern, as we will see in Ellen and CCSS.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 19 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.3 The Impact of Increased Numbers of ELLs on Teachers

ELL Teachers and CCSS There is no doubt that both NCLB and CCSS have had a profound effect on teachers of ELLs. In order to bring assessment of ELLs into compliance with CCSS, many teachers will need to refocus their approach to teaching. While they have traditionally focused on building vocabu- lary and an understanding of English grammar (i.e., how sentences are structured), the CCSS demand that they teach language and content simultaneously, focusing on language con- structs such as discourse structure, text structure, explanation, and argumentation, as well as sentence structure and vocabulary practice (TESOL International Association, 2013). In order to implement this shift effectively, teachers will have to work collaboratively at a variety of levels— with students and their parents, other teachers, school and districts, state officials, and possibly publishers and funders. From teachers’ perspective, CCSS have wrought a whole new way of viewing and doing the business of education:

Gaining a realistic understanding of students’ performance levels, meeting students where they currently are, and raising them to new heights are the tasks at hand and will require more intensive and time-consuming teaching and learning than schools commonly provide now. Disadvantaged students— often low-income students, students of color, English language learners, and students with disabilities—were frequently held to a lower set of standards in the past and will need the greatest focus. They are also the students who

A Teacher’s Story: Ellen and CCSS (continued)

test can show.” As they worked through the roles each would take over the upcoming weeks, their conversation turned to the Common Core State Standards. “What do you think about them?” Ellen asked.

George shrugged. “I think they’re a good thing,” he said. “It makes sense to have standards that are the same from district to district and state to state.”

Ellen was skeptical. “You think so? That didn’t work so well with NCLB!”

“But that’s because NCLB just mandated ‘progress.’”

“Why do you think Common Core will be different?”

“Because it focuses on what is to be learned—content—and not just on measuring it. There’s a difference.”

Throughout the term, George learned from Ellen many of the practical teaching techniques she had learned over the years. She learned from him that past experience does not always predict future experience, and that the Common Core might be useful in helping her to clar- ify and measure learning objectives for all her students, particularly the English language learners.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 20 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.3 The Impact of Increased Numbers of ELLs on Teachers

benefit the most from well-designed schools that use significantly more and better learning time for both students and teachers. (Farbman, Goldberg, & Miller, 2014, p. 1)

Following the implementation of NCLB, some states adopted the policy of using standard- ized test results to rate teacher effectiveness. Knowing that a standardized test cannot cap- ture the totality of their impact on students’ learning, some teachers felt that they were being judged unfairly. Predictably, the implementation of the CCSS raised the same fears, but it is possible that the CCSS can be the impetus for improvements in teacher evalua- tion. If school leaders and teachers cooperate in the curriculum revisions, setting of goals, and overall planning needed for implementing and assessing the effectiveness of CCSS, then there are opportunities to “build in” a teacher evaluation system that provides useful infor- mation and tools that teachers need to grow in their profession. Several states are already examining alternatives.

In light of less-than-successful past reform efforts the question is: How are current reforms in teacher evaluation likely to affect the implementation of the Common Core standards and assessments? The medical profession and its notion of “standard of care” can be useful in considering this question. In med- icine, the standard of care is a treatment guideline, be it general or specific, which defines appropriate medical treatment based on scientific evidence and collaboration between medical professionals involved in the treatment of a given condition. A key aspect of this definition of standard of care is that appropriate medical practice is based on scientific evidence.

When the notion of standard of care is applied to education and K–12 teaching, it points to the need for all teachers to regularly acquire new knowledge of con- tent, pedagogy, learning theory, and technology by participating in comprehensive professional development with the goal of enacting appropriate and effec- tive instructional practices that will promote student learning. (Youngs, 2013)

However they are evaluated, teachers are critical to the success of the CCSS and, more significantly, to their pupils’ success. For teachers of ELLs, the defin- ing task is to locate the intersection of their district or state standards for ELLs with those set by the CCSS and then to seek ways of helping their ELLs to reach them.

Olivier Morin/Getty Images Finnish school children, pictured with their teacher on the second day of school, score highest globally on tests of science, reading, and math. Teachers are highly valued in Finland where admission to teacher education programs is very competitive.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 21 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.3 The Impact of Increased Numbers of ELLs on Teachers

Identifying ELLs Because both NCLB and CCSS set standards and timelines for ELLs to attain proficiency, school personnel have had to develop procedures for identifying ELLs. They have had some leeway in how they define the ELL population—some categorize as ELL only those students receiving daily direct instruction in English, while others may include those who have moved on to mainstream classrooms but whose academic progress the school continues to monitor. Table 1.5 describes the variety of ways in which selected states designate English language learners.

What all these tests have in common is an attempt to assess the degree to which a student fits the definition of ELL given in this chapter and to provide some guidelines for grade-level placement. Most are preceded by a Home Language Survey (HLS), which provides information about the child’s home language as well as a rough indicator of English language exposure and experience. Experience has taught educators in some states, however, to view the HLS with cau- tion if not outright skepticism. California researcher Jamal Abedi discovered that parents may provide incomplete or erroneous information because they do not understand the questions on the survey, because they fear citizenship issues, or because they are concerned that their children will not receive an equitable education (Abedi, 2008). Typically, the formal placement tests attempt to measure proficiency in each of the four language domains: listening, speak- ing, reading, and writing. Speaking proficiency in the Colorado English Language Assessment (CELA), for example, is measured along a continuum from “speaks in words” to “tells stories.” These tests are repeated annually in order to demonstrate progress from one year to the next.

While statewide tests are useful for teachers, the results of the assessments are frequently not available before November, or even January, which means classroom teachers may have to find another way to make an initial identification and make placement decisions. Many schools have

Table 1.5: Tests that states use to identify ELL students

Test States Other information

CELA CO

CELLA (Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment)

FL State test scores (grade four and up)

IPT AK, NC Observation (AK)

ACCESS WI, NJ

AZELLA AZ

ELDA AR

HILS + LAB-R NY

W-APT (MODEL is the alternative in ME)

AL, ND, ME, SD Prior school records (AL) Observation (ND)

LAS Links CT, HI, IN, MD Interview (CT, MD) Prior school records (CT, MD) Parental input (HI)

State-developed test ID, WA

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 22 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.4 Cultural and Linguistic Diversity

developed such instruments in order to monitor their students’ progress in each of the four language domains and to guide teachers in their planning for instruction. It is important to remember, when assessing ELLs for purposes of placement, that language proficiency alone is an insufficient basis for placing students in the correct class or planning for their instruc- tion. According to the National Council of Teachers of English, “ELLs will perform much better if placed according to academic achievement rather than language proficiency” (NCTE, 2008, p. 4). One of the reasons for this is that children are generally motivated when high expecta- tions are established for them and when the curricular material is challenging and authentic. In elementary and secondary students, the most effective teaching pairs language and content; it makes sense, therefore, that placements be made and progress assessed on the same basis. In Chapter 4, we will take up the matter of identification and initial placement in greater detail.

1.4 Cultural and Linguistic Diversity Identification and placement of ELLs is only the first step. Creating instructional plans that take into account their cultural norms, beliefs and values about education, and home language com- petence is the larger challenge. A third-grade teacher in Miami with 22 children in her class might have ten Spanish speakers, three speakers of Haitian Creole, and a Russian speaker, along with eight who speak English. Further adding to the diversity, the English and non-English speakers range in reading level from pre-beginner to grade three, two of the Spanish speakers are liter- ate in Spanish but not English, and the Russian child is fully literate in Russian, a language with a completely different alphabet and writing system. Planning for this class is a challenge, one that begins with establishing common goals and a common approach. The overarch- ing goals will be for the children to learn the concepts and procedures appropri- ate for third grade, and so the teaching approach will be to teach language via content. Still, it is obviously necessary to modify the methods and materials, indi- vidualizing them for each child’s needs.

Diversity and Differentiated Instruction Educating ELLs effectively “requires diagnosing each student instructionally, adjusting instruction accordingly, and closely monitoring student progress” (Fenner, 2012). Teachers use the results of their own as well as statewide assessments along with their knowledge of each learner’s culture to develop a plan for differentiated instruction for their ELLs. Dif- ferentiated instruction means that teachers adapt lesson plans and instructional materials to meet the more limited language abilities of their ELLs in mainstream classes. These plans include strategies for helping them develop listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills as well as critical thinking skills. Throughout this book, particularly in Chapters 2–7, individual- ized instruction in a variety of contexts will be discussed, with guidelines and examples.

Monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Thinkstock Classrooms today are more culturally and linguistically diverse than they were 50 years ago.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 23 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.4 Cultural and Linguistic Diversity

Among the school population, both ELLs and children with English as their home language, will be children with special needs. These children add more dimensions to the need for and response to differentiated instruction as well as to assessment, as we will see in Chapters 8 and 9. Guidelines for developing and examples of such plans are included.

Cultural Awareness One of the effects of the changing demographic described earlier is that teachers’ classrooms are often filled with children with a variety of home languages representing a variety of cul- tures. Understanding the children in their classes and helping them to be successful in learning English and in school requires more than evaluation, placement, and lesson planning; it involves at least some degree of cultural understanding. It is not necessary, and likely impossible, for a teacher to understand all the nuances of all the cultures represented by the ELLs in a class, but it is possible to be aware—aware of aspects of different cultures that might influence ELLs’ adjust- ment to school and ability to learn. For schools to be harmonious and effective, school policies and the teaching that occurs in schools must be culturally responsive. Culturally responsive teachers play to the strengths of their students, using their cultural knowledge, prior experi- ence, and performance styles to make learning more effective” (Gay, 2000).

The starting place for a discussion of culturally responsive teachers and schools is necessar- ily with a definition of culture. Before continuing to read, take a few minutes now to write down your definition or understanding of the term culture. Now, look at the box Definitions of Culture to see which is closest to your own definition. Chances are good that your defi- nition will resemble one or more of these because most cultural anthropologists and other academics agree that culture is defined by a set of shared, learned knowledge, beliefs, and values. What they do not always agree on is precisely which knowledge, beliefs, or values are part of the definition. For our purposes it does not matter. More useful is the distinction that Perkins (2011) draws between surface elements of culture and deep elements of culture. Surface elements are those aspects of culture that we perceive with one or more of our five senses. Such elements as food, holidays, or famous personalities are surface elements. In con- trast, deep elements are those which require us to go beyond the observable and explore the why of behaviors or values. Deep elements of culture involve modes of communication, courtship and marriage beliefs and practices, gender roles, roles in the family and in society, concepts of time, and ethics, to name but a few.

Definitions of Culture Culture is the characteristics of a particular group of people, defined by . . . language, reli- gion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts. Culture is communication, communication is culture. (Zimmerman, 2012)

Culture. . . is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, cus- tom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. (Tylor, 1871, p. 1)

Culture is the shared knowledge and schemes created by a set of people for perceiving, inter- preting, expressing, and responding to the social realities around them. (Lederach, 1995, p. 9)

(continued)

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 24 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Section 1.4 Cultural and Linguistic Diversity

The transformation of schools into effective places for all children to realize their potential is the challenge faced by nearly every school district in the country. In Chapter 2 and, indeed, throughout the book, we will continue to explore the role that culture and cultural respon- siveness play in helping ELLs to reach their academic and linguistic potential.

There is no doubt that teaching is a difficult job, with layer upon layer of responsibility, com- plexity, and frustration. But it is also a profession that can be enormously fulfilling, and per- haps even more so for teachers who are privileged to teach English language learners. We conclude this chapter, as we will conclude most of the remaining ones, with the first of several responses that teachers have given to the question “Why do you teach?” The first response is from Gregory, and his story might well be titled The Navigator.

Why I Teach: The Navigator Gregory has been teaching for six years in the same rural school. He taught fourth grade for four years before being moved to second grade. He was asked the questions, “Have you ever considered leaving the profession?” and “Why do you teach?” His response:

Sure, I’ve thought about it from time to time. When I first started teaching second grade, it was a little overwhelming. I had three kids with special needs and a half dozen second language learners, and only about half the class was reading at grade level. I was spending a lot of time after school working with kids one-on-one or talking to colleagues about what I might try. And the whole school was stressed out about the new Common Core standards, mostly because we didn’t know much about what it was going to mean. So, yeah, I thought about getting into something less stressful—maybe air traffic controller. But I stayed. I’m still learning how to teach—probably always will be—but I like it because when I close that door, it’s just 22 kids and me. Scary, right? Seriously, I’ve heard that some teachers complain about how they are losing their autonomy in the classroom—you know, with this whole accountability and standards push. But I don’t see it that way. It’s still mostly up to me to figure out what to do. I mean, there’s a Common Core standard that says children should be able to ask and answer who/what/where/when/why questions to show that they understand the important parts of a text. That’s not exactly a roadmap, is it? It’s a destination, but it’s up to me how to get there.

Definitions of Culture (continued )

Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one category of people from another. (Hofstede, 1984, p. 51)

Culture is “an historically transmitted pattern of meaning embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms.” (Geertz, 1973, p. 89)

Culture is to refer to the systems of knowledge used by relatively large numbers of peo- ple.” (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003, p. 17)

Culture is “an integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not a result of biological inheritance.” (Hoebel, 1972, p. 7)

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 25 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Summary & Resources

Summary Historically we are a nation of immigrants. Our recent history, in particular, has been one of steady growth in the immigrant population when the non-immigrant population has remained stable or even shrunk. As a result, ELLs are the fastest growing segment of the stu- dent population in this country, and this trend is likely to continue. Virtually every state is affected, and while Spanish is still the dominant non-English language spoken, it is only one of many. ELLs are not a homogenous population—only 43% were born outside the country, and wherever they were born, they represent varied levels of language proficiency, socio- economic status, and educational experience and values. This diversity among such large numbers of ELLs places pressure on schools and on teachers, pressure that is increased by government mandates to measure achievement on standardized measures within a limited time period. This chapter has discussed the implications of NCLB and CCSS on ELLs. In the next nine chapters, we will revisit these implications in greater detail, as they affect how we teach and how ELLs and all children learn.

Key Ideas

1. Patterns of immigration to the United States are a result of social, economic, politi- cal, and personal factors both in the homeland and in the United States, but have also been affected by U.S. law and policy.

2. Both numbers and countries of origin for immigrants have changed dramatically over the last two centuries.

3. Approximately 13% of U.S. residents were born outside the United States. 4. Fifty-five million residents (over the age of five) speak a language other than English

at home. 5. Spanish is the dominant minority language spoken in this country, but less than half

consider themselves to be proficient. 6. The number of school-aged ELLs grew by 65% between 1993 and 2004, at a time

when the total U.S. school population increased by less than 7%. 7. The demographic trend indicates that our schools will continue to be a tapestry of

cultural and linguistic diversity. 8. A diverse population places additional pressure on school resources, but also pro-

vides a richness of community. 9. Although the CCSS may put additional pressure on schools, thoughtful implementa-

tion can help to ensure equal educational opportunity for ELLs. 10. Teaching ELLs requires a great deal of cultural understanding and respect.

Key Terms

English language learners (ELLs) Stu- dents for whom English is not the home lan- guage. Formerly referred to as ESL (English as a second language) learners.

long-term English language learners (LTELLs) Learners who have been enrolled for more than six years and are not making substantial academic progress.

English immersion (or structured English immersion) Programs in which a signifi- cant portion of the school day is devoted to the explicit teaching of the English language and in which academic content takes a sec- ondary role.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 26 6/30/15 2:10 PM

Summary & Resources

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What impact did the 1917 law requiring potential immigrants to pass a literacy test have on the makeup of subsequent immigrant populations? Does the United States currently have such a law?

2. Look at the data in Table 1.3 paying particular attention to the fourth column. Note that a higher percentage of Spanish speakers report a higher level of proficiency in English than reported by either French or Italian speakers. What factors might help to explain this difference?

3. In Section 1.2, the author states, “Another provision of the law required districts to offer parents of children in schools that do not meet their AYPs the option of sending their children to a non-failing school in the district.” What additional pressure does this place on schools?

4. How do the punitive aspects of NCLB affect the ability of schools to retain their best teachers?

5. What are the arguments in favor of requiring that Common Core State Standards be met by all learners?

6. What current world events might serve as “push” factors for future patterns of immigration?

7. How does a teacher become culturally aware?

Additional Resources The U.S. Census Bureau is an excellent source of data about demographic trends and lan- guages spoken in the United States. See http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/native_and_foreign-born_ populations.html

For a practical perspective on the Common Core State Standards, see the Center for Ameri- can Progress site at http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/CommonCore-reprint .pdf

English language proficiency develop- ment (ELPD) standards Standards for ELLs developed for and articulated in the Common Core State Standards.

differentiated instruction The adaptations regarding readiness level, language ability, school experience, and learning style that teachers make for individual students, provid- ing different students with different ways to learn language or content or to solve problems.

culturally responsive teachers Teachers who “play to the strengths of their students,

using their cultural knowledge, prior experi- ence, and performance styles to make learn- ing more effective” (Gay, 2000).

surface elements of culture Aspects of culture that are perceived with one or more of our five senses, such as food, holidays, or famous personalities.

deep elements of culture Aspects of cul- ture that require individuals to go beyond the observable and explore the why of behaviors or values.

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 27 6/30/15 2:10 PM

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/native_and_foreign-born_populations.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/CommonCore-reprint.pdf

Summary & Resources

For a detailed analysis of the benefits of and details for implementing CCSS for Latino stu- dents, but applicable for all schools with ELLs, see the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) guidelines at http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/pages/Implementation_Guide.pdf

For various opinions on school reform and measuring teacher effectiveness, see http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/02/23/9167/essential- elements-of-teacher-policy-in-esea-effectiveness-fairness-and-evaluation/ and http://www.susanohanian.org/show_research.php?id=446

For an account of the impact of the 1965 Immigration Act, see the Center for Immigration Studies at http://cis.org/1965ImmigrationAct-MassImmigration

For an overview and timeline of significant events affecting immigrants to the United States, see Harvard University’s Open Collections Program site at http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/timeline.html

For an interesting take on school reform and teacher effectiveness, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/15/ what-if-finlands-great-teachers-taught-in-u-s-schools-not-what-you-think/

For an excellent guide to resource materials on the history of immigration to the United States, available through the Library of Congress, including information about the Common Core standards, see http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/ presentations/immigration/

Materials for teachers on the history of immigration can also be found at http://testimmigration.crf-usa.org/index.php/lessons-for-teachers/72-history-lesson-2 .html

For information on culturally sensitive teaching, see http://www.intime.uni.edu/multiculture/curriculum/culture/teaching.htm

pip82223_01_c01_001-028.indd 28 6/30/15 2:10 PM

http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/pages/Implementation_Guide.pdf

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/02/23/9167/essential-elements-of-teacher-policy-in-esea-effectiveness-fairness-and-evaluation/

http://www.susanohanian.org/show_research.php?id=446

http://cis.org/1965ImmigrationAct-MassImmigration

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/timeline.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/15/what-if-finlands-great-teachers-taught-in-u-s-schools-not-what-you-think/

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/immigration/

http://testimmigration.crf-usa.org/index.php/lessons-for-teachers/72-history-lesson-2.html