Policy Paper

FEDERAL AND STATE-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY
Peter Gere EDCE 5800

Alexandra Federico McGrath Hadi-Tabassum
Rachael Williams 2 July 2016
Federal and State-Level Language Policy
Introduction
The United States is a nation with multiple languages. Although the U.S. has no official
national language, English is the primary language used in government, the media, education and
other major venues. With over 80% of the population speaking English, it has become the
language people are expected to speak in, write in, and read in in order to truly be American.
America is also however, a country of immigrants. Since its inception, the United States has
attracted immigrants and refugees from all parts of the world seeking new opportunities, better
access to education, religious freedom and economic stability. Now more than ever, the United
States is truly a melting pot of cultures and languages from every corner of the world. As these
populations continue to grow, so too does the amount of children whose first language is one
other than English. With the majority of public schools teaching in English, there is a need now
more than ever before, for a comprehensive analysis on how to implement effective language
programming for students whose first language is not English.
This paper seeks to examine the many layers that exist in language policy and
programming for the ELL student demographic at both the state and federal level. To begin, we
will briefly look at the history of language policies and programs for ELLs at the federal level
and what the policies have evolved into today. Next, we will thoroughly investigate the language
policies and programs for ELLs at the state level focusing our research specifically on
Wisconsin, Louisiana and Ohio. We will analyze the types of ESL and bilingual programs
1
offered in these states, and conclude whether they meet federal guidelines, how their funding is
determined and how policy decisions are made. Finally, we will conclude by identifying
similarities and differences between the states and make recommendations for new directions
that these states should take in order to best serve their ELL students.
Federal Language Policy and Programming for ELLs
The federal government promotes the following perspective on ELLs in the US school
system. It is crucial to the future of our nation that these students, and all students, have equal
access to a high-quality education and the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential.
We applaud those working to ensure equal educational opportunities for EL students, as well as
the many schools and communities creating programs that recognize the heritage languages of
EL students as valuable assets to preserve (US Dept of Education, 2015). It is encouraging to
see that at the federal level not only English language acquisition is endorsed, but also the
preservation of heritage languages. They could go one step further in endorsing the active
development of the BICS/CALPS in those heritage languages as the research points in the
direction of bilingualism being a cognitive benefit, with insubstantial potential disadvantages.
In promoting this mindset, the US Department of Education, through the authorship of the
NCELA, has provided an English Learner Toolkit to help state and local education agencies
(SEAs and LEAs) in meeting their legal obligations to ELs and in providing all ELs with the
support needed to attain English language proficiency while meeting college- and career-
readiness standards. The EL Tool Kit is intended primarily for state, district, school
administrators, and teachers, but may also inform other stakeholders concerned with the
education of ELs (NCELA Toolkit, 2015).
2
The toolkit promotes and funds the following programs if they follow the three-pronged
test established in Castaeda v Pickard (i.e. the program is based on sound educational theory,
the programs and practices reasonably calculated, and the program succeeds in producing results
within a reasonable period of time). Below are the options promoted by the US Department of
Education.
Program Option Program Goal Language/s used for instruction

E n g l i s h a s a S e c o n d Program designed to teach ELs Usually provided in English
Language (ESL) or English explicitly about the English with little use of the ELs
Language Development language, including the academic primary language(s)
(ELD) vocabulary needed to access
content instruction, and to develop
their English language proficiency
in all four language domains.
S t r u c t u r e d E n g l i s h Program designed to impart English Usually provided in English
Immersion (SEI) language skills so that the ELs can with little use of the ELs
transition and succeed in an primary language(s)
English-only mainstream classroom
once proficient.
Tr a n s i t i o n a l B i l i n g u a l Program that maintains and Students primary language
Education (TBE), or early- develops skills in the primary and English
exit bilingual education language while introducing,
maintaining, and developing skills
in English. The primary purpose of
a TBE program is to facilitate the
ELs transition to an all-English
instructional program.
Dual Language or Two-Way Bilingual program where the goal is English and another language
Immersion for students to be bilingual
Table 1: English Language Programs promoted by U.S. Department of Education. Source: EL
Toolkit
Two final suggestions of note are to encourage community involvement and not to
segregate ELLs from the general educational environment, echoing the sentiments of No Child
Left Behind.
3
State Analysis
To begin with the analysis of state programs, we have provided a chart that compares and
contrasts the various programs offered throughout the states. It is worth noting that Wisconsin
and Ohio offer a wide range of programs throughout the state at the elementary level, depending
on size of ELL population in any given district, and that Louisiana really only offers dual
language programs as of 2013-14 school year.
Preschool Elementary Secondary
Wisconsin No data available Two-Way Immersion Structured English

Transitional Bilingual Immersion
Dual Language Sheltered ESL
Developmental SDAIE
Bilingual Content-Based ESL
Heritage Language Pull-out ESL
Louisiana No data available Dual Language* Structured English
Immersion
*This is 2013-14. The Sheltered ESL
previous year, LA had SDAIE
offered all but Heritage Content-Based ESL
Language programs. Pull-out ESL
Ohio No data available Two-Way Immersion Structured English

Transitional Bilingual Immersion
Dual Language Sheltered ESL
Developmental SDAIE
Bilingual Content-Based ESL
Heritage Language Pull-out ESL
Table 2: Language Programs across Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Ohio. Source: NCELA.
Note: Statistics on the numbers of programs offered were not available for any of the states.
4
Language Policy and Programming for ELLs - Wisconsin
Wisconsin - Top 5 Languages Spoken by ELLs
Spanish; Castilian 30,584

Hmong 8,221
Arabic 598
Chinese 596
Russian 372
Table 3: Top 5 Languages Spoken by ELLs in Wisconsin. Source: NCELA
According to Wisconsin State Statutes, Chapter 115, Subchapter 7, Section 995, ELL
students are defined as Limited English Proficient, the definition of which is as follows, a pupil
whose ability to use the English language is limited because of the use of a non-English language
in his or her family or in his or her daily, non-school surroundings, and who has difficulty, as
defined by rule by the state superintendent, in performing ordinary classwork in English as a
result of such limited English language proficiency (Wis. Stat. 115.995, 2013-14)[1].
Wisconsin has a tendency to refer to ELLs as students with limited English proficiency (LEP), as
opposed to ELLs, ELs, or EBs. This appears to be an effect of taking the same language from the
federal regulations on ELL programs.
Total Title III Funding for Wisconsin
Title III funding for the state in SY 2012-13 6,611,998

Title III funding for the state in SY 2013-14 6,641,507
Table 4: Title III Funding for Wisconsin. Source: NCELA
Wisconsin identifies ELLs through a Home Language Survey (HLS) that must be
administered within 30 days of the start of the school year, as recommended by the US Dept. of
Education and Office of Civil Rights Dear Colleague letter from 2015. The HLS is a series of
5
nine questions and is relatively thorough in terms of assessing language culture. It is encouraging
that Wisconsin requires further investigation, after the initial survey, and before labeling ELLs.
A preliminary evaluation of the students academic history is conducted, looking for academic
assessments from within or outside the United States, course grades, and even assessment of
everyday classroom performance.
This approach is still missing a couple key components. Questions specifically targeting
previous language of instruction, previous subjects taken, in which language those subjects were
taught, and what other languages the child may know, could be helpful in informing instructional
strategies most helpful to the student.
After initial identification of ELLs, Wisconsin uses what appears to be a proprietary test
called the WIDA ACCESS Placement Test (W-APT) to initially decide in which tier to place
students (see Table 1) The test appears to be a proprietary test created by the WIDA Consortium,
a consortium of 37 state education departments. The assessment places the student based on a
score they receive on listening, reading, speaking, and two writing sectionsthe writing sections
are written to test two different skill levels, as the New York State Identification Test for ELLs
(NYSITELL), except in that the NYSITELL has three writing sections at three different levels.
It is also important to note that parents must be notified within two weeks of placement in any
ELL program, and administrations are explicitly encouraged by the Wisconsin Dept of Public
Instruction to include parents during the early survey and assessment process. Once students are
placed in a tier based on the placement test, students are required to be provided with a minimum
amount of ENL services and are suggested to provide as much time as possible. Those districts
receiving federal aid are encouraged to provide more than the minimum time. The amount of
6
services provided is based on grade level and English proficiency level as determined by the W-
APT.
In Wisconsin, the state monitors the progress of ELL students through a test called
ACCESS for ELLs. The test is also created by the WIDA Consortium, and administered as a
method to gather data and monitor the progress of ELL students within the state of Wisconsin.
Under US law and Wisconsin statutes, the test is administered once per year, as is the same in
New York State. The test places ELLs in the above-mentioned tiers measuring English language
proficiency.
Additionally, the state monitors the progress of ELLs through Annual Measurable
Achievement Objectives (AMAO).
AMAO 1 Measures increase in overall scores on the ACCESS for ELLs standardized test. An
increase of 0.4% per academic year is considered successful.
AMAO 2 Measures percentage of ELLs who have exited or achieved English proficiency.
Schools are targeting 12.5% in 2015 and 14% in 2016
AMAO 1 seems to be the most precise measure of progress, because it can take into
account more specific language progress over time.
Based on the AMAO goals laid out above, 39 out of 350 schools are meeting AMAO
goals 1 & 2. This means 11% of districts are meeting current AMAO goals. Based on the chart
below, almost 10% of ELLs were reclassified in 2013 and the goal of 12.5% appears to be
reachable for a small minority of districts, but it is questionable as to whether or not a 2.5%
increase is reasonable for many school districts. Moreover, not meeting AMAO 1, a 0.4%
7
increase in WIDA scores, is a failure that could be attributed to a lack of appropriate ELL
services.
Figure 1: Percentage of Reclassified ELLs in Wisconsin. Source: Redacted Public AMAO Results
8
Additionally, on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts exam (WKCE), ELLs are
performing at lower levels than English proficient students, which is to be expected, however,
the standard of 37% proficient leaves room for great improvement.
WKCE Soc. Studies ELL Performance WKCE Science ELL Performance
Figure 2: WKCE State Academic Performance Examinations. Source: WISEdash state database
(2015 Cohort)
High school graduation rates of the ELL population in 4 years are at 62.2% and 76% for
students completing in 6 years. If one observes this over time from 2010 onward, the graduation
rates for ELLs in 6 years averages 77%, however, one can observe a noticeable decrease in 4-
year graduation rates from 66% in 2011 to 63% in 2015.
Figure 3. HS Completion Rates ELL Population Source: WISEdash state database
9
Concrete data on how students are transitioned into mainstream classrooms was not
readily available, however recommendations were provided by the Department of Public
Instruction. Students are transitioned into the mainstream classroom based on which level of
English proficiency they have attained based on the W-APT exam. The higher the level of
proficiency the less time is allotted for ELLs in a setting where accommodations are present.
If a student receives a 6.0 or above on the W-APT, that student can be placed into
mainstream classrooms, however, there is a two-year monitoring requirement. Any former LEP
(FLEP) must be monitored in terms of academic success in reading, math, and science based on
state testing data, classroom grades, and any other evidence of language proficiency. If it is
deemed that a student is not ready for mainstreaming, the student may be placed back into a
language assistance program (Monitoring of Reclassified ELLs, 2015).
There is a strong need to reach those ELLs that are not in districts where minimum
requirements are met for funding an ELL program. 15% of programs met the requirements.
Around 50% of students are serviced by these districts that receive funding, however, that leaves
50% of ELL populations not serviced by funding that could greatly improve services provided
(Bilingual/ESL Education Program, 2015).
Also, a serious call for new data to assess the progress of ELLs could be instrumental in
assisting ELL programs in each district. As mentioned above, AMAO 1 seems to be the most
precise measure of progress, because it can take into account more specific language progress
over time, although, it still does not provide data that takes into account beginning proficiency of
English, academic background in L1, grade level, or beginning grade level. Moreover, it does not
10
provide actionable information on the specific domains that students may be struggling with, or
excelling in.
Additionally, based on the figure below, it would appear that the bulk of funding should
be directed at K-5. And while there are few bilingual programs in the state of Wisconsin, because
of the early age of ELLs, the state should strongly consider creating more two-way dual language
programs, preferably 90:10 programs, servicing the Spanish and English proficient populations
as this has been proven to be the most effective approach for producing bilingual children, not to
mention more successful results for English acquisition over time (Collier & Thomas, 2004).
Figure 4: Number of Students Starting ELL Programs by Grade. Source: Babal, et al., 2015
11
Language Policy and Programming for ELLs - Louisiana
Table 5: Top 5 Languages Spoken by ELLs in Louisiana. Source: NCELA
Louisiana has a long and rich linguistic history. While the most notable cultural and
linguistic influences come from France and Spain, Louisianas development has also been guided
by the presence of Italians, Germans, Yugoslavians, Hungarians and Native Americans. In 1812,
Louisiana became the first and only state to enter the Union in which a non-English speaking
group made up a popular majority. The dominance of French in this state however, soon caused
concerns in Washington and Congress thus required that the states first constitution be written in
English, the language which the Constitution of the United States is written. This provision was
later dropped however and many official documents and government proceedings continued to
be published and conducted in French until the Civil War. From 1816-1820, Louisianas
governor, Jacques Villere, a francophone, operated the state legislature primarily in French and in
1847, Louisiana became one of the earliest states to pass legislation concerning bilingual
education by permitting French to be an official language of instruction in its schools. Today,
Louisiana is among those states that still have not declared any official language. (Crawford,
1997) With its diverse cultural heritage, it is no wonder that even today, Louisiana has a high
population of English language learners. According to the Education Commission of the States,
Louisiana defines an ELL as a child who is working to learn a second language (English) while
12
continuing to develop his or her first (or home) language. This differs slightly from a limited
English proficient student which is described in more depth as a student who is aged 3 through
21; who has been enrolled in an English-speaking elementary school or secondary school for less
than a year; who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other
than English; who is a Native American or Alaska Native or a native resident of the outlying
areas and comes from an environment where a language other than English has had significant
impact on his level of English language proficiency; or who is migratory, whose native language
is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other
than English is dominant; and whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding
the English language may be sufficient to deny them: 1) the ability to meet the state's proficient
level of achievement on state assessments; 2) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms
where the language of instruction is English; or 3) the opportunity to participate fully in
society. (2016) Similar to Wisconsin, it seems that Louisiana leans toward the same language
from the federal regulations on ELL programs.
In order to identify their ELLs, the state of Louisiana issues the English Language
Development Assessment or ELDA, annually. The ELDA measures a students proficiency in
four domains: listening, speaking, reading and writing. The assessment is divided into four grade
clusters (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12). As stated on the Louisiana Department of Education website,
ELDA is aligned to Louisianas English language development standards and test results are
used to report annual progress and attainment of English proficiency for all students identified as
limited English proficient (LEP) in kindergarten through grade 12. (2016) Although the
13
Louisiana Department of Education provides detailed information on the assessment itself, it is
less clear how they use it to place students into classrooms.
In order to gain more insight into this process of categorizing ELLs and monitoring their
progress over time, I looked into specific school districts. The Rapides Parish School District,
which receives Title III funding, had a comprehensive District Plan and Handbook for its
English Language Learners Program. It starts by providing a brief background of the districts
ESL program: Since 1996 the Rapides Parish School District has been serving English
Language Learner (ELL) students. The majority of ELL students attend the elementary school.
Rapides Parish ELL services are delivered in different formats. Some students services are
provided through a pull-out model; these students are pulled out of their regular classrooms for
short periods of time for small group or one on one instruction, to enhance their English
language skills or support classroom lessons and content. Other students are supported through a
content-based model; this approach to teaching English as a second language makes use of
instructional materials, learning tasks, and classroom techniques from academic content areas as
the vehicle for developing language, content, cognitive and study skills. English is used as the
medium of instruction. Delivery of services is based upon the students academic and
instructional needs with input from parents and teachers and with the consent of the child's'
parents. (2016)
The Rapides Parish School District then explains the steps of an ELL Educational
Program. The first step is the home language survey which is issued upon enrollment and is kept
in a childs file until grade 12. The next step is the assessment (ELDA) in order to classify the
students English language proficiency into one of five different levels. After the student is
14
classified, they are recommended for placement. According to this districts handbook, the
following can be used to determine classroom placement: 1) standardized achievement,
diagnostic test data or universal screening tool in place by the district; 2) performance
assessments: a. writing samples b. oral interviews c. story-telling/retelling d. directed dialogues
e. teacher observation/teacher-developed assessments f. check lists g. student self-evaluation h.
district-wide assessments. I found it notable that although the district includes the ELDA
guidelines in its appendices, there are no specific strategies or procedures recommended for the
other performance assessments they suggest leaving it very open to each individual teachers
own interpretation.
While the Rapides Parish District places an emphasis on monitoring its ELL students
language progress, it isnt necessarily very explicit in how exactly they do it. In addition to
ELDA and other standards-based assessments, students are monitored six times a year in
progress reports and report cards. Additionally, all students at level 4 and above participate in
the LEAP and I-LEAP as required by the State of Louisiana and the Federal ESEA requirements.
Students that are at levels 1, 2 and 3 are assessed for academic progress using the ELDA. An
Individual Record Plan is developed for each LEP student and is used as a method of sharing
student data. The district seems to place a strong emphasis on sharing information as a way to
monitor a students progress stating, communication between staff is also accomplished by
school visits, email, phone, in school mail and shared written test scores of ELL students.
Student records kept are: Yearly Progress Monitoring Checklist, ELDA test results, parental
consent for ELL services, Home Language Survey, report cards and progress reports from ELL
students teachers. The Rapides Parish School District participates annually in a data retreat to
15
analyze relevant district wide data and make comparisons, set goals and create an action plan for
moving students toward proficiency of the state standards. (Rapides Parish School Board, 2009)
Despite the district's emphasis on strong communication, it still falls short of explaining how
exactly it monitors the language progress aside from ELDA. It seems there are not set district
wide or statewide methods in place to truly measure an ELLs progress.
Exiting ESL services and transitioning into a general education classroom is different
depending on grade level. In order for an ELL to exit ESL services in Kindergarten through
grade 2, a student must score two years at composite level 5 on ELDA or one year at composite
level 5 and one year at grade level on a standardized reading assessment. To be considered
English proficient and exit LEP status in grades 3 through 12, a student must score composite
level 5 on ELDA or one year at composite level 4 on ELDA and one year at proficient on the
English language arts portion of I-LEAP, LEAP, GEE, LAA1 or LAA2. (Rapides Parish, 2009) It
seems that it would be easier for an ELL to exit LEP status at the early elementary level than in
later grades.
I found it interesting that in this district handbook, the school board makes
recommendations for teachers to have certification in ESL, but it is not a requirement. The
handbook reads: Teachers must have an elementary or secondary certification. Also, be aware
that ESL add-on certification is recommended and strongly encouraged for teachers serving LEP
students, but it is not a NCLB Highly Qualified requirement. (Rapides Parish, 2009) The
evidence provided by NCELA from previous years indicates that there will be an increased need
for certified teachers in the years to come.
16
Figure 5: Number of Certified/Licensed Teachers Working in Title III Language Instruction

Educational Programs. Source: EDFacts
We would like to suggest that in order to ensure that all districts have sufficient amounts
of certified/licensed teachers working in Title III Language Instruction Educational Programs,
the state might benefit from a specialized teacher certification program. If they are able to
allocate funding for fast-tracking educational professionals to appropriate certification, the state
will be able to more easily fill its need for ESL teachers.
As previously mentioned, Louisiana receives Title III funding from the federal
government. The 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years are represented in the chart below.
As you can see in the chart, there was a decrease in federal funding from the 2012-13 to the
17
2013-14 school year. Had the amount of English Learners decreased during these years, the
decrease in funding would be understandable; however, as demonstrated in the chart below, there
was actually an increase in ELs from one year to the next which would indicate that there was
less funds spent per pupil in the 2013-14 school than the year before. (NCELA, 2016) We were
unable to locate information regarding the most recent school year but wonder if the Title III
funding spent per pupil has continued to decrease, and what, if anything, the state might doing in
order to compensate for this decrease.
Source: NCELA, 2016
Despite the decrease in funding from one school year to the next, there was an increase of
2% in the high school graduation rate among ELs from 2012-13 to 2013-14, whereas for all state,
the overall increase in high school graduation was 1.1%. (NCELA, 2016)
Similar to both Ohio and Wisconsin, Louisiana is periodically monitored by the U.S.
Department of Educations Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs Office.
They measure the the progress of ELs through two Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives
18
(AMAO). AMAO 1 measures the percentage of ELs making progress toward English proficiency
and AMAO 2 measures the percentage of ELs attaining English proficiency. Looking at the same
two school years as we did for the Title III federal funding, there was a decrease in the amount of
EL students who met the target from one year to the next. From the 2012-13 to the 2013-14
school years, AMAO 1 fell by four percent having had 55% of its EL students meet the target
the first year and only 51% the following year. There was a similar trend in AMAO 2. During the
2012-13 school year, 15% of the EL students met the target, while only 12% met the target in
attaining English proficiency the following year. With these notable decreases in both AMAOs,
we cannot help but wonder if this might be the direct result of the decrease in federal funding
that was noted earlier. (NCELA, 2016)Despite high school graduation rates seeing a small
improvement, both AMAOs decreased. We are left to wonder if these falling AMAOs are the
fault of the state government, the federal government, or perhaps a little bit of both.
Louisiana, like many other states, still seems to struggle with its approach to providing
for its EL student population. and meet its measurable achievement objectives. Our research has
shown EL programming to be rather weak and disorganized at the federal level and this
sentiment seems to trickle down to the state level in Louisiana as well. There is limited access to
information that truly shows how the state is determining its policy and programming for its EL
student demographic. Due to the lack of official state protocols, this responsibility is falling on
district officials, school administrators, and teachers who often lack appropriate ESL/bilingual
certification and are limited in their knowledge of ESL/bilingual pedagogic approaches and
procedures which could have detrimental effects on the EL student population in this state.
19
Language Policy and Programming for ELLs - Ohio
Today, Ohios ELLs represent more than 110 different home languages with more than
48,000 ELLs enrolled in the states elementary and secondary public schools. As the first state to
pass a law regarding bilingual education in 1839, when instruction in German was officially
sanctioned after German speaking parents petitioned the state (Baker, 185), it is interesting that
Ohio now falls into the lowest bracket for the percentage of ELL students across the nation
(English Language Learners, 2016). However, the history of German immigrants in the state is
still strong today with Pennsylvania Dutch, a dialect of German used by the Amish, among the
top ten language groups. The remaining groups include Spanish, Somali, Arabic, Chinese,
Japanese, Vietnamese, French, Russian and Twi (a language spoken in West Africa)
(Instructional Guidelines, 2015).
According to the Instructional Guidelines and Resources for English Language Learners
on the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) website, the term English Language Learner
refers to those students whose home or native language is other than English, and whose current
limitations in the ability to understand, speak, read or write English impact their effective
participation in their school education programs. ELLs may be immigrants or refugees born in
another country, or they may be born in the United States living in homes where another
language besides (or in addition to) English is spoken. (Instructional Guidelines, 2015). To
identify an ELL, which the state uses interchangeably with LEP, we looked at the Guidelines for
the Identification and Assessment of Limited English Proficient Students/English Language
Learners on the ODE website. (Note: although the website was last modified in June 2016, this
particular document is Copyright March 2012. A more recent version could not be located.)
20
According to this document, the state follows the guidelines in the Provision of an Equal
Education Opportunity to Limited English Proficient Students (1992) set forth by the U.S.
Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. These guidelines are offered to school districts
regarding their legal obligation to language minority students.
First, school districts must identify all students whose primary or home language is other
than English (PHLOTE) by completing the Home Language Survey (HLS) at enrollment. The
HLS consists of five general questions about home language which can be adapted or modified
by individual schools. The district then needs to assess all PHLOTE students to determine if they
are LEP and need special language assistance to participate effectively in the districts
instructional program. (Guidelines for Identification, 2015).
To assess for English Language Proficiency students take an Initial English Language
Assessment which schools may choose from a suggested list of commercial assessments
provided by the ODE. Regardless of the assessment provider chosen, the assessment must assess
the four domains of language: reading, writing, speaking and listening. Then, each domain must
be assessed within five stages of English language proficiency: Pre-functional, Beginning,
Intermediate, Advanced and Proficient/Trial Mainstream, and within each of these levels students
may score at low, mid, and high.
After a school district has identified LEP students who need assistance, it must determine
what kind of special language service program is to be provided and it must implement the
program. Ohio does not prescribe a specific type of intervention program. Thus, school districts
have the flexibility to decide on the educational approach that best meets the needs of their LEP/
ELL students. Guidelines and further information about programmatic options for LEP/ELL
21
students are available through the Lau Resource Center of the ODE, rightfully named after the
1974 Lau v. Nichols case where the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited English submersion
programs and resulted in nationwide Lau remedies (Baker, p. 380). Notably, this does not
mandate one particular type of educational program to address the needs of ELLs. Given the
flexibility, school districts use a variety of programs or combination of programs including
bilingual education, the immersion approach, pull-out ESL classes, in-class or inclusion
instruction, and individual tutoring (Characteristics of Programs, 2014).
The funding for Ohios LEP programs are determined by Title III, to help school districts
provide additional educational services to ELLs. The most recent data for Title III funding in
Ohio shows an increase of $353,041 from 2014-2015 academic year to 2014-2015 academic
year. For the distribution of funds ELLs should be classified into 3 categories as follows:
Category 1 Students who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for 180 days or less and
previously have not been exempted from English Language Arts assessment.
Category 2 Students who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for more than 180 days and
previously have been exempted from English Language Arts assessment.
Category 3 Students who are mainstreamed on trial basis and are not included in the first two
categories.
For each category Title III of NCLB provides a per-pupil amount that is equalized by the state
share index. Therefore, the more ELLs the state has enrolled the more funding they will receive;
because Ohios funding continues to increase we also know that more students are enrolled than
are exited out of LEP services.
22
Total Title III Funding for Ohio
Title III funding for the state in SY 2014-15 $10,101,411

Title III funding estimated for the state in SY 2015-16 $10,454,452
Table 6: Total Title III Funding for Ohio. Source: Ohio Department of Education, Federal
Programs
To exit out of LEP services, the student must make progress in achieving English
Language proficiency by increase at least one performance level in either the production
(combination of speaking and writing) or comprehension (combination of listening and reading)
domains in the Ohio Test of English Language Acquisition (OTELA) from one year to the next.
Additionally, LEP students must achieve a composite score of 4 or higher on the OTELA.
(Guidelines for the Identification and Assessment, 2012).
However, the standards and policies for exiting the program are now unclear due to a
change in the annual assessment for ELLs; for the upcoming 2016-2017 school year the Ohio
English Language Proficiency Assessment (OELPA) will replace the OTELA. This change is due
23
in part to states membership of the English Language Proficiency Assessment for the 21st
Century (ELPA21) consortium, which developed the assessment and is based on the Ohio
English Language Proficiency Standards. Benefits of this change in the annual assessment is that
it makes testing more interactive for students; reduces turnaround time on reporting results;
improves efficiency of data collection and management; increases security of test content and
student data; and reduces administrative burdens on school and district staff members (Ohio
English Language, 2016). Because this is a recent update, the website does not yet share
information on the assessment format or standards.
To ensure that ELLs are provided with appropriate support programs and to help them
make progress in learning English, each school follows a general district policy set forth by the
ODE which includes providing all ELLs meaningful access to the districts academic program
through appropriate instructional strategies/modifications based on the students level of English
proficiency, the opportunity to demonstrate what they know and can do in academic content
areas through a variety of assessments designed with appropriate
accommodations. (Information and Guidelines, 2012). As weve identified in both the federal
and state level, laws and regulations are set to provide flexibility among programs and as such,
only general descriptions are provided on the federal and state level sites. For example, beyond
the annual OELPA, decisions for specific assessment, progress tracking, and program
implementation are left to micro-level implementation. Whereas one school district, Olentangy
Local Schools, states they monitor ELL progress through the annual OELPA score reports,
Lancaster City Schools monitor progress through progress books and conferences with
classroom teachers. For a more thorough analysis of the support programs and how students and
24
schools are accounted for in terms of making progress, case studies and comparison across
districts and individual schools would be ideal.
Student achievement data is not readily available on the ODE website but can be found
through the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a project carried out by the
U.S. Department of Education. Not all schools and students in the nation are assessed, rather, are
selected through a complex sampling design that is collectively representative of all the nation's
students in grades 4, 8, and 12 (or at ages 9, 13, and 17 for the long-term trend assessment) in
public and private schools. (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2011). Although
ELLs are represented in the NAEP assessments, states vary in the extent to which they exclude
ELLs from the assessment, and the extent to which they provide assessed ELLs with appropriate
test-taking accommodations. The figure below shows the percentage of students who scored at a
basic or below basic level compared to those who have scored proficient or advanced; there are
stark achievements gaps for ELLs.
Figure 6: Ohios 2015 NAEP Scores. Source: NAEP
Additionally, the U.S. Department of Educations Student Achievement and School
Accountability Programs office, authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
25
1965, periodically monitors and audits the ODEs administration of Title III programs. In doing
so they also monitor the progress of ELLs through Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives
(AMAO). AMAO 1 measures the percentage of ELLs making progress toward English
proficiency. However, as noted previously the state does not explicitly state what is qualified or
quantified as progress. In the results from 2012-2013 (66% met target) to 2013-2014 (67% met
target), there was only a one percent increase. AMAO 2 measures the percentage of ELLs
attaining English proficiency by meeting the standards described previously. The results from
2012-2013 (30% met target) to 2013-2014 (30% met target) showed no change in the percent of
ELLs attaining English proficiency. It is difficult to make an analysis regarding limited data and
especially over the course of just two years. To make data more comprehensible, the ODE should
supply more accessible data for analysis and explicit descriptions of objectives and targets.
Interestingly, the same report included a graph of the number of certified/licensed
teachers working in Title III language instruction education programs, below. What is alarming
about this graph is that the number of teachers currently working has decreased significantly,
though the additional teachers needed in the next 5 years has not increased. Yet, high school
graduation rates of ELLs fell a percentage point and the number of immigrant students enrolled
and receiving Title III services in Ohio continues to increase. There is no explanation provided
for this data.

Educational Programs. Source: EDFacts
26

Educational Programs. Source: EDFactsSource: NCELA
Although Ohio has made a footprint in ESL and Bilingual Education history it seems to
take a passive approach to ESL and Bilingual education practices today. The ODE website and
reports are vague, leaving much to be questioned. Without access to data or rich descriptions of
ELL programs and policies, the ODE prevents true public analysis of their LEP/ELL program
implementation. To gain a richer sense of programming and policy, a case study of several
districts and their schools may prove more revealing.
27
Concluding Remarks and Recommendations for Improvement
Upon researching and analyzing the policies and programs across Wisconsin, Louisiana
and Ohio we have found that all states are within federal regulation of English Language
Programs. However, we now question: Are federal regulations enough? We conclude that all
states need improvements and there should be a federal ruling and more regulated and detailed
nation-wide legislation to make English Language Programs more consistent and effective.
States that belong to consortiums seem to be the strongest in supplying information about
programming online, particularly Wisconsin as part of WIDA which includes the majority of
U.S. states and territories. This supports our idea that oversight on programming beyond state
legislation would be beneficial.
Even with more accessible information in regards to Wisconsin, across all of our states
we found accessing at least some information to be challenging. This is for the benefit of all
stakeholders including teachers, so that they may become familiar with policies and experts in
their field regardless of districts they may work in or transferring between districts and states;
administrators and policy-makers so that assessment may be more consistent in measuring
program strengths and weaknesses; and not least of all students, so that expectations are
transparent and accessible, so that students are not left to question their teachers who also
question their administrators about their own performance. Rather, in all regards stakeholders
may access and find solutions on a central database.
Overall we have concluded that there is not enough monitoring of EL programming at
both the federal and state level. We would recommend that there be more comprehensive systems
in place to not only measure our students progress but also to more aptly prepare certified
28
teachers and monitor their instructional efficiency as well. Without compromising quality, we
suggest that there be a nationwide fast-track program specific to ESL certification so that schools
can provide effective, certified ESL teachers. Although fast-track programs do already exist, such
as the New Teacher Project/Teaching Fellows and Teach for America, these programs are geared
toward a general-education teacher with few training hours specific to ESL. Many of these fast-
track program ESL teachers enter the classroom without the proper training or experience for
such a vulnerable population.
We agree that there should be more dual language programs that go past elementary
school. As it currently stands, all states researched in this analysis only provide dual language
programs at the elementary level. This seems ineffective, backwards even, considering that dual
language programs have proven to be most effective for all students involved. Not only would
dual language programming into high school be beneficial for the EL student population, it
would also bring into being a new population of young bilingual Americans who would be more
aptly prepared for our increasingly globalized world. K through 12 dual language programs
could assist in providing a more effective educational environment for our EL student
populations, while simultaneously preparing all students to be more competitive and successful
in the international workforce.
Until policies and programming for ESL/bilingual education become more standardized
across the nation, we will continue to see floundering success rates among our ELL student
populations. It is our hope that with an increasingly aware population of educators, we will start
to see a push for more comprehensive, regulated legislation. Both politicians and educators need
29
to work in tandem to produce legislation that steers clear of personal political agendas and works
towards better serving our ELL students.
Figure 9: Percentage of public school students who were English language learners, by state:
School year 2013-2014. Source: U.S. Department of Education, NCES
30
References
Bilingual/ESL Education Program Department of Public Instruction. (2015, December). Report

on the Status of Bilingual-Bicultural Education Programs in Wisconsin, Chapter 115,
Subchapter VII, s. 115.996, Wis. Stats. Retrieved from http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/
imce/english-learners/pdf/2013-14-legislator-report.pdf
Babal, C., Cao, S., Filer, A., Hedtke, I., & Lo, K. (2015). Analysis of English Language
Achievement Among Wisconsin English Language Learners [Scholarly project]. In
Analysis of English Language Achievement Among Wisconsin English Language
Learners (Publication). (2015). Madison, WI: Board of Regents of the University of
Wisconsin System. Retrieved from https://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/images/publications/
workshops/2015-dpi-language.pdf
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon, UK:

Multilingual Matters.
Characteristics of Programs Serving LEP Students in Ohio. (May 2014). Retrieved from http://
education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Limited-English-Proficiency/ELL-
Guidelines
Collier, V., & Thomas, W. (2004). The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual Language Education for
All. NABE Journal of Research and Practice.
English Language Learners in Public Schools. (May 2016). Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp
Guidelines for the Identification and Assessment of Limited English Proficient Students/English
Language Learners. (March 2012) Ohio Department of Education. Retrieved from http://
Guidelines
Information and Guidelines from the Lau Resource Center. (February 2012). Retrieved from
http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Limited-English-Proficiency/About-
the-Lau-Resource-Center
Instructional Guidelines and Resources for English Language Learners. (December 2015).
31
Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Limited-English-

Proficiency/ELL-Guidelines
Monitoring of Reclassified ELs. (2015). Retrieved from http://dpi.wisconsin.gov/english-

learners/title-iii/monitoring
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acqusitions (NCELA). (n.d.). Title III
State Profiles: Louisiana. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/t3sis/Louisiana.php
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acqusitions (NCELA). (n.d.). Title III State
Profiles: Wisconsin. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/t3sis/wisconsin.php
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (n.d.). ENGLISH LEARNER TOOL
KIT - US Department of Education. (2015) Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/eltoolkit.pdf
Ohio English Language Proficiency Assessment. (2016). Retrieved from http://

education.ohio.gov/Topics/Testing/Ohio-English-Language-Proficiency-Assessment-
OELPA
Rapides Parish District Plan and Handbook. (2009). Retrieved from

http://rpsb.us/esl/RPSBESL_Manual.pdf
St. Pierre, L., & Sanabria, T. (2008). Recommendations for Time Commitments for ELLs to
Ensure Academic Success [Pamphlet]. WI: Department of Public Instruction. http://
dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/english-learners/doc/timerec.doc.
Teaching English Language Learners. (December 2015). Retreived from http://

Guidelines
US Dept of Education and Office of Civil Rights. (2015, January). Dear Colleague Letter:
English Learner Students and Limited English Proficient Parents [Letter written January
7, 2015 to State Educational Agencies]. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf
Wisconsin State Statutes, State Superintendent, General Classifications and Definitions, Children
with Disabilities, Chapter 115, Published and certified unders s. 35.18, June 18, 2016
32

Policy Paper

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Policy Paper

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

FEDERAL AND STATE-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY

Peter Gere EDCE 5800

Federal and State-Level Language Policy

programming for students whose first language is not English.

Federal Language Policy and Programming for ELLs

EL students as valuable assets to preserve (US Dept of Education, 2015). It is encouraging to

direction of bilingualism being a cognitive benefit, with insubstantial potential disadvantages.

education of ELs (NCELA Toolkit, 2015).

Program Option Program Goal Language/s used for instruction

language programs as of 2013-14 school year.

Preschool Elementary Secondary

Wisconsin No data available Two-Way Immersion Structured English

Ohio No data available Two-Way Immersion Structured English

Language Policy and Programming for ELLs - Wisconsin

Wisconsin - Top 5 Languages Spoken by ELLs

Spanish; Castilian 30,584

defined by rule by the state superintendent, in performing ordinary classwork in English as a

federal regulations on ELL programs.

Total Title III Funding for Wisconsin

Title III funding for the state in SY 2012-13 6,611,998

everyday classroom performance.

strategies most helpful to the student.

Achievement Objectives (AMAO).

increase of 0.4% per academic year is considered successful.

Schools are targeting 12.5% in 2015 and 14% in 2016

account more specific language progress over time.

the standard of 37% proficient leaves room for great improvement.

WKCE Soc. Studies ELL Performance WKCE Science ELL Performance

year graduation rates from 66% in 2011 to 63% in 2015.

Figure 3. HS Completion Rates ELL Population Source: WISEdash state database

readily available, however recommendations were provided by the Department of Public

language assistance program (Monitoring of Reclassified ELLs, 2015).

(Bilingual/ESL Education Program, 2015).

Language Policy and Programming for ELLs - Louisiana

Table 5: Top 5 Languages Spoken by ELLs in Louisiana. Source: NCELA

education by permitting French to be an official language of instruction in its schools. Today,

level of achievement on state assessments; 2) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms

where the language of instruction is English; or 3) the opportunity to participate fully in

from the federal regulations on ELL programs.

Development Assessment or ELDA, annually. The ELDA measures a students proficiency in

Louisiana Department of Education provides detailed information on the assessment itself, it is

less clear how they use it to place students into classrooms.

following can be used to determine classroom placement: 1) standardized achievement,

assessments: a. writing samples b. oral interviews c. story-telling/retelling d. directed dialogues

e. teacher observation/teacher-developed assessments f. check lists g. student self-evaluation h.

monitor a students progress stating, communication between staff is also accomplished by

wide or statewide methods in place to truly measure an ELLs progress.

for certified teachers in the years to come.

Figure 5: Number of Certified/Licensed Teachers Working in Title III Language Instruction

of certified/licensed teachers working in Title III Language Instruction Educational Programs,

order to compensate for this decrease.

Source: NCELA, 2016

Department of Educations Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs Office.

Language Policy and Programming for ELLs - Ohio

(Instructional Guidelines, 2015).

the Identification and Assessment of Limited English Proficient Students/English Language

regarding their legal obligation to language minority students.

instructional program. (Guidelines for Identification, 2015).

be assessed within five stages of English language proficiency: Pre-functional, Beginning,

may score at low, mid, and high.

flexibility, school districts use a variety of programs or combination of programs including

instruction, and individual tutoring (Characteristics of Programs, 2014).

previously have been exempted from English Language Arts assessment.

are exited out of LEP services.