A Chance to Succeed:

A Chance to Succeed:

Providing English Learners
With Supportive Education

July 1993
Report # 122

State of California

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

The Honorable Pete Wilson Governor of California
The Honorable David Roberti President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Members of the Senate	The Honorable Kenneth L. Maddy Senate Minority Floor Leader
The Honorable Willie L. Brown Jr. Speaker of the Assembly and Members of the Assembly	The Honorable James Brulte Assembly Minority Floor Leader

Dear Governor and Members of the Legislature:

More than one million children in California today do not speak English well enough to understand what is going on in a classroom -- and the number is growing daily at a rate that far exceeds overall school population growth. For almost two decades, the State Department of education has perpetuated the myth that language and academic needs of these students could be met if all schools adopted a single program approach and if adequate resources were committees to teaching English learners. This Myth has been examined and repudiated by the most recent study of the Little Hoover Commission, which is transmitted with this letter.

The result of the Department's single-minded pursuit of the method known as native-language instruction has been divisive, wasteful, and unproductive. Students, trapped in the middle of a political and academic tug-of-war, have suffered the brunt of this failed policy direction:

Almost one-fourth of the students receive no special assistance at all and are left to sink or swim in daily classes.
For the past decade, less than 60,000 students each year have been redesignated from English learners to fluent in English -- a figure that indicates that either thousands of children are not making progress in English or assessments are not being done properly.
The dropout rate for Hispanics, the major component of English learners, leads all other groups in the State. Almost half the total dropouts for the class of 1992 were Hispanic.
Less than 4 percent of Hispanics (compared to 32 percent for Asians and 13 percent for non-Hispanic whites) in 1990 did well enough academically to qualify for the University of California system.

While schools have been cast adrift, the Department has devoted its energy to forcing schools to search for bilingual teachers who do not exist, either because of shortages in some languages or lack of credentialing processes in others. Instead of holding schools accountable for results, the Department has been interested only in accountability in terms of schools conforming to the Department's chosen method. This is particularly in two areas:

Funding The Department, schools, academics and other advocates all have insisted that there is a lack of funding for English learner education. At the same time, the Department has adamantly denied knowing how much is spent on programs for English learners. The Commission notes that schools have almost $1 billion in state and federal funds that may be used at their discretion for at-risk, impoverished and non-English-speaking students. If all of those funds were devoted to English learners, schools would have about $1000 extra for each child. Although these funds are meant to supplement, rather than supplant, base funding, a recent statewide study found that schools spend little more in English learner classrooms than they do in mainstream classes. In terms of financial accountability, therefore, the Department has failed to properly monitor the schools' use of special funding for English learners.
Assessment. For 17 years, state laws and policies have decreed that English learners should attain English proficiency and achieve academic parity with other students. Yet the Department itself acknowledges that there is no valid assessment system that allows the State to track student outcome. Only recently has the Department created an initiative to develop a proper statewide assessment system. Thus, schools are not held accountable for results in terms of student achievement.

The Commission is well aware of the sensitivity and explosive emotionalism that have surrounded the issue of how best to teach English learners. But an extensive review of academic literature compellingly leads to the conclusion that:

Most of the studies that have been conducted so far are seriously flawed, making it impossible to transfer conclusions about any single program to all programs.
Positive results are forthcoming whenever dedicated teachers use the best educational techniques, regardless of the particular language-acquisition method employed.

Based on its investigations, the Commission has put together a report that contains three findings and five recommendations. The recommendations include:

Revising funding mechanisms so that schools will be rewarded for helping students attain English proficiency rapidly.
Adopting an explicit state policy of local control and flexibility in creating programs to meet the needs of English learners.
Focusing on holding schools accountable for results rather than methods.
Documenting the use of funding that is meant to supplement base education funding for English learners.
Intensifying efforts to improve teaching skills and teacher awareness of language-acquisition needs rather than concentrating a cadre of bilingual teachers.

Ivory-tower academics may continue to argue and pursue the Holy Grail of a single best language-acquisition approach. But it is time for the State and local school districts to turn their attention to the needs of the children and to concentrate on student achievement. Once the emotion and rhetoric are stripped away, the goal of everyone must be the same: Providing children of all linguistic backgrounds the opportunity to learn English and other skills that will allow them to be contributing and functional members of this country and state. The Commission believes it is imperative for the State to take quick and decisive action on the recommendations in this report.

Sincerely,

Nathan Shappel
Chairman

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

Background

Findings and Recommendations

Student Outcome

The State's Role

Teaching Skills

Conclusion

Appendices

Appendix A Public Hearing Witnesses

Appendix B Counties by Numbers of English Learners

Appendix C Trends in Language

Appendix D Sample of Reviewed Literature

Endnotes

Executive Summary

C alifornia has a responsibility -- legally, morally and in its own future self-interest -- to provide an opportunity for education to all children, not just the "easy" ones who come to school with pre-school polish, involved parents and the kind of high self-esteem that makes achievement routine. But the State's record in meeting that responsibility for one-fifth of the five million students in today's classrooms is spotty at best.

Under federal law and state policy, the one million students who do not speak English fluently are supposed to be taught English as efficiently and effectively as possible. In addition, they are supposed to receive any necessary services to allow them to progress academically in other subjects, just as their English-speaking peers do. Instead, one-quarter of them receive no special services whatsoever -- not even instruction in the English language. The other three-quarters are often caught in a tug-of-war between advocates of different educational theories.

The situation was summed up cogently in a recent newspaper editorial:

For the better part of two decades, bilingual education programs -- in California as elsewhere -- have been as much a problem as a solution for the education of children who come to school speaking little or no English.

But what had begun as a well-intended and urgently necessary effort -- to provide teaching appropriate to the needs of children who had too often been neglected -- calcified into a self-serving machine that paid less and less attention to the real children it was supposed to serve. Frequently it became an ideologically based program more concerned with the intrinsic virtues of bilingualism and biculturalism -- and with keeping children indefinitely in those programs -- than with its supposed mission: getting them into the English-speaking mainstream as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Not surprisingly, the results have often been precisely opposite to what had been intended -- locking students into separate programs for years on end. And sometimes they run to the absurd: Native English speakers who, because they tested poorly and had Hispanic names, were placed in bilingual classes conducted largely in Spanish; children from Chinese and Russian families who were assigned to the program but who, since no classes in their language were available, ended up in a Spanish bilingual class. 1

The effectiveness of California's efforts to teach English learners can be gauged by the low number of students who are reclassified as fluent English speakers, the high dropout rates, the lack of college applications and the dissatisfaction often expressed by parents, teachers and administrators. All point to a system that has failed to meet the needs of these at-risk students.

An examination of the facts surrounding the education of English learners by the Commission shows that success comes, not when some particular method is employed, but whenever dedicated individuals within the school system are able to provide the supportive atmosphere that encourages learning and achievement. That this so rarely occurs stems from an educational system that has refused to concentrate on the children themselves, rather than on ideology and bureaucracy. As a result of its study, the Commission believes the blame can be shared by:

School districts that, in the absence of financial rewards for positive student outcomes, have failed to put together creative and innovative programs that meet local needs.
The State Department of Education, which has failed to focus its energies and expertise on ensuring outcome accountability by devising statewide assessment tools and performance standards. Instead, it has pursued a single-minded educational strategy ill-suited for the challenge and magnitude of linguistic diversity in California.
Teachers who have not adapted to changing conditions and who have failed to employ teaching strategies that have proven effective in building self-esteem, achievement and language proficiency.

Those who have placed the interests of the children at the center of their convictions -- rather than protecting turf or serving special interests -- know the present system must be revamped. Towards that goal, the Little Hoover Commission conducted a study of the education of English learners in California and has made the following findings and recommendations:

Student

Outcome

F inding 1: Schools are not meeting the primary goal of education for immigrant students: helping the children to become fluent in English quickly.

The education system is expected to take in young, untutored children and 12 years later turn them out as knowledgeable and skillful budding adults. While this mission is challenging enough with mainstream students, schools find it even more difficult to attain in the face of ever-increasing numbers of children who do not speak English fluently. The schools' first and primary goal with this population is to teach them English effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately, by almost any measure -- fluency transition rates, dropout statistics, college eligibility and community satisfaction -- schools are failing to meet that goal. At least one reason is the failure of schools to dedicate adequate resources to serving the needs of English learners.

Recommendation 1: The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation to revise the state funding mechanisms for educating English learners so that schools have an incentive to help students attain English proficiency rapidly.

Whatever reform is adopted by the State should be targeted at encouraging quality performance by the schools and maximizing incentives for the schools to devote the needed resources to meeting the needs of English learners.

The

State's

Role

F inding 2: The State Department of Education's emphasis on native-language instruction is inappropriate, unwarranted, not feasible and counterproductive.

The State Department of Education favors native-language instruction as the best method for educating students who do not speak English. This bias permeates all of the Department's policies and procedures, effectively punishing schools that wish to pursue other options. The Department's support for native-language instruction is:

Inappropriate since federal law, court cases and state policy all recognize that various methods of instruction may be effective in helping English learners become fluent.
Unwarranted since a multiplicity of academic studies have yielded conflicting results about a single, "best" method of teaching non-English-fluent students. The one conclusion that can be drawn from studies is that a variety of approaches work depending on implementation, demographics and resources.
Not feasible since about one-fourth of California's non-English-fluent students speak a language other than Spanish and there are relatively few bilingual teachers -- a key element to native-language instruction -- for languages other than Spanish. In fact, teacher credentialing procedures are not available for the majority of languages spoken in California schools.
Counterproductive since schools are required to expend energy and resources documenting the success of other options or providing plans on how native-language instruction can be achieved in the future. The Department's energy also is absorbed in enforcing native-language instruction rather than fulfilling its two primary functions of overseeing school districts: ensuring that students are progressing academically and documenting that earmarked funds are being spent to supplement the education of English learners.

Recommendation 2: The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation that establishes a state framework for local control of educational methods for non-English-fluent students.

To be effective, the framework would replicate the three standards established by the federal courts to determine if a school district is making an acceptable program choice:

The adopted method must be based on a recognized academic theory.
The school district must dedicate a reasonable amount of resources to make the chosen method viable.
Students must make academic progress and move toward English proficiency.

Only if a school district failed to satisfy the three criteria would the State step in with a more directive approach to meeting the needs of English learners.

Recommendation 3: The Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation to direct the State Department of Education to focus on holding schools accountable for student achievement rather than on directing the implementation of a single academic approach.

The Department needs to establish immediately a statewide protocol for academic testing for students of all languages. To accomplish this, the Department should devote its considerable energies to identifying and/or creating, if necessary, adequate assessment tools for non-English-fluent students. Once the protocol is in place, the Department should monitor student progress annually and give assistance to districts that are unable to demonstrate student achievement.

Recommendation 4: The Governor and the Legislature should direct the Department of Education to produce a report examining funding for English learner education and documenting the supplemental use of earmarked funds.

Understanding the role and magnitude of the present funding system is critical for ensuring accountability. Districts should be spending money allocated for English learners in a way that supplements the general funding received for those same students. In addition, it is futile to argue that more funding is needed -- as the Department, its consultants and advocates have maintained -- without being able to provide policy makers with a clear picture of what is now being spent.

Teaching
Skills

F inding 3: There is a severe shortage of teachers with the expertise in language acquisition, the training in cultural diversity and the skills to enhance the classroom learning environment that are vital for meeting student needs in today's schools.

All students need to be stimulated to think, encouraged to question, and inspired to express their ideas verbally and in writing. The needs of English learners are no less in these important areas -- yet the supply of teachers who understand language acquisition theories, cultural influences on learning styles and specialized techniques to break through language barriers is far outstripped by the demand represented by 1 million students who are not fluent in English. The state entities responsible for teacher training have responded with new programs that are making progress on solving this problem. Because a diversity of language groups is scattered throughout the State, a key element in any solution is to ensure that all teachers have at least a working knowledge of how to address the needs of English learners.

Recommendation 5: The Governor and the Legislature should enact a resolution directing the State Department of Education and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to focus on improving teaching techniques rather than on creating a cadre of bilingual teachers.

Because sooner or later most of the State's teachers will find students in their class who speak no or limited English, it is important that all teachers have training in language acquisition theory, cultural diversity and techniques that enhance learning ability. The Department and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing should work together to ensure that all teachers have the tools that are needed to meet the challenge of language diversity in California's schools.

The efforts needed and goals envisioned by these recommendations are not so very extraordinary. Advocates have argued that English learners need a supportive learning environment that will enhance self-esteem, encourage respect for cultural diversity, stimulate complex thinking skills and produce knowledgeable, productive members of society. The Commission believes, however, that the same prescription for success is needed for all the State's children. And the strategies for putting such a program together are more similar than dissimilar, regardless of the language spoken when a child enters the classroom door.

The clear need is for Californians -- whether they are parents, school employees or state bureaucrats -- to focus on educational outcomes. Once society's goals for its children are clear and a system of accountability is in place, methods best suited to varying local conditions will emerge. The Commission believes the end result will be a brighter future for all of California's children.

Introduction

I n a perfect world with plentiful resources, all children would sit in modern, technology-equipped classrooms and be engaged in a curriculum that would prepare them for adult productivity, bolster their self-esteem and promote harmony in a culturally diverse society. In the real world of California education, all too often children are jammed into decaying classrooms while teachers squeeze the most learning they can out of out-dated textbooks and limited supplies. The task of educating 5 million children is daunting in these circumstances -- and greatly complicated by the fact that nearly 1 million of California's students do not speak English fluently enough to understand what is going on in the classroom.

California is not alone in facing such a challenge. In a world of shifting immigration patterns and fleeing refugees, many countries -- such as Israel, England and Germany -- play host to large populations who arrive speaking only their native languages. Many other countries, including Russia and Japan, acknowledge in their schools' curriculum the geo-political and global economic importance of having a citizenry that is multi-lingual. And still other countries, such as Canada and Switzerland, recognize their home-grown cultural diversity by ensuring that children grow up comfortable in more than one language.

Even in the United States, California's non-English-speaking students are not unique, although the size of the population and scope of diversity outstrip the next nine states combined. Chart 1 below compares California to the nation and other states with large populations of English learners.

Chart 1

States with Largest English Learner Populations

1990-91

State
English
Learners
1990

English
Learners
1991

Percent of
Increase

California
861,531
986,462
14.5

Texas
309,862
313,234
1.1

New York
158,007
168,208
6.5

Florida
61,768
83,937
35.9

Illinois
73,185
79,291
8.3

New Mexico
58,752
73,505
25.1

Arizona
60,270
65,727
9.1

New Jersey
43,176
47,560
10.2

Massachusetts
40,057
42,606
6.4

Michigan
33,449
37,112
11.0

All other states
281,055
366,040
30.2

Total
1,981,112
2,263,682
14.3

Source: U.S. Department of Education

A s the chart shows, California had the largest number of students who do not speak English fluently in the nation in 1991 and had the largest numerical increase among all individual states of English learners from 1990 to 1991. In fact, California had more of these students then the next nine states combined, playing host to 43.6 percent of the nation's total 2.3 million students who do not speak English fluently.

Ranging from the "entry port" coastal and border states to the country's interior Midwest states, most parts of the United States are attracting immigrant populations. Integrating these newcomers into the fabric of American life requires innovation and revised approaches by key government institutions, including schools.

Schools have legal obligation to help students who are not fluent English speakers

F or almost 30 years, schools have been required by federal law to provide whatever alternative language programs are necessary to ensure that non-English speaking students are not cut off from academic programs. But despite three decades of experience under this mandate, California schools today are clearly ill-prepared to meet the needs of those who are not fluent in English. Criticisms come from many directions:

Academics who argue vigorously and exhaustively over what single best method will produce English fluency fastest.
Those in the trenches of the classroom and on the front-line of school administration who charge that not enough dollars or resources are provided.
Many taxpayers who worry about the already-high cost of schools, lack of quality education, and potential effectiveness of earmarking yet more dollars with no guaranteed return.
Some established Californian parents who complain about the resources that are diverted to meet the needs of non-English-speaking students and who feel they have no control or rights when schools use their children to balance classes ethnically.
Immigrant parents who in some instances want their children to learn English more quickly and effectively and who, in other cases, are concerned about retaining their children's existing language and culture.
The children themselves, whose voices may be least heard but whose actions -- high drop-out rates, poor grades, limited entry into higher education -- are a clear signal of failing programs.

Against a backdrop of increasing numbers of immigrants and a rising crescendo of complaints, the Little Hoover Commission decided to assess how California's schools are meeting the needs of students who do not speak English fluently. Specifically, the Commission directed its attention to the role played by the State (through the State Department of Education), the problems school districts face and -- most importantly -- the outcome for children.

As part of its study, the Commission conducted a public hearing in Los Angeles in January 1993 (Appendix A provides a list of invited witnesses and those who provided verbal and written testimony to be included in the hearing record). In addition, the Commission contacted more than 50 organizations with interests in the education of non-English-speaking children, interviewed dozens of experts, extensively reviewed academic literature, visited multiple school sites with a variety of programs, and obtained information from other states and countries.

Throughout its study and deliberations, the Commission focused on:

The practical goal of equipping children with the tools they need to be productive citizens in the country that is now their home.
Real-world constraints on funding and resources.
Balancing the twin goals of local control (so that programs will be appropriately tailored for local conditions) and accountability to the State (so that taxpayers know their funds have been used efficiently and effectively).


All children deserve educational opportunity to achieve and to appreciate diversity		F inally, the Commission's study does not revisit the issue of the value of learning other languages in a State that teems with diversity and is well-positioned for Pacific Rim trade; many prior works have built a substantial, convincing case for teaching multilingualism and cultural sensitivity to all California children. Instead, the Commission embraces as a given the concept that a premiere education system would provide all children with an opportunity for educational achievement, high self-esteem, multilingual capability, an appreciation of America's heritage and cultural diversity, and respect for all members of society. Such goals are evident in the State's curriculum framework -- which, among other things, requires schools to provide all children with the opportunity to learn a second language beginning in kindergarten -- although their attainment unfortunately is rare in classrooms throughout the State.

Rather than addressing the need for schools to meet these goals more aggressively for all children -- an objective that needs to be pursued enthusiastically rather than re-argued -- the Commission's study explores the more narrow issue of what do to for a burgeoning population whose needs are immediate and of crisis proportions.

The result of the Commission's investigations is the following report. The report includes an Executive Summary, this Introduction and a Background, followed by three chapters of findings and recommendations, a Conclusion, Appendices and Endnotes.

Background

More than one million children
do not understand English well
enough to participate in class, a
number that is growing faster
than the total school population.

By law, schools are required to
provide special services to help
English learners overcome
language barriers.

No single approach is endorsed
universally by government,
academics and parents. Debate
over which system works best is
vigorous.

Background

M ore than 100 different languages and dialects can be heard on any day in California's classrooms, a reflection of the diversity of people choosing to make this their home. How California is handling this challenge is directly affected by shifting demographics, conflicting legal mandates, and entrenched, contradictory academic approaches to teaching children the English language.

That the student population is changing is indisputable. Statistics kept by the California Department of Education track the change in the ethnic makeup of the State's schools in the past 25 years, as shown in Chart 2 on the next page:

Chart 2

Ethnic Makeup of California Schools

1967-68

1991-92

A s Chart 2 indicates, in 1967-68 non-Hispanic whites comprised about three-quarters of all kindergarten through 12th grade students, with Hispanics at 13.6 percent and African Americans at 8.2 percent. By 1991-92, dramatic growth in the proportion of Hispanic students (from 13.6 percent to 35.3 percent) -- and to some extent Asians (from 2.2 percent to 8.0 percent) -- pushed the ratio of non-Hispanic whites to less than half of all students.

Ethnicity does not directly translate into language use, of course. Many children with an Asian or Hispanic heritage are one or more generations removed from their ethnic homeland and were raised with English as their primary language. But much of the change in school-age ethnicity has been accompanied by an increasing number of students who do not speak English fluently. Chart 3 below details the number of non-English-fluent students in California schools for each of the past six years.

Chart 3

Increase in Number of Students

Not Fluent in English, K-12

1987-1992

A s Chart 3 shows, the annual growth of students who do not speak English well peaked in 1990 with a 16.0 percent rate of increase. Over the six years, the population increased 75.9 percent, for a total of more than 1 million students in 1992. This growth rate outpaced the increase in English-speaking students, as Chart 4 below demonstrates.

Chart 4

Growth in Proportion of Students

Not Fluent in English to School Population

1987 - 1992

C hart 4 reflects an increase from 1987 to 1992 in the overall student population of 16.7 percent, with total student numbers growing from 4.4 million to 5.1 million during the six years. The proportion of students who do not speak English fluently compared to all other schoolchildren has increased during each of those years, going from 14 percent of the total school population in 1987 to 21 percent in 1992.

Federal law, courts and state policies set parameters for English learner schooling T hus today one out of every five students in California does not speak English well enough to understand what is going on in a mainstream classroom. How these children receive educational services and the extent to which schools are responsible for meeting their needs is addressed in federal law, court rulings, and state policies and procedures. The parameters defined by all of these entities combined form the backdrop for the choices that are made by schools.

The federal government has compelled schools to meet the needs of non-English-speaking children for the past three decades. Two areas of federal law provide the framework for educating children who do not speak English fluently:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensures equal educational opportunities for students from other countries by requiring that there be no discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in the operation of any federally assisted programs. In interpreting the act, the federal Office of Civil Rights in 1970 advised school districts that they had four responsibilities:

Providing children with courses designed to allow them to become proficient in English.

Allowing children who cannot speak English fluently access to the college preparatory and core academic curriculum.

Ensuring that any grouping of non-English- speaking children be based on meeting their language needs and that such separation from the mainstream student population not continue indefinitely or permanently.

Notifying parents in a language they can understand about school policies and events. 2

These responsibilities were further reiterated in the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, which echoed the commitment made in the Civil Rights Act and applied it specifically to schools.

The Bilingual Education Act, also known as Title VII, was established in 1968 as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and was reauthorized in 1974, 1978, 1984 and 1988. The current two-year session of Congress is expected to result in the reauthorization of the entire act, including the bilingual education portion. Under Title VII, federal funding is made available for various education programs to meet the needs of students who do not speak English fluently. As a policy, the law says that it is equally important for schools to provide those who are not fluent in English with the opportunity for both English proficiency and academic achievement. 3

Court rulings have required performance but also have allowed flexibility B uilding from the federal starting point, various courts, both federal and California, have fleshed out the intent of the federal laws by further clarifying what schools must do and what they are allowed to refrain from doing for non-English-speaking students. The rulings most frequently cited include the following:

Lau v. Nichols. In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the mechanism for ensuring access to an equal education regardless of race, color or national origin. The court decided in Lau v. Nichols that an equal education is not provided if non-English-speaking students cannot understand the teachers, textbooks or curriculum, even if they are the same as those provided to English-speaking students. The court ruled that schools must provide special language instruction to assist students in obtaining an education. The ruling did not, however, specify the form the special assistance must take. 4

Castaneda v. Pickard. In 1981, a federal court set three guidelines for determining whether a school had met its obligations under federal law by providing adequate special assistance:

The school must create a program for non-English-speaking students based on an educational theory that is recognized as sound by at least some experts in the field or that is recognized as a legitimate educational strategy.

The school must have programs, policies and resources in place that could be reasonably expected to implement effectively the chosen educational theory.

The school's program must demonstrate that students are making progress in overcoming language barriers. No matter how reasonable a school's original choice of program may be or how exhaustive are the resources dedicated to the program, the failure of students to make progress obligates the school to revise its program.

This decision also made it clear that while schools must have two goals -- helping students attain English proficiency and ensuring that they make academic progress in the overall curriculum -- the schools are free to pursue the goals sequentially rather than simultaneously. In other words, students may be allowed to fall behind academically in the short term while learning English as long as they reach academic parity with English-speaking students in some reasonable amount of time after entering the school system. 5

Teresa P. v. Berkeley Unified School District. In 1989, a federal court used the Castaneda standards to determine that Berkeley had met its obligations and that students were overcoming language barriers. The district had been challenged by parents who believed the district had not selected the most effective type of program to teach students English and that the district lacked a sufficient number of bilingual teachers for students to succeed. The ruling, in effect, supported wide latitude and discretion on the part of schools as long as results, as demonstrated by student progress and test scores, are obtained. 6

The interplay of federal law and the federal court decisions are not the only governing doctrines for California schools. While the education of students who do not speak fluent English is not addressed specifically in state law, it is regulated by state policies and procedures. The lack of a state law is fairly recent; in 1976, the State enacted the Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act, followed by the Bilingual Education Improvement and Reform Act in 1980. But in 1983, a statute was enacted that required a "sunset" review of bilingual education and established a termination date of June 30, 1986 for the program unless reauthorized by the Legislature and Governor. A succeeding statute extended the sunset date to June 30, 1987. 7

An effort to reauthorize the program through 1992 passed the Legislature in 1987 but was vetoed by the Governor. The key thrust of those who wanted to see the bilingual education program sunset was that school districts should have flexibility to meet the needs of limited-English-speaking students in ways that did not necessarily comply with the restrictive standards of the state law but that were still believed by many to be educationally sound. The proponents of reauthorizing the program argued that without the prescriptive nature of the state law, students would not be served with adequate programs because schools would not devote enough resources to them.

Despite law sunset, the Department has enforced eight elements of previous program A s the Little Hoover Commission has noted in a prior study, 8 the State Department of Education rendered the sunset of the bilingual education law moot by issuing "advisories" to school districts. The advisories said that under the sunset provisions of the 1983 law, the school districts must continue to comply with the "general or intended purposes" of the sunsetted bilingual education act. The department defined the "general or intended purposes" as those concepts spelled out in the legislative findings and declarations of the original law (Education Code Section 52161). Using this definition, the department set eight requirements that school districts must meet:

"The primary goal of all [bilingual] programs is, as effectively and efficiently as possible, to develop in each child fluency in English."

The program must "provide equal opportunity for academic achievement, including, when necessary, academic instruction through the primary language."

The program must "provide positive reinforcement of the self-image of participating pupils."

The program must "promote crosscultural understanding."

Districts are required "to offer bilingual learning opportunities to each pupil of limited English proficiency enrolled in the public schools."

Districts are required "to provide adequate supplemental financial support" in order to offer such bilingual learning opportunities.

"Insofar as the individual pupil is concerned, participation in bilingual programs is voluntary on the part of the parent or guardian."

Districts must "provide for in-service programs to qualify existing and future personnel in the bilingual and crosscultural skills necessary to serve the pupils of limited English proficiency of this state." 9

While advisories are supposed to be non-binding guidelines, the State Department of Education has enforced its bilingual education advisories -- which provide six options for school districts -- with a school-by-school compliance review process tied to continued special funding (as will be examined in detail under this report's Finding 2).

The State Department of Education has not been alone in providing guidance on what California's schools can do. In 1986 and 1987, the State Board of Education adopted and then amended a specific policy regarding programs for limited-English-speaking students. The board, according to the California Constitution, state statutes, court rulings and attorney general opinions, is the key policy-setting body for education matters in the State.

Board of Education policy focuses on outcome, choice and program flexibility T he board's policy is three-fold in thrust, setting parameters for ensuring an equal educational opportunity for students who do not speak English fluently, supporting maximum flexibility for school districts, and granting parental choice on participation in any program, regardless of the child's native language.

Specifically, the State Board of Education policy:

States that the primary purpose of all special programs for limited-English-speaking students is "to facilitate each student's ability to speak, understand, read and write English as quickly as possible so that they might participate in English-only programs."* Sets a standard for school districts to provide a curriculum for limited-English-speaking students that is comparable to that provided for students whose primary language is English.

Directs that "teaching methodologies, instructional strategies and instructional materials ... should be appropriate to each student's special linguistic needs."

Urges that school districts have maximum flexibility to design programs based on the needs of students and the resources available to the district within parameters of accountability for student achievement and quality programming.

Recommends that districts be required to obtain written consent from parents of any student -- whether limited-English-speaking or one whose primary language is English -- before placing the student in a special class.

Declares that included in "viable program options for limited-English-speaking students" are both programs that use the student's primary language and those that do not.

The State Board of Education conducted a hearing on bilingual education early in 1993; however, as this report was being written, the board had taken no new action. Similarly, no outcome had yet been reached on bills pending in the Legislature that would place the State's policy regarding English learners in statute once again.

In addition to coping with directions from legislative, judicial and administrative bodies, schools also are on the receiving end of extensive academic advice. The academic field of education for non-English-speaking children comes fully equipped with researchers, jargon and a range of program approaches, each laden with nuances that may be missed by the uninitiated.

`Bilingual education' is academic jargon for native-language instruction theory F or instance, the phrase "bilingual education" simply means to the lay person the schooling that is provided for anyone who cannot speak English. This common usage -- frequently seen in media reports -- ignores the academic definition of bilingual education, namely an approach to teaching children English that includes a significant component of academic instruction in the child's native language. Recognizing that the imprecise use of this phrase is the source of miscommunication and misunderstanding in many circles, the Little Hoover Commission in this report has avoided the generic use of "bilingual education," instead reserving it for reference to native-language core-curriculum instruction (except in unavoidable, direct citations).

Another troublesome area is the label affixed to children who do not speak English as a native language. The commonly accepted jargon sets the following acronyms:

LEPs, or Limited English Proficient students, for those who either speak no English or do not speak English well enough to understand what is going on in a mainstream classroom.

FEPs, or Fluent English Proficient students, for those whose native language is not English but who understand English well enough to be in mainstream classrooms without assistance.

There is some movement in favor of replacing these labels with the phrase "English learners," based at least partially on the belief that children's self-esteem and the perception of them by others suffer when they are tagged with the word "limited." Based on a distaste for acronyms in general and a belief that "LEP" is not a label well-recognized by the general public, the Commission has chosen for the most part to use phrases like "English learners" or "children who do not speak English fluently," except when quoting material from other sources.

Different approaches include submersion, immersion and bilingual education T he precision of terminology becomes even more important when discussing the various options that schools may use to teach children who do not speak English fluently. These include:

Submersion. This "sink or swim" approach gives students special instruction in English but otherwise simply places them in mainstream English-only classes with no assistance for the bulk of the school day. While the Commission could find no academic support for submersion as the best teaching method, statistics indicate that submersion is exactly what many students who do not speak English fluently end up with (as will be further discussed in Finding 1).

Immersion. Students are taught the entire curriculum in English but educational techniques are employed that help students understand what is going on. This may include exaggerated facial expressions and body language, cooperative group learning and hands-on experiences. Also known as "sheltered English."

Transitional bilingual education. This approach is fashioned around the concept of having students continue to progress in academic areas while they are learning English by teaching the main curriculum in their native language until they are ready to "transition" into mainstream classes. "Early exit transitional bilingual education" programs introduce more classes in English earlier and do not anticipate the student becoming fully literate in his or her native language. "Late exit transitional bilingual education" programs focus on developing academic excellence and literacy in the native language before making the transition to English. Students are expected to transition in three or four years in early exit programs, compared to a four- to six-year transition time for late-exit programs.

The definitions often lose clarity once the programs are employed in the classroom. Academicians evaluating the studies that have been conducted to try to prove that one mode of instruction is superior to others have frequently found the research methodology of studies wanting because programs have been poorly or incorrectly identified. For instance, native-language instruction is not "pure" transitional bilingual education if in the early years a large percentage of the core curriculum is conducted in English and only a small portion is taught in the child's native language. And immersion approaches lose their non-native-language dimension when classrooms aides assist teachers through the use of native language, as is often the case in schools using sheltered English programs.

Each of the approaches has the goal of providing English proficiency, so all have some element of English language instruction. The key difference between each is whether and to what degree the student's native language is used in the on-going curriculum that has nothing to do with language acquisition -- courses such as math, science and social studies. One useful way to understand the different options is to place them on a continuum that addresses how much English and how much native language are used to teach the core curriculum, as Chart 5 does on the next page.

Chart 5

Teaching Options:

Differing Proportions of Language Use

A s Chart 5 indicates, submersion involves no use of the child's native language, immersion may involve none or a very limited amount, and transitional bilingual education relies heavily on native language. An individual school may select one approach but may soon find itself with a program spanning the continuum because of factors -- such as lack of qualified teachers or incoming students with primary languages new to the school -- over which the school has very little control.

The selection of an academic approach by a school often takes place in the midst of vigorous emotional debate, little of it concerning whether a method is effective in equipping children with English skills. For instance, some advocates for native-language instruction charge that children who are pushed into English and deprived of their cultural heritage lose their self-esteem and become alienated under-achievers. Their parents are cut off from participating in school activities or helping with homework because of language barriers and this, too, is a recipe for a child's failure in school.

On the other side, those who oppose native-language instruction argue that students are stigmatized by being trapped in special classes instead of integrated with mainstream students. Some believe it is unfair to divert the extra resources needed to hire bilingual teachers away from other programs that benefit all students, and that taxpayers should not be responsible for paying to preserve a cultural heritage that has been left behind due to immigration.

Controversy revolves around choice to use or ignore native language T he argument over educational approach usually is couched in terms of pro and con native-language instruction. The reason for this is that the key bone of contention is whether or not native-language instruction is a necessary element of a good English-acquisition program. Techniques from the "other" method -- immersion or sheltered English -- are also used in bilingual transitional education programs at the point when students are transitioning from native-language instruction to English-only instruction. So the academic argument is not over whether immersion is a good method, but over whether it should be used alone or put in a secondary, complementary position to native-language instruction.

The Commission received and reviewed dozens of testimonials from people and schools on both sides of the issue. Among the anecdotal evidence from pro-native-language-instruction advocates:

The principal of Hollywood High School told the Commission that students at her school speaking 22 languages make up 66.3 percent of the student body. "Students enrolling in our school not only face the challenge of learning a new language and new curriculum in a limited amount of time but also face the daily challenges of learning a new way of life, new customs, traditions and at the same time continuing to be proud of their own language, culture and traditions....The [school's program] allows these students to be able to face both academic and societal challenges by providing the students with content classes in the student's primary language and communicative-based instruction to learn English." 10

Los Angeles Unified School District staff involved with the Eastman Avenue Elementary School project (also known as MORE -- Model Organization Results of Eastman) provided the Commission with test comparisons indicating that students in this model native-language-instruction program dramatically outscore comparable non-English-fluent students elsewhere in the district and eventually do better on standardized tests than the district's average mainstream students.

The California Association for Bilingual Education gave the Commission more than a dozen profiles of students who are success stories, including an eighth grader who spoke no English when he entered kindergarten and now is an honor student and part of the Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program. "I might have failed without bilingual education. I couldn't have learned what I didn't understand. Bilingual instruction gave me a chance to succeed." 11

Anecdotal evidence from those who oppose native-language instruction included:

A woman with 15 years experience as an Hispanic aide in an English-as-a-Second-Language program who told the Commission of the disparity she had seen between Hispanic children who were taught in their native language and Asian refugees ("boat people") who were taught in English. "The children from the Orient were learning how to speak English, without being taught in their own language. The demand for speaking English was there and they jumped at the chance to learn our language. The [Hispanic] children were not progressing. They instead were confused by being taught in their native Spanish language and being forced to try to learn English after the fact. I was truly amazed when I encountered the Oriental children learning their reading, writing and arithmetic in English without so much as a hint that there was a language barrier. I asked myself, 'Why can't my kids do that?'" 12

The story of two elementary schools in Inglewood that were identified in a study as inner-city schools that have outstanding test scores. Among other things, both teachers have not implemented native-language instruction. "There is no bilingual education at either school, in part [the principals said] because parents do not want it. That was fine with the two principals because they believe the approach does not work. 'Our goal is not to teach them Spanish,' says one. 'Our goal is to make them English literate.' " 13

The opinion of the first Hispanic student ever to be named to the State Board of Education, who spoke no English when she arrived in California -- but seven years later spoke flawlessly without an accent. "I'm glad I wasn't taught in a bilingual class," she said. "I have seen Spanish-speaking students who don't advance because they rely too much on bilingual classes. They don't learn English, as they must in order to be successful." 14

Schools face tough
challenge, hard decisions
amidst conflicting advice
on choices C utting across all of the federal, court, state and academic directives described above is the commongoal of equipping children who do not speak English with the knowledge and skills necessary for them to take their places as fully functioning and productive members of this country and society. But behind the plain, black-and-white words of the laws, rulings and policies are strong and conflicting undercurrents of beliefs about how these children's needs can best be met. The lack of agreement cuts across all constituencies involved; it is not a case of academics pushing one solution, administrators some other, and parents and students yet another. Thus, schools face a tough challenge and hard decisions in the atmosphere of clamoring debate rather than in the quiet of certainty. The result is explored in the next three chapters of findings and recommendations.

Student

Outcome

The range of languages spoken
and the distribution of English
learners throughout the state
place a strain on schools' ability
to meet the linguistic challenge.

Low fluency transition rates,
high dropout statistics and poor
college eligibility figures
demonstrate the failure of
current school efforts.

Schools control how much
funding is dedicated to English
learner programs; a statewide
study shows that schools are
spending about the same for
English learner classrooms as
for mainstream courses.

Recommendations:

Revise funding formula to
maximize incentives for schools
for help English learners achieve.

Student Outcome

Finding #1: Schools are not meeting the primary goal of education for immigrant students: helping the children to become fluent in English quickly.

T he education system is expected to take in young, untutored children and 12 years later turn them out as knowledgeable and skillful budding adults. While this mission is challenging enough with mainstream students, schools find it even more difficult to attain in the face of ever-increasing numbers of children who do not speak English fluently. The schools' first and primary goal with this population is to teach them English effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately, by almost any measure -- fluency transition rates, dropout statistics, college eligibility and community satisfaction -- schools are failing to meet that goal. At least one reason is the failure of schools to dedicate adequate resources to serving the needs of English learners.

To understand the magnitude of the challenge faced by California schools, it is helpful to delve into statistics about where the impact of non-English-speaking children is felt and the variety of languages these children bring to school with them. Chart 6 below shows that almost 60 percent of the students who do not speak English fluently are in three Southern California counties -- Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego. (Appendix B is a complete county-by-county breakdown.)

Chart 6

Number of Students Not Fluent

in English by Counties, 1991

		W ith 468,994 or 43.5 percent, Los Angeles County has the lion's share of the State's 1 million children who do not speak English well, as Chart 6 indicates. Altogether, seven counties account for about three-quarters of the children who need language assistance. At the other end of the scale, 17 counties each have fewer than 500 students and another seven counties have fewer than 1,500 students -- each of these 24 counties having less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the State's total. Typically, these counties are in far northern California and along the Sierra Nevada mountain range. While the numerical bulk of the non-English-fluent children are in urbanized counties, their proportionate impact on smaller counties is sometimes great. For instance, even though only a small blip on the statewide chart, San Benito County's 1,714 non-English-fluent students (two-tenths of 1 percent of the state total) represent 20.7 percent of that county's total 8,283 students. Similarly, Colusa County has 695 (one-tenth of 1 percent of the state total), 18.7 percent of the county's 3,723 students. The county with the highest percentage of non-English-fluent students compared to mainstream students is Imperial County (13,735 out of 29,695 students, or 46.3 percent).
English learners are found in both urban and rural areas		G eographically, then, students who do not speak English fluently are spread throughout the State, congregating in urbanized counties but also heavily represented in smaller, rural areas in the Central Valley and Southern California. Specific education programs and decisions are largely driven by local school districts, so statistics broken down to the district level are also relevant to assessing the impact of language barriers. Of California's 1,009 school districts, 864 have at least one student who does not speak English fluently, 554 have at least 50 and 398 report having 200 or more. Chart 7 on the next page shows the 24 districts with the largest number of these students, which together account for a little more than half (51.6 percent) of non-English-proficient students in the State.

Chart 7

School Districts Ranked By

Number of Non-English-Fluent Students (1992)

School District (County)	Non- English- Fluent Students	% of State's Non- English- Fluent	District's Total Students	% of District Who Are Non- Fluent
1. Los Angeles Unified (LA)	263,908	24.5	636,964	41.4
2. Santa Ana Unified (Orange)	31,517	2.9	47,700	66.1
3. San Diego Unified (San Diego)	27,808	2.6	123,591	22.5
4. Long Beach Unified (LA)	24,093	2.2	74,048	32.5
5. Fresno Unified (Fresno)	20,937	1.9	74,693	28.0
6. San Francisco Unified (SF)	17,566	1.6	61,689	28.5
7. Garden Grove Unified (Orange)	14,699	1.4	39,764	37.0
8. Glendale Unified (LA)	13,890	1.3	26,996	51.5
9. Oakland Unified (Alameda)	13,684	1.3	51,698	26.5
10. Montebello Unified (LA)	13,565	1.3	33,241	40.8
11. Pomona Unified (LA)	12,065	1.1	28,483	42.4
12. Stockton Unified (San Joaquin)	11,294	1.0	33,457	33.8
13. Compton Unified (LA)	10,810	1.0	28,282	38.2
14. Sacramento City Unified (Sac.)	9,335	0.9	50,804	18.4
15. Anaheim Elementary (Orange)	8,163	0.8	15,874	51.4
16. East Side High (Santa Clara)	8,088	0.7	22,187	36.5
17. Anaheim Union High (Orange)	7,629	0.7	24,538	31.1
18. San Bernardino City Unified (SB)	7,625	0.7	43,016	17.7
19. Ontario Montclair (San Bernardino)	7,261	0.7	21,749	33.4
20. Pajaro Valley Unifd. (Santa Cruz)	6,982	0.6	16,490	42.3
21. San Jose Unified (Santa Clara)	6,774	0.6	30,261	22.4
22. Lynwood Unified (LA)	6,716	0.6	15,089	44.5
23. Lodi Unified (San Joaquin)	6,025	0.6	24,607	24.5
24. Chula Vista City Elemen. (SD)	5,936	0.6	18,120	32.8

Source: State Department of Education

A s Chart 7 indicates, Los Angeles Unified School District has far and away the largest number of non-English-fluent children, with almost 264,000. The next closest district, Santa Ana Unified, has less than 32,000. The chart also confirms that not just one part of the State is affected; counties with the top 24 districts range from Southern California to the San Francisco Bay Area and inland valley regions.

Chart 8 returns to the concept that districts feel a disproportionate impact when their mainstream student bodies are small compared to the number of students who do not speak English fluently. The chart shows the top 10 districts in the State in terms of percentage of non-English-fluent students compared to total student bodies.

Chart 8

School Districts With the Largest Proportion of Students Who Do Not Speak Fluent English, 1991

School District (County)	Non- English Fluent Students	District's Total Students	% of District Who Are Non-Fluent
1. San Ysidro Elementary (San Diego)	3,406	3,872	88.0
2. Heber Elementary (Imperial)	480	549	87.4
3. Lennox Elementary (LA)	4,654	5,783	80.5
4. Calexico Unified (Imperial)	4,994	6,346	78.7
5. Richgrove Elementary (Tulare)	400	534	74.9
6. Chualar Union Elementary (Monterey)	249	333	74.8
7. Lost Hills Union Elementary (Kern)	293	425	68.9
8. Livingston Union Elementary (Merced)	1,297	1,899	68.3
9. Holt Union Elementary (San Joaquin)	94	140	67.1
10. Planada Elementary (Merced)	527	786	67.0

Source: State Department of Education

A s Chart 8 shows, a San Diego County elementary school district has the highest percentage of non-English-fluent students in the State, with 88 percent of the student body needing language assistance. Other school districts in urbanized, coastal and valley areas also have ratios exceeding 65 percent. Altogether, 29 school districts have proportions greater than 50 percent of students who do not speak English fluently, according to State Department of Education figures.

State statistics also show that students who do not speak English well tend to be young. Chart 9 gives a breakdown by grade level.

Chart 9

Grade Level of Students

Not Fluent in English, 1992

A s Chart 9 shows, more than two-thirds of students who do not speak English fluently are in elementary school. A further breakdown shows that slightly more than one-third (34.3 percent) are in the critical kindergarten through 2nd grade classes, the years when many education experts believe student achievement patterns are set.

Overall, the statistics reviewed above show a rapidly exploding non-English-speaking student population that is scattered over many parts of California. The impact is felt in large and small school districts, urban and rural settings, and across all grade levels.

Schools have three-fold duty: legal, social and academic

R egardless of the logistical problems inherent in meeting the need quantified by these statistics, schools have legal obligations -- as well as academic and social goals -- in carrying out programs to meet the needs of the many students who come to class without understanding English.

As described in the Background, the legal obligations of school districts with regard to English learners are spelled out in federal law, court rulings and state policies. The general thrust of all of these sources is that schools must provide special services to help students become proficient enough in English to understand the academic curriculum and obtain an education.

While federal law (as amended in 1988) holds that teaching the students English and helping them advance academically are obligations that carry equal weight, both court rulings and state policy (as outlined in legislative intent and as adopted by the State Board of Education) emphasize English instruction as the primary goal that schools should fulfill first. State policymakers use the words "quickly," "effectively" and "efficiently" in mandating how schools will provide English proficiency.

In addition to the legal obligation, schools have the academic goal of ensuring that children graduate with a satisfactory degree of literacy, knowledge and skill, as well as English proficiency. Fulfilling this goal is an important step toward creating a society of people who are productive, happy and responsible for themselves.

Finally, schools have an often unstated but important social goal of creating integration in place of alienation. By providing children with a common background of respect for cultural diversity and common understanding of issues, schools serve to bring people closer together, generating the respect for self and others that is critical to social harmony.

If schools were meeting these legal, academic and social missions, their success would be reflected in a variety of ways:

In statistics that show the rate of transition from the status of non-English-fluent to English proficient.
In statistics that demonstrate language assistance efforts for all children who need to learn English.
In dropout and college eligibility rates.
In the general level of satisfaction expressed by immigrants, their children and mainstream school populations.

Just as school districts are expected annually to identify children who do not speak English fluently, they are also expected to redesignate the children as "fluent English proficient" once the students are capable of understanding enough English to thrive academically in mainstream classrooms. Language acquisition experts are not in agreement as to a reasonable length of time it takes to become proficient in English, although there is common acceptance of the concept that learning and thinking in a foreign language takes much greater understanding of the language then conversational skills require. Some experts believe that English can be academically comprehensible for children in as little as two years, while others believe six or more years of assistance is necessary.

State policy is silent when it comes to attaching a time frame to "quickly" and "efficiently." Federal law, however, requires students to leave federally funded programs within three years, unless specific, individual justification is made -- and even then, only an additional two years is allowed.

By whatever time-frame standard is used, statistics show that schools are not transitioning students quickly, efficiently and effectively. Chart 10 on the next page gives transition statistics for 11 years.

Chart 10

Number of Students Transitioning From Non-Fluent to Fluent Status 1982 - 1992

C hart 10 shows that the number of students redesignated as fluent in English has remained fairly constant at a bit more than 50,000 each year for the past decade -- dipping as low as 47,500 in 1984 and peaking at 57,400 in 1988. For purposes of comparison, the chart also shows the total number of English learners for each year, a number that has steadily increased from 431,500 to more than one million. Whether one expects students to transition in two, three, four, five or even six years, there is no "bulge" in the redesignation figures that accounts for the eventual transition of the hundreds of thousands of students who are not fluent in English.
Unknown number of students are never redesignated as English fluent T o understand how far the redesignation rate lags behind, one can look at the 431,449 students counted as not fluent in English in 1982. If students from this group began transitioning two years later in 1984 and continued through 1991, only 420,285 would be accounted for in the redesignation figures -- and that involves the hypothetical presumption of ignoring all the increased numbers of incoming students for 1983 through 1991. Thus, some unknown proportion of students than entered the school system in 1982 as English learners continue to be non-fluent in 1991 despite eight years of education.

Another measure of whether schools are meeting their obligations is how many students are served by special programs. Chart 11 gives a breakdown.

Chart 11

Number of Students Served By Different Language Assistance Programs, 1992

Type of Program	Students
Instruction in English as a language	161,689
English and specially designed academic instruction in English	117,650
English, academic instruction in English, and primary language support	182,343
English and academic instruction in the primary language	359,829
Not enrolled in the instructional programs described above	257,185
Statewide Total	1,078,705

Source: State Department of Education

T he statistical breakdown in Chart 11 will be examined more fully in Finding 2, which deals with different program options. But for this discussion the key figure in the chart is the 257,185 students who are served by no program at all -- not even instruction in English as a language to be acquired. This figure represents 23.9 percent of all students in the State who are assessed to be not fluent in English.

One quarter of English learners are not receiving special services		I n other words, almost one out of four students who are legally entitled to receive special services are not being reached. (It is impossible to tell if these are students who desperately need services and are just being left to sink in the system -- or if some substantial number of them need no assistance but have not been reclassified as fluent in English.) Other statistics are not directly linked to students who do not speak English fluently when they arrive in school. But many academic experts believe these statistics are telling signs that the system designed to meet the needs of these children is not working. Among these statistics are dropout rates and college application rates. The rate for Hispanics who leave high school in the 10th, 11th or 12th grade has dropped during the last five years, from 35.1 percent to about 24.6 percent, according to statistics from the State Department of Education. However, the number of Hispanics dropping out of the class of 1992 was 27,902 -- almost half the total number of dropouts for that class statewide. In raw numbers, far more Hispanics drop out of school than any other ethnic group. 15 The California Postsecondary Education Commission has examined college eligibility as it relates to race and ethnicity. In 1990, 32.3 percent of Asians and 12.7 percent of non-Hispanic whites were eligible to enter the University of California system, which requires students to rank in the top 12 percent of their high school. Only 3.9 percent of Hispanic students qualified. The test scores of Hispanic high school graduates taking the Scholastic Aptitude Test were far lower than other ethnic groups. 16

High dropout rate, low college applications point to problem of language barrier		D ifferent academic analysts have suggested different causes for these discouraging statistics, ranging from lower socio-economic status and cultural disinclination to place a high value on schooling to a system that undermines self-esteem and devalues the students' Hispanic heritage. But in a state where three-quarters of the students with a primary language other than English speak Spanish, it is not unreasonable to conclude that some portion of the dropout and college ineligibility problems stem from language difficulties that are never adequately addressed by schools. The picture painted by Chart 10, Chart 11 and the dropout and college eligibility rates is bleak: Students are not learning English well enough to take their place in mainstream classes no matter how long they remain in school. About one-quarter of the students who do not speak English fluently are not being helped at all. The result is young people abandoning the education system and entering a working world in which they are poorly prepared to succeed.

Reality of figures: assessment tools are poor, incentives skew classifications		T he statistics point to a system that is not working for English learners. Reality, however, may not be properly reflected in some of these statistics for at least three reasons: Assessment of students as not proficient enough in English to succeed academically is an art rather than a science. Different standards and evaluation processes are used by different schools and, in most cases, the subjective opinion of the evaluator is an influential factor in how a student is defined. Thus, not all students counted as non-English-fluent may actually be hindered academically when left in English-only classes. Schools have great incentive to classify students as not fluent in English. The number of such students in a school district is a factor in the added funding that is received from the federal and state governments. This may mean that in borderline cases students who could be judged fluent may be counted as non-fluent instead, inflating the size of the population requiring extra services. Finally, the schools have no particular incentive -- and, in fact, a disincentive -- to reclassify students and transition them into mainstream classes. There is no financial reward for lowering the number of defined English learners or placing them into English-only classes. Instead, as the school reduces its population of non-English-fluent students, it reduces the demonstrated need that is pivotal in obtaining state and federal funding. While the quantifiable impact of these three factors is very difficult to assess, the Commission did receive substantial anecdotal testimony about the refusal of schools to redesignate students and suffer funding loss. These ranged from teachers who claimed to have been told to not reclassify students to outside, lay observers of the educational system. Similarly, anecdotal evidence is the basis for many of the conclusions to be reached in another difficult-to-quantify area, namely the degree of societal satisfaction with the performance of schools in helping students who do not speak English fluently. The Commission gathered comments from immigrant parents, the students themselves and parents of English-only students, including: Parents who wrote in praise of native-language instruction programs in Los Angeles Unified School District and said that for the first time their children were interested in school and achieving academically. Parents who did not want their children segregated from the mainstream and who wanted an early emphasis on English. One example from the many letters: "Because we are Vietnamese, my son is put on the 'Asian' track. We did not come to American to have our children isolated on a specific 'Asian' track. Isn't the success of American going to be based on cultural sensitivity and awareness fostered through the various cultures working together versus in isolation?" Students who said they felt lost when they were dumped without assistance into English-only classes. Many applauded programs structured around the use of native-language instruction, but others said they were trapped in such classes and never allowed to transition into mainstream classrooms. Parents of English-only children placed in native-language-instruction classes without their permission and despite their complaints. Many of these parents believe their rights to have a say in their children's education are ignored -- to the detriment of their children's learning -- in favor of providing ethnic balance in native-language-instruction classes. Parents of non-Hispanic children who are not fluent in English who say their children are often placed in inappropriate native-language-instruction courses. A child whose primary language is Cantonese or Armenian gains no more (and probably far less) from a core academic course taught in Spanish than he would from a mainstream course taught in English. Parents of English-only children who decry the shifting of resources to instruction programs for those who do not speak English when their own children's programs are being cut back. Particularly criticized was the extensive use of aides in native-language and immersion classes when mainstream classes -- often larger than one teacher can comfortably handle -- are forced to do without aides. In addition, the Commission noted the diverse and conflicting results of various surveys. For instance, a national survey of Hispanic parents showed a clear preference for native-language instruction and a survey cited in the Berkeley court case showed that, while Hispanic parents preferred native-language instruction, Asian parents and others tended to prefer programs emphasizing immediate acquisition of English language skills. 17 Another study conducted by Princeton's Educational Testing Service, however, found that 78 percent of Mexican Americans and 82 percent of Cubans oppose teaching in the native language if it takes time away from learning English. 18

Widespread unhappiness among parents, students points to failure of programs		T he conclusion that can be drawn from these various sources is that there is a large degree of dissatisfaction with the way schools are handling their obligation to teach students who are not fluent in English. When combined with the poor transition-to-mainstream-classes rate, the lack of services for one-quarter of the students who need them, and the dropout and college application statistics, this dissatisfaction level adds up to only one conclusion: Schools are not meeting the primary goal of assisting students to become proficient in English. There are many outside factors that lead to this lack of success -- factors over which the schools have no direct control. Those will be examined in Findings 2, 3 and 4 of this report. In one area, however, schools do have control -- the funding and resources that are dedicated to programs for English learners.

State study shows cost for English learners is close to mainstream cost		O n its surface, this is a surprising statement for two reasons: 1) schools do not set the overall amount of money they receive to provide services for English learners and 2) schools consistently complain that they are not given enough resources to do the job adequately. But schools are given large blocks of funds to meet a variety of needs that go beyond the base cost of teaching mainstream students. They are expected to use the additional funds to provide the extra, needed services, rather than using them to supplant the normal funding allocated for each student. Yet a major statewide study commissioned by the State Department of Education has concluded that the cost of programs currently used by schools to educate English learners is little more than the cost of normal classroom instruction. 19 The specialized funding is not showing up as a resource beyond normal class funding. A complete understanding of this phenomena should begin with an examination of how much is being spent on education for children who do not speak English fluently -- or at the very least, how much schools are receiving for this population. Such statistics are difficult to come by for two reasons: 1) English learners often have needs that cut across several categories of funding, and 2) the very nature of block grants is to allow individual schools flexibility to meet local needs, therefore leaving the State without any solid financial tracking mechanism. But there are general categories of funds that are available for educating English learners. These include: The State's Economic Impact Aid (EIA) program, which delivers a single block of money to serve educationally disadvantaged students (EIA-State Compensatory Education) and students who are not fluent in English (EIA-Limited English Proficient). Schools receive the funds based on how many disadvantaged and English-learning students they count in their classrooms. English learners often also have needs that would classify them as educationally disadvantaged. In 1991-92, EIA funding totalled $304,571,000. 20 Federal "Chapter 1" funds, which since 1988 have included the former Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act Chapter 1 program and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I program. Funds are funneled to districts based on a complicated formula that determines need. The targets for this program are at-risk students, poverty areas and under-achieving students. In 1991-92, Chapter 1 funding totalled $624,055,000 for California. The federal Emergency Immigrant Education Assistance program and the National Origin Desegregation Assistance program. Each specifically targets the need to provide additional assistance to immigrant children. In 1991-92, these federal programs provided $15,448,000 to California. The federal Bilingual Education program, also known as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This program provides short-term grants to school districts for special programs to meet the needs of English learners. In 1991-92, California schools had 308 grants for a total of $43,544,231.

Funds available for students not fluent in English average $1,0

State	English Learners 1990	English Learners 1991	Percent of Increase
California	861,531	986,462	14.5
Texas	309,862	313,234	1.1
New York	158,007	168,208	6.5
Florida	61,768	83,937	35.9
Illinois	73,185	79,291	8.3
New Mexico	58,752	73,505	25.1
Arizona	60,270	65,727	9.1
New Jersey	43,176	47,560	10.2
Massachusetts	40,057	42,606	6.4
Michigan	33,449	37,112	11.0
All other states	281,055	366,040	30.2
Total	1,981,112	2,263,682	14.3


		M ore than 100 different languages and dialects can be heard on any day in California's classrooms, a reflection of the diversity of people choosing to make this their home. How California is handling this challenge is directly affected by shifting demographics, conflicting legal mandates, and entrenched, contradictory academic approaches to teaching children the English language. That the student population is changing is indisputable. Statistics kept by the California Department of Education track the change in the ethnic makeup of the State's schools in the past 25 years, as shown in Chart 2 on the next page:

	C hart 4 reflects an increase from 1987 to 1992 in the overall student population of 16.7 percent, with total student numbers growing from 4.4 million to 5.1 million during the six years. The proportion of students who do not speak English fluently compared to all other schoolchildren has increased during each of those years, going from 14 percent of the total school population in 1987 to 21 percent in 1992.
Federal law, courts and state policies set parameters for English learner schooling		T hus today one out of every five students in California does not speak English well enough to understand what is going on in a mainstream classroom. How these children receive educational services and the extent to which schools are responsible for meeting their needs is addressed in federal law, court rulings, and state policies and procedures. The parameters defined by all of these entities combined form the backdrop for the choices that are made by schools. The federal government has compelled schools to meet the needs of non-English-speaking children for the past three decades. Two areas of federal law provide the framework for educating children who do not speak English fluently: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensures equal educational opportunities for students from other countries by requiring that there be no discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in the operation of any federally assisted programs. In interpreting the act, the federal Office of Civil Rights in 1970 advised school districts that they had four responsibilities: Providing children with courses designed to allow them to become proficient in English. Allowing children who cannot speak English fluently access to the college preparatory and core academic curriculum. Ensuring that any grouping of non-English- speaking children be based on meeting their language needs and that such separation from the mainstream student population not continue indefinitely or permanently. Notifying parents in a language they can understand about school policies and events. 2 These responsibilities were further reiterated in the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, which echoed the commitment made in the Civil Rights Act and applied it specifically to schools. The Bilingual Education Act, also known as Title VII, was established in 1968 as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and was reauthorized in 1974, 1978, 1984 and 1988. The current two-year session of Congress is expected to result in the reauthorization of the entire act, including the bilingual education portion. Under Title VII, federal funding is made available for various education programs to meet the needs of students who do not speak English fluently. As a policy, the law says that it is equally important for schools to provide those who are not fluent in English with the opportunity for both English proficiency and academic achievement. 3

Court rulings have required performance but also have allowed flexibility		B uilding from the federal starting point, various courts, both federal and California, have fleshed out the intent of the federal laws by further clarifying what schools must do and what they are allowed to refrain from doing for non-English-speaking students. The rulings most frequently cited include the following: Lau v. Nichols. In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the mechanism for ensuring access to an equal education regardless of race, color or national origin. The court decided in Lau v. Nichols that an equal education is not provided if non-English-speaking students cannot understand the teachers, textbooks or curriculum, even if they are the same as those provided to English-speaking students. The court ruled that schools must provide special language instruction to assist students in obtaining an education. The ruling did not, however, specify the form the special assistance must take. 4 Castaneda v. Pickard. In 1981, a federal court set three guidelines for determining whether a school had met its obligations under federal law by providing adequate special assistance: The school must create a program for non-English-speaking students based on an educational theory that is recognized as sound by at least some experts in the field or that is recognized as a legitimate educational strategy. The school must have programs, policies and resources in place that could be reasonably expected to implement effectively the chosen educational theory. The school's program must demonstrate that students are making progress in overcoming language barriers. No matter how reasonable a school's original choice of program may be or how exhaustive are the resources dedicated to the program, the failure of students to make progress obligates the school to revise its program. This decision also made it clear that while schools must have two goals -- helping students attain English proficiency and ensuring that they make academic progress in the overall curriculum -- the schools are free to pursue the goals sequentially rather than simultaneously. In other words, students may be allowed to fall behind academically in the short term while learning English as long as they reach academic parity with English-speaking students in some reasonable amount of time after entering the school system. 5 Teresa P. v. Berkeley Unified School District. In 1989, a federal court used the Castaneda standards to determine that Berkeley had met its obligations and that students were overcoming language barriers. The district had been challenged by parents who believed the district had not selected the most effective type of program to teach students English and that the district lacked a sufficient number of bilingual teachers for students to succeed. The ruling, in effect, supported wide latitude and discretion on the part of schools as long as results, as demonstrated by student progress and test scores, are obtained. 6 The interplay of federal law and the federal court decisions are not the only governing doctrines for California schools. While the education of students who do not speak fluent English is not addressed specifically in state law, it is regulated by state policies and procedures. The lack of a state law is fairly recent; in 1976, the State enacted the Chacon-Moscone Bilingual-Bicultural Education Act, followed by the Bilingual Education Improvement and Reform Act in 1980. But in 1983, a statute was enacted that required a "sunset" review of bilingual education and established a termination date of June 30, 1986 for the program unless reauthorized by the Legislature and Governor. A succeeding statute extended the sunset date to June 30, 1987. 7 An effort to reauthorize the program through 1992 passed the Legislature in 1987 but was vetoed by the Governor. The key thrust of those who wanted to see the bilingual education program sunset was that school districts should have flexibility to meet the needs of limited-English-speaking students in ways that did not necessarily comply with the restrictive standards of the state law but that were still believed by many to be educationally sound. The proponents of reauthorizing the program argued that without the prescriptive nature of the state law, students would not be served with adequate programs because schools would not devote enough resources to them.

Despite law sunset, the Department has enforced eight elements of previous program		A s the Little Hoover Commission has noted in a prior study, 8 the State Department of Education rendered the sunset of the bilingual education law moot by issuing "advisories" to school districts. The advisories said that under the sunset provisions of the 1983 law, the school districts must continue to comply with the "general or intended purposes" of the sunsetted bilingual education act. The department defined the "general or intended purposes" as those concepts spelled out in the legislative findings and declarations of the original law (Education Code Section 52161). Using this definition, the department set eight requirements that school districts must meet: "The primary goal of all [bilingual] programs is, as effectively and efficiently as possible, to develop in each child fluency in English." The program must "provide equal opportunity for academic achievement, including, when necessary, academic instruction through the primary language." The program must "provide positive reinforcement of the self-image of participating pupils." The program must "promote crosscultural understanding." Districts are required "to offer bilingual learning opportunities to each pupil of limited English proficiency enrolled in the public schools." Districts are required "to provide adequate supplemental financial support" in order to offer such bilingual learning opportunities. "Insofar as the individual pupil is concerned, participation in bilingual programs is voluntary on the part of the parent or guardian." Districts must "provide for in-service programs to qualify existing and future personnel in the bilingual and crosscultural skills necessary to serve the pupils of limited English proficiency of this state." 9 While advisories are supposed to be non-binding guidelines, the State Department of Education has enforced its bilingual education advisories -- which provide six options for school districts -- with a school-by-school compliance review process tied to continued special funding (as will be examined in detail under this report's Finding 2). The State Department of Education has not been alone in providing guidance on what California's schools can do. In 1986 and 1987, the State Board of Education adopted and then amended a specific policy regarding programs for limited-English-speaking students. The board, according to the California Constitution, state statutes, court rulings and attorney general opinions, is the key policy-setting body for education matters in the State.

Board of Education policy focuses on outcome, choice and program flexibility		T he board's policy is three-fold in thrust, setting parameters for ensuring an equal educational opportunity for students who do not speak English fluently, supporting maximum flexibility for school districts, and granting parental choice on participation in any program, regardless of the child's native language. Specifically, the State Board of Education policy: States that the primary purpose of all special programs for limited-English-speaking students is "to facilitate each student's ability to speak, understand, read and write English as quickly as possible so that they might participate in English-only programs."* Sets a standard for school districts to provide a curriculum for limited-English-speaking students that is comparable to that provided for students whose primary language is English. Directs that "teaching methodologies, instructional strategies and instructional materials ... should be appropriate to each student's special linguistic needs." Urges that school districts have maximum flexibility to design programs based on the needs of students and the resources available to the district within parameters of accountability for student achievement and quality programming. Recommends that districts be required to obtain written consent from parents of any student -- whether limited-English-speaking or one whose primary language is English -- before placing the student in a special class. Declares that included in "viable program options for limited-English-speaking students" are both programs that use the student's primary language and those that do not. The State Board of Education conducted a hearing on bilingual education early in 1993; however, as this report was being written, the board had taken no new action. Similarly, no outcome had yet been reached on bills pending in the Legislature that would place the State's policy regarding English learners in statute once again. In addition to coping with directions from legislative, judicial and administrative bodies, schools also are on the receiving end of extensive academic advice. The academic field of education for non-English-speaking children comes fully equipped with researchers, jargon and a range of program approaches, each laden with nuances that may be missed by the uninitiated.

`Bilingual education' is academic jargon for native-language instruction theory		F or instance, the phrase "bilingual education" simply means to the lay person the schooling that is provided for anyone who cannot speak English. This common usage -- frequently seen in media reports -- ignores the academic definition of bilingual education, namely an approach to teaching children English that includes a significant component of academic instruction in the child's native language. Recognizing that the imprecise use of this phrase is the source of miscommunication and misunderstanding in many circles, the Little Hoover Commission in this report has avoided the generic use of "bilingual education," instead reserving it for reference to native-language core-curriculum instruction (except in unavoidable, direct citations). Another troublesome area is the label affixed to children who do not speak English as a native language. The commonly accepted jargon sets the following acronyms: LEPs, or Limited English Proficient students, for those who either speak no English or do not speak English well enough to understand what is going on in a mainstream classroom. FEPs, or Fluent English Proficient students, for those whose native language is not English but who understand English well enough to be in mainstream classrooms without assistance. There is some movement in favor of replacing these labels with the phrase "English learners," based at least partially on the belief that children's self-esteem and the perception of them by others suffer when they are tagged with the word "limited." Based on a distaste for acronyms in general and a belief that "LEP" is not a label well-recognized by the general public, the Commission has chosen for the most part to use phrases like "English learners" or "children who do not speak English fluently," except when quoting material from other sources.

Different approaches include submersion, immersion and bilingual education		T he precision of terminology becomes even more important when discussing the various options that schools may use to teach children who do not speak English fluently. These include: Submersion. This "sink or swim" approach gives students special instruction in English but otherwise simply places them in mainstream English-only classes with no assistance for the bulk of the school day. While the Commission could find no academic support for submersion as the best teaching method, statistics indicate that submersion is exactly what many students who do not speak English fluently end up with (as will be further discussed in Finding 1). Immersion. Students are taught the entire curriculum in English but educational techniques are employed that help students understand what is going on. This may include exaggerated facial expressions and body language, cooperative group learning and hands-on experiences. Also known as "sheltered English." Transitional bilingual education. This approach is fashioned around the concept of having students continue to progress in academic areas while they are learning English by teaching the main curriculum in their native language until they are ready to "transition" into mainstream classes. "Early exit transitional bilingual education" programs introduce more classes in English earlier and do not anticipate the student becoming fully literate in his or her native language. "Late exit transitional bilingual education" programs focus on developing academic excellence and literacy in the native language before making the transition to English. Students are expected to transition in three or four years in early exit programs, compared to a four- to six-year transition time for late-exit programs. The definitions often lose clarity once the programs are employed in the classroom. Academicians evaluating the studies that have been conducted to try to prove that one mode of instruction is superior to others have frequently found the research methodology of studies wanting because programs have been poorly or incorrectly identified. For instance, native-language instruction is not "pure" transitional bilingual education if in the early years a large percentage of the core curriculum is conducted in English and only a small portion is taught in the child's native language. And immersion approaches lose their non-native-language dimension when classrooms aides assist teachers through the use of native language, as is often the case in schools using sheltered English programs. Each of the approaches has the goal of providing English proficiency, so all have some element of English language instruction. The key difference between each is whether and to what degree the student's native language is used in the on-going curriculum that has nothing to do with language acquisition -- courses such as math, science and social studies. One useful way to understand the different options is to place them on a continuum that addresses how much English and how much native language are used to teach the core curriculum, as Chart 5 does on the next page.

		C hart 10 shows that the number of students redesignated as fluent in English has remained fairly constant at a bit more than 50,000 each year for the past decade -- dipping as low as 47,500 in 1984 and peaking at 57,400 in 1988. For purposes of comparison, the chart also shows the total number of English learners for each year, a number that has steadily increased from 431,500 to more than one million. Whether one expects students to transition in two, three, four, five or even six years, there is no "bulge" in the redesignation figures that accounts for the eventual transition of the hundreds of thousands of students who are not fluent in English.
Unknown number of students are never redesignated as English fluent		T o understand how far the redesignation rate lags behind, one can look at the 431,449 students counted as not fluent in English in 1982. If students from this group began transitioning two years later in 1984 and continued through 1991, only 420,285 would be accounted for in the redesignation figures -- and that involves the hypothetical presumption of ignoring all the increased numbers of incoming students for 1983 through 1991. Thus, some unknown proportion of students than entered the school system in 1982 as English learners continue to be non-fluent in 1991 despite eight years of education. Another measure of whether schools are meeting their obligations is how many students are served by special programs. Chart 11 gives a breakdown.