Voter Initiatives Affecting Ell Essay Example for Free

Voter Initiatives Affecting Ell Essay It is no secret that the debate over what is the best course of action to educate our non-native English language students across the country is a highly charged topic that runs from the classroom to Capitol Hill. There have been many shifts in direction and focus of educational programs for English Language Learning (ELL) students during the past century in our nations history. In 1968, with the passage of the Bilingual Education Act (Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) legislation was adopted to support programs for educating language-minority students. For the first time, this federal law provided legal guidelines and funding for transitional bilingual education programs. This legislation was further developed in 1974 as a result of the US Supreme Court ruling in Lau V Nichols where a group of Chinese immigrant parents in San Francisco argued that the school district was not adequately providing an equal and effective education because they failed to address their students needs to learn English. As a result of this ruling the mandate to school districts was established to focus funding and attention around a sufficient bilingual education program. Several rulings following this case helped to clarify the need for adequate pedagogy, a sufficient number of qualified teachers to implement the program and a system to measure the effectiveness (Mora,2009). However, the tone of bilingual education began to shift beginning in 1998 when states began to propose anti-bilingual-education ballot initiatives. Three such initiatives were passed in California (1998), Arizona (2000), and Massachusetts (2002) but were rejected in Colorado (2002) and Oregon (2008). (Mora, 2009) All three initiatives in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts were initiated by the same person, Ron Unz, a wealthy chairman of a financial services software company from California. The result of his efforts created Proposition 227 in California, Proposition 203 in Arizona and 603 CMR 14.00 in Massachusetts which all required that English language learners be educated for one year in a sheltered English immersion program. After that time students must then transfer into mainstream English classrooms. The laws only allowed for instruction of students in their non-English native language under limited and restricted conditions through a parental petition and waiver process (Mora, 2009) The real issue at hand concerning these introduction of these laws are much deeper cultural and sociological issues. According to the California Department of Education, changes in school demographic figures indicate that the language minority student population at that time was growing two and a half times faster than the general student enrollment. As an example, nowhere was this change more notable than in California where 1.4 million students were classified as English language learners, with native Spanish-speakers comprising 82 percent of this population (Weisman and Hanson, 2002). Before the implementation of Proposition 227 eliminated the need to provide bilingual education, California was reported to be short 22,000 bilingual teachers. Bilingual teachers on average were paid $5000 more annually than non-bilingual teachers. This law eliminated the need for these resources. To other voters, the concept that children can learn in their native language while also learning English and eventually achieve academically in English contradicted the American tradition of assimilating immigrants into the mainstream society. To many opponents of the bilingual education program that existed prior to these laws, encouraging bilingualism and biculturalism threatened the very definition of the American culture, which, they believed, promoted the values and language of a common group (Weisman and Hanson,2002). ). These proponents of the initiatives believed that new immigrants must abandon their native languages and cultural practices to fully assimilate into U.S. society. They feared that Spanish-speaking immigrants in particular had been clinging to their language and resisting learning English (Mora,2009). It remains to be seen the impact that this legislation has had on the academic outcomes of ELL students. In Arizona, research has suggested that the immersion program has been ineffective with only 11% of students entering the one year program actually obtaining English proficiency within a one year period (English for children, 2013). In California, due to the dramatic changes in the education policy of the state since the passage of Prop 227, it is difficult to measure the impact that Proposition 227 specifically has had on the outcome of these students (American Institutes for Research and WestEd, 2006). One thing is clear, the improvement in the outcomes for ELL students since the adoption of these state initiatives has not been noteworthy. While there has been a slight decrease in the performance gap between ELs and native English speakers, it has remained virtually constant in most subject areas for most grades (American Institutes et al, 2006). Despite the new law, the growing presence of students whose native language is not English indicates that the need for teachers who can understand the language and culture of their students has not waned (Weisman,et al 2002). Educators have reported that since the implementation of the law in their classrooms they have felt frustrations about instructional constraints, concerns about adverse effects on students, fear, intimidation, tension, and a sense of political consciousness(Weisman et al, 2002). In conclusion, the one common denominator resulting from the implementation of the state voter initiatives is that it has created conflict between the law and the instructional tools that educators know to be effective. The initiatives have been more of an expression of cultural ideas and insecurities that have affected the productivity and the role of our education system as it pertains to integrating immigrant Americans. In the future, in order to best navigate the changes in policies and legal mandates concerning the outcomes of ELL students, educators should lean more on research and experience to drive educational programs that will be most effective to this population of students. In this way, our countrys education system can lessen the emotional impact of various cultural groups and political agendas and allow all students to receive the core educational standard set forth in the Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974, a fair and equitable education for all students regardless of race, ethnicity or language of origin. References American Institutes for Research, WestEd. (2006, January 24). Effects of the implementation of Prop 227 on the education of English learners, K-12. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/227Reportb.pdf English for children (Arizona Proposition 203, 2000). (2013, January 24). Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_for_Children_(Arizona_Proposition_203,_2000) Mora, J. K. (2009, April). Membership. Educational leadership: Supporting English language learners: From the ballot box to the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr09/vol66/num07/From-the-Ballot-Box-to-the-Classroom.aspx Weisman, E. M., Hanson, D. Z. (2002). Teaching English language learners after Prop 227: Reflections of bilingual teachers. Issues in Teacher Education, 53-68. Retrieved from http://www1.chapman.edu/ITE/weismanhanson.pdf