Restrictive Language Policies and English Learners in Boston ch. 5

Chapter 5: Impact of Restrictive Language Policies on Engagement and Academic Achievement of English Learners in Boston Public Schools

Overview

  • This chapter examines the effects of Massachusetts' 2002 referendum, Question 2, which mandated Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) for English Learners (ELs), on their academic outcomes and engagement in Boston Public Schools (BPS).
  • The study compares ELs with general education students and Native Speakers of a Language Other than English (NSOLs) in general education across four academic years (2003-2006).

Policy Context and Background

  • Question 2: Approved in November 2002, implemented in Fall 2003.
  • Chapter 386 of the Acts of 2002: Mandates Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) as the primary method for English language acquisition.
  • Ended transitional bilingual education (TBE) programs.
  • Prior to Question 2, Massachusetts had state-mandated TBE programs for three decades, recognizing the needs of the growing immigrant child population.
  • The shift towards SEI aimed at expedited English learning, aligning Massachusetts with California and Arizona.

Demographics

  • 2002-2003 Academic Year:
    • 141,408 Massachusetts public school students were designated NSOLs (14.4% of total).
    • 51,622 students were designated Limited English Proficient (LEP) (5.2% of total).
  • Boston Public Schools (2003):
    • Enrollment close to 63,777.
    • Nearly one-fourth (23.1%) were children of Limited English Proficiency (LEP).
    • Representing 47 different countries.
    • Largest language groups:
      • Spanish (56.7%)
      • Haitian Creole (10.6%)
      • Chinese dialects (8.3%)
      • Cape Verdean Creole (7.1%)
      • Vietnamese (6.9%)

Implementation and Impact

  • Implementation of Question 2 varied across Massachusetts.
  • Limited information on the impact of Structured English Immersion (SEI) on ELs, especially in Boston (29% of Massachusetts public school children requiring English language support).
  • The study focuses on Question 2's implementation and its effects on academic outcomes and educational engagement in Boston.
  • Comparison groups:
    • EL student population
    • All students in general education
    • Native Speakers of a Language Other than English (NSOLs) in general education.
  • Data covers academic year 2003 (year Question 2 passed) and the following three years (2004-2007).
  • Key findings:
    • Decline in the number of students identified as Limited English Proficient.
    • Decline in LEP enrollments in English learner programs.
    • Increased enrollments of ELs in special education.
    • Increased dropout rates.
    • Some improvement in standardized test scores for ELs, but gaps between ELs and other subpopulations increased.

Policy Context and Changes

  • Question 2 prioritized immersion programs focusing on rapid English acquisition without native language support.
  • This ran counter to 30 years of experience in Boston schools and debates on Structured English Immersion (SEI) versus other approaches.
  • Recent research emphasizes retaining the ability to function in the original culture while adapting to a new one (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001).
  • Longitudinal studies highlight the importance of contextual and individual factors in language learning.
  • English language proficiency relies on program quality, school environment, and student resources (Suarez-Orozco, Suarez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008).
  • Allowing enough time for second language development before imposing performance standards is crucial.
  • Restrictive language policies represent a shift in district and school practices.

Implementation in California and Arizona

  • Policy changes in California and Arizona lacked specificity and clear operational definitions.
  • Districts and schools interpreted the law independently, leading to varied implementation.
  • Parental waiver provisions were critical in determining program availability (Gandara et al., 2000).
  • Districts supporting parental waivers retained native-language programs.
  • Attitudes toward implementation affected outcomes (Wright & Pu, 2005).
  • Flexibility in offering ESL and bilingual education improved test scores.
  • Forced closure of bilingual programs led to a decline in scores.

Professional Capacity of Teachers

  • Specific training and support needed for teachers implementing SEI (Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005; Parrish et al., 2006; Wright & Choi, 2006).
  • Evaluations in California and Arizona found inadequate professional development for SEI instruction.
  • English learners were more likely to be taught by teachers with emergency credentials (Gandara et al., 2005).
  • Schools with higher EL concentrations had more teachers without full credentials.

Outcomes of Policy Change

  • Student outcomes in California and Arizona remained unchanged after restrictive language initiatives.
  • No evidence that the speed of English acquisition accelerated with SEI instruction (Parrish et al., 2006; Wright & Pu, 2005).
  • The policy change in California and Arizona has not had a substantial impact on academic outcomes; perhaps more importantly, the outcomes ofELs in these states remain exceptionally low (Crawford, 2004).

The Massachusetts Study

  • Analyzed student-level administrative data from Boston Public Schools (BPS) from 2003-2006.
  • Data included demographics, enrollment information, and MCAS testing outcomes.
  • Compared outcomes for students in EL programs with general education students and NSOL students in general education programs.
  • Examined differences in enrollment, engagement, and academic outcomes:
    • Attendance rate
    • Out-of-school suspension rate
    • Grade-level retention rate
    • Annual dropout rate
    • MCAS English language arts (ELA) and math pass rates.
  • Collected and analyzed documentary data and interviewed personnel from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Boston Public Schools.
  • Interviews focused on:
    • Identification and assessment of LEP students
    • Enrollment in programs for ELs
    • Teacher training
    • Guidance regarding SEI implementation.

Implementation of Question 2 in Massachusetts

  • Massachusetts law (Chapter 386) requires English-only books and instruction, with minimal native language use.
  • Schools encouraged to group children of different languages but similar English fluency.
  • Restricted program time to 1 year, after which children would enter general education classrooms.

Accountability

  • Districts must identify students of limited English proficiency annually.
  • Students in grades 2-12 tested yearly to assess English proficiency and academic progress.
  • Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPA) for testing English proficiency.
  • Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) for subject-matter testing.
  • MCAS tested English learners in reading (grade 3), English language arts (grades 4, 7, and IO), math (grades 4, 8, and 10), and science (grades 5 and 8).
  • Exemptions:
    • English learners in U.S. schools for less than 1 year are exempt from the ELA test.
    • Spanish-speaking ELs in U.S. schools for less than 3 years may take a math test in Spanish in grade I 0.
  • Passing grade 10 math and ELA exams required for high school graduation.

Waivers

  • Parents can request a waiver of enrollment in an SEI program for bilingual education if >20 children speaking the same language in the same grade receive a waiver
  • Waiver criteria:
    • Student already knows English.
    • Student is at least I 0 years old, and the school principal and teachers believe it is in his or her best interest.
    • Student has special physical or psychological needs.
  • Requirements:
    • Parent requests waiver in person.
    • Parent provided information on all programmatic options.
    • Waiver requested annually.
    • For children under I 0, stricter requirements apply:
      • The student must be in an SEI program for 30 days
      • Teacher and principal must make a case for why the child should be placed in a different type of program
      • The waiver must be approved by the superintendent of the district

Assessments of Implementation

  • Massachusetts has not conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Chapter 386.
  • Initial research shows varied implementation across districts.
  • Districts with flexibility and strong teacher development exhibited the most achievement gains.
  • Some districts clustered students by language group, while others mixed language groups.
  • Districts' approach to waiver provisions indicated programmatic flexibility.
  • Some districts encouraged parental waivers, retaining bilingual education programs.
  • Other districts made it difficult for parents to obtain waivers, resulting in SEI enrollment for nearly all students needing language support.
  • Boston is one such district.

Professional Development for Teachers

  • Teacher training in Structured English Immersion practices varied among districts.
  • Initial focus on the English proficiency of existing transitional bilingual education teachers.
  • In June 2004, guidance provided on the skills necessary for SEI instruction; began teacher training.
  • Training covered English teaching and sheltered academic content instruction.
  • Teachers of English required licensing at the appropriate grade level.
  • Skill areas for teachers in sheltered content instruction:
    • Category 1: Second Language Learning and Teaching
    • Category 2: Sheltering Content Instruction
    • Category 3: Assessing Speaking
    • Category 4: Listening, Reading and Wiiting in the Sheltered Content Classroom.
  • Districts instructed to develop 75 hours of professional development covering the four categories.
  • In 2007, only 35% of teachers needing content training had received it, and 64.2% of the state's EL training needs had been met.

Student Outcomes

  • No analyses of student outcomes under SEI across Massachusetts or in individual districts.
  • Only 22% of ELs in grades 3 and 4 transitioned out of the program by becoming English proficient after I year.

Implementing Question 2 in the Boston Public Schools

  • Boston voted overwhelmingly against Question 2.
  • The largest number of EL students in the state were enrolled in the BPS.
  • BPS was a typical urban district, with 75% of its students poor and of color.
  • 42.6% of enrollment consisted of children whose first language was not English.

History of TBE in Boston

  • Checkered history marked by official inattention and a struggle for accountability waged primarily by parents.
  • Great successes, such as the deployment of TBE in more than nine languages, the involvement of 80 schools in the program, the development of excellent two-way bilingual programs, and the implementation of literacy programs for students who come to the district with little or no schooling in their home country.
  • Four models of bilingual instruction:
    • Transitional bilingual education
    • Two-way bilingual programs in Spanish/English
    • Multilingual education
    • Native-language literacy programs.
  • Concerns about TBE in Boston:
    • The number of years some students remained in the program (up to 6 years).
    • Lack of available space in general education classrooms.
    • Timeliness of language proficiency evaluations.
    • Parental resistance to the transition.
    • Professional qualifications of bilingual education teachers.
    • Lack of a uniform curriculum.
    • The lightness of the monitoring, support, and supervision of the programs.
    • Isolation of bilingual students from others.
  • Lack of understanding of the needs of children learning a new language pervaded the district, resulting in a resistance to the requirements of educating English learners and a resentment of what was seen as "favoring" ELs over other students in BPS.
  • These concerns went unresolved due to a lack of funding, knowledge, and leadership in a politicized environment.

Implementation Challenges

  • Limited state guidance and support.
  • Contested perspectives on the existing TBE program.
  • Recently dismantled parental participation structure.
  • Teaching corps largely unfamiliar with bilingual education and SEI requirements.
  • Key issues:
    • Planning for the implementation of Question 2
    • Identification and assessment of students
    • Changes in programs for ELs after Question 2.

Planning the Change

  • The Office of Language Learning and Support Services (OLLSS) led planning and implementation.
  • Transition aimed to be