Reauthorized Bilingual Education

Ovando & Combs (2012) explain that the original BEA of 1968 specified that Title VII services were intended for children that spoke at home languages other than English and with annual incomes below $3000. The 1974 reauthorization eliminated the poverty criterion and for the first time it required the use of the students’ native language and culture in the instruction of ELLs (Crawford, 1989). However, the purpose was not to develop the students’ native language, but to allow academic progress in the content areas while acquiring English (Lyons, 1990).
Congress again reauthorized the BEA in 1978. The amendments provided a new definition of eligible students. Lyons (1990) notes that by recognizing the importance of skills such as reading, writing,
and understanding in addition to speaking the term Limited English Proficient replaced the expression Limited English Speaker. This new manner to refer to ELLs in 1978 reinforced a deficit approach to educating these students (Lyons, 1990). The amendments specified that up to 40% of English native students could participate in bilingual programs with the intention of assisting ELLs in improving their English language skills (Lyons, 1990).
The reauthorization of the BEA in 1984 provided funding, for the first time, for programs that used only English as a means of educating ELLs (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010). The amendments also provided funding for two additional programs: Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) that was the model previously funded, and Developmental Bilingual Programs (DBE) in which native English-speaking children as well as ELLs are enrolled in the same classroom in about the same number in order to learn two languages (Lyons, 1990).
The legislative reauthorization of the BEA in 1988 expanded the budget from 4% to 25% for educational programs that only used English to instruct ELLs (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010). The amendments required that most students be exited from the TBE programs in three years (Ovando & Combs, 2012). The funds provided by Title VII continued to support programs in the students’ native language and in English (Ovando & Combs, 2012).
In 1994, the reauthorization of the federal legislation in education, Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA-formerly ESEA), had some impact on the education of ELLs (Ovando & Combs, 2012).
This legislation established that the funding for the education of ELLs would become available through both Title VII and Title I funds. This legislation was important for ELLs since it promoted moving away from the remedial model of bilingual education toward an approach of enrichment and innovation (Ovando & Combs, 2012). The implementation of two-way developmental bilingual education was promoted as part of the educational reform for ELLs due to its proven success in developing fluency and literacy in both languages (Ovando & Combs,
2012).
Characteristics of English Language Learners According to Hernandez and Napierala (2012), the U.S. has been distinguished for being a land of immigrants. Rong and Preissle (2009) point out “immigration” as one critical factor in the last three decades in the U.S. with no sign of slowing down in the immediate future. Rong and Preissle (2009) estimate that over a million of immigrants have arrived in the U.S. since the 1980s, both legally and illegally. Due to this high immigration rate, children in immigrant families approximately account for one in four children or about 18.4 million (Hernandez & Napierala, 2012). The recent immigration wave has brought to the U.S. the most diverse population ever experienced in the country (Rong & Preissle, 2009). This demographic trend establishes that the U.S. can no longer afford to ignore the special needs that ELLs present to the public school system, especially, if the projections about the growth of immigrant student are taking into consideration (Garcia, 2012). Passel (2011) estimates that by the year 2050, the immigrant youth (children under the age of 18) will grow nearly double from the current 25% or 18 million to about one-third of about 100 million school age children. Immigrant children are identified as “language minority” since their native language is other than English (Garcia et al, 2009).
According to Garcia, Jensen, and Scribner (2009) the term “English language learners (ELLs)” is used to refer to students who are not yet proficient enough in English in order to properly benefit from the instruction provided exclusively in this language. Garcia (2012) notes that research has categorized ELLs into three cohorts. Garcia (2012) exemplifies these three groups by indicating that in California, the long-term ELLs are the largest cohort that makes up about two-thirds of the ELL population in that state. The rest of the ELLs include recent immigrants who possess either low or high previous academic background (Freeman, Freeman & Mercuri, 2002). The report developed by the Grantmakers for Education (2010) states that even though many immigrant children are ELLs, most of the ELLs were born in the United States. Grantmakers for Education (2010) report that over 75% of ELLs enrolled in elementary grades are second generation or probably third generation Americans. This report also indicates that about 95% of immigrant children were born in the country. According to Garcia (2012) each of the three cohorts of ELLs identifies possess a unique set of academic and linguistic requirements. Distinguishing between U.S.-born ELLs and their immigrant counterparts is essential to meet the specific needs of each group through the use of different
methodologies (Grantmakers for Education, 2010). According to Rong and Preissle (2009) most immigrant students experienced more social and economic disadvantages than their U.S.-born peers. In 2010, children in immigrant families experienced a higher poverty rate (30%) than U.S.-born children (19%) (Hernandez & Napierala, 2012). Immigrant children are more likely to live in inner-city areas and have parents who did not complete high school (Rong & Preissle, 2009). Immigrant children are less likely to have health insurance and more likely to live in neighborhoods that are racially, ethnically and linguistically segregated (Rong & Preissle, 2009). Hernandez and Napierala (2012) note that about 24% of immigrant children live in a linguistically isolated household where any family member over the age of 13 is a fluent English speaker. Fry (2008) specifies the commonalities of the schools in which ELLs are enrolled: these schools are low performing, show poor standardized test results, have higher student-teacher ratios, have higher student enrollment levels, and they also have higher levels of students who live in poverty.
No Child Left Behind effects on the Education of English Language Learners
In December of 2001, the Congress of the United States approved the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and renamed this legislation as the No Child Left Behind Act (Garcia, 2012). Baker (2011) highlights that under this new legislation, the Bilingual Education Act was eliminated. Therefore, ELLs needs would be addressed by the new Title III that was entitled ‘Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students’ to substitute the old Title VII under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (Crawford, 2004a). In addition, NCLB (2001) requires assessments for ELLs under Title I, which provides funds for poor students. Baker (2011) notes that the federal legislation works in a manner that encourages English-only instruction for ELLs, although funding for bilingual programs is possible if the states allow it.
Baker (2011) indicates that since the adoption of NCLB the term “bilingual” has been progressively silenced. Garcia (2009) depicts the process of silencing the word ‘bilingual’ in the federal educational policy by explaining the change in names of titles derived from legislation and offices. For instance, the former Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) is now the Office of English Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for LEP Students (OELA). Furthermore, the substitution of Title VII (BEA) by the new Title III indicates that the new policy is not supporting the instruction of ELLs by using the home language of these students through bilingual education programs (Garcia, 2009). Wiley and Wright (2004) state that the development of native language competencies as well as bilingualism is absent from the new federal education law.
The main goal of NCLB is to close the achievement gap that has historically occurred in the U.S. (Ballenger & Ninness, 2009). In order to achieve such a goal, student testing has dramatically increased and all schools are held accountable for improving the academic achievement of all their students (Ballenger & Ninness, 2009). The NCLB mandate requires annual testing, by all states receiving federal funds for education, of all students in grades three through eight (Ovando et al., 2006). Fry (2008) indicates that NCLB mandates that all groups of students, including ELLs, meet state proficiency standards in subjects such as reading and mathematics by the school year 2013-2014.