Please check, just in case…
APA Tip of the Day: Where to find help
for formatting references
The APA handbook provides examples of just
about every kind of reference that you might
cite in a paper. You might need to look at several
different examples to figure out exactly what
you need to do (single author, multiple authors).
Do not rely on the reference list that some
faculty give you – you are expected to learn to
use the manual.
Steps in using your manual:
1. Figure out what kind of a reference you are
using (e.g. authored book, edited book,
journal article).
2. Use chapter 7 (‘reference examples’) to find an
example that is similar to the one you are
going to cite.
3. Follow the specified format carefully – look for
periods, italics, and spacing.
4. For clarification, look at chapter 6 (‘reference
components’).
Announcements
1. School language resources profile due in three
weeks.
2. Background checks due next week to COE Field
Services.
3. Next week there is a handout available on
Julia’s website/ class outline. You will need it
for a group activity next week.
Quick questions
or quandaries?
RULES AND REGULATIONS
February 9, 2015
Today’s Readings:
NMPED Multicultural Education Technical
Assistance Manual; Diaz-Rico (2012, pp. 115-130);
Ragan & Lesaux (2006)
Terminology Alert!
ALS = Alternative Language Services:
– A term that encompasses any language
assistance service, bilingual or not.
– Includes all forms of ESL and all forms of
bilingual education.
Legislative Foundation for ALS
• Civil Rights Act, Title VI (1964)
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1968,
Title VII (Bilingual Education Act)
• Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 1975
• Improving America’s Schools Act, 1994, Title VII
(Bilingual Education, Language Enhancement, and
Language Acquisition Programs) and I (Helping
Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards)
• No Child Left Behind, 2001, Title III (Language
Instruction for Limited English Proficient and
Immigrant Students).
Civil Rights Act, 1964
• Act under Department of Justice, not
Department of Education.
• Title VI specifically prohibited discrimination in
federally funded programs “on the basis of his
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
• General and Special Education programs are
supported with federal monies and therefore,
come under this requirement.
ESEA, 1968, Title VII
• Provisions changed over time, including who is
included (e.g. students in poverty only or not)
and priority given to bilingual education.
• Funding available for programs to address
language needs of students identified as
limited English proficient, including for
bilingual education programs.
• 1974 Congress established OBEMLA.
1970 OCR Memorandum
• Office for Civil Rights
• Students’ civil rights are violated when:
– students are excluded from effective participation in
school “because of their inability to speak and
understand English” and
– “national-origin minority students are misassigned to
classes for the mentally retarded” because of their
lack of English skills.
• Affirmed by US Supreme court in Lau v Nichols,
1974.
• Additional memorandums issued in 1975 (Lau
remedies), 1985, 1990, 1991, and 2015
1970 OCR Memorandum, cont.
"where inability to speak and understand the
English language excludes national-originminority group children from effective
participation in the educational program offered
by a school district, the district must take
affirmative steps to rectify the language
deficiency in order to open the instructional
program to the students."
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/lau1970.html
Lau v Nichols, 1974
“A class action suit brought by parents of nonEnglish-proficient Chinese students against the
San Francisco Unified School District. In 1974,
the Supreme Court ruled that identical
education does not constitute equal education
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court
ruled that the district must take affirmative
steps to overcome educational barriers faced by
the non-English speaking Chinese students in
the district.”
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/edlite-glossary.html
Additional OCR Memorandums
• 1975 compliance standards were later found to
“undue Federal influence over educational
judgments that could and should be made by
local and state educational authorities”.
• 1985: case-by-case determination of district’s
compliance. Program should follow the
Castañeda standard.
• 1991: Expansion of 1985/1990 memorandums,
addressed special education programs as well.
Equal Educational Opportunities Act
(EEOA), 1975
• “Section 1703(f) of the EEOA requires state
educational agencies (SEAs) and school districts
to take action to overcome language barriers
that impede English Language Learner (ELL)
students from participating equally in school
districts’ educational programs.”
• “Section 1703(f) of the EEOA does not require
schools to adopt a particular type of language
acquisition program such as an English as a
Second Language (ESL) program.”
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/types.php
Castañeda standard
• Castañeda v Pickard (1981)
• “Three-part test to evaluate the adequacy of a
district's program for ELL students:
(1) is the program based on an educational theory
recognized as sound by some experts in the field or is
considered by experts as a legitimate experimental
strategy;
(2) are the programs and practices, including resources and
personnel, reasonably calculated to implement this theory
effectively; and
(3) does the school district evaluate its programs and make
adjustments where needed to ensure language barriers are
actually being overcome?”
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/edlite-glossary.html
Casteñeda v. Pickard, 1981
• Raymondville, Texas Independent School District
• Alleged racial discrimination against MexicanAmericans in:
– Ability grouping, resulting in segregation
– Hiring and promotion of faculty and administrators,
– Failure to implement adequate bilingual education “to
overcome the linguistic barriers that impede the
plaintiffs' equal participation in the educational
program of the district”.
648 F.2d 989; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 1206. Retrieved from
http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/www/LAU/IAPolicy/IA1bCastanedaFullText.htm
1991 OCR Memorandum: Special Education
• “school systems may not assign students to
special education programs on the basis of
criteria that essentially measure and evaluate
English language skills”
• Compliance reviews:
– Inappropriate placement in special education
– Failure to address students’ “inability to speak or
understand English”
– “Whether there are “policies of ‘no double services’:
that is, refusing to provide both alternative language
services and Special education to students who need
them.”
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/lau1991.html
Improving America’s School Act, Titles I & VII, 1994
• The purpose of this part is to educate limited English proficient
children and youth to meet the same rigorous standards for academic
performance expected of all children and youth, including meeting
challenging State content standards and challenging State student
performance standards in academic areas by–
1. developing systemic improvement and reform of educational
programs serving limited English proficient students through the
development and implementation of exemplary bilingual
education programs and special alternative instruction programs;
2. developing bilingual skills and multicultural understanding;
3. developing the English of such children and youth and, to the
extent possible, the native language skills of such children and
youth;
4. providing similar assistance to Native Americans with certain
modifications relative to the unique status of Native American
languages under Federal law....
• “Limited English proficient” children included under Title I.
NCLB, 2001
• Title III: English Language Acquisition,
Language Enhancement, and Academic
Achievement Act
– Part A: Language Instruction for Limited English
Proficient and Immigrant Students (formerly Title
VII)
– Part B: Improving Language Instruction Educational
Programs,
– Part C: General Provisions
• Emphasis on ELA, no mention of bilingual
education.
NCLB, 2001, cont.
• NCLB, Title III:
– drastically cut funding for bilingual programs,
– limited the length of these programs, and
– did not endorse the three criteria set up by the
Castaneda v. Pickard case for determining quality
bilingual programs – unclear whether they are
supported or not.
• Federal funds for bilingual and bicultural
projects are available under Title VII: Indian,
Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education.
Clarifications in 2015 OCR Guidance
• Special education and ALS are both federal
entitlements.
• Special education assessments must be in an
appropriate language for the student.
• Participants familiar with students’ language
needs must be involved in IEP.
• Schools may not recommend that parents opt
their child out of ALS.
Quick Write:
When an English language
learner is identified as needing
special education services,
would he/she still need to
receive some type of ALS? Why
or why not?
Major Points
• The right to educational programs to
overcome educational barriers due to limited
English proficiency is well established.
• All states have procedures to (a) identify ELLs
and (b) provide some form of ALS (note: this
might vary from district-to-district in some
states).
• The form(s) that ALS can/should take has been
debated since prior to the inception of Civil
Rights legislation. This is not an issue that
research on best practices can resolve alone.
NM Process for ID’ing ELLs
1. Home Language Survey
•
PHLOTE or not?
2. If PHLOTE, administer ACCESS
3. English ALS required?
•
•
•
•
•
Level 1 – Entering: yes
Level 2 – Beginning: yes
Level 3 - Developing: yes
Level 4 - Expanding: yes
Level 5 – Bridging: NO
Language Proficiency Assessment
• WIDA ACCESS since 2009-2010
• Test Window: 1/12/2015 to 2/27/2015
• Four language domains:
– Listening
– Speaking
– Reading
– Writing
Spanish Language Proficiency
Assessment Instruments
• Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey
• Language Assessment Scales (LAS)
• Individualized Proficiency Test (IPT)
Small Group Discussion
APS has a form available that allows parents to
exempt their children from ALS. If students are
receiving special education, parents may chose
(be encouraged) to do so, because of (a)
complications of scheduling, (b) a priority in
receiving special education services, and (c) a
perception that if students are receiving special
education, ALS is not necessary. What are your
thoughts on this?
Looking ahead…
Topic: Overview of program models
Read: NMPED MC Ed Tech Assistance manual –
particularly model descriptions, and
Mcleskey et al (2013) ch 1.
NOTE: Bring the handout from the course outline
to class
Please take a
minute for the
minute paper.
And don’t forget to turn
your phone back on.