California educators look to better English learning

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/calif-educators-look-better-english-learning-160037741.html

By CHRISTINA HOAG | AP – Sat, Dec 24, 2011

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Roberto Bautista was lost when he entered kindergarten speaking only Spanish.

"I said, 'What are they saying?' I just pretend I understand," said the 9-year-old Los Angeles fifth grader. "My best friend knew how to speak English. He helped me."

Roberto's experience is typical for Spanish-speakers entering California schools. They usually get assigned to a program where the teacher must speak English almost exclusively even though kids don't understand.

Roberto has since moved on to a special bilingual program that teaches him in both Spanish and English, but the vast majority of pupils stay in an English-only program, often falling behind in academics as they learn the language then struggle to catch up. Many don't.

California has the largest Hispanic student population in the nation but ranks at the bottom for Hispanic reading and math achievement. Only 11 percent of the state's 1.6 million English learners — the vast majority of them Spanish speakers — reached proficiency levels in English in the last school year. About a third drop out of school.

Experts say the numbers point to the need for a statewide overhaul of how schools teach kids English.

"Miseducate this group and the whole state is in trouble," said Leo Gomez, professor of bilingual education at the University of Texas-Pan American.

Educators are now closely observing the Los Angeles Unified School District after the U.S. Department of Education recently criticized its 200,000-pupil English learning program, saying it violated students' civil rights by failing to provide an equal education to non-native speakers.

Under federal monitoring, LAUSD is overhauling its English learner program, the largest in the country. The revamped program, which is scheduled to be presented to the school board in March and begin next school year, could provide a model for other lagging districts.

Studies have long pointed out numerous deficiencies in the state system, which starts with a survey sent to parents asking what languages are spoken at home. Children from multilingual homes are then tested for English proficiency.

Low scorers are placed into English language classes until they're proficient and moved into regular classes.

California's teaching method, however, differs from that used in all but two other states. It uses "structured English immersion," where nearly all classroom instruction is in English, and learning English is prioritized over other academics.

The method, which holds that students master English faster, was adopted after 1998's Proposition 227 restricted the use of bilingual education. Immersion is also used in Arizona and Massachusetts.

All other states, however, use bilingual classroom models. Teachers give academic lessons in the students' native language while students receive separate English instruction until they reach fluency to switch into a regular classroom.

The idea is that continuing their academics in their native language allows them to be current when they're put into regular classes.

Opponents of immersion say children fall behind in their academic subjects while they learn English and never fully catch up.

"By the time, they're in middle school, they're English proficient but academically deprived," Gomez said.

Others say kids learn English either way. It's the quality of the program that matters most, said a 2009 study by the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, a Latino affairs think tank that is now part of the University of Southern California.

The study found that once children master English and move into regular classrooms they perform at or above the same level as native English speakers, but too many children simply languish in English learner limbo.

In the study of LAUSD middle schoolers, researchers found 30 percent of students learning English had not gained language proficiency by 8th grade, although most had been in the English learning program since kindergarten. Of those who remained in English classes in high school, almost half dropped out and only 6 percent passed the state high school exit exam.

The state auditor found in a 2005 report that districts have a financial incentive not to move students out of English learning program— an average $448 annually per English learner in extra state and federal funding.

Deborah Sigman, state deputy superintendent of education, disputed that contention, saying districts are simply being cautious about not pushing through students prematurely.

Some experts note that although 80 percent of Spanish-speaking children are born in the United States, many are at a disadvantage because the majority comes from immigrant communities that are low income and provide limited exposure to English. Parents commonly have not graduated high school.

"These kids are really growing up in linguistically isolated areas," said Patricia Gandara, education professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. "They're having an enclave experience, not a mainstream experience."

She called for more training for teachers who have to cope with multiple levels of English proficiency in a classroom and little know-how to do that. "Teachers don't feel prepared," she said.

Other studies contend that too many kids are identified as English learners to begin with. A September study by Latino policy researchers at the University of California, Berkeley found that even though children might speak English, the language skills test is set up to fail them.

The study noted in 2009-10, 88 percent of kindergarteners were classified as English learners based on a two-hour test in which four and five-year-olds who have just entered school must read and write words like "apple," which would be difficult for native English speaking children who have not had preschool.

They cannot get out of English learner status until third grade at the earliest. By then, they are already behind.

State Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, who is leading legislative efforts to address English learning program deficiencies, said he'd like parents informed that the survey is used for English-learner classification, what that means to a child's education, and more guidelines about answering.

A grandparent living in the house who speaks only Spanish shouldn't necessarily trigger an English test for the grandchild, said Padilla, the author of a recent law that moves the proficiency test from the fall to the spring so students will have the benefit of a school year of instruction behind them.

Los Angeles elementary teacher Io McNaughton, who taught immersion English in an East Los Angeles school and now teaches in a special program that aims at proficiency in Spanish and English, said more emphasis needs to be placed on middle and high school English learners, where prospects of moving into regular classes dim considerably.

Kids in immersion classes do learn English quickly, she said, but she noted that their achievement plateaus. "You'd be teaching English and saying this is working, it's great, but as you progressed through the grades, the achievement in reading and writing really dropped off," she said.

LAUSD officials say they're examining all aspects of their English learning program, from extensive teacher training to how English learners are identified to better monitoring of English learners after they're placed in regular classes. Particular attention is being placed on secondary schools, which federal officials underscored as deficient.

Proficiency testing will also be scrutinized, said Ana Estevez-Andressian, LAUSD's English learner compliance coordinator.

State Sen. Padilla, who was an English learner himself, said he's hoping meaningful reforms that can be replicated will come out of the effort. More than 25 percent of California's students are English learners, and that number comprises a third of English learners nationwide.

"We're not going to make statewide improvement if we don't hone in on English learners," Padilla said. "When you're looking at almost a third of all students, it's a crisis."

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Blah Blah Blah. English immersion works. Funding is by school district. LAUSD is in its own little world, and has a bigger budget than most countries in the world. It is the largest school district in the nation, is the second largest employer in the greater Los Angeles area, and the schools suck. Average cost per student is about $30,000 per student per year.

Edited December 26, 2011 by ☼

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

When you try to break the power of the unions and you let Democrats run things, this is what happens:

New And Underperforming L.A. Schools To Be Run By Outside Groups

Protesters gathered outside Los Angeles Unified School District headquarters Tuesday afternoon as its board of directors pondered recommendations to allow 10 outside operators to take over several new campuses and underperforming schools.

United Teachers Los Angeles, the union representing LAUSD teachers, is against the board's likely move to "give away our schools to outsiders," according to the UTLA's site. Superintendent Ramon Cortines has recommended that 12 underperforming schools and 24 new schools be taken over by seven charter-school operators, three educational development organizations and 31 district-based teams that were backed by the union.

Still, the union doesn't seem to want to give any ground to charter-school operators and other outsiders. "We want the school board members to review all the teacher/parent

plans the superintendent did not recommend,'' UTLA president A.J. Duffy said.

"Local communities wrote plans," he said. "Parents made their choice. Both of these should be respected.''

The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, however, trumpeted the competitive process and its weighing of 84 campus-takeover proposals. "The most significant school reform in the country may be happening right here in Los Angeles," stated chamber CEO Gary Toebben.

"The Chamber calls upon all Angelenos to support the new operators of LAUSD schools -- charters, external operators and school-based and local-district-based teams -- and support the bold reform in L.A. schools," Toebben wrote.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/02/la_schools_outsiders.php

Edited December 26, 2011 by ☼

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

When you try to break the power of the unions and you let Democrats run things, this is what happens:

Ya, blame the unions for most of your population not speaking English....lol. I guess you missed the news a few years back when the LA school district laid off a bunch of teaches and replaced them with "bi lingual teachers" to the tune of an extra $15,000 - $20,000 per teacher. Don't blame the unions for California kissing illegal #######. Californians are always good at blaming everyone but their illegals. I guess Mexican restraunts mean that much to them.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ya, blame the unions for most of your population not speaking English....lol. I guess you missed the news a few years back when the LA school district laid off a bunch of teaches and replaced them with "bi lingual teachers" to the tune of an extra $15,000 - $20,000 per teacher. Don't blame the unions for California kissing illegal #######. Californians are always good at blaming everyone but their illegals. I guess Mexican restraunts mean that much to them.

I think you missed the idea of immersion learning and are getting your facts wrong. You don't need all those bilingual teachers if the classes are all taught in English. Read your article again.

They usually get assigned to a program where the teacher must speak English almost exclusively even though kids don't understand.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I think you missed the idea of immersion learning and are getting your facts wrong. You don't need all those bilingual teachers if the classes are all taught in English. Read your article again.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&ei=Ttv3Tom9CufhiALayIjIDg&ved=0CCsQvwUoAQ&q=los+angeles+school+district+hires+bilingual+teachers&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=2f0b188327e19041&biw=1440&bih=775 <------ For you

[SuperDuper! 230]

Blah Blah Blah. English immersion works. Funding is by school district. LAUSD is in its own little world, and has a bigger budget than most countries in the world. It is the largest school district in the nation, is the second largest employer in the greater Los Angeles area, and the schools suck. Average cost per student is about $30,000 per student per year.

You don't know the half of it. LA School District is a complete nightmare. It is preparing the future prison inmates of California.

Any halfway responsible parent who gives a sheet about their kid, will work 3 jobs and collect aluminum cans at night to move out of the area and get their child into a respectable school district.

Word.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

You don't know the half of it. LA School District is a complete nightmare. It is preparing the future prison inmates of California.

Any halfway responsible parent who gives a sheet about their kid, will work 3 jobs and collect aluminum cans at night to move out of the area and get their child into a respectable school district.

Word.

I wouldn't let a child of mine attend any California public school district with the new law in act in California.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/us/15gay.html

California to Require Gay History in Schools

By IAN LOVETT

Published: July 14, 2011

LOS ANGELES — California will become the first state to require public schools to teach gay and lesbian history.

As expected, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill on Thursday that mandates that the contributions of gays and lesbians in the state and the country be included in social science instruction and in textbooks. School districts will have until next January to begin implementing the new law, which was also promoted in part as a way to combat bullying of gay and lesbian students.

“This is definitely a step forward, and I’m hopeful that other states will follow,” said Mark Leno, California’s first openly gay state senator, who sponsored the bill. “We are failing our students when we don’t teach them about the broad diversity of human experience.”

The state already requires schools to teach students about the contributions of some other minority groups, including black people and women. But until now, gay figures like Harvey Milk received little mention in state-approved textbooks.

The Democratic-controlled Legislature passed a similar bill in 2006, but Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who was then the governor, vetoed it.

This time, however, California has a Democratic governor, and the legislation came on the heels of a highly publicized string of suicides among gay teenagers, including a 13-year-old boy from the state’s Central Valley.

Advocates for the legislation said they believed the shift would help make schools safer for gay and lesbian students, who are often ostracized.

“There is an increasing awareness in the public and among elected officials that we have to do something to address the problems of bullying, and the negative consequences” for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students, said Carolyn Laub, director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

Some conservative lawmakers, however, continued to oppose the bill, saying that curriculum should be left to individual school districts.

“It’s a sad day for our republic when we have the government essentially telling people what they should think,” said Tim Donnelly, a Republican state assemblyman from San Bernadino. Mr. Donnelly said the law prohibited schools from presenting gays and lesbians “in anything other than a positive light, and I think that’s censorship right there.”

Though the new law will take effect in January, state textbooks and curriculum will not be updated for several years. In the meantime, local school districts will have to use supplemental materials in the curriculum.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Why_Me

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This is one of the differences of modern slavery. Both were defended by Democrats. In the old form, businesses had to profit from exploiting and abusing humans by being the highest bidder to own them.

Mississippi could not increase it's slave labor by offering goodies "Come, be a slave in Mississippi, Great beaches!"

Now, racists wishing to help the farms and businesses of their state make bigger profits can pass laws luring the slaves there. "Come be a slave in California and you can have a drivers license" "We will educate your children" Then businesses can just rent the humans cheap.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

This is one of the differences of modern slavery. Both were defended by Democrats. In the old form, businesses had to profit from exploiting and abusing humans by being the highest bidder to own them.

Mississippi could not increase it's slave labor by offering goodies "Come, be a slave in Mississippi, Great beaches!"

Now, racists wishing to help the farms and businesses of their state make bigger profits can pass laws luring the slaves there. "Come be a slave in California and you can have a drivers license" "We will educate your children" Then businesses can just rent the humans cheap.