










Strategic Multiples Committee of the Governor’s Education Finance Task Force

Title III and ESOL Education Subcommittee Report
March 22, 2006



















Table of Contents


PART 1: ESOL PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	3


PART 2: ESOL PROGRAM	4


PART 3: METHODOLOGY FOR CONDUCTING ESOL COORDINATOR SURVEY	6


PART 4: RECOMMENDATIONS	9


REFERENCES	10


APPENDIX A: INTERVIEWS	11



















ESOL Program
Executive Summary

Over the past 12 years, the number of English language learners (ELLs) enrolled in Georgia’s public schools has grown exponentially.  These students can be found in nearly every Local Educational Agency (LEA), ranging from a handful in rural areas to several thousand in metro Atlanta.  Given their linguistic and cultural diversity, ELLs are an unprecedented challenge for schools that have been traditionally homogeneous and monolingual.  Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, all schools are held accountable for ELL academic achievement as they are for any other student group.  In this connection, the Georgia Board of Education has made a formal commitment to ensure that all ELLs are identified, served and assessed annually, by signing a partnership agreement with the Office for Civil Rights.  It follows then that the logical question focus on how best to instruct ELLs so that they meet the same high academic standards set for all students.

Research-based practices for ELL instruction converge on the need for simultaneous development of language and academic content.  This is a marked departure from traditional approaches which place emphasis on developing language for communication prior to teaching academic content.  When polled on current practice, ESOL coordinators reported that schools implement a variety of delivery models. These ranged from small, pull-out group instruction in English language acquisition during the academic block to instruction in the content areas delivered to classes composed solely of ELL students.  The degree to which LEAs provide instruction blending both language and content appears to be a function of enrollments, funding and teacher preparation.

Recommendations for implementing effective practices designed to increase the academic achievement of ELLs are:

1. Revise the funding formula to provide each LEA the ability to serve their ELLs in the state-funded program, regardless of the number enrolled.

2. Provide LEAs with the funding flexibility to implement collaborative delivery models for teaching language and content.

3. Permit an increase in ESOL class size from 11 and 13 in middle and high school to 16 and 18, respectively to encourage the delivery of sheltered instruction by mainstream teachers holding the ESOL endorsement.  Cost Savings:  In kind cost savings will ensue since more students will be served at the same time reducing the need for additional classroom space.  Further cost savings will ensue in state-funded ESOL teacher allotments due to increase in class size.

4. Require mainstream teachers in all schools with 10% or greater ELL enrollment to obtain the ESOL endorsement or an advanced degree with an emphasis on ELLs.  Cost could be absorbed through HOPE Scholarship funds by making ESOL a Critical Field.

ESOL Program

Never in the history of public education has the confluence of demographic change, linguistic diversity, and federal accountability dictated the need to teach all students, especially English Language Learners (ELLs).  Georgia has demonstrated a 378% increase in its K-12 ELL population from 1993-1994 to 2003-2004 (NCELA, 2004).  Of the 75,000 ELLs currently enrolled, at least 70% speak Spanish.  The remaining 30% represents over 100 different languages.  

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 legislates that all students be held to the same level of high academic standards of achievement. Consistent with this mandate, the Georgia State Board of Education recently signed a partnership agreement with the Office of Civil Rights formalizing the State’s commitment to identify, serve and annually assess all English language learners in grades K through 12 (Turner, 2004). This agreement has far-reaching implications on accessibility to quality instruction.

State funding for English language assistance is concentrated in districts with high density ELL populations.  Funding is scant to non-existent in districts with low ELL enrollments.  Significantly, three out of every four school districts in Georgia report ELLs on their rolls, ranging from a high of 17,000 in metro Atlanta to a low of 5 in rural South Georgia (Student Records, 2005). Based on current state formulas, only one in every three districts in Georgia is eligible for funding.  To qualify for state funds, a district must have at least 42 students to earn one teacher allotment. So defined, the funding formula does not equitably address needs statewide, nor does it take into consideration the financial hardships of small, rural districts with low ELL enrollments.

Instruction in academic English language development embraces language proficiency skills (listening comprehension, speaking, reading and writing). This instruction is most successful when English language development standards are aligned with content standards (Ramirez, 1992).   Without a foundation in academic English, students are often at risk of failing in school. Against this background, research on effective instructional practices points to academic English language development in the mainstream classroom as a successful intervention for ELLs, as well as for low-income students or those from homes and communities using dialectal English.  In other words, some students who come from English-speaking backgrounds need instruction in academic English as much as ELLs.

As a member of the World Class Instructional Development Assessment (WIDA) consortium, Georgia has adopted English language proficiency standards that have been aligned with the WIDA proficiency assessment and the Georgia Performance Standards for mathematics, social studies, science and language arts.  The timing is perfect for implementing effective instructional practices.  A review of the literature for ELL instruction identifies the following as effective practices:

* Intensive survival English for non English speakers
* Co-teaching for advanced beginners and low intermediate students
* Sheltered content (academic instruction given to a class composed of ELLs only)
* Inclusion (academic instruction given by mainstream teacher with training in second language acquisition strategies; the class is composed of mainstream students and ELLs).
* Two-way immersion (Students develop language proficiency in two languages by receiving instruction in English and another language in a classroom that is usually comprised of half native English speakers and half native speakers of the other language.)

The foregoing practices focus on teaching language both for social communication and core content learning.  They have been identified as effective in the research literature (Collier et al. 1993 and 2004) and by respected practitioners who are exceptionally knowledgeable about ELL instruction and teacher training, in Georgia and nationally (Zendejas, 2003; Gottlieb, 2006; Holzman, 2006, McCloskey, 2006).
































Methodology for Conducting ESOL Coordinator Survey

Georgia is an enormous state with 180 diverse school districts. This diversity among school districts comes in various sizes of geography and population, differences in ethnicity, socio-economics and culture. In recognizing the disparity among Georgia’s school systems, a fair and equitable plan was devised to determine which systems to invite for participation in this survey. 

Accordingly, a random sample was taken from each geographical area of the state. This sample contained LEAs with large ELL populations as well as small LEAs with a fraction of the ELLs that larger systems have. The LEAs were divided into four areas, depending on their location in the state. Twenty-three LEAs were selected to participate. Seventeen LEAs responded to the survey, yielding a 74 % response rate.  The large metro LEAs contain the greatest number of ELLs; however there are some smaller LEAs with a substantial number of ELLs located in the Northern part of the state. The largest systems were listed under Mega Systems because their population exceeds 1000 ELLs. Large Systems LEAs were next with a population that exceeds 700 ELLs. The Medium Systems LEAs were very limited in their ELL population and only exceed 400 ELLs; these are few in numbers. The last category is the Small Systems LEAs; their ELL population is fewer than 400 ELLs.

The systems with the smallest number of ELLs are all located in the Southern part of the state, though many of their cities are comparable in size and population to some Metro LEAs and far from being rural. The systems with the largest number of ELLs are located in the Metro and Northern Rural sections of the state. This is may be attributable to the vast poultry processing, construction/building and manufacturing industries in the Northern section where the labor skills of immigrants are in high demand. It should be noted that these ELLs are not counted in the Migrant Education population since they usually establish homes near their work. The uniqueness of the local economy and influx of skilled immigrant workers and their families are key determinants in placing Hall County and Gainesville City Schools in the Mega and Large Systems category.

Each LEA was asked to name the instructional delivery model used most in their system; which instructional model was most effective and why; what would they do differently in their delivery and how would a change in funding formula, positive or negative, affect their current delivery methods.  

Many of the LEAs are using all of the models, some more than others. However, based on the responses from the LEAs, the Pull-Out model seems to be the most used model overwhelmingly with 100 % of the respondents making that claim. The Push-In model was a clear second at 82 % with the Sheltered model following at 77 % (see figure 1).  LEAs are limited in the delivery model they can implement because the funding formula was developed in the mid 1980s when the Pull-Out model was the model of choice to provide services to a limited number of ELLs.  At that time, most ELLs came from educated backgrounds, were exposed to formal education, and needed ESOL services for a very limited period of time. 

Figure 1



When asked what they would do differently to deliver instruction, the ESOL coordinators answered accordingly:

1. Offer more sheltered classes, especially the middle schools
2. Expand team teaching model
3. Offer a language transition program
4. Provide more segregated time, one on one, especially in K-3
5. Eliminate transporting of students to ESOL locations
6. Require regular teachers to become ESOL certified, and/or provide more professional learning for regular classroom teachers
7. Provide Dual Immersion Programs
8. Provide native language avenue for graduation/GED to ELLs who arrive at the 9th and 10th grade level without English skills
9. Provide more Co-teaching
10. Improve academic content in intensive language programs
11. Increase sheltered classes for Middle School
12. Provide an ESOL teacher for each school
13. Provide more teaming/collaboration to insure all content is covered
14. * Would like more flexibility in designing programs for Non English Proficient (NEP) students
15. Assign an ESOL endorsed teacher to every K-5 home room and place ESOL students in regular classrooms to enhance collaboration.
16. Assign literacy coaches to high school programs with large ESOL population
17. Develop a self-contained ESOL lab for students in grades K-6 who are living in “low-schooling”, migratory or refugee status.

When queried on how a change in the current funding formula would, positively or negatively, affect current delivery, the ESOL coordinators answered with suggestions for funding considerations:

a. Increase funding for ESOL in smaller LEAs with small ELL numbers
b. Increase flexibility in how funds are used 
c. Include local ESOL Coordinators in funding discussions
d. Adjust funding in smaller schools and counties so they can afford co-teaching
e. Increase funding to address ESOL class size.
f. Increase funding to support sheltered model in Middle School
g. Provide the flexibility to count segments for sheltered and literacy through FTE ESOL count so that system gets credit for those segments.
h. Increase funding to enhance the number of ESOL endorsed teachers
i. **Eliminate the need of high school ESOL teachers to be English 6-12 certified
j. Set aside funding specifically for segregated one on one time

In summarizing the above comments, ESOL funding flexibility stands out as a major issue. Currently, the formula penalizes small LEAs for not being able to afford local teacher allocations. Similarly, the formula penalizes large LEAs because they are unable to provide co-teaching or sheltered models due to class size limits. This must be addressed, as the Pull-Out model is not well suited to teaching language and content simultaneously, as required by NCLB. We must develop other effective models that support language acquisition and the learning of content.

* A desire expressed by respondents for students totally void of English speaking and comprehension skills.

**This is a requirement under NCLB for Highly Qualified Teachers and larger LEAs are experiencing difficulty in achieving the goal of 100% Highly Qualified set for 2006.
Recommendations
	


1. Revise the funding formula to provide each LEA the ability to serve its ELLs in the state-funded program, regardless of the number enrolled.

2. Provide LEAs with the funding flexibility to implement collaborative delivery models for teaching language and content.

3. Permit an increase in ESOL class size from 11 and 13 in middle and high school to 16 and 18, respectively, to encourage the delivery of sheltered instruction by mainstream teachers holding the ESOL endorsement.  Cost Savings:  In-Kind cost savings will ensue since more students will be served at the same time reducing the need for additional classroom space.  Further cost reductions will ensue in state-funded ESOL teacher allotments due to increase in class size.

4. Require mainstream teachers in all schools with an ELL enrollment of 10% or greater to obtain the ESOL endorsement or an advanced degree with an emphasis on ELLs.  The cost could be absorbed through HOPE Scholarship funds by making ESOL a Critical Field.

























References


Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (2001).  Some program alternatives for English language learners, Santa Cruz, CA.  This brief is based on CREDE Educational Practice Report 1, Program Alternatives for Linguistically Diverse Students, edited by Fred Genesee.  To view this report and other resources on the programs discussed, visit www.cal.org/crede/pubs/

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2004).  Making content comprehensible for English learners:  The SIOP Model.  Boston:  Pearson.

Gandara, P. (2005).  Fragile Futures:  Risk and Vulnerability Among Latino High Achievers, Princeton, NJ:  Educational Testing Service, p.18

Garcia, E. (1999).  Education of linguistically and culturally diverse students:  Effective instructional practices, Santa Cruz, CA:  The National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. 

Linquanti, R. (1999).  Program model advantages and concerns.  Los Angeles, CA:  West Ed.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs. (2005). Ask NCELA No. 1:  How many school-aged English language learners (ELLs) are there in the U.S.?  Office of English Language Acquisition. 
Retrieved April 26, 2005 from www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/gaq/01leps.htm

Ramirez, J. D. (1992).  Executive summary I and II of the final report:  Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit:  Transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children.  Bilingual Research Journal, 16 (1-2), 1-62.

Thomas & Colier, V. (2002).  A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement.  Santa Cruz, CA:  University of California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.

Turner, J. (2004).  Letter to Office of Civil Rights outlining partnership agreement. Atlanta, GA:  Georgia Department of Education.







APPENDIX A
Interviews

Gottlieb, Margo. (February 23, 2006).  Georgia Department of Education.  Dr. Gottlieb is the lead developer of ACCESS for ELLs, the state-adopted language proficiency assessment.  The instrument is designed to measure both language acquisition and the academic language of mathematics, science, social studies and language arts.


Holzman, J. (March 10, 2006).  Kennesaw State University.  Dr. Holzman is the lead administrator for a competitive federal grant designed to train 2100 teachers in how to deliver ELL instruction blending language and content.

McCloskey, M. L. (February 24, 2006).  Georgia TESOL Conference.  Dr. McCloskey is the former president of international TESOL.  She has published a number of papers and co-authored textbooks on how to teach both language and content to ELLs/

Zendejas, E. (April, 2003).  Cobb County School Board presentation.  Dr. Zendejas has presented nationally on the importance of teaching academic content to ELLs are they acquire English.  Delaying academic content results in a further widening of the achievement gap.






		6

