Key Legislative Events
Part 1: Legislative Events that have affected English Language Instruction in Arizona
English language instruction in Arizona was affected by some significant legislative events. The events mandated that all students in public schools learn English. The two significant legal developments that have influenced English language instruction in Arizona include;
Lau v. Nichols (1974).The case challenged poor preparation for language sections. Chinese parents sued the schools on the basis that the system of the school mandated mastery of English for a student in high school to graduate. The parents complained that the system was unsuccessful in providing around 1,800 students who couldn’t speak English with personalized training to master the language. The Supreme Court established that the schools violated the Civil Rights deed enacted in 1964. The act prohibited biasness on the color of one’s skin, race, or place of origin. Violation of civil rights was particularly applicable in those programs that got federal monies.
Flores versus Arizona (2008).In this ruling, a court in Arizona established that all public schools based Arizona was obligated to comply with the central district court. The funds put aside to facilitate teaching the English language in public schools was increased. The court overruled opinions that requirements in the No Child Left Behind deed on ELL students changed the code.
Federal Laws Affecting ELLs
The Central office is dealing with civil rights handed out a notice for equal opportunity for all, including ELLs. During the 1974 verdict in Lau v. Nichols, the Supreme Court in the United States maintained OCR’s 1970 memorandum. The case claimed that students could not comprehend the English language for instruction; therefore, they did not have an equivalent education compared to others. In agreement, the Supreme Court said that; equality is not about learners having the same facilities and materials as students who don’t understand English will be disadvantaged (Menken, 124).
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), is an instructive plan reform bill. It states it elaborates on the fact that the state was responsible for schools. It, therefore, provides donations to licensed public schools in order to reduce the central government test-based liability system. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) accountability system is what the federal state upholds. ESSA is more flexible.
Arizona policies that affected the ELL Program Model
Proposition 203.
This directive stems from a debate that has run for a long time about how English Language students are trained. In the year 2000, the mandate was voted, which revoked the preceding bilingual laws on education matters. It approved a fresh law that mandated each and every class to be instructed in the English language. The fresh law paved the way for policymakers to sanction that students get four hours of instruction every day. (Mahoney, 3).
House bill 2010. Policymakers passed this law In December 2010. The law granted roughly $144 million for a period of four years. The HB 2010 augmented the ELL funds for students to 11.5 percent, from the former 6 percent ($340, up from $179). (Lille, 2)
Part 2: Description of the ELLs program model in Arizona.
The ELL program is based on laws enacted in 2006 for public schools and chartered schools to adopt. Demography of ELL included approximately 83,500 students in Arizona that are a percentage of 7% (Menken, 124). ELL program eligibility includes administering a home language survey during students’ registration and having students take a language proficiency exam.
A home language survey. Bits of help identify learners with a need for English growth services. The service is established based on the degree of exposure to the English language.
The English language assessment. It confirms a learner’s proficiency by assessing his or her English language position.
Arizona English Language learner Assessment (AZALEA).Used for placement of kindergarten pupils and assess their competence in English. These are pupils whose first language is not English. It is a 20-minute test on speaking and listening skills.
The AZALEA test gets students’ proficiency scores hence placing them in the appropriate class for instruction. The test qualifies the student into three categories.
The first category is emergent/pre-Emergent. In this category, a student isn’t familiar at all with the English language hence enrolls in the ELL program.
The second one is a basic/intermediate category. In this category, the student has a basic knowledge of the English language but enrolls in the ELL program.
The third and last category is the proficient category. In this category, the learner does not enroll in the ELL program. The test is taken once a year, and once they are proficient, they transfer to the mainstream classroom.
The AZALEA score is the determinant for entry or exit to a class.
A student identified as being not EL proficient enrolls in the ELL students program. They are then tested annually for two years to test proficiency, and if they had not improved, the student re-enters the ELL program.
Structured English Immersion (SEI) was developed by the ELL taskforce. The instruction model help in training EL learners. The model mandates that learners get training of up to4 hours per day of the English language. (Rolstad, 50). It states that if a learner gets the required four hours of training daily, it is guaranteed that they will master the language within a year. This model is not efficient because there is no data that has been put across confirming that students get four hours per day.
Individualized language learner plans (LLPs) are used in schools with students’ population of less than 20. A school with few ELL students means that a teacher will have personalized attention with each student. ELL students have reduced since most of them speak Spanish.LLPs are common because there are very few students enrolled in the EL public schools. (Menken, 127).
Bilingual education is also another form of teaching. Teachers in schools teach students English language skills in English and at the same time teaching them other subjects. For example, subjects like math and science, the student is trained in her or her language of origin. This guarantees that they maintain the required grade level expected in those subjects. (Rolstad, 65).
Three different types of bilingual programs are available in Arizona. They include some volume of teaching in English since day one. As time goes by, the amount rises over time. In turn, the students become more acquainted with the language. In Arizona, 37% of ELs are in bilingual classes. Bilingual education has more success in students, and results show that these students perform better than students in the other models. (Mahoney, 2).
The major challenges facing bilingual teaching are untrained teachers, inadequate resources, and poor management of schools (Rolstad, 51).
Conclusion
For the success of the ELL program, qualified teachers, monitoring frequency, and training teachers well are essential. Since the introduction of SEI models in 2008, data has shown that the proficiency rate has increased. Arizona district should come up with a program participation survey to find out its effectiveness. Student outcomes should be measured to ensure ELL program success.
Data on the quality and quantity of ELL instruction should be collected to determine program success.
Works Cited
Lillie, Karen E., et al. “Policy in practice: The implementation of structured English immersion in Arizona.” (2010).
Mahoney, Kate, Marilyn Thompson, and Jeff MacSwan. “The condition of English language learners in Arizona: 2005.” The condition of pre-K–12 education in Arizona: 2005 (2005): 3-1.
Menken, Kate. “NCLB and English language learners: Challenges and consequences.” Theory Into Practice 49.2 (2010): 121-128.
Rolstad, Kellie, Kate S. Mahoney, and Gene V. Glass. “Weighing the evidence: A meta-analysis of bilingual education in Arizona.” Bilingual Research Journal 29.1 (2005): 43-67.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/lau.html