The answer to Julie Chang's question posted in last Friday's Austin-American Statesman is a resounding "yes," the Texas Legislature has indeed, yet again, dropped the ball on English learners, ninety percent of whom are native Spanish speakers, and mostly Mexican American. Then we wonder why they fare so poorly academically when, in fact, this outcome is an artifact of educational policy.
This is not an argument for or against dual language education, but rather an argument for equity and how the needs and desires of mostly Anglo parents are pitted against the needs of the state's Spanish-speaking children for whom many of us have been advocating in this specific regard forever and a day.
This piece immediately brought to mind Dr. Guadalupe Valdes' prescient piece published 22 years ago in the Harvard Education Review titled, "Dual-Language Immersion Programs: A Cautionary Note Concerning the Education of Language-Minority Students." It basically predicted what is happening right now in the Texas State Legislature
I agree with Fatima Menéndez of MALDEF that it is not only "shocking that bilingual education continues to be neglected,” but also that our state is willing in this so-called "landmark legislation" to literally sacrifice the majority of our mostly Mexican-origin English learners in the process. When one considers that these children amount to 20 percent of all Texas students and that what is being requested is not an enrichment program but rather that these children's right to bilingual education teachers and thusly, to instruction in a language that is comprehensible, willful institutionalized discrimination and neglect are inescapably at play.
I encourage you to read this peer-reviewed policy brief by UT Education Policy and Planning doctoral students, Chloe Sikes and Will Davies, titled, "Building Equity in Bilingual Education School Finance Reform in Texas: Context and Importance of the Problem" who make a strong case for equitable bilingual education funding.
At the very least, Texas policy makers, you can never say that you were never told... In fact, we have been telling you for at least 15 years.
-Angela Valenzuela
Posted Apr 19, 2019 at 6:14 PMUpdated
Apr 19, 2019 at 7:22 PM
Although it is considered a landmark piece of
legislation that would make several necessary updates to the state’s school
finance system, House Bill 3 would not increase funding for hundreds of
thousands of non-native English speaking students, according to bilingual
education advocates.
HB 3, which as originally
filed would spend $6 billion in classrooms and $3 billion on property tax
relief over the next two years, does not change the 10% extra funding school
districts currently receive for each of their English language learners. The
state hasn’t changed the 10% bilingual funding weight since 1984.
Instead, the bill would
give another 5% for English learners who are in dual language programs, which
provide instruction in English and a student’s native language. As celebrated
as dual language is, only about 20% of the state’s 1 million English learners
are in dual language programs, according to the San Antonio-based Intercultural
Development Research Center, citing Texas Education Agency data. And, given a
statewide shortage of bilingual teachers, dual language can be difficult to
implement effectively.
Critics of how HB 3
addresses bilingual education say that instead of giving a modest funding bump
for dual language, the bilingual funding weight should have been increased.
“Dual language is great,
but when we’re leaving the majority behind, and it’s such a significant portion
of the Texas public school population, that’s certainly very concerning,” said
Morgan Craven with the San Antonio-based Intercultural Development Research
Center, which has for at least 15 years asked the state for an update to the
bilingual funding weight.
State Rep. Dan Huberty,
R-Houston, author of HB 3, which still awaits Senate approval, said the goal is
to provide an incentive for school districts with the extra funding to adopt a
program proven to be most effective in educating English learners.
“We know (English
learners) are important, and we found that dual language, if we implemented at
an earlier age, made a huge difference,” Huberty told the American-Statesman.
“Somebody is not going to like 100% of everything we did. We tried to manage
what we could, and I think this is a good landing place for us.”
Creating the dual
language incentive is expected to cost the state as much as $50 million in the
first year.
The bill would also give
districts an additional 10% funding per English learner in kindergarten through
third grade on top of the 10% bilingual weight, but the extra money is not
required to be used to implement bilingual education or English as a second language
programs.
Insufficient funding
One in five Texas
students is an English language learner. Ninety percent of them are native
Spanish speakers.
The annual cost of the
bilingual weight, which is the primary way school districts receive funding to
educate their English learners, is $570 million. This helps maintain three
categories of education programs for such students — ESL programs, transitional
bilingual programs and dual language programs.
The Texas Commission on
School Finance last year had recommended the Legislature create the dual
language weight, citing in its report that it reviewed “compelling data” that
showed dual language is more effective than the other two programs.
ESL, which totally
immerses non-English speakers in English classes with the help of a certified
ESL teacher, is still the most common education program for many school
districts — 58 percent of all English learners are in ESL, according to
Craven’s group — and the least effective of the three, according to policy
experts. ESL programs don’t require the teacher to speak the students’ native
language.
Students in transitional
bilingual programs are taught in both English and the native language with the
goal of becoming fluent in English but not necessarily in their native
language.
Dual language is
considered a true bilingual program among experts because the goal is to have
students be fluent and learn grade level content in both English and their
native language.
Dual language classes can
also be taught with native English speakers and non-native English speakers in
the same classroom; they learn alongside and often support each other in
obtaining proficiency in both languages. These programs are called two-way dual
language.
One of the criticisms of
the proposed dual language funding is that native English speakers would also
qualify for more money. Instead of creating a dual language weight, HB 3 should
have increased the overall bilingual weight from 10% to at least 40%, which was
what was recommended to Texas lawmakers in 1984 and ignored, said Fátima
Menéndez, legislative staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund.
“For it to be over 30 years
and it hasn’t increased, especially since the number of English learners has
increased dramatically, it’s shocking that bilingual education continues to be
neglected,” Menéndez said.
There are 54% more
English learners in Texas schools in 2018 than there were in 2004, according to
the Texas Education Agency.
Menéndez and Craven said
because dual language is the most effective bilingual program, the state should
require it instead of encouraging it and increase the bilingual weight to pay
for it.
Dual language or
transitional bilingual programs aren’t required to be offered in Texas middle
and high schools. The focus of these bilingual programs has been on earlier
grade levels because the younger children are, the better they are at
developing a new language.
Plus, there is a
statewide shortage of certified bilingual and ESL teachers.
The number of school
districts that have received waivers from the state from employing such
certified teachers has grown steadily over the years. This school year, 567 of
the state’s 1,200 districts were granted such waivers, a 38% jump from the year
before.
Providing incentives for
bilingual teachers is among the costly challenges of implementing dual
language, according to advocates.
“The challenges of dual
language programs are actually pretty costly, so a 0.05 per student increase in
the weight — it’s not even clear that that would cover the cost to implement
the program,” Craven said.
Dual language benefit
The school finance
commission’s report from last year acknowledged the need for more investment in
English learners because they lag behind the overall student body on multiple
measures. The graduation rate among English learners in Texas is 19 percentage
points lower than the overall state average. According to 2017-18 data, 35% of
third grade English learners met grade level on the state’s reading
standardized test, compared with 43% of all Texas third graders.
Cited widely among
academics, a 2002 study by George Mason University researchers found that
English learners in dual language programs outperform their English learning
peers on standardized tests. The study also found that English learners who had
been in dual language programs for at least six years scored higher than the
average native English speaker.
“Being bilingual is like
going to the gym, where you develop your muscles. Being bilingual develops your
brain. Now, that doesn’t mean that ESL students are not successful. The
children may be very successful. They just may lose their first language,” said
Gema Hanson, director of multilingual education in the Pflugerville school
district.
The Pflugerville
district, which has an enrollment of about 25,000, has 2,200 English learners
and native English speaking students in dual language programs, which are
offered up to the fifth grade.
Based on 2018 state
standardized test scores, the Austin school district’s English learners who are
in dual language performed about the same as the overall English learning
population on most grade levels and subjects. Native English speakers in dual
language typically did better than overall students at their grade level on
those tests.
David Kauffman, executive
director of multilingual education for the Austin district, said the data is
imperfect and that the numbers need to be adjusted to control for factors like
the overall socioeconomics of the campus, parental involvement or a flooding
event that could push scores one way or another.
He also notes that the
district is in a transition period with its program, which has been offered to
students for the past nine years. At one point, the district had implemented
the program at most of its 129 campuses. The district reevaluated its programs
a few years ago, and now 57 campuses offer dual language.
“It allowed us to
recommit to implementing it well at all campuses, and over time we hope the
resources will materialize and our commitment will extend. We want people
begging for the program,” Kauffman said.
The Austin district
offers dual language up to the eighth grade, with almost 9,000 English learners
and 1,800 native English speakers participating. Typically, half of the
subjects are taught in English and the other half are taught in another
language. In Austin, those are Spanish, Vietnamese and Mandarin.
On a recent visit to the
kindergarten Mandarin dual language class at Central Austin’s Reilly Elementary
School, children immediately greeted visitors with “ni hao, shu shu! Ni hao,
ayi!” which translates to “hello, uncle” and “hello, aunty.”
In a nearby first grade
two-way Spanish dual language class, students were scribbling down in Venn
diagrams similarities and differences they have with their classmates. “Fiona
tiene ojos azul,” 7-year-old John Sierra wrote about his partner Fiona Elkins’
blue eyes.
“That’s why native
Spanish speakers are crucial to the success of this program,” Reilly Principal
Corrine Saenz said about two-way dual language programs. “They truly become the
models of that language, which is such a different way of approaching bilingual
education than we always have.”
Dual language advocates
have noted that such programs are a departure from the historical way that
English learners have been taught, which has devalued their native language and
culture.
“We are showing them
their language and culture matters,” Kauffman said.
