Welcome to Education 388
Language Policies and Practices
http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Courses/Ed388%20Website/Ed388_Syllabus_2008.html
Education 388: January 10, 2008
1
Your friendly team:
•
Claude Goldenberg (Professor, and Elementary Section)
[email protected] [section: Cubberley 206]
•
Kenji Hakuta (Professor, and World Languages Section)
[email protected] [section: STEP Library]
•
Evra Baldinger (Secondary Math) [email protected] [section Myer
142]
•
Jamie Rodriguez (Secondary Science) [email protected] [section:
CERAS 302]
•
Tracy Steele (Secondary Social Studies) [email protected] [section:
CERAS 204]
•
Jeff Zwiers (Secondary English) [email protected] [section: CERAS
300]
Education 388: January 10, 2008
2
Purposes of the Course
Education 388: January 10, 2008
3
Education 388: January 10, 2008
4
Lau v. Nichols (1974)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Responsibility of school districts.
“same” is not “equal”.
Both language and content needs of
students must be addressed.
Did not prescribe actions.
TEETH for reform:
Office for Civil Rights in US DOE
for complaints.
Civil Rights Division of Dept. of
Justice for prosecution.
Do you think that this court
decision is at risk of being
overturned?
Education 388: January 10, 2008
5
Castañeda Standards
•
•
•
Based on Castaneda v. Pickard, U. S.
Fifth Circuit Court
Provides influential interpretation of
“appropriate action” that has been
adopted by OCR
Brings together theory, implementation
and educational outcomes.
BENEFITS:
• Places pressure on educators to
attend to research and evaluation.
• Enables an entry point for
examining policies and practices.
What preconditions need to exist for this system
to be effective in improving educational
outcomes for ELLs?
Education 388: January 10, 2008
6
The Bilingual Wars
•
•
•
•
A “perfect storm” of education and symbolic politics
in debate over “language of instruction.”
Proposition 227 (1998 California ballot initiative by
Ron Unz)
ESEA bilingual “cap wars” in 1980’s
Office of Bilingual Education and Minority
Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) renamed Office of
English Language Acquisition (OELA) in 2002 in
NCLB.
SCARS and costly losses:
•
•
•
Benefits of bilingualism are ignored.
Quality of program (bilingual or
English-only) gets less attention.
Shows that research (Prong 1 of
Castaneda) has no bite.
Should bilingual education be
banned? Why or why not?
Education 388: January 10, 2008
7
Standards-Based Reform
•
•
•
•
•
Triggered by “Nation at Risk” (1983)
Emphasis on aligning education system to
achieve “high standards” for “all” students.
Focus on accountability and assessment.
Goals 2000, Improving America’s Schools
Act (IASA), No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
State standards: California State Content
Frameworks, ELA and ELD standards.
CHALLENGES
Does “all students” really mean “all”?
What is valid and reliable assessment for English
Learners when they are tested in a language
in which they are not proficient?
What is the distinction between English
Language Arts and English Language
Development standards?
The effort of standards-based reform is too heavyhanded and strangles the freedom of educators to
exercise their professionalism. Agree or not?
Education 388: January 10, 2008
8
Teacher Credentials
•
•
•
•
ROUTES TO EL CERTIFICATION
Bilingual Certificate
CLAD/BCLAD (Bilingual/Crosscultural
Language and Academic Development)
CTEL (California Teaching of English
Learners)
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
•
•
•
•
•
English Language Learner policies.
Linguistics and second language acquisition
theory.
Cultural and linguistic diversity.
English Language Development
methodology.
No Child Left Behind should prescribe
these as part of a highly qualified
teacher. Agree or not?
Content methodology for ELLs.
Education 388: January 10, 2008
9
Secondary to Higher
Education
Ethnic distribution of California First Graders (1994)
Not Avail
Native American
Asian
Filipino
Latino
African American
White
Ethnic distribution of UC Freshmen (2005)
Access to higher
education for
ELs and RFEPs
through 4-year
institutions and
community
colleges offers
new and
important goals.
Ethnic gaps across grade cross-sections
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
N/A
Native American
Asian
Filipino
Native American
Asian
Filipino
Latino
en
e
sh
m
ibl
Fr
e
El
ig
White
UC
UC
sh
m
en
e
ibl
Fr
e
El
ig
CS
U
en
ts
m
uir
e
CS
U
ish
ng
l
Re
q
G
CA
HS
EE
/E
of
ici
en
en
t
Pr
of
ici
at
h
Pr
ing
Re
ad
M
White
African American
A-
+
t+
Latino
African American
Education 388: January 10, 2008
10
Assignment #1
• An e-mail from Georgia
Education 388: January 10, 2008
11
Descargar

Slide 1