Los Angeles has decided that the best way to improve the language skills of students who don’t speak English is to segregate them with others who don’t speak Emglish.
A group of 17 principals objected to the plan to segregate English learners, Many teachers also opposed segregating the students by language.
Thousands of educators and parents oppose the new policy. “In recent weeks, a group of southeast L.A. principals have mounted a rare challenge to district policy, teachers have flooded their union office with complaints, and parents have launched protest rallies and petition drives urging L.A. Unified to postpone the class reorganizations until next year.
“Kids with little or no English are going to be segregated and told they’re not good enough for the mainstream,” said Cindy Aranda-Lechuga, a Granada mother of a kindergartner who gathered 162 parent signatures seeking a postponement and spoke against the policy at an L.A. Board of Education meeting last week. “Kids learn from their peers, and they’re not going to be able to do that anymore.”
“Marking the latest chapter in California’s fierce language wars, the furor over class placements for those learning English raises the controversial question of which is more effective: separating students by fluency level or including them in diverse classes. Critics are also upset that the change is coming two months into the school year, after students have bonded with classmates and teachers have developed classroom lessons and routines. Opponents blame the district and local schools for the disruption.
“Although the district adopted segregated classes as official policy for all schools in 2000, it has not been widely practiced or enforced, according to officials from both L.A. Unified and the teachers union.”
But that changed this year. L.A. Unified settled a complaint by the federal Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, which contended that the district had failed to provide adequate services to students learning English.
Katherine Hayes, the district’s chief research scientist, told teachers last week that district data show that students placed in classes with peers of similar language level progress more rapidly toward fluency than those in mixed-level classes. But she added that the question had not been widely studied and more research was needed.
Norm Gold, an independent educational consultant who has worked in the field of English language development for more than 35 years, said that although studies are mixed, they tend to skew toward separating students based on their English ability.
“My experience tells me, in addition to research, that there is an absolute necessity for doing this kind of grouping,” he said — adding, however, that students should be moved in a timely manner to new classes as their fluency improves.
Norm Gold, an independent educational consultant who has worked in the field of English language development for more than 35 years, said that although studies are mixed, they tend to skew toward separating students based on their English ability.
“My experience tells me, in addition to research, that there is an absolute necessity for doing this kind of grouping,” he said — adding, however, that students should be moved in a timely manner to new classes as their fluency improves.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I am the bilingual education director at United Teachers Los Angeles and have been directly involved in the fallout from this policy enforcement. Please stop saying it segregation, because it decidedly is not. The word is being thrown around and it incites reaction. This policy which was written in 2007 and comes from an LAUSD plan from the late 80’s is based on the premise that all children deserve access to core curriculum. When the students range from 5-7 levels of English proficiency in a single classroom, it is doubtful that even the most expert teacher could sufficiently differentiate the instruction so that each child could understand what is being taught. The are entitled to understand what is being taught and having conversations with other students, some of whom MAY be English speakers, gives them access to and practice in social English. Their access to academic English comes from their teacher. It is the lack of academic English that holds them back on the CST and, therefore, from reclassification. It seems not to be known that this grouping protocol is for a portion of the day. This District directive also requires that a portion of the day be spent in mixed groupings for subjects that are not considered core like music, art and PE. Not only does research strongly suggest that direct differentiated instruction is the best way to go, but it also tell us that the groupings must be fluid, that is, subject to change as children advance in their English proficiency. The issue of reorganization 8 weeks into the school year would speak to school district ineptness in doing it correctly before school began.
Ms. Ortega,
LAUSD may call it what they will like. But at the end of the day, it is “language segregation”.
It seems the people who made this decision have not stepped inside a classroom, as an actual full-time teacher, for many years. They have lost touch with the needs of the current student population.
As an actual teacher, currently teaching one of these “segragated language” class, I can affirm that this experiment is hurting and failing our second language learners (ELL).
Since students learn from each other, the “best classroom” situation for ELL students is a classroom where students are not segregated by ELD levels but have a chance to hear English being modeled by their peers across all academic subjects all day long. P.E., Art, and the other non- academic core classes is not enough time for these ELL to practice their “social” English. In a non-language segregated classroom, ELL student spend all day listening to their peers model academic AND social English! This is the ideal classroom setting that I have seen ELL student flourish in the 20 years I have taught!
But then again, LAUSD doesn’t consider those who directly teach these students, as myself, as experts. Instead, they rely only on people who are outside the classroom making these decisions, the only ones they consider the “experts”.
Hence why this “language segregation” experiment will fail our students and the blame will not be put on you, Ms. Ortega. It will be put on me, who is forced to implement something that goes against good teaching practices.
Thanks. There is really a misunderstanding about language learning and most Americans learn language very poorly and have little clue what it really takes. I applaud Los Angeles for taking this step. Sitting in a classroom being asked to listen to incomprehensible language and do incomprehensible activities really is a boring, painful, wasteful task.
“most Americans learn language very poorly and have little clue what it really takes.”
People wonder why we are a mostly monolingual society. Unlike other countries, US schools don’t typically teach a second language until high school. Since, for decades, we have had literally millions of late second language learners go through our high schools who were unable to develop proficiency in another language, I think it’s time for schools to stop denying that early childhood is a sensitive period for learning languages and start teaching foreign languages to children then.
Thank you for posting.
The grandmother of the Kindergartner who circulated the petition has a valid concern. Kindergartners should not be placed in separate classrooms for ELL students for direct instruction. Children that age can learn English more readily in informal, integrated environments that are rich in oral and written language. Differentiation can be provided there as well.
Ms. Ortega,
I know you all too well. Your narcissim hurts the very children you claim to support. Shame on you!
I agree with the informal, integrated setting if there was real differentiation but when language is always over your level of comprehension, the education is really for the “other” kids. But direct instruction is really not meaningful for the learning of language. I agree 100% with that!
I taught 25+ Kindergartners, most of whom were ELLS, without an aide, and I was able to provide differentiation. It’s easier to do that with younger children because they are primed for language learning and because the Kg curriculum should be flexible, in order to accommodate differing needs, since there is a spread of development ranging from 3 – 7 years of age in the typical Kindergarten each fall.
However, I will concede that, with the developmentally inappropriate Common Core standards representing a pushed down academic curriculum, as well as standardized testing in Kg, it’s a whole new ball game. It seems the impetus is to have standardized children –and starting at a very early age.
It makes sense..Do not throw me in a class where everyone speaks Russian and I speak English..
Ease ,me into the setting….
But if you want to learn Russian, it doesn’t make sense to put you in a class with kids who are all English speakers and none who speak Russian, when there are children who speak Russian at the school, too.
My understanding of the Lau Decree is that students’ rights to linguistically appropriate accommodations means educational services in English.
In my experience, what works best for young second language learners is a class where students who speak a variety of different languages are immersed with native English speaking students. (Magnet schools can promote this kind of linguistic integration.) That’s how they taught Hebrew to new immigrants in Israel when I lived there.
Cheryl,
Every teacher I have spoken to who works with English learning students is totally opposed to this new policy, because they know it is not right for their students. They know what works for them. I was present when you heard that directly from students at a school.
I was very surprised at that meeting, that you, a UTLA official, defended a very bad policy of the school district. You seemed like a spokesperson for the school district, not of UTLA.,
Yes, IT IS INCREASED SEGREGATION. There is no other way to describe it. That is what it is. It will not help the students, to have less contact with students who speak English better than themselves.
Every single article in the press about it includes quotes by you defending the policy. Apparently when the district is questioned about it, they always bring you out to defend their bad policy.
And you also wrote an article in the last UTLA Teacher defending the bad policy that most teachers disagree with, with nothing presenting the other side
Is that appropriate for a UTLA official, to be so publicly defending a bad district policy that most teachers disagree with? Even if you are sincere in your beliefs, isn’t it your duty to represent the teachers, not the district?
Is your position volunteer? Or are you paid a salary from union dues? If the latter, i strenuously object to my dues money paid to someone who seems nothing more than a district spokesperson, taking a position that most teachers disagree with. (I hope the UTLA Board reads this.)
Also, you are totally wrong to classify music and the arts as “non-core subjects”, “non-academic”, etc. Totally untrue. In fact, are you not aware that LAUSD passed a resolution a few months ago called “Arts at the Core”? What do you think is meant there by “core”? Yes, core subjects. The federal NCLB act also classifies the arts as core academic subjects.
You have been out of the classroom way too long, and seem to spend your time talking to LAUSD officials and acting as their spokesperson, paid for by our union dues.
You are totally wrong that students go to music, art, PE in “mixed grouping”. No, they go with their class, same kids they see for the other subjects. Besides the music and art classes are short, once per week, the teaching is almost all teacher-directed (by necessity, in that short time period), there is no time for conversing with other students in those classes.
The only time when students are together with children from other classrooms is at recess and lunch. And who do they hang out with there–of course the students from their own class, the kids they know. So there is no “mixing” there either.
I would like to request that if you wish to continue being a spokesperson for the school district that you resign from UTLA, stop taking money from our hard-earned paychecks (from the union dues), and ask the district to pay your salary as their spokesperson instead. You are certainly not representing the teachers, so you should not call yourself a UTLA officer, and should not take a salary from our union dues.
Great points, Mike! Cheryl seems to think that just because she couldn’t figure out how to facilitate the learning of “academic English” through peer interactions in Kindergarten in 38 years, such as through cooperative learning, then other teachers can’t do it either. Nothing could be further from the truth, as demonstrated by those who’ve written about it here. If that can be accomplished anywhere, it’s in children’s first year of formal schooling, where classes are less structured and kids are not pressured to perform on standardized tests –which is what Kindergarten has traditionally been like across America.
She failed to recognize the 3 – 7 year age spread in development found in typical Kindergarten classes each fall, too, also pointed out here, so it does not sound like she differentiated for kids functioning at the 3 year old level and those who were gifted. It sounds more like her method was to teach to the middle –which is a truly God-awful approach to teaching Kindergarten. It’s a lot easier for teachers to do that, but many children are discounted by this strategy –as she noticed in regard to older kids but apparently not for younger ones. IMHO, based on what she described, she was not a model teacher and should not be held up as an authority on these matters by the union.
Dear “Mike” If you had only posted your ideas about what you perceive to be the best way to teach English Learners, I would not have felt compelled to respond, even though your ideas do not seem to be well-grounded in second language acquisition research, and you do not seem to understand the difference between learning social language and the academic language necessary for success in college and career. But you have chosen to libel a fine teacher who has spent her adult life fighting for the language rights of her own students and those of English Learners throughout the District. Cheryl Ortega has made it her mission to learn as much as possible about how students acquire second and third languages and how they can best be supported on their journeys to academic proficiency. She has long fought District discrimination against English Learners with courage and perseverance against great odds, and if you knew her at all, you would know that. She has also stood up for the teachers of English Learners on many occasions when the District attacked us. As our UTLA Director for Bilingual Education she serves without pay on our Board of Directors because she was elected to do so by credentialed bilingual teachers who know she is the best qualified person for that job. Cheryl is the most knowledgeable person I know about language rights, differentiated instruction, the benefits of dual language programs, the harm done by improper placement of English Learners in “sink or swim” English-only environments, and the harm done by society’s failure to respect students’ primary languages and cultures. She is a good and honorable person, an excellent teacher, and a warrior for social justice. That is why she has taken the time to try to explain to people who do not understand, like yourself, that research shows grouping students by proficiency levels is the best way to target instruction that is differentiated for their particular needs and can help them have greater success. Of course, she would be the first to say what the research also shows, that if the District really cared about their success it would invest in establishing K-12 dual language programs throughout the District — because students in those programs have the greatest academic success of all. I understand your frustration with the situation, but I could not let your libelous characterization go unchallenged — Cheryl Ortega does not deserve that.
Anne Zerrien-Lee, bilingual public school teacher
“El respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz.” — Benito Juarez
(Respect for the rights of others is the foundation for peace.)
Dear Anne Zerrien-Lee,
Regarding your response to me early this morning–
I am glad to read in your post that Cheryl Ortega is not paid from our union dues. (One wonders though, if she receives some kind of payment from LAUSD to be their spokesperson on this issue.)
You say that Cheryl was elected. When? I don’t recall her name ever being on a UTLA ballot.
The fact is that the vast majority of LAUSD teachers working with English learners disagree with Cheryl and yourself, and find that children learn English best in mixed classes, not segregated by language level.
The BS about “research” is not true. I would bet that if you asked most experrts on second language acquisition, Stephen Krashen for example, they would be totally opposed to this new LAUSD policy.
One thing I agree with Cheryl about is that bilingual education is a good thing, and that it is a shame that it was banned here in California. However, the way bilingual education is supposed to work is to have mixed classes, both EO students and EL students in the same class. The reason that it often did not work well, is that it was not implemented that way, that bilingual classes were usually only EL students, who were segregated into those classes. Since bilingual education was banned, unfortunately that segregation has continued. And now LAUSD is segregating still farther. (Is that a proper response to a civil rights lawsuit–more segregation?). (By the way, despite some reports, in no way did the court order this increased segregation of LAUSD EL students.) (In fact, when the court finds out that LAUSD’s reaction to the lawsuit is to segregate students further, I think they will order the district to stop that policy. (I would suggest that concerned parents and teachers contact the Federal Office of Civil Rights about LAUSD’s increased segregation policy.
Anne, are you a classroom teacher in an LAUSD elementary school? Do kids mix with kids from other classes in art class, music, PE? You know (if you really are an LAUSD elementary teacher) that does not happen, and it would not be feasible. That kind of talk only comes from people who have been out of the classroom for many years, and propound theories that have no relation to reality. Students do not usually mix with those in other classrooms. As said, even in recess, where children from many classes are on the playground, kids tend to stick with those in their class.
Perhaps UTLA should conduct a poll, and ask teachers who work with EL students to respond, whether or not they agree with this new increased segregation policy? Would you agree to that? Do you think that teachers who work with EL students every day might just know something about what they are doing, and what works for their students? Would you agree to that, Cheryl? Would you agree, Cheryl, as UTLA bilingual director, to then advocate to the press that opinion that most teachers hold? For isn’t UTLA supposed to be representing the teachers of the district?
An elected union official has to represent the wishes of the teachers, or be booted out of office. For instance, if Warren Fletcher suddenly became a spokesman for Deasy, telilng us how great AGT is, etc., he would not stand a chance in the next UTLA election. Since CO is not elected, she has no accountability to the teachers, and seems to be perfectly comfortable in acting as the chief district spokesperson for a policy that most teachers disagree with. That is not right.
dictionary def.
segregation |ˌsegriˈgāSHən|
noun
the action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart: the segregation of pupils with learning difficulties.
I believe best practice with ELL’s is to immerse them as much as possible in the regular classroom of their peers with the English language. Although a pull out program can be helpful for some core subjects, I believe the goal should be to return them to the regular classroom with their peers as soon as they have achieved some mastery. Perhaps their is some recent research in this area that you can refer me to that disputes this?
Many of my students who speak English as a Second Language do not score well on standardized tests because their command of Standard English is not adequate for the task. While they may be able to speak and understand spoken English, they are not up to the demands of standardized tests. While I want to help these students, I worry that they will lower my test scores and the evaluations that are tied to them. If the focus is on testing, ELLs should be in a separate class. If the focus is on real learning, integrate them into regular classrooms. Teachers aren’t part of this decision-making process.
Exactly. Why is one blanket, rote decision being thrown across all children, all classrooms. Have we no ability to discern different needs, different circumstances? Why on earth can’t the teachers involved with the students and their families not be involved in such decisions?
We all know human beings do indeed learn differently. For some, at some ages, in some classrooms, immersion may be a fine way to learn the lingua franca. For others, elsewhere, etc — not so much.
Why can’t real people consult real people to come up with real solutions that might really help the kids in question?
Yes, finally, someone is pointing out that one size does not fit all. It isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition, and the people who are teachng might actually have good ideas about how to implement some level of differentiation.
Oops! I forgot! the less we know about a subject in the country, the more qualified we are considered to be to make decisions about it.
Susan, the focus should not be on testing, but as you say, on real learning. We as teachers must stand up for that, and not go along with the Deasy-Gates-Broad-Rhee-Duncan hypothesis that the only purpose of education is test scores, and that one must teach to the test. That is destroying education in this country (and certainly in LAUSD), and despite the immense pressure on us to do that, we have a duty to the children we teach to do the best for them, not for “our test scores”.
How disheartening that standardized test that are tied to teacher evaluations are driving decisions about “What is best for students”. How did educational decisions that should be based on best practice ever get to this point? Oh that’s right, CC is not based on best practice or research.
Children who are not proficient in English should never score well on test for English because they aren’t proficient. If they do, then there is something wrong with the test or their identification.
The way this was done, two months after children had become comfortable in their classes, just proves that those in charge are not thinking about students.
I taught Kindergarten for decades to children who were new immigrants from different countries and my students learned English very quickly. Many also learned how to read and write in English. This was because the children were in an integrated classroom at a developmental age that is most conducive to learning language, and also because they were taught in a natural environment that promoted authentic learning.
In order to capitalize on the most optimal window of opportunity for language learning in life, which occurs in early childhood, young English Language Learners should be in integrated classrooms, where they can learn English through the most natural methods, not in highly structured segregated classes with contrived language lessons.
There is a lot of burocracy nation wide in ESL or ESOL Departments Around the world to become a language teacher, people should graduate as one.No because a person speaks the language he or she is capable to teach it .There are specific skills language teacher should to show such as proyection of the voice,articulation, and the ability to make the class sound alive. The best way to see results among ESL and or LEP students is providing them with the basic English at the beginning of their arrival to USA for a short period of time,5 month maybe,bur get them inmeese in regular classes at the same time. In some state children stay in ESL classes for 5 years or more ( since K to 5th or 6th ( like in NC.) because they don’t pass the test to exit the program.Some times, these children don’t receive the assitance they need based on the false idea that their problem is the language barrier. In some states teachers blame the lack of English at home for students low performance. This missunderstanding is because their lack of knowledge about how people learn languages. In my opinion,all these reforms pursue no very good intentions,and one of them is ostracize English learning students.
Children who learn English best have proficiency in their native language and usually education in the native language. Younger kids seem to appear proficient because the demands on them are less and they often test out of ESOL classes by 2nd grade but by the late elementary years or middle school they begin to do poorly compared to their peers and it is because of a lack of proficiency in English and their native language. They often have very limited ability to communicate with family in English and their native language so deep conversations are almost impossible. The idea that the younger you are, the more able you are to learn a foreign language is actually in error.
“The idea that the younger you are, the more able you are to learn a foreign language is actually in error.”
Actually, that’s a rather outdated notion. The brain is primed for language acquisition in young children and research indicates it is easier for them to learn both first and second languages.
“Research suggests that learning second (or third) languages is easier for young children, and some evidence indicates certain brain areas that might be involved in this learning. Several studies have related second language learning to Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas. In these studies, researchers compared brain function in people who spoke two languages (bilinguals) and who learned both languages early in life with brain activity of bilinguals who learned one of their languages after puberty. Early bilinguals were found to use very similar, overlapping regions of Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas for both languages. Late bilinguals also used overlapping regions of Wernicke’s area for both languages, but they normally used different, though adjacent, regions of Broca’s area for each language.”
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/second.html
I am not an ESL teacher though I taught a lot of ESL students in special education. Many of them were not literate in their first languages either. As high school students, most of them needed more time than we had to become comfortable in academic English (5-7 years). I could see their comfort in social situations increase, especially with those students I taught for multiple years. Conversational language is typically adequate within 3-5 years. Obviously, the younger the students are, the easier it is to become fluent with your peer level. My more fluent students would translate for those who were struggling. Most of my students were Latino. My Spanish is basic although I continue to take classes. I did get an education in some of the more vulgar expressions during my high school teaching. 🙂 In my time in a truly multicultural district (40+ languages), the schools relied heavily on other immigrants to help new arrivals, so they could still access curriculum at their level. It worked particularly well in mathematics, but was useful in all the academic subjects.
This makes a mockery of the Lau Decree . . . . .
“. . . the Lau Decree. . . . .”
Do you mean this:
Lau’s Laws on Hitting
by Charley Lau, Jr.
No. 1 Use a balanced and workable stance.
No. 2 Use a proper grip.
No. 3 Get your weight back before striding.
No. 4 Start your bat in the launch position.
No. 5 Stride with your front toe closed.
No. 6 Maintain flat hands through the swing.
No. 7 Keep your head still and eyes down.
No. 8 Use a fluid, tension free swing.
No. 9 You must have lead-arm extension and a good finish.
No. 10 Employ solid practice habits.
Good try, Duane, and some chuckles . . . . I don’t think the government is following either Lau piece, especially number 10, in which very little about an Obama/Duncan style education is solid.
🙂 and 😦
See Lau vs. Nichols. . .. I preach to the choir.
Even though I did take an Ed. Law course as part of becoming certified to be an administrator, I don’t remember that particular case. Briefly looked it up. Thanks for bringing that up!
(Being a baseball nut-hell I was part of one of a half dozen groups that first started doing a statistical baseball league back in the early 80’s, way before the computer ones that are so ubiquitous now-when I hear Lau, I think hitting.)
I’m surprised that Lau didn’t result in a similar approach for ELLs as Special Ed for kids with disabilities, especially since that occurred around the same time, in 1974, as the passage of PL 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, in 1975, upon which the current Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is based.
I guess politicians didn’t see any value to mandating and funding specialized services for ELLs, including individualization and a continuum of placement options. What a shame, because parents would have had a lot more say, too. So, instead, we got a 40 year long bilingual vs immersion war.
In Buffalo, there is a large refuge population in addition to other immigrants. There are over fifty languages involved. We have an International Prep school which has the necessary interpreters for testing. The teachers work hard to help the students adjust to life in the US. These students have the option to attend other schools in the system. The NYS Commissioner threatened to close their school due to low test scores without taking into consideration their special circumstances. Instead they have been placed, if they so chose, into a Suburban Boces program where they will be taught a trade such as auto mechanics,hair dresser, cook, keyboarder, etc, instead if an academic tract. It will be interesting to see how this works out – many of these students are from the Middle East and Asia.
My advise is to give the students a choice. Small children will adjust more readily than older students. If they are separated, make sure they have the same perks as all the to her schools, such as art, music, gym, libraries, sports, computers, electives, etc. Each student’s needs are unique and should be analyzed for placement.
I have seen bilingual classes and ELL classes, and ELL classes work, especially on the K-5 level. My school incorporated a ELL program called “The Welcome Class” which was not based on “standards” or “tests”. It was a pull-out program for new admits that brought all ages together to introduce them to English. The rest of the day they were in class and paired up with someone who spoke their language. By Christmas my student was able to understand me and communicate with me and the class, That successful program was stopped once NCLB came in.
There was once a time when ELLs were excused from testing for 2 years. And studies show that it takes 3 or more years to fully acquire language. But NCLB and RTTT has stopped the practice of common sense. Now newly arrived immigrants are being tested. And while some may be in their own language, it’s a stupid policy because it implies that their home country taught our curriculum. Try having a child just in from Guinea take a 5th grade history exam within a few weeks or days of his arrival just because his native language is English. This test also included many essays. I am sure that country put a lot of hours teaching about NYS tribes and colonial life. (NOT!!) The same holds true for math and science.
What LA is doing is preparing these students to be good test takes. Education has nothing to do with it. The main cause for concern is which teacher will bear the blame for bad test scores, and it seems from the responses, it will not go to the bilingual teacher. So I would like clarification on that.
Arizona has had a mandatory four hour block for several years now. I can say from experience, that we reclassified to English proficiency, many more children than we do now, when the children were mixed in with mainstream kids. In these segregated classes, there are no English models for language except the teacher, and the block is a rigid one hour each of grammar, reading, writing, and speaking, with no meaningful content involved.
The language block was created about the same time that nativists in AZ voted for SB1070, and other draconian measures for non-English speakers in the state. There is no doubt in my mind, that it was created to punish second language learners (who Arizonans believe are all illegal immigrants).
Originally, these classes were to be for one year, which flies in the face of all the research on language acquisition for a second language (5-7 yrs for fluency). Well, I have a class of students who have been in the program since Kinder and are now in fifth grade. It’s obvious, that some of these children have learning problems, but because they are in an ELL class, it takes years to get them evaluated, the assumption being that language is the problem rather than a disability. The class also contains children who regularly move to Mexico and back, and never reach English proficiency, as measured by the state English proficiency test. When these students are in high school, they not only miss content but credits needed for graduation too.
The four hour block in AZ was decided by a “task force” headed up by a friend of the governor’s who was an investment banker. There is no research to support it, no evidence it works better than immersion, and in my opinion, it’s educational malpractice.
So dispiriting!!!!! Sometimes all the venality just feels so overwhelming. This isn’t a mysterious situation. You can’t learn a language you aren’t engaging. Is there any controversy whatsoever surrounding the notion that immersion in a language is the best way to learn it? There may be ways to gentle this raw experience, but TNSTAAFL: you’ve got to wade through the new language to learn it.
As I read of this in LA, it is ironic. This is happening all over the nation – I am guessing. In my county in MD, principles implemented this same kind of policy this year too by creating classes along the same lines. A bit different than LA in that English language learners and any other challenging students who do not do well on high stakes tests are being lumped into one class while the other class has the normed learners (ones who succeed on the tests). The parents were not informed about this at all. In order to “make it right”, the county basically is ensuring that specialists (special ed, ESL teachers) come in at various points and co-teach.
I have taught for almost ten years. 5 at the middle school and high school level in TX (French and English/Pre-AP/ESL/LEP) and 4 abroad in 4 different countries teaching English as a Foreign Language in both a high school and a university setting. I actually think that this is a bit of an inflammatory post. I would need to have more information as to how it would be implemented. I am surprised at some of the generalizations here in the comment section.
Firstly, re. a second language. As a person who has had to learn a language after being “dropped” in a country as an adult ( this is the foreign language I now teach, French), I can attest that it not helping kids master academic and advanced English expression (“correct” English) to sit them in classes that are way over their head. They need targeted English. DId anyone actually read the article? All their non-core classes will be integrated, so they will still have the chance to practice with other kids. To let some child be in a core class, which is tremendously above their current level of English, will insure that they will be 1) frustrated 2) thinking that they are “dumb” and 3) not able to target specifically, the areas that they need to work on.
As someone who currently has three 9th graders in my 35 students English course who were passed out of the newcomer program in TX after less than 2 years ( 1 day in the program counts as one year, if you leave the country and come back the next year, you start your “second” year) and who read at level of between * 2nd and 4th grade in English*, I can attest that this hurts all my students; not just them, all my students.
Currently I have these three reading different novels, they have three different lesson plans, while the rest of us struggle through Shakespeare. The rest of my class is mostly Hispanic and mostly ESL; they mostly read 1-2 grades levels behind, but not 5 or 7.
These kids who are so below level are not being targeted enough because I have a whole class to teach and I can’t only focus on them. They would be growing more in a more targeted setting, and I could then focus on all the other kids in my class, who are also English language learners and who are now being dis-serviced due to the bulk of my attention going to the three newcomers who have tons of questions.
If people are going to have such knee-jerk reactions (its segregation! You are a narcissist!) then you should really refrain from commenting until you can acknowledge that indeed, there might be good intentions behind this and moreover, it might work) I agree that a kindergarten level class, might be better off integrated, but we are doing these current high school kids in my class, in TX, a disservice from not having that program. They could still see their friends and chat in gym and art, at lunch etc ( they currently have no probe with conversational English) and get the help that they need to advance their skills. Otherwise, fine, keep them in to struggle for several more years and then they will be stuck graduating high school at 21 because they can’t pass the EOC exams. Is that “best for the child”? Seriously, usually I like most of the comments here and find them critical but this time, some of the comments are pretty reactive and not really thoughtful.
Miss Texas,
The reason it is called segregation is because it is segregation. Why not be honest in describing what something is? I see no reason to use a euphemism instead?
And as I already pointed out, it is completely untrue to state that elementary children are mixing with other children in “non-core classes” in LAUSD. That might be something that sounds good for someone writing an article way up high in the Beaudry building (LAUSD headquarters) to write, but it has nothing to do with the actual circumstances in LAUSD elementary schools. For one thing, as I pointed out, the arts should not be described as “non-core”, for they are basic core essential academic subjects, and are defined as such by the LAUSD school board (just this year), and the federal government. Besides that, it simply is not happening, nor would it be feasible. The only time children are put together with chidren in other classrooms is at recess, and they hang out there with students from their own class. Of course though, being a Texas high school teacher, you know nothing about LAUSD elementary schools. (Well, I see that you wrote that mixed classes might be better for elementary schools. Well, that is the main point of this controversy–elementary schools.)
Most teachers are quite capable of differentiating instruction, with children of different levels in the same class.
Do you not agree with the original principle of bilingual education–for classes to be mixed with EO and EL students?.
Students don’t work on their conversational English during electives such as art and music because their elective is another language class. LA has also fired most of the elective teachers so placing more kids in an academic elective is very handy. Many schools have cut back on PE because it takes time away from test prep. Oh, might I mention that secondary PE classes typically have over 60 students. I could go on about how the loss of counselors, reading specialists, school psychologists, nurses, also impacts the education of our students. Many would argue that the large class sizes have no effect. High stakes testing has taken the humanity out of the schools and turned our kids into data points. We don’t consider the child. Shadow one of my kids from wake up to bed time. Then talk to me about what’s best for other people’s kids.
Michele
Shadow one of MY kids from dawn to dusk…se it works both ways. I am a teacher too. My kids actually do talk all the time to their peers in English and to their teachers in their elective classes. What is your experience learning another language to fluency and living in other non-English speaking countries? My experience is that I was in level appropriate classes oops I mean “segregated”. My beginning French students btw are not ” integrated” into AP level classes. We teach foreign languages by levels and nobody has a problem with that. So why is ESL so different? If you honestly don’t see a problem with a 9th grader who reads at a 2nd grade level being in a class eith a reading level 7 grades above then I am at a loss. One of my newbies just had to take a district exam for 9th grade and scored 28. What are you going to tell this child when she fails her EOCs because no one helped her because people like you only see things onr way? Does she have the right to a individualized English program to help her or js it just sink or swim. Wow hard questions huh?
In Texas they offer an “individualized English program” to English Language Learners (ELLs)? I think this is a wonderful idea, but I’ve not heard of it being provided before, so I’m wondering where else that’s happening.
Does anyone know if their states mandate individualized programs for ELLs?
My response was in regards to the idea that students in EL classes get to converse with native English speaking peers in electives and PE classes. I was stating what has happened to these classes in the LAUSD and how the opportunity for kids of different levels (language, resource, special day) to work with each other for part of the day has been taken away. I said, “Students don’t work on their conversational English during electives such as art and music because their elective is another language class.” Their elective is more English. I do think kids need art, music, PE, and the chance to meet and speak with other kids and teachers during the day. I also think kids, especially those in the 100% Title I school where I work, need access to a nurse, school psychologist, counselor and librarian (all cut in the LAUSD). I certainly didn’t say I support the current system of testing. I don’t believe I said anything against teaching English learners at their level or supporting the sink or swim philosophy.
I don’t think your questions are hard to answer. Some are personal attacks and the others seem to be based on a misinterpretation of my comments. Or maybe not. I tried to clarify what I said because I was so truly surprised by your reaction. Now back to planning for next week.
Having taught kindergarten with almost100% ELL’s for 38 years, I have observed that while children do develop social English skills from their English speaking peers, they do not learn academic English skills from them. It’s my job to teach them that. It is also true, and logical that the lower the grade level , the less need there is for differentiation. Almost everyone is a beginner. In a fifth grade class where there may be levels 1-5, reclassified kids and English-only kids, the teacher has two choices – differentiate for 7 different levels or ignore the fact that there are levels and “teach to the middle.” How is that fair for any of them? Let’s not confuse language learning with content learning. We teach math, science, social studies and more to ELL’s , not just how to speak English.
That’s not really true about content. Children must also be tested in their native language. It’s possible that a new ELL might be reading at grade level or above in their native language. Same with math. My Asian students for instance did much better than the students who were in my school since kinder, and I was teaching grades 3-5. This is why all level of books in other languages must be provided in the school or classroom libraries.
How much cooperative learning did you implement? I taught ELLs in integrated classes in Kindergarten, combined Kg/1st Grade & PreK for over 40 years and I found that regularly mixing it up, with both heterogeneous and homogeneous groupings and pairings, my students were able to learn A LOT academically from their peers, in ELA (yes, including reading and writing in English), Math, Science, Social Studies, etc.
Hey Prof W
No I think you misunderstood my post. We decidedly do not have indiv English language progs in TX. Wish we did! My post to Michele was stating that I honestly wish we had the funds to implement what they are talking about in CA. It would be great for my high school kids who move here as adolescents and just a few years from adulthood, to get targeted instruction that we as teachers who have huge groups of ELLs who have been with us since elementary and have still not “graduated” the esl program. It is not a problem with differentiation of one to three years…it is a problem of getting kids in who are six or seven years behind due to being newcomers WHILE still trying to teach those with 2-3 year learning gaps and scaffolding them to a level of achievement of English so thst they can hopefully conduct their futures in the U.S. It is untenable. As someone who teaches both a foreign language and English my gripe is that people are not thinking critically about the idea of getting the really far behind kids in classes to target their deficits. The article states that they will be moved on to “regular” classes when they reach a more fluent level. In the meantime non core classes will be with all kids. I think that it is absurd that people are calling this segregation when foreign languages in this country and most others are taught this way. So my kid from th middle east who takes beg Spanish or French is not “segregated” but if I had a pullout class for her and others at the same level in my school for English that would be segregation?
I just don’t get the “its cruel to address kids English weaknesses in tracked groups to better assist them, because really its an effort to take them out of testing to raise scores” argument that some people here are suggesting. I actually felt great about having on level classes when I learned French and I feel very empowered by knowing how to speak ot correctly. Need to sign off before this thread makes my head explode lol.
Oops meant to say” …that we as adults cannot provide due to large classes and the presence of many challenged learners who also deserve our attention”
Hi TitleItexasteacher. It sounds like you meant to reply to my question above regarding individualized English programs instead of here, so I will respond to that.
I’m in favor of individualizing education as much as possible and I really wish that was provided for ELLs everywhere. Since it’s not, we have rather limited choices.
Your points are well-taken. I should clarify that I don’t oppose pull-out programs for older kids. I just think that’s a mistake for younger children, because people do learn first and second languages more readily in early childhood and natural environments, and that’s when such environments can be provided in schools. –Well, at least until RttT rolls out, with its pushed down academic curriculum and associated high-stakes testing, which is likely to result in a lot of drill for skill test prep. Once RttT is in place, I don’t think any neighborhood public schools will be safe for little kids and their teachers (and I suspect that was intended, so that parents will pull out their kids and send them to charters.)
Michele,
You wrote
“Shadow one of my kids from wake up to bed time. Then talk to me about what’s best for other people’s kids.”
Would you not say that that is a bit aggressive, in fact even somewhat snarky?
You responded to me, and I responded back. If you find it “surprising” to get my bristly response, then perhaps you should approach things in more respectful manner, to get a gentler rebuttal. I saw us as having very similar tones.
My point was that some people on this post were being a bit reactive. I don’t think that is was respectful of someone to call someone a narcissist, nor to label this segregation. As a teacher like yourself, experienced like I assume you are as well, I felt okay to put my opinions and experiences out there. I did not negate yours, nor should anyone negate mine.
Actually, I didn’t reply to your post. I think the misunderstanding came from the placement of my comment below yours. I didn’t even read your post until I saw your reply to me. I posted a new comment based on Diane’s original. My snarkiness or aggressiveness is to the LAUSD that implements policy and then cuts to the point where local schools can’t possible meet the mandate as prescribed. I’ve been working in this situation for 24 years. If I were to respond to a fellow teacher, I would not use many of the terms that you pointed out. As for the LAUSD superintendent and board…gloves are off.
Michele,
Calling segregation segregation is being honest, nothing more or less. That is what it is. With elementary students, we are not talking about one class period, but for the whole day, and they end up hanging out with the same students in recess, lunch, after school, etc.
The statement about narcissism was made by someone who appeared (from their comment) to know Cheryl Ortega personally, and was therefore making a personal comment about her. I do not know Cheryl personally (nor that commentator), so would not make such a statement. IMO Cheryl has a right to her opinion, but as spokesperson for the teacher’s union should not be advocating (very publically and vehemently) a position that the vast majority of UTLA teachers strongly disagree with. I would not make any personal comment about her, you, nor anyone else here. But my recollection of that statement about narcissism (you can look it up), is that it sounded like it was made by someone who knows her personally. That was one statement by one person who appeared to know her, and you should not generalize that all of us are making such statements.
But segregation it is, so completely appropriate to call it that.
@Mike I made no comments about the use of the terms “segregation” or “narcissist” in my post. I did clarify to TOTT that I was not replying to her/his post but writing my own comment. I didn’t generalize about other’s posts. In fact, I think the whole point of this blog is to discuss differing opinions. That’s why Bridging Differences was such a great read.
We (LAUSD) lead the nation in charter schools. Segregation is alive and well and accepted by our current board and superintendent. Many spoke of this quite eloquently throughout the threads. It seems that very few responses are actual arguments about whether the LAUSD segregates but more about whether this new policy and enforcement is the best way to help our ELs.
My post had more to do with the observation that mandates are never followed with funding or resources. It doesn’t matter what works if you can’t make it happen. Teachers don’t get to decide what might work best for our kids and try it out. There is no flexibility with scheduling or personalization. There is a lot of top down, do this or else.
Frankly, I don’t understand the “why” behind your reply but that has to be okay because I have a ton of grading and planning to do.
To Michele, regarding your last post:
I totally agree with everything you wrote in it.
I made a mistake in the post you responded to of mine. I responded to some comments by the Texas teacher, and mistakenly addressed you instead of her. My comments about statements of hers were not directed at you, but at her., Sorry.
Actually LAU is silent on how to teach ELL’s. It does not prescribe a particular kind of language program. It states that children must have equal access to education. This may offered through bilingual education or English immersion programs.
I’ve been a primary teacher in an immigrant neighborhood for almost two decades. I have taught classes in which almost all the kids were early ELL, and I’ve taught classes that were well mixed with various levels of ELL’s and plenty of English Only (EO) kids. The early ELL kids in the mixed classes generally learn more and score better on the testing than the ones who are not in mixed classes. At least that’s been my experience over the years. Kids learning English need good models throughout the day, in all subjects, or they don’t move upward. Regarding differentiation, an experienced teacher can handle a class with many different kinds of learners.
Katherine Hayes is not LAUSD’s chief research scientist–she is the Research Coordinator.
I don’t think that it is possible to compare the needs of high school and primary. Primary kids have years to grow and do not have 7 years of reading level differences as they have not been reading for seven years.
Giving targeted instruction to ELL’s who are at the 9th, 10th etc. level is preparing them for the real world and giving them the best shot at being successful. I don’t think anyone is arguing that talented teachers can differentiate, I think the concern is, is it reasonable to differentiate across 7 years of reading levels in one course?
Besides the interesting LA Times article about this stupid LAUSD policy at http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-adv-english-learners-20131020,0,1836196.story, there is another very interesting article on the subject in the Christian Science Monitor at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/1021/Los-Angeles-schools-plan-for-non-English-speakers-Segregation-or-solution
In the CS article, several education professors (one who used to be an LAUSD bilingual teacher, and is now chairman of the education department at Occidental College) are interviewed about the new LAUSD policy. All think it is a very bad policy. The only people who speak in favor of the policy are a few LAUSD officials, and of course, who else but Cheryl Ortega, UTLA official speaking in contradiction to the opinion of LAUSD teachers who are actually teaching EL children now..
I have a question for anyone reading who might know. Neither of the articles mention the school board at all. Yet, I recall reading a post in this thread (don’t recall by who) about someone speaking about this to the school board. Did the board have a thorough discussion about this? Did they vote on it?
I am especially interested in knowing whether anyone brought this to the attention of Monica Ratliff? She was teaching many EL students in an LAUSD elementary classroom just last year, so must know that this policy is wrong. Has anyone discussed it with her? Has she taken a position on it?
Yes, Mike. I’m in my 14th year working as a public school teacher. My entire teaching experience has been in an LAUSD public elementary school in an immigrant community. Besides my multiple subject credential, I earned my BCLAD authorization to teach all subjects in two languages — Spanish and English. In my time as a teacher, I have taught students in both the Basic Bilingual and the English Immersion programs. About ninety-nine percent have been English Learners. I also have had the personal experience of being a second-language learner, since Spanish is not my first language, so I understand why credible research shows it takes 5 to 7 years to learn a new language and 10 to 12 years to master it. Based on my teaching and learning experiences plus my reading of the research and talking with teachers and others who are knowledgeable in the field, I understand why research shows that English Learners fare worst in Mainstream English classes, slightly better in English Immersion classes, a little better than that in Basic Bilingual (which has been replaced by so-called Transitional Bilingual) and best of all in Dual Language classes. It is obvious to me that these results stem from the fact that the emphasis in Dual Language is on proficiency in both languages, not on ignoring the home language like teachers do in Mainstream English and too often in English Immersion as well, or on using the home language only briefly as a steppingstone to English, like in Transitional Bilingual. I also know from my teaching experience with real students that English Learners may teach each other social language, but they do not usually teach each other academic language. It’s my job to teach them academic language, and to give them many scaffolded opportunities to practice it with each other and in reading and writing. I can do that more successfully when I differentiate instruction according to their needs, which is exactly why there should be no more than two ELD levels in the same classroom if at all possible. I’d bet you a cup of coffee that Dr. Stephen Krashen may agree. One question, do you have your BCLAD certification? Have you ever been in a position to compare, from your own experience, how well students learn when the teacher actually understands and speaks their home language? Or even better, when they are taught to read and write in their home language as well as in English? It just might change your perspective on how best to help English Learners. I’d love to continue this discussion further but I’ve got to work on ELD portfolios for all 24 of my students this afternoon, documenting their progress in learning English. Best wishes for a good week.
Hello Anne,
I totally agree that it is best to have instruction in the home language as well as in English. Unfortunately a stupid proposition years ago makes that very difficult now.
(And as I wrote earlier, the theory behind bilingual education, quite sound, is to have EO and EL students in the same class, not segregation.)
I also agree that dual language immersion is a great idea, and I hope that there are more such programs in the future.
But that is not what this thread is about. it is not about bilingual nor dual language instruction. It is about the new LAUSD policy of increased language segregation. (I guess the policy is actually a few years old, but now they are starting to enforce it with a vengeance.)
If you are teaching at an LAUSD elementary school, can you honestly tell me that kids are getting experience speaking English with students at a higher level in art class, music class, PE? Please be honest in replying. That is a theory with no relation at all with reality. In LAUSD elementary schools, students are with their same class all day. If their class is entirely made up of low level English learners, that is all they hear from other students.
Also, please be honest–do your colleagues at your school agree with your opinion that this policy is correct? I frankly have not heard one teacher who agrees with this. Everyone I have spoken to about it is vehemently opposed to it, because they think it is the wrong thing for their students. Isn’t that the case at your school as well?
Look at the comments to this thread. Most are by teachers teaching ELD students. Most vehemently disagree with the policy. I may have missed something, but the only posters I see who agree with the policy are yourself, Cheryl Ortega (who has been out of the classroom for decades), and a high school teacher in Texas.
Might there be a reason why most teachers are opposed this? Not for our own convenience, as it is easier to have fewer levels to teach in a class. It is because most teachers care a lot about their students and see that increased segregation is bad for the students.
Why, when professors of education were interviewed about this policy, at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/1021/Los-Angeles-schools-plan-for-non-English-speakers-Segregation-or-solution , do most strongly disagree with this LAUSD segregation policy?
Have a nice day and week yourself, and to all reading.