Prepared by Bonnie Swierzbin, Kristin Liu, and Martha Thurlow
This document has been archived by NCEO because some of the information it contains is out of date.
Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Swierzbin, B., Liu, K., & Thurlow, M. (2000). Initial perceptions of English as a second language educators on including students with limited English proficiency in Minnesota's High Standards (Minnesota Report No. 33). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/MnReport33.html
This report presents
findings from an investigation of the perceptions, beliefs, and expectations of English as
a Second Language (ESL) educators as they work toward including students with limited
English proficiency (LEP) in Minnesota’s High Standards. More and more states are
implementing standards-based educational systems in which all students, including LEP
students, are expected to participate. Standards implementation is a challenging process
for all educators and particularly for those who work with linguistically and culturally
diverse student populations. This study is one of the first in Minnesota to look at
emerging efforts toward standards-based reform for LEP students. It is part of the
Minnesota Assessment Project, a four-year, federally funded effort to promote and evaluate
the participation of students with limited English proficiency and students with
disabilities in Minnesota’s Graduation Standards.
Minnesota’s Graduation Standards
As part of a major
educational reform, Minnesota is changing from a teacher- and curriculum-centered
educational system to one that is student-centered and standards-based. In the past,
Minnesota, like many other states, awarded diplomas for credits earned by students based
on hours of instruction and passing grades. Required subjects included language arts,
social studies, mathematics, science, health, and physical education along with various
electives. Postsecondary institutions, employers, parents, and the students themselves
could not tell from a credit-based transcript what content had been mastered or how
performance compared with that of students from other instructors, schools, or districts.
Over the years, many
have realized that credit- or course-based graduation requirements alone rarely result in
consistent opportunities to learn and demonstrate knowledge and skill. The lack of
information about actual skills or knowledge required for a diploma has increased the call
for standards-based graduation requirements nationwide.
Minnesota’s
graduation standards now require students to meet or exceed basic and high standards of
achievement to receive a diploma. To meet Minnesota’s Basic Standards, students must
demonstrate competency in reading, writing, and mathematics. To meet Minnesota’s High
Standards, students must produce a record of work showing achievement in a number of the
content standards which define what students need to know and be able to do. The High
Standards, also known as the Profile of Learning, are organized into ten learning areas
(see Table 1).
Table 1. High Standards Learning Areas
1.
Read, Listen and View |
In kindergarten
through eighth grade, the work of all public school students is shaped by a set of
Preparatory High Standards, which focus on learning skills and concepts to prepare
students to achieve the High School High Standards.
Student achievement
of the High Standards is assessed by locally designed performance assessments, which often
have been referred to as “performance packages” although this term is no longer
used by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (CFL). A performance
assessment is made up of locally designed assignments that, taken together, show whether a
student has learned and can apply the knowledge and skills outlined in the standard. These
assignments ask students to apply their knowledge in real-world situations. Teachers
assign a student a score of 4, 3, 2, 1 or 0 for each performance assessment the student
completes. Teachers score performance assessments by comparing a student’s work with
a description of the desired performance. Local school districts continue to determine
course grades, grade point averages, and class rank.
Because of an
initial timeline which would have required public high school students to pass the Basic
Standards Test and, beginning with the class of 2002, to complete 24 of 48 possible
standards from the ten learning areas, the Profile of Learning was the subject of
substantial debate in the Minnesota Legislature as these requirements were about to take
effect. Considerable media attention was focused on a number of bills that had been
proposed to modify or abolish the Profile of Learning, and it is likely that the
continuing political uncertainly had an impact on educators’ thoughts about the
standards. (At the end of the 2000 legislative session, legislation was passed allowing
districts to grant waivers from Profile requirements to students who entered ninth grade
before the 2000-01 school year and to phase in the number of standards required of their
students. In addition, one more High Standards learning area was added.)
LEP Students and High Standards
Minnesota’s
High Standards state that graduation requirements for LEP students may be “modified
in an individual graduation plan developed and annually reviewed by a team including
school advisory staff designated by the district, teachers of the LEP student, parents or
guardians of the LEP student, and the LEP student” (Department of Children, Families
and Learning Graduation Standards, 1999). Modifications include reducing the rigor of the
standard, either by completing the specifications at an easier level or reducing the
number of specifications, and include completion of a standard in the student’s
native language except for standards in learning areas one and two (“read, listen,
and view” and “write and speak”), which must be completed in the English
language.
Related Research
Research on
standards implementation has only recently commenced, and there is very little research on
standards implementation with LEP students. The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational
Laboratory at Brown University (LAB) is implementing a project on professional development
for teaching using high standards in culturally diverse schools (Clair, Adger, Short,
& Millen, 1998). In the initial phases, researchers documented professional
development training, school visits, and interviewed teachers (general education, ESL and
Bilingual Education) and administrators who were involved in standards implementation in a
school district with approximately 25% Asian-American students and 20% Latin-American
students. Preliminary findings from this project include three major factors affecting
standards implementation:
•
Time. Teachers need
time to understand standards and how they are to implement them with LEP students.
Teachers also need time to understand how their own attitudes toward language and culture
may influence their teaching.
•
Relationships. Teachers involved in the project reported that
developing relationships among general education teachers, ESL teachers, and Bilingual
Education teachers was crucial to buttressing standards implementation.
•
Policy. Administrators need to integrate school- and
district-level policies to provide an overall design for educational reform and to avoid
fragmenting teachers’ time with many professional development projects.
The purpose of this
study was to understand the implementation of Minnesota’s High Standards for LEP
students from the point of view of ESL and Bilingual Education professionals. A survey was
developed to gather data from educators and administrators about (1) how Minnesota’s
High Standards are being implemented for LEP students in ESL or Bilingual Education
classes, (2) how LEP students are participating in High Standards in ESL or Bilingual
Education classes, and (3) what factors influence the participation of LEP students in
Minnesota’s High Standards. All educators and administrators were individuals who
work with LEP students. Survey response formats included closed response and open-ended
response items (see Appendix A).
During the fall and
winter of 1999-2000, a total of 57 surveys were sent to six school districts: one large,
urban district and five suburban metropolitan districts. These districts were chosen
because they have relatively large ESL/Bilingual Education programs. ESL coordinators were
asked to distribute the surveys, which were to be returned to the National Center on
Educational Outcomes (NCEO) for analysis after completion. In addition to the survey,
educators were asked whether they would participate in an in-depth audiotaped interview.
Five educators agreed to participate and were interviewed by one member of the research
team. The interview questions (see Appendix B) were developed to add depth and detail to
themes encountered during an initial analysis of the survey data.
Once surveys were
returned, they were numbered and all quantitative responses were entered into a computer
database for analysis. It should be noted that in this report, the percentage of responses
reported is based on the actual number of responses to a particular question rather than
on the total number of respondents, since not every individual answered every item. For
example, respondents were instructed to answer survey questions 17 through 19 if they work
with students in grades K-8, and to answer survey questions 20-22 if they work with
students in grades 9-12. This pattern resulted in a smaller number of respondents for
these sets of questions. In addition, a small number of respondents occasionally did not
answer individual questions. While all of the respondents’ answers for the open-ended
survey questions were analyzed together (as described below), responses to some
quantitative items were analyzed and compared based on:
•
Grade level taught (elementary, middle, secondary, multiple
levels).
•
Years of ESL or Bilingual Education teaching experience (less
than 1, 1–3, 4–7, more than 7).
•
Years in current school district (less than 1, 1–3,
4–7, more than 7).
Analysis of the
qualitative survey responses and the interview data was completed by one member of the
research team who used an inductive qualitative research technique to develop a coding
system. This approach has been described by Bogdan and Biklen (1992) and Patton (1990).
The researcher reviewed all the data holistically (both transcripts of the interview audio
tapes and responses to open-ended survey questions) and noted regularities, patterns, and
themes. This inductive search for patterns was guided in large part by the way in which
the findings were to be used, that is, to help accomplish the mission of ensuring that all
students, to the greatest extent possible, participate in the Profile of Learning.
A system of coding
categories based on the themes was developed and verified by another member of the
research team; all of the participant responses were clustered under these categories. The
examples provided in the results section to illustrate the coding categories were drawn
from the complete set of participant responses, using verbatim quotes that clearly
expressed the most significant outcomes of the surveys and interviews.
The results of the
survey and interviews are presented together in this section, grouped into several
categories: Demographics, Training and Knowledge
about High Standards, Implementation of High Standards, Beliefs and Expectations, and Barriers to the Success of LEP Students. First,
results are presented across all respondents, then by the grade level taught and by years
of teaching experience.
Overall Results
Demographics
A total of 22
surveys were completed and returned to NCEO, for a response rate of 38.6%. All of the
respondents were ESL and/or Bilingual Education teachers. Two respondents were ESL
coordinators in addition to being ESL teachers, and one respondent was an ESL coordinator
and an ESL counselor in addition to being an ESL teacher. The respondents included 10
elementary school teachers (grades K-4, K-5, or K-6), three middle school teachers (grades
6-8 or 7-8), six high school teachers (grades 9-12), and three teachers who worked with
students at multiple levels (K-12 or 6-12). The teachers who were interviewed included two
elementary school teachers, one middle school teacher, and two high school teachers.
Most of the
respondents had been teaching for several years, but in general the number of years
teaching ESL was lower than the number of years of overall teaching experience (see Table
2). The number of years of ESL teaching experience of the interviewed teachers ranged from
2 to 25.
Table 2. Teaching Experience of Survey
Respondents
Years of Teaching Experience |
Number of Respondents |
Percent of Respondents |
Less than one year |
3 |
14 |
1 - 3 years |
1 |
4 |
4 - 7 years |
5 |
23 |
More than seven years |
13 |
59 |
Years of ESL/Bilingual Education Teaching
Experience |
Number of Respondents |
Percent of Respondents |
Less than one year |
3 |
14 |
1 - 3 years |
6 |
27 |
4 - 7 years |
7 |
32 |
More than seven years |
6 |
27 |
Years of Teaching Experience in Current
District |
Number of Respondents |
Percent of Respondents |
Less than one year |
4 |
18 |
1 - 3 years |
6 |
27 |
4 - 7 years |
4 |
18 |
More than seven years |
8 |
37 |
Training and Knowledge about High Standards
Several questions in
both the survey and the interviews pertained to respondents’ knowledge and
understanding of Minnesota’s High Standards, as well as the level of training they
had received on them. These items addressed:
•
The teachers’ knowledge of how Standards to be worked on by
a particular group of students are chosen (survey question 6 and interview question 5).
•
The teachers’ knowledge of how LEP students receive
information about High Standards (survey questions 8 and 9).
•
The amount of training the teachers had received on High
Standards since September, 1998 (survey question 12, interview question 7), plus
information about the trainers and trainees (survey questions 13 and 14).
•
The teachers’ perceptions of what was helpful about their
High Standards training (survey question 15).
•
The teachers’ opinions of what additional training they
need (survey question 16, interview question 7).
•
The teachers’ perceptions of their own understanding of
High Standards requirements (interview question 2).
•
The teachers’ perceptions of their own knowledge of
LEP-specific modifications to performance packages (interview question 3).
•
The teachers’ opinion of their own knowledge about
individual graduation plans for LEP students (interview question 4).
The first of these
items was, “For LEP students that you teach who are working on Standards, how are the
Standards chosen?” The Standards referred to in this question could be delivered by
the ESL teacher or by a general education teacher. As shown in Table 3, survey responses
for this question fell into four major groups, based on whether ESL teaching staff was
involved in choosing Standards for LEP students to work on: ESL staff involved, ESL staff
not involved, unclear ESL staff involvement, and other. Three surveys did not have an
answer for this question.
Table 3. ESL Staff Involvement in
Standards Selection for LEP Students–Survey Data
|
Number of
Respondents |
Percent of
Respondents |
Unclear ESL staff involvement |
7 |
37 |
ESL staff not involved |
5 |
26 |
ESL staff involved |
4 |
21 |
Other |
3 |
16 |
The largest
percentage of responses (37%) did not indicate whether ESL personnel were involved in the
standards decision-making process. The responses in this category generally indicated that
decisions were made by district or school staff without specifically mentioning ESL staff,
or they indicated that LEP students were responsible for the same standards as all other
students but did not mention how the standards being implemented were chosen. Five
respondents (26%) indicated that they were not involved in the decision-making process or
did not know what the process was. Four respondents (21%) either were part of the
decision-making process or they chose the standards themselves for their LEP students to
work on in their ESL classes. Responses that were grouped in the “Other”
category mentioned that LEP students were not working on Minnesota’s Graduation
Standards or referred to the TESOL Standards. These are standards published by the
professional organization Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). They
include nine standards based on three goals; the standards include descriptors and sample
progress indicators.
There was no
apparent relationship between ESL teachers’ involvement in standards selection and
the grade level they taught. Two of the four teachers who reported that ESL staff were
involved in the selection process were K-6 teachers, and the other two were 9-12 grade
teachers.
Since the highest
percentage of responses to the question about how Standards are chosen for LEP students
was unclear about ESL staff involvement, this question was repeated in the interview
portion of the study. One of the five interviewed teachers was highly involved in the
selection process; that is, after consultation with general education teachers in her
school, she had selected the standard to be implemented for her LEP students in the ESL
class that she taught. The remaining four teachers indicated that they did not know or
were unsure about the selection process.
Slightly more than
half of the survey respondents (52%, 12 respondents) said that general education teachers
help LEP students learn about High Standards,
that is, what the requirements are as distinguished from implementing the standards. An
additional 26% (6 respondents) reported that the students’ information comes from ESL
teachers, and 22% of the answers (5 respondents) indicated that the respondents did not
know how the information was disseminated to LEP students.
When asked what
language is used to give LEP students information about High Standards, 12 survey
respondents (52%) said that only English was used. Six respondents (26%) did not know how
this happened. Three respondents (13%) indicated that both English and the students’
native languages were used, and two respondents (9%) said that only the students’
native languages were used.
Survey respondents
were asked how many hours of training they had received since September, 1998 on
strategies for implementing High Standards. As shown in Figure 1, the majority of
respondents (13, 62%) reported receiving 0–4 hours of training on the High Standards.
Four respondents (19%) received 5–12 hours of training, and an additional four
respondents received 13-24 hours of training. No respondents received 25 or more hours.
Figure 1. Survey Respondents’
Training on High Standards
Most respondents
(14, 54%) indicated that district staff members trained them. Two respondents (8%) were
trained by Minnesota Educational Effectiveness Program (MEEP) trainers; three respondents
(11%) received training from other regional trainers. Two respondents (8%) were trained by
ESL or Bilingual Education trainers; two others received training from state university or
the Department of Children, Families and Learning (CFL) staff. Three respondents could not
identify the source of their training. Training sessions most often included ESL/Bilingual
Education staff and general education staff together (11 respondents, 50%). Four
respondents (18%) indicated that their training sessions were for ESL/Bilingual Education
staff only although one of the four noted that the training was received at a state
conference. Two respondents (9%) were trained in sessions that included teachers and
administrators together, while 5 respondents (23%) were not aware of the positions of
other trainees.
Both survey and
interview respondents were asked what had been most helpful about the training they
received and what training they needed. The most frequent type of comment was that they
had received no training or no helpful training (n=7). The educators who made this type of
comment had all been teaching for more than seven years; that is, they were in the group
of most experienced teachers surveyed. The following responses, from surveys and
interviews, represent their feelings:
•
Any training would be
helpful. I have received nothing.
•
None of it was helpful! We
keep getting conflicting information.
•
A lot of my training
didn’t help at all because I was told that it was not the ELL [English Language
Learner] teacher’s job to implement the
standards so I didn’t really worry about it and that was at new teacher orientation
and since then, lots of questions have come up regarding whose responsibility is what and
how much do the ELL students need to be held accountable for and in what ways can they be
helped.
Training
specifically by and for ESL teachers was the second most commonly mentioned aspect of
training (n=6). Two teachers had received this type of training and four others stated
that they needed it, as reflected in the comments below about training needs.
•
How to modify the
standards for LEP students.
•
LEP Staff for LEP
Teachers!
•
Ideas for ways to assess
LEP learners in English-only classrooms.
Respondents also
commented on the following helpful aspects of the training they had received.
•
Variety of ideas.
•
Experts to answer
questions.
•
Scaffolding
to do supported teaching toward completing tasks in the standards.
•
Seeing examples of
other’s curriculum & packages [especially] those developed for LEP students.
Other comments on
training that educators felt was needed included training for both mainstream teachers and
ESL teachers:
•
How to help mainstream
teachers know … how to include LEP students in their classes that are being monitored
or exposed to … Grad. Standards.
•
Maybe just a brief
overview talk about [ESL for general education teachers].
•
A follow-up session for
help now that I have actually started the implementation.
•
Scoring–meeting
the standard, e.g., student working to potential, but not “scoring” very high.
As a result of the
number of comments in the survey data about the lack of helpful training, the teachers who
were interviewed were asked to rate their own understanding of High Standards requirements
on the 5-point Likert scale shown below.
1
2
3
4
5
Of the five
educators who were interviewed, two indicated their understanding was good, one was
“probably between some and good,” another had some understanding, and the last
had very little.
Interview
participants were also asked to rate their knowledge of LEP-specific modifications to
performance packages according to the 5-point Likert scale shown below.
1
2
3
4
5
Two teachers
indicated that they knew a little. Other teachers did not rate themselves but commented as
follows:
•
I just don’t know
what they are exactly.
•
What we have been told in
our district is when the classroom teachers are finished with their performance packages,
then we will look at them and modify them. We have not been involved in the process except
for a few whole-staff meetings.
•
I guess I don’t know
anything about that. Yeah, we are not doing it that way in our district.
Interview
participants were also asked to rate their own knowledge of individual graduation plans
for LEP students according to the scale shown above. Two educators said that they knew
nothing about individual graduation plans including one who said, “I didn’t know there was such a thing.” Another felt
that she knew a lot. The other teachers did not provide a rating, but their comments
included:
•
Explain “individual
graduation plans.” You mean like IEPs? … As far as I know, we’re not doing
them.
•
I don’t think we have
any.
Implementation of High Standards
Survey respondents
were asked whether their current responsibilities differed from those of the previous year
due to the requirements of Minnesota’s High Standards. Four of 22 respondents (three
K-6 and one 9-12 teacher) indicated that their responsibilities had changed. Of the four,
two teachers mentioned that they are or will be following the TESOL Standards (TESOL,
1997) in their classrooms. Another respondent mentioned the need to avoid scheduling ESL
pullout classes when standards are being worked on in mainstream classes, and the fourth
teacher mentioned that there now was more time to teach.
Survey questions
7–1 through 7–12 asked teachers about how they had implemented Minnesota’s
High Standards in their work. In addition, questions 10 and 11 asked about
respondents’ participation with teams that discussed the involvement of LEP students
in High Standards or that developed district plans to implement High Standards. The last
questions on this topic (17-18 and 20-21) asked about the participation of LEP students in
meeting High Standards.
Table 4 shows the
results for questions 7–1 through 7–12. Overall, survey respondents most
frequently answered that they acted as a resource (question 7–5) for general
education teachers who were implementing High Standards-based work that included LEP
students; 17 of 22 respondents (77%) answered this question positively. Additionally, 15
of 22 respondents (68%) reported that they teach skills
(question 7-3) and language (question 7-4) that
are directly related to the completion of High Standards being implemented in other
teachers’ classes. These last two questions were also asked as part of the interviews
and are discussed in more detail below.
Table 4. Survey
Respondents’ Involvement with High Standards
Questions 7–1
through 7–12 |
Number of Respondents |
|||
|
Yes |
No |
Unsure |
NA |
1. Implement
content-based work toward a specific High Standard in a situation where you teach alone ? (e.g., you teach the
public speaking standard) |
4 |
16 |
|
2 |
2. Implement
content-based work toward a specific High Standard in a situation where you team teach ? (e.g., you teach the public
speaking standard) |
4 |
14 |
|
4 |
3. Teach skills that are directly related to the
completion of a content High Standard being implemented in another teacher’s class? (e.g., you
help students learn how to write biographies for a paper being written to implement a
standard in Social Studies class) |
15 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
4. Teach language found in a specific High
Standard being implemented in another
teacher’s class? (e.g., you help students understand scientific terms for
standards-based work in a science class.) |
15 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
5. Act as a resource for general education teachers
who are implementing High Standards-based work that includes LEP students? |
17 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
| 6.
Advise LEP students about graduation requirements and the role of High Standards? |
|
|
|
|
7. Communicate with
the parents of LEP students about High Standards? |
|
|
|
|
8. Develop or write
High Standards-based material/curriculum specific to LEP students? |
|
|
|
|
9. Implement High
Standards-based material/curriculum that you have written or developed? |
|
|
|
|
10. Teach High
Standards-based material in the English language? |
|
|
|
|
11. Teach High
Standards-based material in a language other than English? |
|
|
|
|
12. Work on a team
that is developing an individual graduation plan for an LEP student including modified High Standards? |
|
|
|
|
Only 4 of 22
teachers (18%) indicated on their surveys that they implemented content-based work toward
specific High Standards in situations where they teach alone or team teach (questions 7-1
and 7-2); however, 9 of 22 respondents (41%) reported teaching High Standards-based
material in the English language (question 7-11). These results seem to indicate that ESL
and Bilingual Education teachers were most often not teaching content-based work to
students working on specific standards, but were, in some cases, supporting such teaching
that went on in other classrooms.
To obtain a clearer
picture of what ESL and Bilingual Education teachers’ roles are in implementing High
Standards for LEP students, the interview repeated survey questions 7-3 through 7-5 and
7-7 and added appropriate follow-up questions. These questions elicited the topics with
the largest numbers of comments in the study: Coordination
(n=28) and the role of ESL teachers (n=27). Teachers were asked
whether they taught skills or language that were directly related to the completion of
content High Standards in other teachers’ classes, and if so, how the skills or
language to be taught was determined. The interview respondents made the following
comments related to coordination:
•
Anything
that I know that’s happening in the content class, I try to reinforce in my class so
right now we’re finished reading Zlata’s Diary, which had to do with …
peacemakers, part of what we’re doing is a time line with it, and part of the reason
I chose the time line is because we know that that’s important in social studies;
they’re doing a lot of time line work in there. And so when I know what a teacher is
doing, I try to include it, but I don’t always know what a teacher is doing.
•
I send out notes regularly
to the teachers, saying “What are my students missing? Please give me copies,”
and then I get it back, but a lot of times it’s from the students; I don’t
always hear from the teachers.
•
I know what the curriculum
in our school is but I don’t know where the standards fit in and what teachers are
doing the standards. I’m teaching language that fits into the curriculum as I
understand our curriculum, but for a specific content package, I have no idea.
•
Professional
experience, dialogues with other professionals in the field, as well as readings [determine
which skills should be taught.] I use the text
materials that are presented to me and some… and then it’s just what I think is
my own professional opinion.
•
This is where I can’t
answer true or false [about teaching language found in a specific High Standard.] Since I’m very vague on what are the specifics of
what are the high standards, I don’t know, but I would assume that, one, that a lot
of this vocabulary has to be, if it’s not that vocabulary, it’s because
we’re learning vocabulary that’s prior or more basic.
•
I would be happy to. I
haven’t been asked [to be a resource for general education teachers implementing
High Standards work.]
•
A couple … years ago
we had a meeting … for mainstream teachers who are most apt to have ESL kids in their
classes, and talked a little bit about adapting a package and so on, but it was, I guess
it was a way to show them a little support, but I’m sure at the same time I also
said, “I can’t write these for you and I can’t teach them for you, but at
least I want you to know you’ve got my support on some level.” Teachers will
check in with me, but not to the specifics of the package.
The following comments illustrate
teachers’ views on the role of ESL teachers:
•
[In answer to the question, “Do you teach skills that are
directly related to the completion of a content High Standard being implemented in another
teacher’s class?”] Oh, no. I mean, maybe
inadvertently, but no… we don’t have time for that.
•
[In answer to the question, “Do you teach skills that are
directly related to the completion of a content High Standard being implemented in another
teacher’s class?”] Not knowingly I guess
is what I should be saying. My job is, is to get the kids ready to go back into the
mainstream but I don’t look at those goals and teach to them.
•
As it was explained to us
by someone from the state, ESL teachers are not to teach or assess the profiles of
learning–only mainstream teachers. Instead we are to provide support by preparing ESL
students with information, skills, language, vocabulary they will need to successfully
complete the profiles.
•
I was hired to teach ESL.
If I have to get involved in the “standards business,” I will resign from my
job! I wish they would go away!
•
I think if the students
are required to meet the standards, then the ESL teachers need to be involved in ways of
modifying instruction or outcomes or whatever is required of ESL students. I think we
should be part of the discussion about what’s required for those kids.
Survey respondents
were also asked whether they had participated in teams that had discussed LEP students and
High Standards. More than half of the respondents (55%, 12 of 22 respondents) said that
they had done so.
Overall, survey
respondents have had very little involvement in district plans to implement High Standards
(see Figure 2). Eleven of twenty-two (50%) respondents were not aware of district plans or
had no involvement in their development (including the respondent who marked
“other” and noted that he or she expected to be involved in the future). Another
18% of respondents (4 of 22) reported a little involvement with district plans. Six of
twenty-two respondents (27%) had some involvement while one respondent (5%) checked the
option “a lot of involvement,” but noted “not ‘a lot,’ but I am
the key person in the district to do this–have worked with our building
‘standards’ person.”
Figure 2. Respondents' Involvement in District Plans for High Standards
Survey respondents
who work with students in grades K-8 were asked what percent of students they work with
are performing activities to meet preparatory content High Standards using the English
language and using the students’ native languages. Respondents who work with students
in grades 9-12 were asked a similar question about high school level High Standards (see
Appendix A, survey questions 17-18, 20-21). Table 5 shows the number of respondents who
reported the various percentages of LEP students working on High Standards. Nine of twelve
(60%) K-8 ESL teachers reported that 76-100% of their LEP students are performing
activities to meet preparatory content standards in English. In contrast, three of nine
(33%) grade 9-12 ESL teachers reported that 76-100% of their students are working toward
High Standards using English. Most teachers (11 of 15 K-8 and 7 of 9 grade 9-12) indicated
that the majority of their students are not
working toward achieving High Standards in their native languages. Only 2 of 15 (13%) K-8
teachers noted that 51-75% of their students were doing High Standards work in their
native languages, and 1 of 9 (11%) of high school ESL/Bilingual Education teachers
reported this for 26-50% of their students.
Table 5. ESL Teachers’ estimate of LEP students working on High Standards
Number of Respondents |
Percent of LEP Students Working on High Standards |
||||||
0-25% |
26-50% |
51-75% |
76-100% |
I don't know |
|
||
K-8 |
English |
1 |
2 |
0 |
9 |
3 |
|
|
Native Language |
11 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
9-12 |
English |
3 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
Native Language |
7 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Beliefs and Expectations
Teachers’
beliefs and expectations for their LEP students were explored in survey questions 19 and
22 (see Appendix A). In addition, a number of comments from open-ended questions on the
survey and interview related to expectations for students.
The survey contained
excerpts from two example performance packages from CFL. Respondents who taught K-8
students were asked to read an excerpt of the performance package entitled
“Migration” for the partial middle level preparatory content standard
“Inquiry: Direct Observation.” Respondents who taught 9-12 students were asked
to read an excerpt of the performance package entitled “Descriptive Research
Process” for the content standard “Inquiry: Research Process.” Respondents
were asked two questions about the performance package:
1. What
percent of the students you work with do you expect will be able to meet this standard
USING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?
2. What
percent of the students you work with do you expect will be able to meet this standard
USING THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE?
As illustrated in
Figure 3, 9 of 12 (75%) K-8 teachers expected one-quarter or less of their students to be
able to meet the preparatory content standard using the performance package and the
English language. Another two respondents (17%) expected that 51-75% of their students
would be able to meet the standard using English. In contrast, 5 of 12 (42%) K-8 teachers
expected one-quarter or less of their students to be able to meet the standard in their
native language and 4 of 12 (33%) expected 26-50% to meet the standard in their native
language. Additionally, three respondents indicated that they did not know how to answer
this question; one respondent commented that the student using his or her native language
was “not an option.” It was not clear from this response whether the teacher was
unaware that LEP students may meet standards in their native languages or whether using
the native language was not an option for another reason; for example, there is no one at
the school to help the student in his or her native language.
Figure 3. K-8 ESL Teachers’ Expectations for Their Students
The expectations of
grade 9-12 teachers for the percentage of their students who would be able to meet the
content standard using the performance package and the English language were similar to
those of their K-8 colleagues (see Figure 4). Five of nine (56%) expected that one-quarter
or less of their students would be able to meet the standard using English, and three of
nine (33%) expected that 26-50% of their students would do so. When asked about their
expectations for their students’ ability to meet the standard using their native
language, the results are more positive. Four of nine respondents (44%) said that they
thought 51-75% of their students would be able to meet the standard in that case, two of
nine (22%) indicated that one-quarter or less of their students would meet the standard,
and one (11%) said that 26-50% of students would be able to do it. One respondent
explained the choice of 0-25% by noting that there was no one at the school to teach in
the students’ native language.
Figure 4. Grade 9-12 ESL Teachers’ Expectations for Their Students
Respondents
frequently commented (n=22) on expectations for LEP students, both their own expectations
and those of “the system.” The following responses taken from survey and
interview data highlight this area:
•
I feel the ESL learner is
going to need standards written for them that can be taught by the ESL teacher or
modifications/special teaching are going to be needed to make it possible for the ESL
learner to be successful.
•
I think they–the
system must start teaching [standards] in K-6 for sure and not using the social promotion
policy.
•
I think students who have
studied in English for 3 years or less by the time they graduate should be exempt. In
fact, that may be too short an amount of time. Doesn’t Cummins say it takes about
7-10 years for students to achieve CALP? [Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency]
•
There is a big variation
in students’ abilities and learning rates, but I feel that most LEP students need at
least four years of English or more before they could perform these tasks. It is difficult
to explain to them what they need to do. After that it is difficult for them to read and
understand the necessary materials.
•
It is almost impossible
for new arrivals or students with very limited education & language skills. Others
seem to be doing all right–especially in elementary school, where these are just
“preparatory” standards. Not as much pressure in the elementary grades as
secondary levels.
•
I am using mainstream
non-fiction reading materials. This is very difficult for the students because of the
vocabulary. I do pre-teaching and quite a lot of preparation with them. I do feel many of
them are learning and are developing their critical thinking skills. However, the package
work is difficult, and gaps in prior education make it difficult for some students to
really grasp all that we are doing.
•
The high standards, my
feeling on that is, that the students, when they’re in classes that are teaching the
standard, that the ESL students should be expected to do it. Whether that would require
any modifying of it, I don’t know, and whether it’s even allowable or how
that’s allowable, I don’t even really know. I would like... the students to be
part of the whole school program.
•
Maybe just their lack of
background information [is a barrier to LEP students’ meeting the High
Standards], you know, some of them are asked to do a
project on the colonial America. Well, that’s not their history or not where
they’re coming from, so maybe just the different, you know, background knowledge that
they have to draw on isn’t what American kids have to draw on. So in a way it’s
kind of unfair to ask them to do some of that stuff.
•
Because the educational
background of 70% of the new Latino students is in Spanish I think the standard must be
measured in their native language and on the other hand, a special test to measure their
language and fluency. Latino students tend to know more in Spanish than in English
when they enter Jr. and Sr. High School.
Barriers to the Success of LEP Students
In answer to
open-ended questions about LEP students and Minnesota’s High Standards (question 23),
respondents commented on perceived barriers to the success of LEP students. Interview
participants were specifically asked about barriers for LEP students. The most frequently
cited barrier in the comments from both the surveys and the interviews was money and other resources (n=18).
•
It has been very costly
for us to hire interpreters to get some students through standards.
•
Even if they could present
results in their native language, we don’t have first language materials for them to
read.
•
I can’t get the High
Standards. I asked for them and I wasn’t even able to get a copy of them.
•
More staffing, I’m
sure, even to the point I suppose in a really ideal world, if an ESL teacher could go in a
mainstream classroom and perhaps assist the kids if that’s what’s needed.
•
We could use a lot more
money; we could use a lot more materials, a lot more space. We’re very crowded in our
school. One of our teachers works in the media center and two of us share a room and we
don’t have the storage space for all the materials you need. You need just so much
hands on stuff. We’re getting a little more money as time goes on and as our ESL
population grows, but, yeah, it’s not enough. We need a lot of hands-on, visuals,
things to ..., not just books. I feel like we just need lots more things for the children
to experience stuff.
•
We’re getting little
bits of all these other language groups as well, and I know nothing about those groups and
it would be nice to have more information about how their language operates, what their
culture is like, that kind of thing.
Another often cited
barrier that was a source of frustration for teachers was conflicting information and uncertainty (n=13).
The following responses from both the surveys and interviews highlight this area.
•
I do think it’s a
frustrating issue. I think part of the frustration comes through the newspaper where
we’re constantly... you know, you’re up, down, up, down, up, down because you
know they are a lot of work and it’s a big responsibility for everybody.
•
I just wish they’d
make up their mind and get it settled so that we can start working whatever way we need to
go.
•
[The High Standards have]
not been presented in a clear manner. No way in which I would spend my time trying to
design a course around it.
•
[In answer to the question “How would you rate your own
understanding of High Standards requirements?”] As
far as the specifics, very little. As far as the politics, I know way too much.
Finally, teachers
commented about time as a barrier (n=9). They
noted the need for more time for both ESL teachers to understand and implement High
Standards and for LEP students to achieve them. The following comments reflect their
thoughts.
•
[We need] in school
coordinating and planning time between ESL teachers and classroom teachers to determine
who is doing what and how we can work together to be sure our students are taught the
skills for packages, and that assessments are done.
•
There just needs to be a
whole lot more time available for teachers to look at them and see how they fit into what
they’re doing already and especially for ESL, what we need to do to help those kids
achieve what they need to do.
•
You know, from the
perspective of a primary teacher, I see that they’re doing OK in first grade because
the academic language isn’t so difficult, they’re learning to read and do math,
but they don’t have all the knowledge, just the general vocabulary and the knowledge
that native speakers come to school with already. And then the gap just gets bigger as
they go along, not for all of them, but for many. It seems like there ought to be some way
to feed all that information into them, but there’s so many other things pulling at
their time during the school day, to do this and that and the other thing, that
there’s never enough time for them to absorb and experience all the things that
native speakers have gotten in early childhood, you know, in their families, so I
don’t know how you close that gap. You know, lots of money and lots of time. Lots of
materials.
•
They need lots of time;
they need lots of time. Just reading a story and you have to spend so much time giving
them the background or explaining what a word means or... so they get as much
understanding from the story that the native speakers get. Because I think a lot of the
kids just get to a level where they’re coping and they have coping mechanisms to
survive but they’re not really getting the full benefit because they’re not
understanding everything, maybe 60% or so.
•
I think time is the
biggest barrier from all sides, from the students’ side, from the teachers’
side, from the coordinating angle.
Results by Grade Level Taught
This section
highlights selected quantitative survey data analyzed by the grade levels taught by
respondents. Results are presented in the same categories (Training and Knowledge about High Standards,
Implementation of High Standards, and Beliefs
and Expectations) used for the overall results.
Training and Knowledge about High Standards
When asked whether
ESL or general education teachers generally provided information about High Standards to
LEP students (survey question 8), high school and multi-level ESL and Bilingual Education
teachers reported that ESL teachers did (4 of 9 respondents, 44%) more often than primary
school teachers (1 of 10 respondents, 10%) and middle school teachers (1 of 4 respondents,
25%) reported that ESL teachers did. However, high school and multi-level ESL and
Bilingual Education teachers were also less likely than primary and middle school teachers
to know how LEP students got information about Minnesota’s High Standards. Three of
nine respondents (33%) who taught high school (including multi-level teachers) reported
that they did not know how LEP students received this information. Two of ten (10%)
respondents who were primary school teachers reported not knowing how LEP students got the
information, and all middle school teachers reported that they knew.
While high school
and multi-level ESL and Bilingual Education teachers were more often involved in giving
information about High Standards to their students than primary and middle school
teachers, it does not appear from the data that they received any more training on the
Standards (survey question 12). Most high school and multi-level teachers (6 of 9, 67%)
said that they had received 0-4 hours of training and the remaining 3 respondents (33%)
received 5-12 hours. Five of ten respondents who were primary school teachers (50%)
reported receiving 0-4 hours of training, one respondent (10%) had received 5-12 hours,
and three respondents (30%) had received 13-24 hours. (One respondent did not answer this
question.) Of the three middle school teachers, two reported receiving 0-4 hours of
training and one reported 13-24 hours.
Implementation of High Standards
High school (and
multi-level) as well as primary school teachers most commonly reported not being involved in the development of district
plans to implement High Standards (survey question 11). Five of ten (50%) of primary
school teachers reported no involvement and 5 of 9 (55%) of high school and multi-level
teachers reported that they had not had involvement or were not aware of their
district’s plan to implement High Standards.
As mentioned
earlier, few respondents (4 of 22, 18%) stated that they implemented content-based work
toward specific High Standards in their teaching (survey questions 7-1 and 7-2). One might
expect that secondary school teachers would be more involved than primary school teachers
in implementing this type of work, but that was not necessarily the case. Two of nine
(22%) secondary and multi-level teachers and two of ten (20%) primary school teachers
reported implementing content-based work toward specific High Standards. Similarly, 3 of 9
(33%) high school and multi-level teachers stated that they had developed or written High
Standards-based materials specific to LEP students (survey question 7-8), and 2 of 10
(20%) primary school teachers and 1 of 3 (33%) middle school teachers had done so.
However, these numbers may be skewed by grouping the 6 high school and 3 multi-level
teachers (all of whom taught at the high school level) together since no multi-level
teachers reported implementing content-based work toward specific High Standards or
developing High Standards-based materials. Only those teachers who taught high school
students exclusively were more likely to report performing these activities.
Beliefs and Expectations
Variations in
teachers’ beliefs and expectations as a function of grade levels taught were
presented with the overall results. Those results indicated that a greater percentage of
teachers of the upper grades (9-12) expected more students to meet expectations in their
native language.
Results by Years of ESL or Bilingual Education Teaching Experience
This section
highlights selected quantitative survey data as analyzed by the years of ESL or Bilingual
Education teaching experience of respondents. Results are presented in the same categories
(Training and Knowledge about High Standards,
Implementation of High Standards, and Beliefs
and Expectations) used for the overall results. Quantitative results were also
analyzed by the number of years respondents had taught in their current school district.
This analysis yielded a pattern very similar to that produced by the analysis by years of
teaching experience; thus, only the latter is given here.
Training and Knowledge about High Standards
Respondents with
more years of ESL or Bilingual Education teaching experience generally reported receiving
fewer hours of training since September 1998 on strategies for implementing High Standards
(survey question 12). As illustrated in Figure 5, approximately 30% of teachers with less
than 1 or 1-3 years of ESL teaching experience received 13-24 hours of training while less
than 20% of teachers with 4-7 years of experience received that much training and no
teachers with more than 7 years of experience received 13-24 hours of training. In fact,
63% (5 of 8) educators with 4-7 years of experience and 80% (4 of 5) educators with more
than 7 years received 0-4 hours of training since September 1998 on Minnesota’s High
Standards. In addition, two of the surveyed teachers reported that they had received their
training in their graduate school courses.
Figure 5. Respondents’ Years of ESL Teaching Experience and Hours of Training
Implementation of High Standards
Despite their
reported lack of training on Minnesota’s High Standards, in several cases educators
with more years of ESL or Bilingual Education teaching experience reported more
involvement with High Standards implementation than educators with less experience.
Specifically, 5 of 7 teachers (71%) with 4-7 years of experience and 2 of 5 educators
(40%) with more than 7 years of experience said that they taught High Standards-based
material in the English language (survey question 7-10). In contrast, 1 of 3 educators
(33%) with less than 1 year of experience and 1 of 5 educators (20%) with 1-3 years of
experience reported doing so. More experienced teachers also reported more often that they
communicated with the parents of LEP students about High Standards when compared to less
experienced teachers (survey question 7-7). The percentage of teachers stating that they
communicated with parents increased from zero percent of teachers (0 of 3) with less than
one year of experience to 33% of teachers (2 of 6) with 1-3 years of experience, then to
41% of teachers (3 of 7) with 4-7 years of experience, and finally to 67% of teachers (4
of 6) with more than 7 years of experience.
Teachers with more
experience also more frequently reported that they had developed or written High
Standards-based material specific to LEP students (survey question 7-8) and implemented
High Standards-based material they had developed (survey question 7-9); however, in these
cases teachers with 4-7 years of experience most often stated that they performed these
activities (3 of 7, 43% for each question) when compared to other teachers. No teachers (0
of 3) with less than one year of experience said that they developed or implemented
LEP-specific materials, 1 of 6 (16%) of teachers with 1-3 years of experience had done so,
and 2 of 7 (29%) teachers with more than 7 years of experience had developed LEP-specific
materials, but only one of them (14%) had implemented the materials.
Beliefs and Expectations
There was no clear
relationship in the data between teachers’ years of ESL or Bilingual Education
teaching experience and their beliefs about LEP students’ ability to complete a
performance package for a specific High Standard (survey questions 19 and 22). In general,
most teachers at all levels of experience expected that less than 25% of their LEP
students would be able to complete the example performance package with one or at most two
teachers at any level having higher expectations.
In this section the
results are discussed in terms of the three main research questions.
1. How are Minnesota’s High Standards being
implemented for LEP students in ESL or Bilingual Education classes? In general, High
Standards were not being implemented in the ESL and Bilingual Education classes taught by
educators who were surveyed. Approximately one-fifth of teachers reported having their
students do content-based work toward completion of a specific standard. ESL teachers more
often acted as a resource for general education teachers who were implementing High
Standards although many teachers commented on the lack of coordination between general
education teachers and ESL/Bilingual Education teachers.
2. How are LEP students participating in High Standards
in ESL or Bilingual Education classes? This study indicates that few LEP students were
working directly on content-based High Standards work in their ESL classes, some LEP
students were receiving support from their ESL teachers for High Standards work that took
place in general education classes, and many LEP students were working on English language
skills that their teachers viewed as preparatory to High Standards-related work. In
addition, most teachers reported that few, if any of their students were participating in
High Standards work in their native languages.
3. What factors influence the participation of LEP
students in Minnesota’s High Standards? Since most LEP students were not
participating in the High Standards through their ESL or Bilingual Education classes
according to this study, more research is needed to ascertain whether LEP students are
participating in the High Standards through their general education classes and what
factors influence their participation in that situation. Some early findings come from a
survey of Minnesota K-12 teachers who attended Phase III of MEEP training in 1998,
focusing on High Standards (Bemis & Wahlstrom, 1999). Only 28% (108 of 391
respondents) reported having at least one English language learner in a classroom where a
standard was being implemented. These preliminary findings together with the current study
suggest that in most cases LEP students are not participating in Minnesota’s High
Standards.
In the current
study, some elements were identified that may be factors in the LEP students’ lack of
participation.
• Training and Knowledge. ESL and Bilingual Education teachers generally
received very little training on Minnesota’s High Standards. In addition, substantial
percentages of surveyed educators were unaware of how specific standards were chosen for
LEP students to work on and how LEP students received information about High Standards.
Teachers who were interviewed mostly indicated little knowledge of LEP-specific
modifications to performance packages and of individual graduation plans for LEP students,
including the possibility of completing performance packages in their native languages.
These findings confirm earlier research (Liu, Spicuzza, Erickson, Thurlow, & Ruhland,
1997) that a lack of information flow is a major problem for ESL professionals in large,
urban districts, and in the case of the current study, in suburban districts as well.
• Time. ESL
and Bilingual Education professionals in this study reported not having time to look at
the High Standards and Performance Packages and needing time for coordinating and planning
with general education teachers.
• Coordination. Although the majority of survey respondents
indicated that they acted as a resource for general education teachers who were
implementing High Standards, their comments often noted the difficulty of coordination and
the lack of time to do so. Teachers frequently commented that they did not know about
specific Performance Packages that their students were working on, and therefore, they
often relied upon professional experience to guide them in choosing skills and language
for their students to study in support of High Standards’ work.
• Approach.
Many ESL teachers reported seeing themselves as on the sidelines in the High Standards
discussion and implementation, in some cases by their own choice and in others because
they were told that implementing the High Standards was not the job of ESL teachers. In
addition, according to state licensure rules, teachers should not teach outside their
licensure area; thus, a teacher who holds only an ESL license could implement High
Standards for learning areas Read, Listen, and View, and Write and Speak, but not for
other learning areas such as Scientific Applications.
Some teachers said
that what they do with LEP students is preparatory to standards work to be completed in
general education classes, but also pointed out that the small amount of time remaining
for LEP students to complete standards after attending ESL classes for (potentially)
several years would make standards completion nearly impossible. In contrast to this model
of ESL classes as preparation for content instruction in general education classes, one of
the interviewed teachers suggested that ESL and general education teachers should work as
a team with one particular group of students to whom content and language could be taught
together. This suggestion is similar to those made by researchers in effective
instructional practice for LEP students, which were summarized by Chamot (1992),
“Effective secondary programs for language minority students incorporate content into
the ESL class and infuse language development into content area classes.”
Recommendations
If LEP students have
no alternative to achieving graduation requirements than by meeting High Standards (as
well as passing the Basic Standards Tests), then it is essential that the standards be
implemented with these students. Since the number of LEP students in Minnesota is
increasing (Tarone, 1999), the issues surrounding their graduation requirements deserve
focused intensive effort. This effort should include the generation of ideas on approaches
to implementation of High Standards with LEP students including such topics as how
language and content can be taught together and how LEP students can achieve High
Standards using their native languages. At a deeper level, there may be a need to rethink
the content and objectives of the standards to understand whether they are appropriate in
all cases. For example, immigrant students who arrive in Minnesota in their teens with low
English ability may have a different set of needs from those who arrive at an earlier age
or with higher levels of English ability. Care needs to be taken to ensure that all
students are treated equitably.
Significant
investments of time and financial resources are needed to increase the inclusion of LEP
students in High Standards. Time is needed for teacher training, planning, and
collaboration among teachers, and for teachers to understand how the standards relate to
their own teaching methods. School districts and CFL need to provide LEP-specific High
Standards training to all teachers, both ESL and general education. In addition, school
districts need to make time for collaboration among ESL and non-ESL staff, so that all
teachers feel they are part of the major education reform efforts towards standards-based
education for all students.
A finding of this
study is that ESL teachers are generally not implementing content-based work toward
specific High Standards with their LEP students. This finding is compounded by the feeling
of some teachers in this study that the High School High Standards are not going to be
appropriate for immigrant students arriving in Minnesota in their teens with little
English ability and perhaps limited schooling. This is often the case with recent
refugees. If students at ages 13 or 14 with beginning level English need ESL classes to
improve their English, but at the same time must be completing High Standards outside of the ESL class, there is simply not
enough time in the typical school day to complete all the necessary work by age 18. There
are a number of possible implications of this that need to be considered:
•
The state of Minnesota and school districts must clarify how
long a student can remain in public education
•
School districts may have to continue to educate a significant
population of students beyond the 12th grade
•
Different approaches to ESL classes may be needed to provide
equal access to curriculum for all students. For example, there may need to be co-teaching
of content classes by ESL and mainstream teachers, programs specifically for students of
one native language, or ESL and content classes that are leveled by English ability and
not by age.
Bemis, A., &
Wahlstrom, K. (1999). Evaluation of standards
implementation in phase III. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, The Center for
Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
Bogdan, R., &
Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for
education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Chamot, A. (1992,
August). Changing instruction for language minority
students to achieve national goals [On-line]. Paper from the Third Plenary Session of
the Third National Research Symposium on LEP Student Issues, Washington, D.C. Available:
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/symposia/third/chamot.htm
Clair, N., Adger,
C., Short, D., & Millen, E. (1998). Implementing
standards with English language learners: Initial findings from four middle schools
[On-line]. Available: http://www.lab.brown.edu/public/pubs/catalog.taf.
Department of
Children, Families and Learning Graduation Standards, §3501.0350 (1999).
Liu, K., Spicuzza,
R., Erickson, R., Thurlow, M., & Ruhland, A. (1997). Educators’ responses to LEP students’ participation in the
1997 Basic Standards Testing (Minnesota Report
15). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd
edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Tarone, E. (1999).
Expanding our vision of English language learner education in Minnesota: Implications of
state population projections. MinneTESOL/WITESOL
Journal, 16, 1-13.
TESOL (1997). ESL standards for pre-K-12 students. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Appendix
A
Survey:
The Participation of LEP Students in Minnesota’s High Standards
1.
What is your current job title? (Check all that
apply.)
ESL teacher
- - - > For which
grades: K-5
6-8
9-12
Bilingual education teacher - - - > For which grades:
K-5
6-8
9-12
subject (s) taught
LEP supervisor/coordinator/director
School administrator
other; please
describe:
2.
Are you currently teaching? (Circle one.)
1. Yes
2. No (PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION
3.)
2a. How long have you been teaching? (Circle one.)
1.
Less than one year
2.
1 - 3 years
3.
4 - 7 years
4.
More than seven years
2b. How long have you been teaching ESL or bilingual education? (Circle one).
1.
Less than one year
2.
1 - 3 years
3.
4 - 7 years
4.
More than seven years
5.
Have not taught ESL or bilingual education
3.
How long have you been teaching in this school
district? (Circle one.)
1.
Less than one year
2.
1 - 3 years
3.
4 - 7 years
4.
More than seven years
4.
How many schools in this district do you teach at?
schools
If your answer to question 4 is more than 1 school, please focus on the school at
which you spend the most time in order to answer the remaining questions.
5.
Are your current responsibilities different from
last year due to the requirements of Minnesota’s High Standards? (Circle one.)
1. Yes - - - - - - - > Please describe these differences:
2. No
6.
For LEP students that you teach who are working on
Standards, how are the Standards chosen?
7.
Do you .... (Place an X in the column that contains
your answer.)
|
Yes |
No |
Unsure |
NA |
1. Implement
content-based work toward a specific High Standard in a situation where you teach alone ? (e.g. you teach the public
speaking standard) |
|
|
|
|
2. Implement
content-based work toward a specific High Standard in a situation where you team teach ? (e.g. you teach the public
speaking standard) |
|
|
|
|
3. Teach
skills that are directly related to the
completion of a content High Standard being implemented in another teacher’s class? (e.g. you help
students learn how to write biographies for a paper being written to implement a standard
in Social Studies class) |
|
|
|
|
4. Teach
language found in a specific High
Standard being implemented in another
teacher’s class? (e.g. you help students understand scientific terms for
standards-based work in a science class.) |
|
|
|
|
5. Act
as a resource for general education
teachers who are implementing High Standards-based work that includes LEP students? |
|
|
|
|
6. Advise
LEP students about graduation requirements and the role of High Standards? |
|
|
|
|
7. Communicate
with the parents of LEP students about High Standards? |
|
|
|
|
8. Develop
or write High Standards-based material/curriculum specific to LEP students? |
|
|
|
|
9. Implement
High Standards-based material/curriculum that you have written or developed? |
|
|
|
|
10. Teach
High Standards-based material in the English language? |
|
|
|
|
11. Teach
High Standards-based material in a language other than English? |
|
|
|
|
12. Work
on a team that is developing an individual graduation plan for an LEP student including modified High Standards? |
|
|
|
|
8.
Who generally helps LEP students learn about High
Standards? (Check one.)
general education teacher
ESL or bilingual education
teacher(s)
other; please describe
I don’t know.
9.
In what language do LEP students receive information
about High Standards? (Check one.)
English
native language
both English and native language
I don’t know.
10.
Have you been on teams that have discussed LEP student
participation in High Standards? (Check one.)
yes
no
11. How
involved have you been in the development of a plan to implement High Standards in your
district? (Check one.)
The district does not have a plan
that I know of.
I have had no involvement in
developing a plan.
I have had a little involvement in
developing a plan.
I have had some involvement in
developing a plan.
I have had a lot of involvement in
developing a plan.
other; please describe
12. Approximately
how many hours of training have you received since September, 1998 on strategies for
implementing High Standards? (Check one.)
0-4 hours
5-12 hours
13-24 hours
25-40 hours
more than 40 hours
13. Who
were the trainers at the sessions on High Standards?
(Check all that apply.)
MEEP trainers
ESL or bilingual education
trainers
other regional trainers
district staff
other; please describe
I don’t know.
14.
Who were the trainees at the sessions on High Standards? (Check
one.)
ESL and bilingual education staff
only
ESL and bilingual education staff
and general education staff
teachers/administrators together
school and community people
together
other; please describe
I don’t know.
15. What
aspects of the training you received were most helpful as you begin to implement High
Standards?
16.
What additional training about High Standards would be helpful
to you in the future?
IF YOU WORK WITH STUDENTS IN GRADES K-8, ANSWER
QUESTIONS 17-19. IF YOU WORK WITH STUDENTS IN GRADES 9-12, ANSWER QUESTIONS 20-22.
17. What
percent of the students you work with are performing activities to meet preparatory
content High Standards USING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE? (Check one.)
0-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
I don’t know.
18. What
percent of the students you work with are performing activities to meet preparatory
content High Standards USING THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE? (Check one.)
0-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
I don’t know.
19.
a. Read the portion of the preparatory content High Standard on
the facing page. What percent of the students you work with do you expect will be able to
meet this standard USING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE? (Check one.)
0-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
I don’t know.
b. What percent of the students you work with do you
expect will be able to meet this standard USING THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE? (Check one.)
0-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
I don’t know.
ANSWER QUESTIONS 20-22 ONLY IF YOU WORK
WITH STUDENTS IN GRADES 9-12.
20.
What percent of the
students you work with are performing activities to meet high school level High Standards
USING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE? (Check one.)
0-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
I don’t know.
21.
What percent of the
students you work with are performing activities to meet high school level High Standards
USING THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE? (Check one.)
0-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
I don’t know.
22.
a. Read the portion of
the High Standard on the facing page. What percent of the students you work with do you
expect will be able to meet this standard USING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE? (Check one.)
0-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
I don’t know.
b. What percent of the students you work with do you
expect will be able to meet this standard USING THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE? (Check one.)
0-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
I don’t know.
23.
What questions or comments do you have about the participation
of LEP students in Minnesota’s High Standards? (Please
write your thoughts below.)
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
The
Participation of LEP Students in Minnesota’s High Standards
1.
A teacher who answered our survey
on LEP students and High Standards said that the standards had created “a nightmare
of paperwork” and had “little effect” on “how teachers teach.” What do you think the effect of
Minnesota’s High Standards has been on ESL teachers in general and you in particular?
Follow-up
Questions: Do you think ESL
teachers should be involved in the “standards business”? Why or why not?
2.
How would you rate your own
understanding of High Standards requirements?
1
2
3 4
5
No Very little Some Good Excellent
Understanding
Understanding Understanding Understanding Understanding
3.
How much would you say you know
about LEP-specific modifications to performance packages?
1
2
3 4
5
Almost
nothing
A little
Some A lot
Almost everything
4.
How much would you say you know
about individual graduation plans for LEP students?
1
2
3 4
5
Almost
nothing
A little
Some A lot
Almost everything
5.
(Follow-up to Survey Question 6) For LEP students that you teach who are
working on Standards, how are the Standards chosen? Follow-up
questions: What is the decision-making
process? Who is involved in the process? Are
ESL teachers part of the process?
6. (Follow-up to Survey Question 7, parts 3, 4, 5, and 7)
a.
Do you teach skills that are directly related to the
completion of a content High Standard being implemented in another teacher’s class?
Yes ---------->
What process is used to determine which skills
should be taught? Can you give an example?
No ---------->
Are you teaching skills for
completing content High
Standards in another way? Give an
example.
b.
Do you teach language found in a specific High Standard
being implemented in another teacher’s class?
Yes ---------->
How do you determine what language should be
taught? Can you give an example?
No ---------->
Are you teaching language for
completing content
High Standards in another way? Give an
example.
c.
Do you act as a resource for general education teachers who
are implementing High Standards-based work that includes LEP students?
Yes ---------->
Please give an example of this.
No ---------->
Are you acting as a resource for
general education
teachers in another way? Give an
example.
d.
Do you
communicate with the parents of LEP students about High Standards?
Yes ---------->
Tell me more about this. What are you
doing to
communicate with them that is successful?
No ---------->
At your school, who communicates with the parents
of LEP students about High Standards?
7.
(Follow-up
to Survey Questions 12 and 16)
Approximately how many hours of training
have you received since September, 1998 on strategies for implementing High Standards?
0-4 hours 5-12 hours 13-
24 hours 25-40 hours >
40 hours
What additional training about High Standards do you feel you need?
8.
In an ideal world, what would it
take to help LEP students meet Minnesota’s High Standards?
9.
What do you see as barriers to LEP
students’ meeting the High Standards? What
specific barriers have you found in your school and district? What could your school and district do differently to
eliminate barriers?
10.
Is there anything else you would like to tell
me about High Standards?