|
Breakfast briefing
September 30, 2005
Introduction
On September 30, 2005 the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) in conjunction
with the Urban Institute released two reports as part of a study of the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and its implications for Limited English
Proficient (LEP) students. One, The New Demography of America’s
Schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act by Randy Capps,
Michael Fix, Julie Murray, Jason Ost, Jeffrey Passel, and Shinta Herwantoro,
profiles the immigrant student population in grades pre-K-12. A
second, Who’s Left Behind? Immigrant Children in High
and Low LEP Schools, by Clemencia Cosentino de Cohen, Nicole Deterding,
and Beatriz Chu Clewell, describes schools with high and low shares of
LEP students and the possible effects of NCLB on these schools.
The briefing included presentations on the findings of the reports by
Mr. Michael Fix (Vice President and Director of Studies at MPI), Dr.
Randy Capps (Senior Research Associate at the Urban Institute), and Ms.
Clemencia Cosentino de Cohen (Research Associate in the Program for Education
and Equity Research at the Urban Institute), plus a response by Ms. Patricia
Sullivan (Center Director, Center on Education Policy).
Presentation
Michael Fix began by highlighting three points of departure
to contextualize the presentations. First, he cited a mismatch
between US immigration policies—which he described as quite generous,
especially when compared with other immigrant-receiving nations—and
US integration policies, which are ad hoc, generally under-funded, and
matters addressed primarily by state rather than federal legislation.
Second, the No Child Left Behind Act may represent a departure from
this mismatch: it may be the most important piece of immigrant
integration legislation enacted this decade, at least on paper, given
that it has the potential to improve the education of LEP and immigrant
children. It requires that schools identify and assess LEP students
in academic content areas and English proficiency. The law holds
schools accountable for LEP student progress, specifically by requiring
schools and districts to disaggregate LEP standardized test scores. Furthermore,
the Act allows for the imposition of tough sanctions and has new requirements
affecting LEP students, such as demonstrated progress in teaching children
English, qualified teachers in ESL classrooms, and expanded parental
involvement—an element which is especially important given that
most LEP students live in linguistically isolated households (i.e. households
in which no one over age 14 speaks English very well). While the
law may represent a departure in integration policy, building an accountability
system that does not push out vulnerable students is a very difficult
proposition, especially given the current fiscal environment for states.
Third, despite its centrality to integration, education has not been
a central focus of many immigrant advocates or experts. Fix cited
the complexity of education and high barriers to political and intellectual
entry to the debate as reasons for this phenomenon.
Randy Capps gave a demographic overview of the new
Urban Institute report, The New Demography of America’s Schools: Immigration
and the No Child Left Behind Act. Rapid growth in immigrant
and LEP children numbers is a function of the rapid growth in immigration: 14
to 16 million immigrants entered the US in the 1990s, which contrasts
with a much smaller number from the mid-1900s, a time in which most federal
education policy was formulated. Estimates indicate that the current
foreign born population stands at 34.2 million and project this population
will exceed 40 million in 2010. Although this number is high in
absolute terms, as a percentage of the total population, it is less than
the previous peak at the turn of the century.
Twenty percent of students have at least one foreign born parent; most
of these students are actually born in the United States, especially
younger children. Only five percent of children in schools are
foreign born themselves.
Immigrants continue to concentrate in large urban areas, most notably
in the states of California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and
Illinois, but we are also seeing the emergence of new growth states,
mostly in the Southeast and Midwest. In California, almost half
of all students pre-K through fifth grade are children of immigrants,
and in several states (Nevada, New York, Hawaii, Texas, Florida, Arizona
and New Jersey) immigrant children constitute a quarter of all students.
Half of children of immigrants come from Latin America, and another
quarter from Asia; Mexico alone constitutes the origin of 48 percent
of all children of immigrants. Children of immigrants of European
descent only comprise 17 percent, a major departure from the previous
major immigration wave.
The undocumented population represents 29 percent of all immigrants,
based on Pew Hispanic Center research, but it only comprises two to three
percent of the school age children. Despite the diversity of parents’ legal
status, children of immigrants are primarily U.S. citizens.
Recently arrived and foreign born students represent a larger share
of secondary school students, owing to the very nature of being older
and therefore having more opportunity to immigrate. This phenomenon
is problematic, however, when taking into consideration the fact that
students who arrive in the US when they are older have less time to learn
English and other skills, which can result in greater difficulty in school.
The largest percentage of LEPs as a part of the student population is
in kindergarten, where one in ten students is LEP; this is congruent
with the expectation that students should learn English as they progress
in school. More LEP children are native than foreign born, and
three-quarters of LEP students pre-kindergarten through fifth grade are
natives. Over half of LEP secondary school students are natives
This worrisome trend suggests that there are many students who have been
exclusively educated in US schools for many years without learning English
very well.
Another important phenomenon is the correlation between LEP students
and poverty levels. The correlation corresponds with the changing
demographics of LEPs: most come from Latin America, their parents
demonstrate less educational attainment, and they are subject to the
increasing wage gap between high- and low-skill jobs. Two-thirds
of LEP children’s incomes are below the free and reduced price
school lunch threshold, and half have parents with less than a high school
education. Parents who not only demonstrate limited English proficiency
but also lack a high school degree are often ill-equipped to teach and
prepare their children.
Clemencia Cosentino de Cohen presented the findings
of Who’s Left Behind? Immigrant Children in High and
Low LEP Schools. The goal of the project was to study the
characteristics of elementary schools with varying concentrations of
LEP students: high-, low- and no-LEP schools. The report utilized
the Schools and Staffing Survey 1999-2000 and serves, in effect, as a
pre-NCLB baseline.
The methodology outlined three major steps:
- Analyze the LEP concentration in elementary schools;
- Divide schools by LEP concentration into high-, low- and no-LEP schools;
high-LEP schools were those with 25 percent or more LEP students, equal
to ten percent of all elementary schools;
- Study the characteristics of schools by concentration type.
Cosentino de Cohen highlighted three major findings. First, regarding
the concentration of LEP students, the study found that 70 percent of
LEPs are educated in only ten percent of all schools. The other
30 percent are found in low-LEP schools (47 percent of all schools). Forty-three
percent of schools have no LEP students.
Differing LEP concentration levels predicted the convergence of differing
school and student characteristics. High-LEP schools tended to
have higher levels of poverty, higher shares of have Hispanic, Asian,
or Native American students, and to be located in urban areas (while
low-LEPs tended to be suburban and no-LEPs rural). One issue with
the convergence of factors is that students may fall into more than one
special characteristic (or protected class) defined under the NCLB.
Finally, Cosentino de Cohen described the faculty and program resources
associated with being a high-LEP school. Overall, teachers exhibit
less academic preparation, are less likely to be fully certified than
teachers at no or low LEP schools. At the same time,regular classroom
teachers are more likely to hold ESL certification. A higher percentage
of teachers tend to be new, which also correlates with higher turnover,
less experience, and greater likelihood of having only provisional certification. Principals
tend to have less education, experience, and training than those in no
or low LEP school, a finding whose significance is underscored by a growing
body of research that highlights the importance of principals in student
success. High-LEP schools offer more special programs such as pre-kindergarten,
academic enrichment, remedial programs, enrichment programs, and foreign
languages. However, we know little about the quality of, or attendance
in, these programs.
Fix then reiterated six important challenges for NCLB implementation
and success that that emerge from the two Urban Institute studies:
- The United States is experiencing rapid immigration-led demographic
changes in general and in new growth areas in particular: the flow
to these new growth areas is slightly different from the flow to the
US in general, in that immigrants are more likely to be recently arrived,
less educated, poor, limited English proficient, and undocumented.
- There is a high concentration of LEP kids in a comparatively small
number of schools; this may not be bad if these schools are responsive
in a way that other schools might not be, but it still demonstrates
linguistic and racial or ethnic isolation which is problematic.
- Children of immigrants often fall into multiple protected groups
under NCLB (i.e. racial or ethnic minorities, LEP, low-income, or disabled),
which results in more standards for schools to meet, which in turn
may mean that districts are less likely to meet these standards and
more likely to be found in need of improvement and subject to sanctions.
- More immigrant children—especially the recently arrived—are
found in secondary schools than elementary schools; secondary schools
are particularly ill-equipped to teach both language and content simultaneously.
- Over half of LEP elementary and secondary students are natives; this
is a testimony to high levels of segregation and speaks to the promise
of the accountability present in the NCLB, at least on paper.
- These LEP students live in linguistically isolated families in addition
to attending segregated schools; this underscores the deep logic of
programs like Even Start that do not just serve children but
families.
Response
Patricia Sullivan focused her comments on the current
state of the No Child Left Behind Act; its fundamental components—standards-based
reform with sanctions—are both positive and lasting, although its
implementation and certain details of the law itself may be subject to
legislative or regulatory change. Despite initial difficulties
at state and district levels, in large part due to the rigidness of implementation,
NCLB has become integrated into education policy. The new Secretary
of Education, Margaret Spellings, has signaled increased flexibility
in the law’s implementation, marking a departure from the Department’s
previous unwillingness to consider waivers to certain provisions of NCLB. NCLB
is up for reauthorization in 2007, although Congress has the option to
review it sooner.
The overriding problem with NCLB continues to be one of funding. Eighty
percent of districts and 100 percent of states report spending their
own money to implement NCLB because there is not sufficient federal funding. The
National Education Association, in conjunction with several school districts
and state education associations, sued the US Department of Education
in 2005, citing a provision in NCLB that establishes that districts do
not have to implement the law if federal money does not cover incurred
expenses associated with it. There has also been more general discontent
among state legislatures and governor’s offices with the law, resulting
in lawsuits and legislative statements (i.e. laws or resolutions) in
opposition to NCLB or particular parts of it. Sullivan predicts that
the funding problem will persist, as even less federal money will be
provided than in the past, an issue which is troubling to state legislators,
as well.
NCLB implementation also suffers from a capacity issue at state and
local levels, both in expertise and in resources. The NCLB requirement
to report LEP student progress, for example, is a complex and technical
one. Many states are faced with a lack of staff expertise to make
state decisions that comply with federal reporting requirements or to
provide technical assistance to struggling districts, as the law requires. Resources
at a local level are problematic as well, as the interventions in poorly
performing schools are not sufficiently funded. The challenge here
is to design accountability to protect LEP students without creating
incentives to push these students out of schools.
Question and Answer Session
An audience member asked why numbers approximating the LEP population
were different by ten percent between the two reports. Fix replied
that given the hazy and varying definitions of LEP students and their
numbers, a ten percent discrepancy should actually be considered as cross-validating
one another. Capps went on to say that the two reports utilize
two different datasets with different definitions of LEP. The
New Demography of America’s Schools: Immigration and the
No Child Left Behind Act utilizes Census data, in which status is
reported by a household member and is defined by speaking proficiency. Who’s
Left Behind? Immigrant Children in High and Low LEP Schools uses
data from SASS which is reported by the schools and is based on reading,
writing, speaking, and listening proficiency. Given the more comprehensive
definition of the latter, one should expect higher numbers for the second
report than for the first.
Another audience member asked how the current situation differs from
that which existed 75 to 100 years ago for immigrant children. Fix
responded that at the turn of the century there were higher levels of
immigration. The two periods are similar in that both had large
language-dominant groups. He also commented that he thinks it is
often forgotten how much school reform was guided by immigration during
the first wave, especially with the introduction of ability grouping
and testing itself. Capps added that today schools have to do far
more than previously; given the need for higher levels of education to
obtain good jobs, the burden on schools is much higher. The audience
member then restated the question and asked to what degree might data
show that children in low-LEP schools have a better learning experience
because they are more likely to acquire English more rapidly than their
peers in schools with many LEP students. Cosentino de Cohen responded
that the report authors would have loved to look at this question, but
that the SASS survey, on which Who’s Left Behind is based,
only looks at teachers, schools, and resources, not student-level data. She
would have liked to have studied how these factors link to student achievement
using other data, too, but for a variety of reasons—logistical,
legal, and financial—this was not possible.
|
