# data[].attributes.body
As a high school instructional coach in humanities classrooms, I hope that this legal resource guide will serve humanities teachers so that they can be aware of and implement best practices when working with our English Learners. 

# data[].attributes.body
English Learners typically are a small population on many high school campuses and oftentimes their needs go unnoticed and/or teachers do not have the foundational knowledge and skills to adequately address the learning needs these language learners have.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important as educators that we know the laws that relate to this special population of students and that ethically we understand the importance of serving these students well so that they can achieve high levels of learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Bio: Ms. Coronado has served the EL population for 10 years as both teacher and now assistant principal at Central High School in San Angelo, Texas. Passionate about equity in education, Ms. Coronado continues to advocate for this important group of students. Her hobbies include running, reading, and spending time with her grandson. Her nickname growing up was "Bunny" because she was so full of energy and always on the go.

# data[].attributes.body
Sarah believes that ELs are underserved because some teachers can lack the skills necessary to communicate with ELs and may feel intimidated by the language barrier. This intimidation could transfer into students not being served, and because the population is small, this lack of service may go unnoticed. Another problem that arises is that teachers equate a language barrier to a deficiency in intelligence rather than understanding that a language barrier simply needs to be overcome so that learning can be expressed and understood by both teacher and student. Ms. Coronado also mentioned that having the law gives administrators and teachers the backing to provide the support needed because it brings accountability at both the campus and district levels.

She goes on to say that the law provides only the foundation for support and is not the end of what schools should do to support ELs on their campuses. The law is not the end of what we should be doing Holding an LPAC (Language Proficiency Assessment Committee) and having the signature on the form does not reflect that schools are truly providing support if they are not also monitoring and evaluating the support provided in the classroom.  Ms. Coronado firmly believes that schools need to make sure that they are committed to doing what is best for each student

Moving forward, according to Ms. Coronado, some areas of concern are that schools, leaders, and teachers may get caught  up in the legality rather than the spirit of the law that these kids need real support and teachers need training in what successful language supports look like in instructional practice. Rather than simple compliance, strides must be made to ensure the law is transferred to meaningful classroom language support for our EL population.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: The Teachers Our English Language Learners Need

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: The Teachers Our English Language Learners Need

# data[].attributes.body
Gándara, P., & Santibañez, L. (2016). The teachers our English Language Learners need. Educational Leadership, 73(5), 32–37.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vol. 73

No. 5

Abstract

Being a "Good Teacher" Is Not Good Enough

Professional Development to Fill the Gap

What Can Schools Do?

Looking for Leadership

When it comes to providing all English language learners with the highly qualified teachers they need and deserve, we have a long way to go.

You have 0 free articles left this month.

Create an account and get additional free articles.

Credit: Corbis

Abstract

Being a "Good Teacher" Is Not Good Enough

Professional Development to Fill the Gap

What Can Schools Do?

Looking for Leadership

We've heard a lot of discussion lately about the importance of "highly qualified teachers" for narrowing achievement gaps. These discussions are generally limited to issues of socioeconomic status or race; it's well known that children of color and low-income children are much less likely to have a "highly qualified" teacher in their classroom than other children are (Darling-Hammond & Berry, 2006).

What's less well known is that English language learners (ELLs) also suffer from a teacher-quality gap (Samson & Collins, 2012)-and for these students, the problem is compounded. Without special preparation, even good teachers may find it difficult to meet the needs of English language learners. Unfortunately, the question of what constitutes a highly qualified teacher of ELLs has been largely left out of the conversations about teacher quality.

Given that about 10 percent of all students in the United States are English language learners (Migration Policy Institute, 2015), it's surprising that concern about providing highly qualified teachers for these students hasn't garnered more attention. The large and persistent gaps in academic outcomes for English language learners compared with other students indicate that something must be wrong with the teaching approaches we're using. For example, in 2013 the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) found that 69 percent of ELLs scored below basic proficiency in 8th grade mathematics, compared with just 25 percent of native English speakers. Reading scores at 8th grade were also dismal; 70 percent of ELLs scored below basic compared with 21 percent of non-ELLs (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2013). Scores at the 4th grade level were similar.

Of course, ELLs are by definition not sufficiently strong in English to score at the same level as native English speakers, but such enormous gaps, especially in mathematics, and a high school graduation gap double that of any other group (Callahan, 2013) suggest a serious problem.

Being a "Good Teacher" Is Not Good Enough

Research suggests that good teachers of ELLs share many of the traits and characteristics of good teachers in general (Goldenberg, 2013). In a 2014 study, Susanna Loeb and her colleagues asked, "Is a good teacher a good teacher for all?" and found that teachers who were effective with native-English-speaking students (as measured by increased test scores) also tended to be effective with English language learners. However, these researchers also found that teachers were relatively more effective with ELLs if they were fluent in their students' home language and had a bilingual certification (Loeb, Soland, & Fox, 2014).

We believe that it's not enough to provide English language learners with a generally good teacher. To close the achievement gaps and to build on ELLs' strengths, we need to provide teachers for ELLs who have additional skills and abilities.

One such ability is bilingualism. The consistently strong English language arts and math outcomes for students who are educated bilingually indicate that teachers who are able to teach bilingually have special skills to meet ELLs' academic needs (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005; Umansky & Reardon, 2015; Valentino & Reardon, in press).

Various researchers have suggested that bilingual teachers have advantages because they use a broader set of pedagogical strategies; are more likely than monolingual teachers to believe that reaching out to and engaging parents is part of their job (Hopkins, 2013); and can better monitor what students are learning and adapt instruction to student needs (Maxwell-Jolly & Gándara, 2012).

Some researchers argue that the best teacher for ELLs is one who can communicate with them and their families, regardless of the language of instruction in the classroom (De Jong & Harper, 2005; Hopkins, 2013). Teachers who can communicate with ELLs in their native language, involving them in classroom discussions and activities, can improve students' attitudes toward school and reduce the likelihood that they will drop out (Callahan, 2013). This is important because researchers have found that motivation can be a major challenge for English language learners, especially at the secondary level, where they may have difficulty fitting in and may feel like outsiders (Meltzer & Hamann, 2004).

In addition to bilingualism, research suggests a number of other characteristics that make a good teacher for ELLs:

Knowledge of language uses, forms, and mechanics (Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2002).

A feeling of efficacy with respect to helping these students achieve high standards (Garcia, 1996).

Strong relationship-building skills and attention to the social-emotional needs of students (Moll, 1988).

Cultural knowledge and the ability to incorporate this knowledge into instruction (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Milk, Mercado, & Sapiens, 1992).

Specific pedagogical skills, including knowing how to conduct formative assessment of students' developing skills, organize the classroom to invite greater participation, and scaffold instruction for students who are struggling with English (Garcia, 1992).

Relatively little research has been conducted to determine the proportion of teachers of English language learners who have received training in using instructional strategies that most benefit ELLs. One 2013 study by Francesca López and her colleagues looked at state teacher certification requirements to see whether these requirements included knowledge of 10 areas that are key to the instruction of ELLs (for example, knowledge of teaching English as a second language and teaching literacy in the native language). The researchers found that only 14 states offered a specialist certification (such as English as a second language or bilingual certification); 15 states required all teachers to be exposed to some instruction relevant to educating English language learners; and 12 states had certification processes that did not mention any skills for teaching ELLs at all. No state required that teachers-specialists or otherwise-be competent in or even exposed to all 10 areas of knowledge and skills. These findings point to two clear conclusions: (1) States vary enormously in their teacher preparation and certification requirements for teachers of ELLs and (2) State requirements for those who will teach ELLs are not aligned with the abilities that the research suggests are important (López, Scanlan, & Gundrum, 2013).

Professional Development to Fill the Gap

Because teacher certification programs provide so little preparation for those who will teach English language learners, it's up to professional development to fill in the gaps. But how much time do schools actually devote to professional development related to teaching English language learners?

The last national study on the topic commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education found that, on average, teachers who had English language learners in their classes received only 4.2 hours of professional development on instruction for ELLs over a five-year period (Zehler, Fleischman, Hopstock, Pendzick, & Stephenson, 2003). A statewide study conducted in California in 1999-2000 (when nearly one in four students in the state was an ELL) found that an average of 7 percent of professional development time was devoted to the instruction of ELLs (Stecher & Bornstedt, 2000).

In 2005, a survey of 5,300 educators in California found that among the teachers whose classrooms were composed of 50 percent or more English language learners, about half had either no professional development or only one session focused on the instruction of ELLs over a five-year period (Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005). In a more recent survey of more than 550 teachers in Los Angeles (a school district with more English language learners than any other in the United States), we found that considerably more time was being devoted to professional development focused on instruction for ELLs-17 hours per year on average-yet teachers did not view it as sufficient (Santibañez & Gándara, 2015).

One of the questions asked of teachers in the 2005 study was, What are your greatest challenges in meeting the needs of your English language learners? Both elementary and secondary teachers cited communication as a major challenge: The elementary teachers cited the inability to communicate effectively with parents, whereas the secondary teachers noted problems in motivating their students, presumably at least in part because of limited ability to communicate with them.

In the 2015 survey of teachers in Los Angeles, we asked about both the challenges of teaching ELLs and the supports that would be most helpful in educating these students (Santibañez & Gándara, 2015). Similar to earlier studies, the most frequently mentioned weakness in teacher preparation programs was their failure to train teachers to engage with parents of ELLs. (Only 35 percent of teachers noted that their preservice program had prepared them "well" or "very well" for this.) When asked about their most pressing challenges when teaching ELLs, 72 percent of all teachers mentioned the related challenge of parents not being able to help out with schoolwork. Yet the responses indicated that this area was the least often covered in the professional development the respondents received. Curiously, communication with parents was also not mentioned among the topics the teachers wanted professional development to focus on.

Between 75 and 86 percent of all teachers surveyed in Los Angeles said they wanted more ELL-focused professional development; the teachers with the least experience expressed the most need, which tends to confirm that preservice teachers are still not receiving enough training relevant to teaching ELLs. When we asked teachers what would be most useful in addressing their challenges, their areas of greatest need were things they did not have time to do: observe other highly effective teachers, work with a mentor or coach, and participate in a professional learning community.

Any effort to improve the education of English learners should include the recruitment of certified bilingual teachers.

What Can Schools Do?

Of course, any efforts to improve the education of English language learners should include the recruitment of certified bilingual teachers. Some school districts with large populations of bilingual students are "growing their own" by encouraging these students beginning in high school to pursue a career in teaching. However, it's clear that most districts won't have enough bilingual teachers to serve all ELLs in the foreseeable future. And in some districts-such as Fairfax County, Virginia, which serves students from more than 200 countries representing 140 languages (Smith & Varlas, 2008)- bilingual education programs led by bilingual teachers cannot provide the complete answer. Schools must work with the teachers they have and within their own set of conditions. Nonetheless, even in districts with many languages, most have large concentrations of one or two languages.

It's worth listening to what teachers are saying and responding with the time-intensive professional development they're asking for. Of course, time is a precious resource in schools. Teachers in our surveys have consistently noted they don't have enough classroom time to meet their ELLs' needs, let alone time to engage in the kinds of professional development that they believe would help them increase their effectiveness. Finding ways to provide that time may be the most important intervention school leaders can undertake. It may require reorganizing time in creative ways, such as combining classes for part of a day every couple of weeks or providing extracurricular opportunities for students during the school day. But if we take teachers at their word, the most effective ways to improve instruction for English language learners may be to provide the time for teachers to observe exemplary lessons, discuss what they have seen, and practice under the watchful eye of a coach or mentor.

Finally, schools need to address the elephant in the room. Although monolingual teachers routinely mention a lack of communication with families of English language learners as a major problem, they do not seem to see any ready solution to this problem-nor do they mention it as something they want in professional development. Yet there are strategies for increasing communication between monolingual English-speaking teachers and parents whose language and culture is different from those of the teacher, and these can be addressed in professional development.

Bilingual parent liaisons are one alternative; well-trained liaisons who have strong ties to the community have been shown to be effective in bringing parents to school. Home visits, with an interpreter or parent liaison, are also an effective strategy. Using a local clergy person as an intermediary can be very effective in many culturally diverse communities. In sum, it's crucial to include parent-teacher communication strategies in professional development. After all, parents of English language learners have an important role to play in the academic success of their children, as do all parents.

Looking for Leadership

One surprising finding of the 2015 survey of teachers in Los Angeles was the almost nonexistent role that school principals played in providing support for new teachers of English language learners. When asked to think back to the first time they taught ELLs and to choose what had most helped them deal with the challenges they encountered, teachers chose the support of their principals last. The literature is clear that concerted, schoolwide efforts are needed to create settings where ELLs can thrive (Goldenberg, 2013). To do this, schools need inspired school leaders who can engage parents and support teachers in meeting the challenges of teaching English language learners.

References

Callahan, R. (2013). The English learner dropout dilemma: Multiple risks and multiple resources. Santa Barbara: California Dropout Research Project.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (2006). Highly qualified teachers for all. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 14-20.

De Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101-124.

Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers' challenges, experiences, and professional development needs. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.

Garcia, E. (1992). Teachers for language minority students: Evaluating professional standards. Focus on evaluation and measurement, Vols. I and II. Proceedings of the National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Garcia, E. (1996). Preparing instructional professionals for linguistically and culturally diverse students. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 802-813). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363-385.

Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know-and don't yet know-about effective instruction. American Educator, 27(2), 4-13.

González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hopkins, M. (2013). Building on our teaching assets: The unique pedagogical contributions of bilingual educators, Bilingual Research Journal, 36, 350-370.

Loeb, S., Soland, J., & Fox, L. (2014). Is a good teacher a good teacher for all? Comparing value-added of teachers with their English learners and non-English learners. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 46, 457-475.

López, F., Scanlan, M., & Gundrum, B. (2013). Preparing teachers of English language learners: Empirical evidence and policy implications. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(20).

Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Gándara, P. (2012) Teaching all our students well: Teaching and teachers to close the achievement gap. In T. Timar & J. Maxwell-Jolly (Eds.), Narrowing the achievement gap: Perspectives and strategies for challenging times (pp. 163-186). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. (2004). Meeting the literacy development needs of adolescent English language learners through content area learning. Part I: Focus on motivation and engagement. Providence, RI: Education Alliance at Brown University.

Migration Policy Institute. (2015). ELL fact sheet no. 5: States and districts with the highest number of English learners. Washington, DC: Author.

Milk, R., Mercado, C., & Sapiens, A. (1992, Summer). Rethinking the education of teachers of language minority children: Developing reflective teachers for changing schools. NCBE Focus: Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education. Number 6.

Moll, L. C. (1988). Turning to the world: Bilingual school, literacy, and the cultural mediation of thinking. In T. Shanahan & F. V.

Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), National Reading Conference Yearbook (pp. 59-75). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2013). The nation's report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces​.ed.gov/nations​report​card.

Samson, J., & Collins, B. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Santibañez, V., & Gándara, P. (2015). Teachers of English language learners in LAUSD: Issues around preparation and support (working paper). Los Angeles: UCLA/The Civil Rights Project.

Smith, J., & Varlas, L. (2008). Working with ESL specialists. ASCD Express (online newsletter), 3(13). Retrieved from www​.ascd.org/ascd-express/vol3/​313-smith​.aspx

Stecher, B. M., & Bornstedt G. W. (Eds.). (2000). Class size reduction in California: The 1998-99 evaluation findings. Sacramento: California Department of Education.

Umansky, I., & Reardon, S. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English Learner students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 871-912.

Valentino, R., & Reardon, S. (in press). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed to serve English language learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

Wong Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Zehler, A., Fleischman, L., Hopstock, P., Pendzick, M., & Stephenson. T. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition.

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action.

We create practical, timely, affordable professional learning to help educators and instructional leaders provide students with a modern, equitable, and quality education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Teachers Our English Language Learners Need

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it comes to providing all English language learners with the highly qualified teachers they need and deserve, we have a long way to go.

# data[].attributes.body
Gándara and Santibañez (2016) discuss the need of high performing teachers with special skill sets to serve English Learners. They list research studies that showcase evidence that English Learners are best served through bilingual teachers, but they also list professional learning topics that support teachers of ELs such as instructional best practices for language skill development and methods for increasing parental involvement despite language barriers. Overall, this resource can serve teachers as they explore how to best serve this important population of students.

# data[].attributes.headline
News Article: Is the Texas Legislature doing enough for English learners in HB 3?

# data[].attributes.subject
News Article: Is the Texas Legislature doing enough for English learners in HB 3?

# data[].attributes.body
Chang, J. (2019, April 19). Is the Texas Legislature doing enough for English learners in HB 3? Austin American Statesman.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although it is considered a landmark piece of legislation that would make several necessary updates to the state's school finance system, House Bill 3 would not change the funding weight for hundreds of thousands of non-native English speaking students, according to bilingual education advocates.

HB 3, which as originally filed would spend $6 billion in classrooms and $3 billion on property tax relief over the next two years, does not change the 10% extra funding school districts currently receive for each of their English language learners. The state hasn't changed the 10% bilingual funding weight since 1984.

Instead, the bill would give another 5% for English learners who are in dual language programs, which provide instruction in English and a student's native language. As celebrated as dual language is, only about 20% of the state's 1 million English learners are in dual language programs, according to the San Antonio-based Intercultural Development Research Center, citing Texas Education Agency data. And, given a statewide shortage of bilingual teachers, dual language can be difficult to implement effectively.

Critics of how HB 3 addresses bilingual education say that instead of giving a modest funding bump for dual language, the bilingual funding weight should have been increased.

"Dual language is great, but when we're leaving the majority behind, and it's such a significant portion of the Texas public school population, that's certainly very concerning," said Morgan Craven with the San Antonio-based Intercultural Development Research Center, which has for at least 15 years asked the state for an update to the bilingual funding weight.

State Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, author of HB 3, which still awaits Senate approval, said the goal is to provide an incentive for school districts with the extra funding to adopt a program proven to be most effective in educating English learners.

"We know (English learners) are important, and we found that dual language, if we implemented at an earlier age, made a huge difference," Huberty told the American-Statesman. "Somebody is not going to like 100% of everything we did. We tried to manage what we could, and I think this is a good landing place for us."

Creating the dual language incentive is expected to cost the state as much as $50 million in the first year.

The bill would also give districts an additional 10% funding per English learner in kindergarten through third grade on top of the 10% bilingual weight, but the extra money is not required to be used to implement bilingual education or English as a second language programs.

HB 3 would increase the base per-student funding, also called the basic allotment, by $890, but bilingual advocates say that doesn't necessarily resolve the funding gap between the cost of educating English learners and non-English learners; the latter requires less resources.

Insufficient funding

One in five Texas students is an English language learner. Ninety percent of them are native Spanish speakers.

The annual cost of the bilingual weight, which is the primary way school districts receive funding to educate their English learners, is $570 million. This helps maintain three categories of education programs for such students - ESL programs, transitional bilingual programs and dual language programs.

The Texas Commission on School Finance last year had recommended the Legislature create the dual language weight, citing in its report that it reviewed "compelling data" that showed dual language is more effective than the other two programs.

ESL, which totally immerses non-English speakers in English classes with the help of a certified ESL teacher, is still the most common education program for many school districts - 58 percent of all English learners are in ESL, according to Craven's group - and the least effective of the three, according to policy experts. ESL programs don't require the teacher to speak the students' native language.

Students in transitional bilingual programs are taught in both English and the native language with the goal of becoming fluent in English but not necessarily in their native language.

Dual language is considered a true bilingual program among experts because the goal is to have students be fluent and learn grade level content in both English and their native language.

Dual language classes can also be taught with native English speakers and non-native English speakers in the same classroom; they learn alongside and often support each other in obtaining proficiency in both languages. These programs are called two-way dual language.

One of the criticisms of the proposed dual language funding is that native English speakers would also qualify for more money. Instead of creating a dual language weight, HB 3 should have increased the overall bilingual weight from 10% to at least 40%, which was what was recommended to Texas lawmakers in 1984 and ignored, said Fátima Menéndez, legislative staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

"For it to be over 30 years and it hasn't increased, especially since the number of English learners has increased dramatically, it's shocking that bilingual education continues to be neglected," Menéndez said.

There are 54% more English learners in Texas schools in 2018 than there were in 2004, according to the Texas Education Agency.

Menéndez and Craven said because dual language is the most effective bilingual program, the state should require it instead of encouraging it and increase the bilingual weight to pay for it.

Dual language or transitional bilingual programs aren't required to be offered in Texas middle and high schools. The focus of these bilingual programs has been on earlier grade levels because the younger children are, the better they are at developing a new language.

Plus, there is a statewide shortage of certified bilingual and ESL teachers.

The number of school districts that have received waivers from the state from employing such certified teachers has grown steadily over the years. This school year, 567 of the state's 1,200 districts were granted such waivers, a 38% jump from the year before.

Providing incentives for bilingual teachers is among the costly challenges of implementing dual language, according to advocates.

"The challenges of dual language programs are actually pretty costly, so a 0.05 per student increase in the weight - it's not even clear that that would cover the cost to implement the program," Craven said.

Dual language benefit

The school finance commission's report from last year acknowledged the need for more investment in English learners because they lag behind the overall student body on multiple measures. The graduation rate among English learners in Texas is 19 percentage points lower than the overall state average. According to 2017-18 data, 35% of third grade English learners met grade level on the state's reading standardized test, compared with 43% of all Texas third graders.

Cited widely among academics, a 2002 study by George Mason University researchers found that English learners in dual language programs outperform their English learning peers on standardized tests. The study also found that English learners who had been in dual language programs for at least six years scored higher than the average native English speaker.

"Being bilingual is like going to the gym, where you develop your muscles. Being bilingual develops your brain. Now, that doesn't mean that ESL students are not successful. The children may be very successful. They just may lose their first language," said Gema Hanson, director of multilingual education in the Pflugerville school district.

The Pflugerville district, which has an enrollment of about 25,000, has 2,200 English learners and native English speaking students in dual language programs, which are offered up to the fifth grade.

Based on 2018 state standardized test scores, the Austin school district's English learners who are in dual language performed about the same as the overall English learning population on most grade levels and subjects. Native English speakers in dual language typically did better than overall students at their grade level on those tests.

David Kauffman, executive director of multilingual education for the Austin district, said the data is imperfect and that the numbers need to be adjusted to control for factors like the overall socioeconomics of the campus, parental involvement or a flooding event that could push scores one way or another.

He also notes that the district is in a transition period with its program, which has been offered to students for the past nine years. At one point, the district had implemented the program at most of its 129 campuses. The district reevaluated its programs a few years ago, and now 57 campuses offer dual language.

"It allowed us to recommit to implementing it well at all campuses, and over time we hope the resources will materialize and our commitment will extend. We want people begging for the program," Kauffman said.

The Austin district offers dual language up to the eighth grade, with almost 9,000 English learners and 1,800 native English speakers participating. Typically, half of the subjects are taught in English and the other half are taught in another language. In Austin, those are Spanish, Vietnamese and Mandarin.

On a recent visit to the kindergarten Mandarin dual language class at Central Austin's Reilly Elementary School, children immediately greeted visitors with "ni hao, shu shu! Ni hao, ayi!" which translates to "hello, uncle" and "hello, aunty."

In a nearby first grade two-way Spanish dual language class, students were scribbling down in Venn diagrams similarities and differences they have with their classmates. "Fiona tiene ojos azul," 7-year-old John Sierra wrote about his partner Fiona Elkins' blue eyes.

"That's why native Spanish speakers are crucial to the success of this program," Reilly Principal Corrine Saenz said about two-way dual language programs. "They truly become the models of that language, which is such a different way of approaching bilingual education than we always have."

Dual language advocates have noted that such programs are a departure from the historical way that English learners have been taught, which has devalued their native language and culture.

"We are showing them their language and culture matters," Kauffman said.

The story was updated to include information about how school districts would receive more money per student, regardless of whether they're English learners, with an increase in the basic allotment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is the Texas Legislature doing enough for English learners in HB 3?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although it is considered a landmark piece of legislation that would make several necessary updates to the state's school finance system, House Bill 3 would not change the funding weight for hundreds of thousands of non-native English speaking students, according to bilingual education advocates.

# data[].attributes.body
* HB3 provides no universal weight change for EL students  (currently, for each EL student, a district receives 10% extra funding - no change since 1984)

*HB 3 allots for a 5% increase on top of the 10% for each student enrolled in a Dual Language Program

*Only 20% of the 1 million EL students across the state are in a Dual Language Program

*1 in 5 students in Texas is an English Learner, and 90% of those are native Spanish speakers

*The last time funding for all ELs was increased was 1984, and since 2004 there has been a 58% increase in our EL population

*EL students have a 19 point lower graduation rate than non-EL students

# data[].attributes.headline
News Article: English-Language Learners Need More Support During Remote Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
News Article: English-Language Learners Need More Support During Remote Learning

# data[].attributes.body
Babinski, L., Amendum, S., Knotek, S., & Sanchez, M. (2020, June 19).  English-language learners need more support during remote learning. Education Week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Young children who are learning English require special consideration during virtual instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Approximately 1 in 6 children in kindergarten and 1st grade in the United States are learning English as a second (or third) language. As teachers grapple with the monumental task of providing remote instruction to English-language learners, it's important that state and district leaders provide extensive support and clear guidelines for engaging their ELLs.

Virtual learning for elementary school students, particularly those in the early grades, has been provided in a wide range of formats, including live online sessions with teachers, videos, internet links, and printed packets. The responsibility of connecting young children to these resources often falls to parents. In many ELL communities, internet access may be limited to a cellphone, making it difficult for parents and children to navigate learning activities, especially if multiple children are in the home.

This spring, 48 states suspended school for the remainder of the school year, resulting in millions of students who will miss over 20 weeks of in-person learning. Given what we know about learning loss during the traditional summer months, it is critical to support families and teachers to ensure that children are able to engage in learning activities during this unprecedented time.

Under federal Title VI requirements, school districts are required to ensure that English-language learners can meaningfully participate in instruction. Although the types of in-person instructional services vary both across and within states, ELLs typically spend most of their school day in the general classroom with English-only peers and receive specialized instruction from English-as-a-second-language (ESL) teachers for a specified number of hours a week. In the current climate, it is critical that ELLs continue to make academic progress and receive social-emotional support from their teachers along with their English-only peers.

As state and district leaders consider outreach through email, phone calls, and physical copies of instructional resources for providing equitable access to possible remote instruction when schools reopen, we offer the following evidence-informed suggestions for consideration.

1. Support students' emotional and mental health by maintaining relationships with schools and teachers. During the abrupt end to in-person schooling because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the transition to virtual instruction, it was important for school leaders to pay special attention to their districts' outreach efforts to families who do not speak English as their first language. Many families with English-language learners may also face significant challenges during this time from loss of work, separation from extended families, and concerns about their health. Information to help parents support their children allows for continuity of the central place of the school in the lives of many families. Additional resources from schools and districts for interpretation and translation with clear two-way communication may be necessary to support both teachers and families during remote instruction for ELLs.

2. Encourage and support families to use their best language. As parents have moved into a home schooling role, it is important to provide a clear message to families that by using their home language, they can continue to support their children's progress in literacy. In fact, recent research shows that young ELLs with strong early-literacy skills in their native Spanish at kindergarten entry made greater growth in English reading from kindergarten through 4th grade. In this study, the effect of early Spanish reading ability was more influential than students' ability to understand and speak English. Given the results of this study, the message for virtual learning is clear: Support and encourage families to use their best language. Skills learned from reading in native languages support learning in that language and can also transfer to learning to read in English.

3. Build on the considerable strengths of bilingual families. Families of English-language learners have considerable strengths that can be leveraged by schools and teachers to help them through this difficult time. By building on families' cultural wealth when planning virtual learning activities, ESL and classroom teachers can collaborate to tap into their students' cultural and family backgrounds through instructional activities that originate from a strengths-based viewpoint and can engage and sustain connections with families. Such a model can be used to recognize and build on family strengths and cultural knowledge. For example, teachers can offer learning activities that include the entire family, such as taking turns in storytelling or having older siblings read to younger ones. In the Latino community, for instance, parents may engage their children by using "cuentos" (stories) or giving "consejos" (advice in the form of a proverb).

4. Provide opportunities for enhanced teacher collaboration. Imagine kindergarten and 1st grade students and their parents trying to navigate virtual instruction from multiple teachers with different content, web portals, and instructional strategies. From our research in elementary schools, there are clear benefits for students when ESL and classroom teachers collaborate to provide aligned instruction with coordinated scaffolding for their ELLs. For example, after briefly planning together, ESL teachers can provide direct instruction to preteach specific academic vocabulary to support ELLs' comprehension during literacy lessons provided by their classroom teachers. Or ESL and classroom teachers can align instruction by using the same instructional strategies to teach phonics or reading- comprehension strategies across settings. Meaningful access to remote instruction for ELLs requires intentional collaboration between classroom and ESL teachers. As this type of collaboration is all the more difficult as the teachers themselves work remotely, it will require support for teachers from education agencies at the school, district, state, and national levels.

Focusing on supporting English-language learners and their families during virtual instruction will help teachers provide access to the curriculum and keep lines of communication open. While this is critical as families, teachers, schools, and communities adjust to life during various phases of stay-at-home orders in many states, these principles can also support families in the transition back to in-person schooling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English-Language Learners Need More Support During Remote Learning (Opinion)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Young children who are learning English require special consideration during virtual instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Approximately 1 in 6 children in kindergarten and 1st grade in the United States are learning English as a second (or third) language.

# data[].attributes.body
* Although geared for younger students, this article addresses important concerns for all ages of virtual learners.

*Key emphasis is the lack of communication EL students and families receive as to how to continue learning on a virtual platform

*Schools should leverage bilingual staff, parents, and extended family members to support students should they be learning in a virtual environment

*Teachers need clear guidelines and extensive support for engaging with their EL students

*The last time funding for all ELs was increased was 1984, and since 2004 there has been a 58% increase in our EL population

*The social-emotional health of EL students during crises such as COVID-19 should be adequately addressed as EL students often face unique struggles related to their language barrier and perhaps separation from extended family

# data[].attributes.body
Plyler v. Doe 457 US 202 (1982)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plyler v. Doe: A state cannot prevent children of undocumented immigrants from attending public school unless a substantial state interest is involved.

# data[].attributes.body
20 U.S.C. §3423d

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Office shall be headed by a Director of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, appointed by the Secretary, to whom the Secretary shall delegate all delegable functions relating to bilingual education. The Director shall also be assigned responsibility for recommending improvements and providing technical assistance to other Federal programs serving language-minority and limited-English-proficient students and their families and for assisting the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement in identifying research priorities which reflect the needs of language-minority and limited-English language proficient students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20 U.S. Code § 3423d - Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Office shall be headed by a Director of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, appointed by the Secretary, to whom the Secretary shall delegate all delegable functions relating to bilingual education.

# data[].attributes.body
EHBE(LOCAL)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Language Proficiency Assessment Committees

The professional staff members of the LPAC(s) shall be assigned those duties by the Superintendent or designee. Selection of parent members of LPAC(s) shall be made after soliciting volunteers and upon the recommendation of professionals involved in the bilingual/ESL programs.

Training

The District shall provide orientation and training for all members of the LPAC(s), which shall include a discussion of the committee's duties and a thorough explanation and review of all laws and rules governing the confidentiality of information regarding individual students. In performing their duties, committee members shall be acting for the District and shall observe requirements regarding confidentiality of student records. [See FL]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EHBE(LOCAL) - SPECIAL PROGRAMS: BILINGUAL EDUCATION / ESL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The professional staff members of the LPAC(s) shall be assigned those duties by the Superintendent or designee. Selection of parent members of LPAC(s) shall be made after soliciting volunteers and upon the recommendation of professionals involved in the bilingual/ESL programs. The District shall provide orientation and training for all members of the LPAC(s), which shall include a discussion of the committee's duties and a thorough explanation and review of all laws and rules governing the confidentiality of information regarding individual students.

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV §1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It has long been settled . . . that the term 'person' [in the Equal Protection Clause] encompasses lawfully admitted resident aliens as well as citizens of the United States and entitles both citizens and aliens to the equal protection of the laws of the State in which they reside. Thus, one of the earliest equal protection decisions struck down the administration of a facially lawful licensing ordinance that was being applied to discriminate against Chinese. In many subsequent cases, however, the Court recognized a permissible state interest in distinguishing between its citizens and aliens by restricting enjoyment of resources and public employment to its own citizens. But, in Hirabayashi v. United States , the Court announced that [d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry were odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality. And, in Korematsu v. United States , classifications based upon race and nationality were said to be suspect and subject to the most rigid scrutiny. These dicta resulted in a 1948 decision that appeared to call into question the rationale of the particular interest doctrine under which earlier discrimination had been justified. In the 1948 decision, the Court held void a statute barring issuance of commercial fishing licenses to persons ineligible to citizenship, which in effect meant resident alien Japanese. The Fourteenth Amendment and the laws adopted under its authority thus embody a general policy that all persons lawfully in this country shall abide 'in any state' on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under nondiscriminatory laws. Justice Black said for the Court that the power of a state to apply its laws exclusively to its alien inhabitants as a class is confined within narrow limits.

Announcing that classifications based on alienage . . . are inherently suspect and subject to close scrutiny, the Court struck down state statutes which either wholly disqualified resident aliens for welfare assistance or imposed a lengthy durational residency requirement on eligibility. Thereafter, in a series of decisions, the Court adhered to its conclusion that alienage was a suspect classification and voided a variety of restrictions. More recently, however, it has created a major political function exception to strict scrutiny review, which shows some potential of displacing the previous analysis almost entirely.

In Sugarman v. Dougall , the Court voided the total exclusion of aliens from a state's competitive civil service. A state's power to preserve the basic conception of a political community enables it to prescribe the qualifications of its officers and voters, the Court held, and this power would extend also to persons holding state elective or important nonelective executive, legislative, and judicial positions, for officers who participate directly in the formulation, execution, or review of broad public policy perform functions that go to the heart of representative government. But a flat ban upon much of the state's career public service, both of policy-making and non-policy-making jobs, ran afoul of the requirement that in achieving a valid interest through the use of a suspect classification the state must employ means that are precisely drawn in light of the valid purpose.

State bars against the admission of aliens to the practice of law were also struck down, the Court holding that the state had not met the heavy burden of showing that its denial of admission to aliens was necessary to accomplish a constitutionally permissible and substantial interest. The state's admitted interest in assuring the requisite qualifications of persons licensed to practice law could be adequately served by judging applicants on a case-by-case basis and in no sense could the fact that a lawyer is considered to be an officer of the court serve as a valid justification for a flat prohibition. Nor could Puerto Rico offer a justification for excluding aliens from one of the common occupations of the community, hence its bar on licensing aliens as civil engineers was voided.

In Nyquist v. Mauclet , the Court seemed to expand the doctrine. The statute that was challenged restricted the receipt of scholarships and similar financial support to citizens or to aliens who were applying for citizenship or who filed a statement affirming their intent to apply as soon as they became eligible. Therefore, because any alien could escape the limitation by a voluntary act, the disqualification was not aimed at aliens as a class, nor was it based on an immutable characteristic possessed by a discrete and insular minority - the classification that had been the basis for declaring alienage a suspect category in the first place. But the Court voided the statute. The important points are that § 661(3) is directed at aliens and that only aliens are harmed by it. The fact that the statute is not an absolute bar does not mean that it does not discriminate against the class. Two proffered justifications were held insufficient to meet the high burden imposed by the strict scrutiny doctrine.

In the following Term, however, the Court denied that every exclusion of aliens was subject to strict scrutiny, because to do so would 'obliterate all the distinctions between citizens and aliens, and thus deprecate the historic values of citizenship.' Upholding a state restriction against aliens qualifying as state policemen, the Court reasoned that the permissible distinction between citizen and alien is that the former is entitled to participate in the processes of democratic decisionmaking. Accordingly, we have recognized 'a State's historic power to exclude aliens from participation in its democratic political institutions,' . . . as part of the sovereign's obligation 'to preserve the basic conception of a political community.' Discrimination by a state against aliens is not subject to strict scrutiny, but need meet only the rational basis test. It is therefore permissible to reserve to citizens offices having the most important policy responsibilities, a principle drawn from , but the critical factor in this case is its analysis finding that the police function is . . . one of the basic functions of government . . . . The execution of the broad powers vested in [police officers] affects members of the public significantly and often in the most sensitive areas of daily life. . . . Clearly the exercise of police authority calls for a very high degree of judgment and discretion, the abuse or misuse of which can have serious impact on individuals. The office of a policeman is in no sense one of 'the common occupations of the community.' . . .

Continuing to enlarge the exception, the Court in Ambach v. Norwick upheld a bar to qualifying as a public school teacher for resident aliens who have not manifested an intention to apply for citizenship. The governmental function test took on added significance, the Court saying that the distinction between citizens and aliens, though ordinarily irrelevant to private activity, is fundamental to the definition and government of a State. Thus, governmental entities, when exercising the functions of government, have wider latitude in limiting the participation of noncitizens. Teachers, the Court thought, because of the role of public education in inculcating civic values and in preparing children for participation in society as citizens and because of the responsibility and discretion they have in fulfilling that role, perform a task that go[es] to the heart of representative government. The citizenship requirement need only bear a rational relationship to the state interest, and the Court concluded it clearly did so.

Then, in Cabell v. Chavez-Salido , the Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, sustained a state law imposing a citizenship requirement upon all positions designated as peace officers, upholding in context that eligibility prerequisite for probation officers. First, the Court held that the extension of the requirement to an enormous range of people who were variously classified as peace officers did not reach so far nor was it so broad and haphazard as to belie the claim that the state was attempting to ensure that an important function of government be in the hands of those having a bond of citizenship. [T]he classifications used need not be precise; there need only be a substantial fit. As to the particular positions, the Court held that they, like the state troopers involved in , sufficiently partake of the sovereign's power to exercise coercive force over the individual that they may be limited to citizens.

Thus, the Court so far has drawn a tripartite differentiation with respect to governmental restrictions on aliens. First, it has disapproved the earlier line of cases and now would foreclose attempts by the states to retain certain economic benefits, primarily employment and opportunities for livelihood, exclusively for citizens. Second, when government exercises principally its spending functions, such as those with respect to public employment generally and to eligibility for public benefits, its classifications with an adverse impact on aliens will be strictly scrutinized and usually fail. Third, when government acts in its sovereign capacity - when it acts within its constitutional prerogatives and responsibilities to establish and operate its own government - its decisions with respect to the citizenship qualifications of an appropriately designated class of public office holders will be subject only to traditional rational basis scrutiny. However, the political function standard is elastic, and so long as disqualifications are attached to specific occupations rather than to the civil service in general, as in , the concept seems capable of encompassing the exclusion.

When confronted with a state statute that authorized local school boards to exclude from public schools children who were not lawfully present in the United States, the Court determined that an intermediate level of scrutiny was appropriate and found that the proffered justifications did not sustain the classification. Because it was clear that the children's status as unlawfully present individuals was relevant to valid government goals, and because the Court had previously held that access to education was not a fundamental interest that triggered strict scrutiny of governmental distinctions relating to education, the Court's decision to accord intermediate review was based upon an amalgam of at least three factors. First, alienage was a characteristic that provokes special judicial protection when used as a basis for discrimination. Second, the children were innocent parties who were having a particular onus imposed on them because of the misconduct of their parents. Third, the total denial of an education to these children would stamp them with an enduring disability that would harm both them and the state all their lives. The Court evaluated each of the state's attempted justifications and found none of them satisfying the level of review demanded. It seems evident that Plyler v. Doe is a unique case and that, whatever it may stand for doctrinally, a sufficiently similar factual situation calling for application of its standards is unlikely to arise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alienage Classification | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

# data[].attributes.body
Addresses persons who are not citizens and the rights that apply to those persons

Applies to students who may speak other languages in that they are to be provided for in the same way as students who are native-born United State citizens

Pertains to the EL population of students in our public schools because of its focus on providing equal protection of the laws

# data[].attributes.body
19 T.A.C.  §89.1201

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chapter 89. Adaptations for Special Populations
Subchapter BB. Commissioner's Rules Concerning State Plan for Educating English Learners

89.1201. Policy.

(a) It is the policy of the state that every student in the state who has a primary language other than English and who is identified as an English learner shall be provided a full opportunity to participate in a bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL) program, as required in the Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 29, Subchapter B. To ensure equal educational opportunity, as required in the TEC, §1.002(a), each school district shall:

(1) identify English learners based on criteria established by the state;

(2) provide bilingual education and ESL programs, as integral parts of the general program as described in the TEC, §4.002;

(3) seek appropriately certified teaching personnel to ensure that English learners are afforded full opportunity to master the essential knowledge and skills required by the state; and

(4) assess achievement for essential knowledge and skills in accordance with the TEC, Chapter 29, to ensure accountability for English learners and the schools that serve them.

(b) The goal of bilingual education programs shall be to enable English learners to become proficient in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in the English language through the development of literacy and academic skills in the primary language and English. Such programs shall emphasize the mastery of English language skills, as well as mathematics, science, and social studies, as integral parts of the academic goals for all students to enable English learners to participate equitably in school.

(c) The goal of ESL programs shall be to enable English learners to become proficient in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in the English language through the integrated use of second language acquisition methods. The ESL program shall emphasize the mastery of English language skills, as well as mathematics, science, and social studies, as integral parts of the academic goals for all students to enable English learners to participate equitably in school.

(d) Bilingual education and ESL programs shall be integral parts of the total school program. Such programs shall use instructional approaches designed to meet the specific language needs of English learners. The basic curriculum content of the programs shall be based on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills and the English language proficiency standards required by the state.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1201 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1201 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

89.1203. Definitions.

The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

(1) Bilingual education allotment--An adjusted basic funding allotment provided for each school district based on student average daily attendance in a bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL) program in accordance with Texas Education Code (TEC), §42.153.

(2) Certified English as a second language teacher--The term "certified English as a second language teacher" as used in this subchapter is synonymous with the term "professional transitional language educator" used in TEC, §29.063.

(3) Dual language immersion--A state-approved bilingual program model in accordance with TEC, §29.066.

(4) Dual-language instruction--An educational approach that focuses on the use of English and the student's primary language for instructional purposes.

(5) English as a second language program--A special language program in accordance with TEC, Chapter 29, Subchapter B.

(6) English language proficiency standards (ELPS)--Standards to be published along with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for each subject in the required curriculum outlined in Chapter 74 of this title (relating to Curriculum Requirements), including foundation and enrichment areas, ELPS, and college and career readiness standards.

(7) English learner (EL) --A student who is in the process of acquiring English and has another language as the student's primary or home language. The terms English language learner (ELL) and English learner are used interchangeably and are synonymous with limited English proficient (LEP) student, as used in TEC, Chapter 29, Subchapter B.

(8) Exit--The point when a student is no longer classified as LEP/EL (i.e., the student is reclassified), no longer requires bilingual or ESL program services, and is classified as non-LEP/English proficient (EP) in the Texas Student Data System Public Education Information Management System (TSDS PEIMS). The term "exit" as used in this subchapter is synonymous with the description in TEC, Chapter 29, of "transferring out" of bilingual or special language programming.

(9) Reclassification--The process by which the language proficiency assessment committee determines that an English learner has met the appropriate criteria to be classified as non-LEP/EP and is coded as such in TSDS PEIMS.

(10) School district--For the purposes of this subchapter, the definition of a school district includes a local education agency, an open-enrollment charter school, and a district of innovation.

(11) Prekindergarten--For purposes of this subchapter, prekindergarten describes students enrolled in a 3- or 4-year-old prekindergarten program, as well as 3- or 4-year-old students enrolled in an early education setting.

(12) Alternative language program--A program that meets the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of ELs and equips the teacher under a bilingual education or ESL waiver described in §89.1207 of this title (relating to Bilingual Education Exceptions and English as a Second Language Waivers) through the comprehensive professional development plan.

(13) Parent--The term "parent" as used in this subchapter includes the parent or legal guardian of the student in accordance with TEC, §29.052.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1203 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1203 adopted to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

89.1205. Required Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language Programs.

(a) Each school district that has an enrollment of 20 or more English learners in any language classification in the same grade level district-wide shall offer a bilingual education program as described in subsection (b) of this section for the English learners in prekindergarten through the elementary grades with that language classification. "Elementary grades" shall include at least prekindergarten through Grade 5; sixth grade shall be included when clustered with elementary grades.

(b) A school district required to provide a bilingual education program as described in subsection (a) of this section shall offer dual-language instruction (English and primary language) in prekindergarten through the elementary grades, using one of the four bilingual program models described in §89.1210 of this title (relating to Program Content and Design).

(c) All English learners for whom a school district is not required to offer a bilingual education program shall be provided an English as a second language (ESL) program as described in subsection (d) of this section, regardless of the students' grade levels and primary language, and regardless of the number of such students, except in cases where a district exercises the option described in subsection (g) of this section.

(d) A school district required to provide an ESL program as described in subsection (c) of this section shall provide an ESL program using one of the two models described in §89.1210 of this title.

(e) School districts may join with other school districts to provide bilingual education or ESL programs.

(f) In addition to the required bilingual and/or ESL programs, school districts are authorized to establish a bilingual education program even if they have an enrollment of fewer than 20 English learners in any language classification in the same grade level district-wide and are not required to do so under subsection (a) of this section. Under this authorization, school districts shall adhere to all program requirements as described in §§89.1210 of this title, 89.1227 of this title (relating to Minimum Requirements for Dual Language Immersion Program Model), 89.1228 of this title (relating to Two-Way Dual Language Immersion Program Model Implementation), and 89.1229 of this title (relating to General Standards for Recognition of Dual Language Immersion Program Models).

(g) In addition to the required bilingual and/or ESL programs, school districts are authorized to establish a bilingual education program at grade levels in which the bilingual education program is not required under subsection (a) of this section. Under this authorization, school districts shall adhere to all program requirements as described in §§89.1210, 89.1227, 89.1228, and 89.1229 of this title.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1205 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1205 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective March 5, 1999, 24 TexReg 1383; amended to be effective April 18, 2002, 27 TexReg 3107; amended to be effective September 17, 2007, 32 TexReg 6311; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

89.1207. Bilingual Education Exceptions and English as a Second Language Waivers.

(a) Bilingual education program.

(1) Exceptions. A school district that is unable to provide a bilingual education program as required by §89.1205(a) of this title (relating to Required Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language Programs) because of an insufficient number of appropriately certified teachers shall request from the commissioner of education an exception to the bilingual education program and the approval of an alternative language program as defined in §89.1203(12) of this title (relating to Definitions). English learners with parental approval for program services under a bilingual education exception will be included in the bilingual education allotment designated for an alternative language program. The approval of an exception to the bilingual education program shall be valid only during the school year for which it was granted. A request for a bilingual education program exception must be submitted by November 1 and shall include:

(A) a statement of the reasons the school district is unable to provide a sufficient number of appropriately certified teachers to offer the bilingual education program with supporting documentation;

(B) a description of the alternative language program and methods to meet the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of the English learners, including the manner through which the students will be given opportunity to master the essential knowledge and skills required by Chapter 74 of this title (relating to Curriculum Requirements) to include foundation and enrichment areas, English language proficiency standards (ELPS), and college and career readiness standards (CCRS);

(C) an assurance that appropriately certified teachers available in the school district will be assigned to grade levels beginning at prekindergarten followed successively by subsequent grade levels to ensure that the linguistic and academic needs of the English learners with beginning levels of English proficiency are served on a priority basis;

(D) an assurance that the school district will implement a comprehensive professional development plan that:

(i) is ongoing and targets the development of the knowledge, skills, and competencies needed to serve the needs of English learners;

(ii) includes the teachers who are not certified or not appropriately certified who are assigned to implement the proposed alternative language program; and

(iii) may include additional teachers who work with English learners;

(E) an assurance that at least 10% of the total bilingual education allotment shall be used to fund the comprehensive professional development plan required under subparagraph (D) of this paragraph when applying for a bilingual education exception, ESL waiver, or both;

(F) an assurance that the school district will take actions to ensure that the program required under §89.1205(a) of this title will be provided the subsequent year, including its plans for recruiting an adequate number of appropriately certified teachers to eliminate the need for subsequent exceptions and measurable targets for the subsequent year; and

(G) an assurance that the school district shall satisfy the additional reporting requirements described in §89.1265(c) of this title (relating to Evaluation).

(2) Documentation. A school district submitting a bilingual education exception shall maintain written records of all documents supporting the submission and assurances listed in paragraph (1) of this subsection, including:

(A) a description of the proposed alternative language program designed to meet the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of the English learners;

(B) the number of teachers for whom a bilingual education exception is needed by grade level and per campus;

(C) a copy of the school district's comprehensive professional development plan; and

(D) a copy of the bilingual allotment budget documenting that a minimum of 10% of the funds were used to fund the comprehensive professional development plan.

(3) Approval of exceptions. Bilingual education program exceptions will be granted by the commissioner if the requesting school district:

(A) meets or exceeds the state average for English learner performance on the required state assessments;

(B) meets the requirements and measurable targets of the action plan described in paragraph (1)(F) of this subsection submitted the previous year and approved by the Texas Education Agency (TEA); or

(C) reduces by 25% the number of teachers under exception for bilingual programs when compared to the number of exceptions granted the previous year.

(4) Denial of exceptions. A school district denied a bilingual education program exception must submit to the commissioner a detailed action plan for complying with required regulations for the following school year.

(5) Appeals. A school district denied a bilingual education program exception may appeal to the commissioner or the commissioner's designee. The decision of the commissioner or commissioner's designee is final and may not be appealed further.

(6) Special accreditation investigation. The commissioner may authorize a special accreditation investigation under the Texas Education Code (TEC), §39.057, if a school district is denied a bilingual education program exception for more than three consecutive years.

(7) Sanctions. Based on the results of a special accreditation investigation, the commissioner may take appropriate action under the TEC, §39.102.

(b) English as a second language (ESL) program.

(1) Waivers. A school district that is unable to provide an ESL program as required by §89.1205(c) of this title because of an insufficient number of appropriately certified teachers shall request from the commissioner a waiver of the certification requirements for each teacher who will provide instruction in ESL for English learners and the approval of an alternative language program as defined in §89.1203(12) of this title. English learners with parental approval for program services under an ESL waiver will be included in the bilingual education allotment designated for an alternative language program. The approval of a waiver of certification requirements shall be valid only during the school year for which it was granted. A request for an ESL program waiver must be submitted by November 1 and shall include:

(A) a statement of the reasons the school district is unable to provide a sufficient number of appropriately certified teachers to offer the ESL program;

(B) a description of the alternative language program, including the manner in which the teachers in the ESL program will meet the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of the English learners, including the manner through which the students will be given opportunity to master the essential knowledge and skills required by Chapter 74 of this title to include foundation and enrichment areas, ELPS, and CCRS;

(C) an assurance that appropriately certified teachers available in the school district will be assigned to grade levels beginning at prekindergarten followed successively by subsequent grade levels in the elementary school campus and, if needed, secondary campuses, to ensure that the linguistic and academic needs of the English learners with the lower levels of English proficiency are served on a priority basis;

(D) an assurance that the school district shall implement a comprehensive professional development plan that:

(i) is ongoing and targets the development of the knowledge, skills, and competencies needed to serve the needs of English learners;

(ii) includes the teachers who are not certified or not appropriately certified who are assigned to implement the proposed alternative language program; and

(iii) may include additional teachers who work with English learners;

(E) an assurance that at least 10% of the total bilingual education allotment shall be used to fund the comprehensive professional development plan required under subparagraph (D) of this paragraph when applying for a bilingual education exception, ESL waiver, or both;

(F) an assurance that the school district will take actions to ensure that the program required under §89.1205(c) of this title will be provided the subsequent year, including its plans for recruiting an adequate number of appropriately certified teachers to eliminate the need for subsequent waivers; and

(G) an assurance that the school district shall satisfy the additional reporting requirements described in §89.1265(c) of this title.

(2) Documentation. A school district submitting an ESL waiver shall maintain written records of all documents supporting the submission and assurances listed in paragraph (1) of this subsection, including:

(A) a description of the proposed alternative language program designed to meet the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of the English learners;

(B) the name and teaching assignment, per campus, of each teacher who is assigned to implement the ESL program and is under a waiver and the estimated date for the completion of the ESL supplemental certification, which must be completed by the end of the school year for which the waiver was requested;

(C) a copy of the school district's comprehensive professional development plan;

(D) a copy of the bilingual allotment budget documenting that a minimum of 10% of the funds were used to fund the comprehensive professional development plan; and

(E) a description of the actions taken to recruit an adequate number of appropriately certified teachers.

(3) Approval of waivers. ESL waivers will be granted by the commissioner if the requesting school district:

(A) meets or exceeds the state average for English learner performance on the required state assessments; or

(B) meets the requirements and measurable targets of the action plan described in paragraph (1)(G) of this subsection submitted the previous year and approved by the TEA.

(4) Denial of waivers. A school district denied an ESL program waiver must submit to the commissioner a detailed action plan for complying with required regulations for the following school year.

(5) Appeals. A school district denied an ESL waiver may appeal to the commissioner or the commissioner's designee. The decision of the commissioner or commissioner's designee is final and may not be appealed further.

(6) Special accreditation investigation. The commissioner may authorize a special accreditation investigation under the TEC, §39.057, if a school district is denied an ESL waiver for more than three consecutive years.

(7) Sanctions. Based on the results of a special accreditation investigation, the commissioner may take appropriate action under the TEC, §39.102.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1207 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1207 adopted to be effective September 17, 2007, 32 TexReg 6311; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

89.1210. Program Content and Design.

(a) Each school district required to offer a bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL) program shall provide each English learner the opportunity to be enrolled in the required program at his or her grade level. Each student's level of proficiency shall be designated by the language proficiency assessment committee in accordance with §89.1220(g) of this title (relating to Language Proficiency Assessment Committee). The school district shall accommodate the instruction, pacing, and materials to ensure that English learners have a full opportunity to master the essential knowledge and skills of the required curriculum, which includes the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills and English language proficiency standards (ELPS). Students participating in the bilingual education program may demonstrate their mastery of the essential knowledge and skills in either their primary language or in English for each content area.

(1) A bilingual education program of instruction established by a school district shall be a full-time program of dual-language instruction (English and primary language) that provides for learning basic skills in the primary language of the students enrolled in the program and for carefully structured and sequenced mastery of English language skills under Texas Education Code (TEC), §29.055(a).

(2) An ESL program of instruction established by a school district shall be a program of intensive instruction in English in which ESL teachers recognize and address language differences in accordance with TEC, §29.055(a).

(b) The bilingual education program and ESL program shall be integral parts of the general educational program required under Chapter 74 of this title (relating to Curriculum Requirements) to include foundation and enrichment areas, ELPS, and college and career readiness standards. In bilingual education programs, school districts shall purchase instructional materials in both program languages with the district's instructional materials allotment or otherwise acquire instructional materials for use in bilingual education classes in accordance with TEC, §31.029(a). Instructional materials for bilingual education programs on the list adopted by the commissioner of education, as provided by TEC, §31.0231, may be used as curriculum tools to enhance the learning process. The school district shall provide for ongoing coordination between the bilingual/ESL program and the general educational program. The bilingual education and ESL programs shall address the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of English learners as follows.

(1) Affective.

(A) English learners in a bilingual program shall be provided instruction using second language acquisition methods and/or their primary language to introduce basic concepts of the school environment, and content instruction both in their primary language and in English, which instills confidence, self-assurance, and a positive identity with their cultural heritages. The program shall be designed to consider the students' learning experiences and shall incorporate the cultural aspects of the students' backgrounds in accordance with TEC, §29.055(b).

(B) English learners in an ESL program shall be provided instruction using second language acquisition methods in English to introduce basic concepts of the school environment, which instills confidence, self-assurance, and a positive identity with their cultural heritages. The program shall be designed to incorporate the students' primary languages and learning experiences and shall incorporate the cultural aspects of the students' backgrounds in accordance with TEC, §29.055(b).

(2) Linguistic.

(A) English learners in a bilingual program shall be provided intensive instruction in the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing both in their primary language and in English, provided through the ELPS. The instruction in both languages shall be structured to ensure that the students master the required essential knowledge and skills and higher-order thinking skills in all subjects.

(B) English learners in an ESL program shall be provided intensive instruction to develop proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in the English language, provided through the ELPS. The instruction in academic content areas shall be structured to ensure that the students master the required essential knowledge and skills and higher-order thinking skills in all subjects.

(3) Cognitive.

(A) English learners in a bilingual program shall be provided instruction in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies both in their primary language and in English, using second language acquisition methods in either their primary language, in English, or in both, depending on the specific program model(s) implemented by the district. The content area instruction in both languages shall be structured to ensure that the students master the required essential knowledge and skills and higher-order thinking skills in all subjects.

(B) English learners in an ESL program shall be provided instruction in English in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies using second language acquisition methods. The instruction in academic content areas shall be structured to ensure that the students master the required essential knowledge and skills and higher-order thinking skills.

(c) The bilingual education program shall be implemented through at least one of the following program models.

(1) Transitional bilingual/early exit is a bilingual program model in which students identified as English learners are served in both English and another language and are prepared to meet reclassification criteria to be successful in English-only instruction not earlier than two or later than five years after the student enrolls in school. Instruction in this program is delivered by a teacher appropriately certified in bilingual education under TEC, §29.061(b)(1), for the assigned grade level and content area. The goal of early-exit transitional bilingual education is for program participants to use their primary language as a resource while acquiring full proficiency in English. This model provides instruction in literacy and academic content through the medium of the students' primary language along with instruction in English that targets second language development through academic content.

(2) Transitional bilingual/late exit is a bilingual program model in which students identified as English learners are served in both English and another language and are prepared to meet reclassification criteria to be successful in English-only instruction not earlier than six or later than seven years after the student enrolls in school. Instruction in this program is delivered by a teacher appropriately certified in bilingual education under TEC, §29.061(b)(2), for the assigned grade level and content area. The goal of late-exit transitional bilingual education is for program participants to use their primary language as a resource while acquiring full proficiency in English. This model provides instruction in literacy and academic content through the medium of the students' primary language along with instruction in English that targets second language development through academic content.

(3) Dual language immersion/one-way is a bilingual/biliteracy program model in which students identified as English learners are served in both English and another language and are prepared to meet reclassification criteria in order to be successful in English-only instruction not earlier than six or later than seven years after the student enrolls in school. Instruction provided in a language other than English in this program model is delivered by a teacher appropriately certified in bilingual education under TEC, §29.061. Instruction provided in English in this program model may be delivered either by a teacher appropriately certified in bilingual education or by a different teacher certified in ESL in accordance with TEC, §29.061. The goal of one-way dual language immersion is for program participants to attain full proficiency in another language as well as English. This model provides ongoing instruction in literacy and academic content in the students' primary language as well as English, with at least half of the instruction delivered in the students' primary language for the duration of the program.

(4) Dual language immersion/two-way is a bilingual/biliteracy program model in which students identified as English learners are integrated with students proficient in English and are served in both English and another language and are prepared to meet reclassification criteria in order to be successful in English-only instruction not earlier than six or later than seven years after the student enrolls in school. Instruction provided in a language other than English in this program model is delivered by a teacher appropriately certified in bilingual education under TEC, §29.061, for the assigned grade level and content area. Instruction provided in English in this program model may be delivered either by a teacher appropriately certified in bilingual education or by a different teacher certified in ESL in accordance with TEC, §29.061, for the assigned grade level and content area. The goal of two-way dual language immersion is for program participants to attain full proficiency in another language as well as English. This model provides ongoing instruction in literacy and academic content in English and another language with at least half of the instruction delivered in the non-English program language for the duration of the program.

(d) The ESL program shall be implemented through one of the following program models.

(1) An ESL/content-based program model is an English acquisition program that serves students identified as English learners through English instruction by a teacher appropriately certified in ESL under TEC, §29.061(c), through English language arts and reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. The goal of content-based ESL is for English learners to attain full proficiency in English in order to participate equitably in school. This model targets English language development through academic content instruction that is linguistically and culturally responsive in English language arts and reading, mathematics, science, and social studies.

(2) An ESL/pull-out program model is an English acquisition program that serves students identified as English learners through English instruction provided by an appropriately certified ESL teacher under the TEC, §29.061(c), through English language arts and reading. The goal of ESL pull-out is for English learners to attain full proficiency in English in order to participate equitably in school. This model targets English language development through academic content instruction that is linguistically and culturally responsive in English language arts and reading. Instruction shall be provided by the ESL teacher in a pull-out or inclusionary delivery model.

(e) Except in the courses specified in subsection (f) of this section, second language acquisition methods, which may involve the use of the students' primary language, may be provided in any of the courses or electives required for promotion or graduation to assist the English learners to master the essential knowledge and skills for the required subject(s). The use of second language acquisition methods shall not impede the awarding of credit toward meeting promotion or graduation requirements.

(f) In subjects such as art, music, and physical education, English learners shall participate with their English-speaking peers in general education classes provided in the subjects. As noted in TEC, §29.055(d), elective courses included in the curriculum may be taught in a language other than English. The school district shall ensure that students enrolled in bilingual education and ESL programs have a meaningful opportunity to participate with other students in all extracurricular activities.

(g) The required bilingual education or ESL program shall be provided to every English learner with parental approval until such time that the student meets reclassification criteria as described in §89.1226(i) of this title (relating to Testing and Classification of Students) or graduates from high school.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1210 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1210 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective March 5, 1999, 24 TexReg 1383; amended to be effective April 18, 2002, 27 TexReg 3107; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

89.1215. Home Language Survey.

(a) School districts shall administer only one home language survey to each new student enrolling for the first time in a Texas public school in any grade from prekindergarten through Grade 12. School districts shall require that the survey be signed by the student's parent for each student in prekindergarten through Grade 8 or by the student in Grades 9-12 as permitted under the Texas Education Code, §29.056(a)(1). It is the school district's responsibility to ensure that the student's parent understands the language used in the survey and its implications. The original copy of the survey shall be kept in the student's permanent record.

(b) The home language survey shall be provided in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese; for students of other language groups, the home language survey shall be translated into the primary language whenever possible. The home language survey shall elicit one language answer to each of the following questions.

(1) "What language is used in the child's home most of the time?"

(2) "What language does the child use most of the time?"

(c) If the response on the home language survey indicates that a language other than English is used, the student shall be tested in accordance with §89.1226 of this title (relating to Testing and Classification of Students).

(d) For students previously enrolled in a Texas public school, the receiving district shall secure the student records, including the home language survey and language proficiency assessment committee documentation as described in §89.1220(l) of this title (relating to Language Proficiency Assessment Committee), as applicable. All attempts to contact the sending district to request records shall be documented. Multiple attempts to obtain the student's home language survey shall be made.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1215 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1215 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

89.1220. Language Proficiency Assessment Committee.

(a) School districts shall by local board policy establish and operate a language proficiency assessment committee. The school district shall have on file policy and procedures for the selection, appointment, and training of members of the language proficiency assessment committee(s).

(b) The language proficiency assessment committee shall include an appropriately certified bilingual educator (for students served through a bilingual education program), an appropriately certified English as a second language (ESL) educator (for students served through an ESL program), a parent of an English learner participating in a bilingual or ESL program, and a campus administrator in accordance with Texas Education Code (TEC), §29.063.

(c) In addition to the three required members of the language proficiency assessment committee, the school district may add other trained members to the committee.

(d) No parent serving on the language proficiency assessment committee shall be an employee of the school district.

(e) A school district shall establish and operate a sufficient number of language proficiency assessment committees to enable them to discharge their duties within four weeks of the enrollment of English learners.

(f) All members of the language proficiency assessment committee, including parents, shall be acting for the school district and shall observe all laws and rules governing confidentiality of information concerning individual students. The school district shall be responsible for the orientation and training of all members, including the parents, of the language proficiency assessment committee.

(g) Upon their initial enrollment and at the end of each school year, the language proficiency assessment committee shall review all pertinent information on all English learners identified in accordance with §89.1226 of this title (relating to Testing and Classification of Students) and shall:

(1) designate the language proficiency level of each English learner in accordance with the guidelines issued pursuant to §89.1226(b)-(f) of this title;

(2) designate the level of academic achievement of each English learner;

(3) designate, subject to parental approval, the initial instructional placement of each English learner in the required program;

(4) facilitate the participation of English learners in other special programs for which they are eligible while ensuring full access to the language program services required under the TEC, §29.053; and

(5) reclassify students, at the end of the school year only, as English proficient in accordance with the criteria described in §89.1226(i) of this title.

(h) The language proficiency assessment committee shall give written notice to the student's parent, advising that the student has been classified as an English learner and requesting approval to place the student in the required bilingual education or ESL program not later than the 10th calendar day after the date of the student's classification in accordance with TEC, §29.056. The notice shall include information about the benefits of the bilingual education or ESL program for which the student has been recommended and that it is an integral part of the school program.

(i) Before the administration of the state criterion-referenced test each year, the language proficiency assessment committee shall determine the appropriate assessment option for each English learner as outlined in Chapter 101, Subchapter AA, of this title (relating to Commissioner's Rules Concerning the Participation of English Language Learners in State Assessments).

(j) Pending parental approval of an English learner's entry into the bilingual education or ESL program recommended by the language proficiency assessment committee, the school district shall place the student in the recommended program. Only English learners with parental approval who are receiving services will be included in the bilingual education allotment.

(k) The language proficiency assessment committee shall monitor the academic progress of each student who has met criteria for reclassification in accordance with TEC, §29.056(g), for the first two years after reclassification. If the student earns a failing grade in a subject in the foundation curriculum under TEC, §28.002(a)(1), during any grading period in the first two school years after the student is reclassified, the language proficiency assessment committee shall determine, based on the student's second language acquisition needs, whether the student may require intensive instruction or should be reenrolled in a bilingual education or ESL program. In accordance with TEC, §29.0561, the language proficiency assessment committee shall review the student's performance and consider:

(1) the total amount of time the student was enrolled in a bilingual education or ESL program;

(2) the student's grades each grading period in each subject in the foundation curriculum under TEC, §28.002(a)(1);

(3) the student's performance on each assessment instrument administered under TEC, §39.023(a) or (c);

(4) the number of credits the student has earned toward high school graduation, if applicable; and

(5) any disciplinary actions taken against the student under TEC, Chapter 37, Subchapter A (Alternative Settings for Behavior Management).

(l) The student's permanent record shall contain documentation of all actions impacting the English learner.

(1) Documentation shall include:

(A) the identification of the student as an English learner;

(B) the designation of the student's level of language proficiency;

(C) the recommendation of program placement;

(D) parental approval of entry or placement into the program;

(E) the dates of entry into, and placement within, the program;

(F) assessment information as outlined in Chapter 101, Subchapter AA, of this title;

(G) additional instructional interventions provided to address the specific language needs of the student;

(H) the date of reclassification and the date of exit from the program with parental approval;

(I) the results of monitoring for academic success, including students formerly classified as English learners, as required under the TEC, §29.063(c)(4); and

(J) the home language survey.

(2) Current documentation as described in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be forwarded in the same manner as other student records to another school district in which the student enrolls.

(m) A school district may place or exit a student in a program without written approval of the student's parent if:

(1) the student is 18 years of age or has had the disabilities of minority removed;

(2) the parent provides approval through a phone conversation or e-mail that is documented in writing and retained; or

(3) an adult who the school district recognizes as standing in parental relation to the student provides written approval. This may include a foster parent or employee of a state or local governmental agency with temporary possession or control of the student.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1220 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1220 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective March 5, 1999, 24 TexReg 1383; amended to be effective April 18, 2002, 27 TexReg 3107; amended to be effective September 17, 2007, 32 TexReg 6311; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

§89.1226. Testing and Classification of Students.

(a) The single state-approved English language proficiency test for identification of English learners described in subsection (c) of this section shall be used as part of the standardized, statewide identification process.

(b) Within four weeks of initial enrollment in a Texas school, a student with a language other than English indicated on the home language survey shall be administered the state-approved English language proficiency test for identification as described in subsection (c) of this section and shall be identified as English learners and placed into the required bilingual education or ESL program in accordance with the criteria listed in subsection (f) of this section.

(c) For identifying English learners, school districts shall administer to each student who has a language other than English as identified on the home language survey:

(1) in prekindergarten through Grade 1, the listening and speaking components of the state-approved English language proficiency test for identification; and

(2) in Grades 2-12, the listening, speaking, reading, and writing components of the state-approved English language proficiency test for identification.

(d) School districts that provide a bilingual education program at the elementary grades shall administer a language proficiency test in the primary language of the student who is eligible to be served in the bilingual education program. If the primary language of the student is Spanish, the school district shall administer the Spanish version of the state-approved language proficiency test for identification. If a state-approved language proficiency test for identification is not available in the primary language of the student, the school district shall determine the student's level of proficiency using informal oral language assessment measures.

(e) All of the language proficiency testing shall be administered by professionals or paraprofessionals who are proficient in the language of the test and trained in the language proficiency testing requirements of the test publisher.

(f) For entry into a bilingual education or ESL program, a student shall be identified as an English learner using the following criteria.

(1) In prekindergarten through Grade 1, the student's score(s) from the listening and/or speaking components on the state-approved English language proficiency test for identification is/are below the level designated for indicating English proficiency.

(2) In Grades 2-12, the student's score(s) from the listening, speaking, reading, and/or writing components on the state-approved English language proficiency test for identification is/are below the level designated for indicating English proficiency.

(g) A student shall be identified as an English learner if the student's ability in English is so limited that the English language proficiency assessment described in subsection (c) of this section cannot be administered.

(h) The language proficiency assessment committee in conjunction with the admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee shall identify a student as an English learner if the student's ability in English is so limited or the student's disabilities are so severe that the English language proficiency assessment described in subsection (c) of this section cannot be administered. The decision for entry into a bilingual education or ESL program shall be determined by the language proficiency assessment committee in conjunction with the ARD committee in accordance with §89.1220(f) of this title (relating to Language Proficiency Assessment Committee).

(i) An English learner may be reclassified as English proficient only at the end of the school year in which a student would be able to participate equally in a general education, all-English instructional program. This determination shall be based upon all of the following:

(1) a proficiency rating on the state-approved English language proficiency test for reclassification that is designated for indicating English proficiency in each the four language domains (listening, speaking, reading, and writing);

(2) passing standard met on the reading assessment instrument under the Texas Education Code (TEC), §39.023(a), or, for students at grade levels not assessed by the aforementioned reading assessment instrument, a score at or above the 40th percentile on both the English reading and the English language arts sections of the state-approved norm-referenced standardized achievement instrument; and

(3) the results of a subjective teacher evaluation using the state's standardized rubric.

(j) An English learner may not be reclassified as English proficient in prekindergarten or kindergarten. A school district must ensure that English learners are prepared to meet academic standards required by the TEC, §28.0211.

(k) An English learner may not be reclassified as English proficient if the language proficiency assessment committee has recommended designated supports or accommodations on the state reading assessment instrument based on the student's second language acquisition needs.

(l) For English learners who are also eligible for special education services, the standardized process for English learner reclassification is followed in accordance with applicable provisions of subsection (i) of this section. However, annual meetings to review student progress and make recommendations for reclassification must be made in all instances by the language proficiency assessment committee in conjunction with the ARD committee in accordance with §89.1230(b) of this title (relating to Eligible Students with Disabilities). Additionally, the language proficiency assessment committee in conjunction with the ARD committee shall implement assessment procedures that differentiate between language proficiency and disabling conditions in accordance with §89.1230(a) of this title.

(m) For an English learner with a significant cognitive disability, the language proficiency assessment committee in conjunction with the ARD committee may determine that the state's English language proficiency assessment for reclassification is not appropriate because of the nature of the student's disabling condition. In these cases, the language proficiency assessment committee in conjunction with the ARD committee may recommend that the student take the state's alternate English language proficiency assessment, determine an appropriate performance standard requirement for reclassification by language domain under subsection (i)(1) of this section, and utilize the results of a subjective teacher evaluation using the state's standardized alternate rubric.

(n) Notwithstanding §101.101 of this title (relating to Group-Administered Tests), all tests used for the purpose of identification, reclassification, and placement of students and approved by the TEA must be re-normed at least every eight years.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1226 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1226 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective April 18, 2002, 27 TexReg 3107; amended to be effective September 17, 2007, 32 TexReg 6311; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 1, 2019, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

89.1227. Minimum Requirements for Dual Language Immersion Program Model.

(a) A dual language immersion program model shall address all curriculum requirements specified in Chapter 74, Subchapter A, of this title (relating to Required Curriculum) to include foundation and enrichment areas, English language proficiency standards, and college and career readiness standards.

(b) A dual language immersion program model shall be a full-time program of academic instruction in English and another language.

(c) A dual language immersion program model shall provide equitable resources in English and the additional program language whenever possible.

(d) A minimum of 50% of instructional time shall be provided in the language other than English for the duration of the program.

(e) Implementation shall:

(1) begin at prekindergarten or kindergarten, as applicable;

(2) continue without interruption incrementally through the elementary grades; and

(3) consider expansion to middle school and high school whenever possible.

(f) A dual language immersion program model shall be developmentally appropriate and based on current best practices identified in research.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1227 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051, 29.053, 29.054, 29.055, 29.056, 29.0561, 29.057, 29.058, 29.059, 29.060, 29.061, 29.062, 29.063, 29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1227 adopted to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731.

89.1228. Two-Way Dual Language Immersion Program Model Implementation.

(a) Student enrollment in a two-way dual language immersion program model is optional for English proficient students in accordance with §89.1233(a) of this title (relating to Participation of English Proficient Students).

(b) A two-way dual language immersion program model shall fully disclose candidate selection criteria and ensure that access to the program is not based on race, creed, color, religious affiliation, age, or disability.

(c) A school district implementing a two-way dual language immersion program model shall develop a policy on enrollment and continuation for students in this program model. The policy shall address:

(1) eligibility criteria;

(2) program purpose;

(3) the district's commitment to providing equitable access to services for English learners;

(4) grade levels in which the program will be implemented;

(5) support of program goals as stated in §89.1210 of this title (relating to Program Content and Design); and

(6) expectations for students and parents.

(d) A school district implementing a two-way dual language immersion program model shall obtain written parental approval as follows.

(1) For English learners, written parental approval is obtained in accordance with §89.1240 of this title (relating to Parental Authority and Responsibility).

(2) For English proficient students, written parental approval is obtained through a school district-developed process.

(e) A school district implementing a two-way dual language immersion program model shall determine the appropriate assessment option for program participants as follows.

(1) For English learners, the language proficiency assessment committee shall convene before the administration of the state criterion-referenced test each year to determine the appropriate assessment option for each English learner in accordance with §89.1220(i) of this title (relating to Language Proficiency Assessment Committee).

(2) For English proficient students, the appropriate assessment option for the administration of the state criterion-referenced test each year is determined through a school district-developed process.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1228 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1228 adopted to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

89.1229. General Standards for Recognition of Dual Language Immersion Program Models.

(a) School recognition. A school district may recognize one or more of its schools that implement an exceptional dual language immersion program model if the school meets all of the following criteria.

(1) The school must meet the minimum requirements stated in §89.1227 of this title (relating to Minimum Requirements for Dual Language Immersion Program Model).

(2) The school must receive an acceptable performance rating in the state accountability system.

(3) The school must not be identified for any stage of intervention for the district's bilingual and/or English as a second language program under the performance-based monitoring system.

(b) Student recognition. A student participating in a dual language immersion program model or any other state-approved bilingual or ESL program model may be recognized by the program and its local school district board of trustees by earning a performance acknowledgement in accordance with §74.14 of this title (relating to Performance Acknowledgments).

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1229 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051, 29.053, 29.054, 29.055, 29.056, 29.0561, 29.057, 29.058, 29.059, 29.060, 29.061, 29.062, 29.063, 29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1229 adopted to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731.

89.1230. Eligible Students with Disabilities.

(a) School districts shall implement assessment procedures that differentiate between language proficiency and disabling conditions in accordance with Subchapter AA of this chapter (relating to Commissioner's Rules Concerning Special Education Services) and shall establish placement procedures that ensure that placement in a bilingual education or English as a second language program is not refused solely because the student has a disability.

(b) Language proficiency assessment committee members shall meet in conjunction with admission, review, and dismissal committee members to review and provide recommendations with regard to the educational needs of each English learner who qualifies for services in the special education program.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1230 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051, 29.053, 29.054, 29.055, 29.056, 29.0561, 29.057, 29.058, 29.059, 29.060, 29.061, 29.062, 29.063, 29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1230 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective March 5, 1999, 24 TexReg 1383; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731.

89.1233. Participation of English Proficient Students.

(a) School districts shall fulfill their obligation to provide required bilingual program services to English learners in accordance with Texas Education Code (TEC), §29.053.

(b) School districts may enroll English proficient students in the bilingual education program or the English as a second language program in accordance with TEC, §29.058.

(c) The number of participating English proficient students shall not exceed 40% of the number of students enrolled in the program district-wide in accordance with TEC, §29.058.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1233 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1233 adopted to be effective March 5, 1999, 24 TexReg 1383amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

89.1235. Facilities.

Bilingual education and English as a second language (ESL) programs shall be located in the public schools of the school district with equitable access to all educational resources rather than in separate facilities. In order to provide the required bilingual education or ESL programs, school districts may concentrate the programs at a limited number of facilities within the school district. Recent immigrant English learners shall not remain enrolled in newcomer centers for longer than two years.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1235 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051, 29.053, 29.054, 29.055, 29.056, 29.0561, 29.057, 29.058, 29.059, 29.060, 29.061, 29.062, 29.063, 29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1235 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731.

89.1240. Parental Authority and Responsibility.

(a) The parent shall be notified in English and the parent's primary language that their child has been classified as an English learner and recommended for placement in the required bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL) program. The parent shall be provided information describing the bilingual education or ESL program recommended, its benefits to the student, and its being an integral part of the school program to ensure that the parent understands the purposes and content of the program. The entry or placement of a student in the bilingual education or ESL program must be approved in writing by the student's parent in order to have the student included in the bilingual education allotment. The parent's approval shall be considered valid for the student's continued participation in the required bilingual education or ESL program until the student meets the reclassification criteria described in §89.1226(i) of this title (relating to Testing and Classification of Students), the student graduates from high school, or a change occurs in program placement.

(b) The school district shall give written notification to the student's parent of the student's reclassification as English proficient and his or her exit from the bilingual education or ESL program and acquire written approval as required under the Texas Education Code, §29.056(a). Students meeting reclassification requirements may continue in the bilingual education or ESL program with parental approval.

(c) The parent of a student enrolled in a school district that is required to offer bilingual education or ESL programs may appeal to the commissioner of education if the school district fails to comply with the law or the rules. Appeals shall be filed in accordance with Chapter 157 of this title (relating to Hearings and Appeals).

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1240 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1240 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective April 18, 2002, 27 TexReg 3107; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

89.1245. Staffing and Staff Development.

(a) School districts shall take all reasonable affirmative steps to assign appropriately certified teachers to the required bilingual education and English as a second language (ESL) programs in accordance with the Texas Education Code (TEC), §29.061, concerning bilingual education and ESL program teachers. School districts that are unable to secure a sufficient number of appropriately certified bilingual education and/or ESL teachers to provide the required programs may request activation of the appropriate permits in accordance with Chapter 230 of this title (relating to Professional Educator Preparation and Certification).

(b) School districts that are unable to employ a sufficient number of teachers, including part-time teachers, who meet the requirements of subsection (a) of this section for the bilingual education and ESL programs shall apply on or before November 1 for an exception to the bilingual education program as provided in §89.1207(a) of this title (relating to Bilingual Education Exceptions and English as a Second Language Waivers) or a waiver of the certification requirements in the ESL program as provided in §89.1207(b) of this title as needed.

(c) Teachers assigned to the bilingual education program and/or ESL program may receive salary supplements as authorized by the TEC, §42.153.

(d) School districts may compensate teachers and aides assigned to bilingual education and ESL programs for participation in professional development designed to increase their skills or lead to bilingual education or ESL certification.

(e) The commissioner of education shall encourage school districts to cooperate with colleges and universities to provide training for teachers assigned to the bilingual education and/or ESL programs.

(f) The Texas Education Agency shall develop, in collaboration with education service centers, resources for implementing bilingual education and ESL training programs. The materials shall provide a framework for:

(1) developmentally appropriate bilingual education programs for early childhood through the elementary grades;

(2) affectively, linguistically, and cognitively appropriate instruction in bilingual education and ESL programs in accordance with §89.1210(b)(1)-(3) of this title (relating to Program Content and Design); and

(3) developmentally appropriate programs for English learners identified with multiple needs and/or exceptionalities.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1245 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1245 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective March 5, 1999, 24 TexReg 1383; amended to be effective April 18, 2002, 27 TexReg 3107; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

89.1250. Required Summer School Programs.

Summer school programs that are provided under the Texas Education Code (TEC), §29.060, for English learners who will be eligible for admission to kindergarten or Grade 1 at the beginning of the next school year shall be implemented in accordance with this section.

(1) Purpose of summer school programs.

(A) English learners shall have an opportunity to receive special instruction designed to prepare them to be successful in kindergarten and Grade 1.

(B) Instruction shall focus on language development and essential knowledge and skills appropriate to the level of the student.

(C) The program shall address the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of the English learners in accordance with §89.1210(b) of this title (relating to Program Content and Design).

(2) Establishment of, and eligibility for, the program.

(A) Each school district required to offer a bilingual or English as a second language (ESL) program in accordance with the TEC, §29.053, shall offer the summer program.

(B) To be eligible for enrollment:

(i) a student must be eligible for admission to kindergarten or to Grade 1 at the beginning of the next school year and must be an English learner; and

(ii) a parent must have approved placement of the English learner in the required bilingual or ESL program following the procedures described in §89.1220(g) of this title (relating to Language Proficiency Assessment Committee) and §89.1226(b)-(f) of this title (relating to Testing and Classification of Students).

(3) Operation of the program.

(A) Enrollment is optional.

(B) The program shall be operated on a one-half day basis, a minimum of three hours each day, for eight weeks or the equivalent of 120 hours of instruction.

(C) The student/teacher ratio for the program district-wide shall not exceed 18 to one.

(D) A school district is not required to provide transportation for the summer program.

(E) Teachers shall possess certification as required in the TEC, §29.061, and §89.1245 of this title (relating to Staffing and Staff Development).

(F) Reporting of student progress shall be determined by the board of trustees. A summary of student progress shall be provided to parents at the conclusion of the program. This summary shall be provided to the student's teacher at the beginning of the next regular school term.

(G) A school district may join with other school districts in cooperative efforts to plan and implement programs.

(H) The summer school program shall not substitute for any other program required to be provided during the regular school term, including those required in the TEC, §29.153.

(4) Funding and records for programs.

(A) A school district shall use state and local funds for program purposes.

(i) Available funds appropriated by the legislature for the support of summer school programs provided under the TEC, §29.060, shall be allocated to school districts in accordance with this subsection.

(ii) Funding for the summer school program shall be on a unit basis in such an allocation system to ensure a pupil/teacher ratio of not more than 18 to one. The numbers of students required to earn units shall be established by the commissioner. The allotment per unit shall be determined by the commissioner based on funds available.

(iii) Any school district required to offer the program under paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection that has fewer than 10 students district-wide desiring to participate is not required to operate the program. However, those school districts must document that they have encouraged students' participation in multiple ways.

(iv) Payment to school districts for summer school programs shall be based on units employed. This information must be submitted in a manner and according to a schedule established by the commissioner in order for a school district to be eligible for funding.

(B) A school district shall maintain records of eligibility, attendance, and progress of students.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1250 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1250 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective April 18, 2002, 27 TexReg 3107; amended to be effective February 17, 2005, 30 TexReg 709; amended to be effective September 17, 2007, 32 TexReg 6311; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

89.1265. Evaluation.

(a) All school districts required to conduct a bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL) program shall conduct an annual evaluation in accordance with Texas Education Code (TEC), §29.053, collecting a full range of data to determine program effectiveness to ensure student academic success. The annual evaluation report shall be presented to the board of trustees before November 1 of each year and the report shall be retained at the school district level in accordance with TEC, §29.062.

(b) Annual school district reports of educational performance shall reflect:

(1) the academic progress in the language(s) of instruction for English learners;

(2) the extent to which English learners are becoming proficient in English;

(3) the number of students who have been reclassified as English proficient; and

(4) the number of teachers and aides trained and the frequency, scope, and results of the professional development in approaches and strategies that support second language acquisition.

(c) In addition, for those school districts that filed in the previous year and/or will be filing a bilingual education exception and/or ESL waiver in the current year, the annual district report of educational performance shall also reflect:

(1) the number of teachers for whom an exception or waiver was/is being filed;

(2) the number of teachers for whom an exception or waiver was filed in the previous year who successfully obtained certification; and

(3) the frequency and scope of a comprehensive professional development plan, implemented as required under §89.1207 of this title (relating to Bilingual Education Exceptions and English as a Second Language Waivers), and results of such plan if an exception and/or waiver was filed in the previous school year.

(d) School districts shall report to parents the progress of their child in acquiring English as a result of participation in the program offered to English learners.

(e) Each school year, the principal of each school campus, with the assistance of the campus level committee, shall develop, review, and revise the campus improvement plan described in the TEC, §11.253, for the purpose of improving student performance for English learners.

Statutory Authority: The provisions of this §89.1265 issued under the Texas Education Code, §§29.051-29.056, 29.0561, 29.057-29.064, and 29.066.

Source: The provisions of this §89.1265 adopted to be effective September 1, 1996, 21 TexReg 5700; amended to be effective April 18, 2002, 27 TexReg 3107; amended to be effective May 28, 2012, 37 TexReg 3822; amended to be effective July 15, 2018, 43 TexReg 4731; amended to be effective April 14, 2020, 45 TexReg 2415.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chapter 89. Adaptations for Special Populations Subchapter BB. Commissioner's Rules Concerning State Plan for Educating English Learners 89.1201. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the state that every student in the state who has a primary language other than English and who is identified as an English learner shall be provided a full opportunity to participate in a bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL) program, as required in the Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 29, Subchapter B.

# data[].attributes.body
Ensures limited-English proficient students have equal access to programs that are funded with federal money

Provides an office in the United States Department of Education focused on needs of English language learners

Includes provision for technical assistance for any program that is federally funded and serves English language learners

# data[].attributes.body
Outlines specifics for providing instructional support for limited English proficient students

Delineates specifications for both bilingual programs and ESL programs in schools

Mandates that schools utilize the English Language Proficiency Standards in addition to the Texas Education Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) when providing instruction for EL students

# data[].attributes.body
Qualifies English language learners to receive full access to public education

Ensures the bilingual students or limited English proficient students are able to gain the education they need to live literate lives

Argues that students who are undocumented persons may live lives within a state's borders and should receive the ability to contribute to society through an adequate education

# data[].attributes.body
This local policy contains guidance for who is selected as part of the LPAC committee for each English language learner. The policy also includes specifications for the LPACs to review all laws and policies related to their duties each year.

# data[].attributes.headline
Leveraging Policy Implementation for Social Justice: How School Leaders Shape Educational Opportunity When Implementing Policy for English Learners

# data[].attributes.subject
Leveraging Policy Implementation for Social Justice: How School Leaders Shape Educational Opportunity When Implementing Policy for English Learners

# data[].attributes.body
Mavrogordato, M., & White, R. S. (2020). Leveraging Policy Implementation for Social Justice: How School Leaders Shape Educational Opportunity When Implementing Policy for English Learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(1), 3–45.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.body
Equity in education is an ethical dilemma that applies to English language learners. Many times, the law is followed, and yet these students may still suffer from lack of access to an equitable education. This research study concludes that local groups such as LPACs have significant impact on whether these students receive social justice. Decisions made by these committees should be informed by equity standards and responsible decisions for each impacted student.

When English learners participate in local-controlled LPAC committee meetings, it is important that their rights are adequately represented and that the members of the committee understand the role in equity that they play in each of these students' lives. When these committees are not well-informed, English learners often suffer from lack of access and lack of equity in their educational opportunities.

# data[].attributes.body
Instructors are familiar with language acquisition theory and instructional best practices

LPAC Committee members are  well-versed in the laws about English language learners

LPAC Committee members understand the role they play in English learners receiving equitable access to learning that meets their language needs

Instructors and leaders understand the importance of utilizing English Language Proficiency Standards in every classroom with English learners

Schools consider implementation of bilingual programs for English learners if many students have the same first language

Schools proactively seek involvement of family members of English learners in the education of these students

Schools consider the socio-emotional impact on these students who may be separated from extended family during crises situations such as COVID-19

# data[].attributes.body
Growing up in San Angelo, Texas, I was in classrooms with English learners from the time I was in first grade. Living so close to the border with Mexico, often English learners would be Spanish speaking students, and I saw first hand the inequity in their education that they often faced. Once in college, I minored in Spanish and received my certification as a Spanish teacher. Learning a second language allowed me to empathize more with the plight of those who must learn English with also grappling with the regular content-based knowledge and skills associated with each high school course. It has become increasingly important in my educational journey to advocate especially for these students to ensure that the instructors (especially those with EL specific courses) understand second language acquisition theory and instructional best practices. Ethically, it is imperative that educators work to ensure that these students have an equitable education and are not underserved because of their limited English proficiency.