<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 12:47 PM 3/1/2004, Jim Holton wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Given the source and the disclaimer
at the bottom, I am wondering if the 13 students didn't come from
bi-lingual programs at Grand Ronde in 2000-2001. They might be
lumping bi-lingual programs in with LEP programs for their
estimate.</blockquote><br>
Yes, that was my guess, too. It next occurred to me that not long before
the program began, there were still great-grandparents who had spoken
fluent Jargon, and I don't doubt they shared it lovingly with kids who
remain in school today. In either case (pre-program or after launch),
it's likely some of today's children were introduced to the Jargon as
early as English.<br><br>
Mr. Roy also mentions the LEP categorical criteria included the
"influence" (the criteria unfortunately employed the
potentially pejorative term "impact") of previous generations'
languages upon Native Americans, though I believe any such effect on
today's Native children's English-learning capability would be
socio-economic in origin rather than linguistic. (The goals of the LNCB
Act might not even require distinguishing this point.)<br><br>
The source report appears a bit apologetic about its own sketchiness; the
criteria were in the process of revision at the time, so they some had
trouble getting fitting data out of the states:<br><br>
"</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3>Meaningful
interpretation of the available data is challenging for several
reasons." </font><i>Survey of the States' Limited English Proficient
Students & Available Educational Programs and Services, </i>p. 9.
<font size=2><<a href="http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/states/reports/seareports/0001/sea0001.pdf" eudora="autourl">http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/states/reports/seareports/0001/sea0001.pdf</a>>
or (HTML):
<<a href="http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:LQcFWWU4nvYJ:www.ncela.gwu.edu/states/reports/seareports/0001/sea0001.pdf" eudora="autourl">http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:LQcFWWU4nvYJ:www.ncela.gwu.edu/states/reports/seareports/0001/sea0001.pdf</a>><br><br>
</font><font size=3>This quirk may have been encouraged by one of the
data-gathering instruments, OMB No. 1885-0543. See page 4 (at 35 of the
above .pdf):<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3><b>A2.
Languages Spoken by Grade Level<br>
</b>List <b>ALL </b>the non-English languages spoken by LEP students and
the number of LEP students at each grade level who speak each of those
languages.</blockquote><br>
</font>This brought to mind the scenario of "Okay, kids....
<i>Hey!</i> Quiet down back there! ....what other languages do you
speak?" (I thought Emmett might enjoy that.) It's an educational
funding and planning report (and they apparently did the best they
could), not an anthropological or linguistic study. Note one student's
"language background" got listed as "Upper
Chinookan"--which could be an accurate report of heritage, but
linguistically would be a 150-year stretch. Of course, any kind of survey
stat below a couple points may offer interesting ideas for further
research, but can't be relied upon by itself.<br><br>
I kidded Dave privately about "trolling [his] own list" (not
wishing to launch any pointless hoo-ha's--at least until today's email
came in, which offered me the higher ground of rebutting them). But at
least it got us a couple new posts, plus word from one specialist we
hadn't heard from before (and welcome!)<br><br>
J.<br>
</body>
</html>