[lg policy] Home-Language Surveys for ELLs Under Fire

Sat Feb 27 14:44:14 UTC 2010

Home-Language Surveys for ELLs Under Fire

Some parents and students say the instruments can lead to the
misclassification of immigrants’ children.
By Mary Ann Zehr

A growing chorus of people are saying that some school districts are
overzealous in categorizing students as English-language learners in
the aim of complying with federal and state laws to ensure that
children of immigrants get extra help with English. They contend that
the information requested on the home-language survey that parents are
commonly asked to fill out when they enroll their child in a public
school can be misleading or misused. Christina Chum, a parent of a 5th
grader in Orange County, Fla., for example, says her son was
mistakenly categorized as an ELL after she said on a home-language
survey that Spanish was sometimes spoken in their home. She’s asked
district officials to lift the label for her son, whose first and
primary language is English, but she says they tell her state law
doesn’t permit them to do so, unless her son proves on a test that he
knows English.

In Orange County and many other districts across the country, once a
student is designated as an ELL, the label is not readily lifted. Lori
Phanachone, now a freshman at Iowa State University, was suspended for
three days from Storm Lake High School in Iowa last school year after
she refused to take an English-proficiency test. The honor student
declined to take the exam as a protest against the Storm Lake
district’s labeling of her as an ELL solely because she had said on a
home-language survey that she spoke Lao, the language of Laos, at
home. The district has since cleared the suspension from her record
and put in place a comprehensive policy on how to identify ELLs.
Meanwhile, in Arizona, state education officials have changed the
home-language survey there to ask only one question rather than three,
saying they want to cut down on the overidentification of students as
ELLs. The U.S. Department of Education’s office for civil rights is
investigating a complaint that contends, however, that by simplifying
the home- language form, Arizona is discriminating against children
who may be dominant in English but still need extra help to gain
proficiency in it.

‘Treated Differently’

States differ in whether they permit parents to remove a child who has
been identified as an English-learner from special English
instruction, such as English-as-a- second-language classes. The
federal No Child Left Behind Act permits parents to remove their
children from special English classes, but it also says that states’
laws on the matter take precedence over the federal law. Arizona,
California, Iowa, and Texas let parents waive special instruction in
English. New Mexico and New York do not. Under the NCLB law, school
districts are required to assess ELLs each year with an
English-language-proficiency test, an exam that other students don’t
have to take. Districts vary in whether they are willing to honor a
parent’s demand not to give the test.

 That was a battle that Ms. Chum was willing to fight after she
learned that Princeton Elementary School in Orlando, Fla., considered
her son, Moses Abreu, now 10, to be an ELL. When he was a 3rd grader,
she enrolled him in Killarney Elementary School in the 175,000-student
Orange County district, and checked a box on a home-language survey
that said a language other than English was spoken at home.  Ms. Chum
was born in Thailand of Cambodian parents and her first language is
Khmer, but her dominant language is now English. Her husband is
bilingual in Spanish and English, but the couple speak exclusively in
English with their two children. Because Ms. Chum marked that Spanish
was spoken in the home, Moses was given an English-language screening
test, which he didn’t pass. His mother said he failed the test because
its purpose wasn’t explained to him and he didn’t take it seriously.
She soon took Moses out of school for reasons not related to his
status as an ELL and home-schooled him for two years.

This past fall, when Ms. Chum enrolled Moses in 5th grade at Princeton
Elementary, she filled out another home-language survey. But this
time, she didn’t say that a language other than English was spoken at
home. The school system, though, has a policy of referring to data
from previous schools in Florida attended by a student, so Moses was
still considered an English-language learner. Ms. Chum got a letter in
the mail about services for ELLs. That’s when she realized she hadn’t
understood the purpose of the home-language survey. She now wants the
district to disregard her answers on it and the label of ELL to be
lifted from her son immediately.“He’s been treated differently because
of a question I answered. It almost seems like racial profiling,” she
said. “I have two issues: [district officials’] not informing parents
what those questions are for, and that I can’t remove my son out of
the program—not just the services, but the program.”

Ms. Chum doesn’t want Moses to be given any more English-proficiency
tests. She said district officials agreed that he doesn’t have to take
the English-language-proficiency test or special classes to learn
English, but that he will have to show he’s proficient in English on
Florida’s reading exam for regular students before he can lose the ELL
label.
Ms. Chum maintains that the district wants to count Moses as an ELL so
it can get extra funding that Florida provides for each ELL student. A
district spokeswoman didn’t comment on the case, citing privacy laws,
but said the district has had its procedures for identifying and
serving ELLs approved by the Florida education department.

Iowa Case

Lori Phanachone’s troubles in Storm Lake, Iowa, also stemmed from
information put on a home-language survey. When she registered as a
10th grader at Storm Lake High School, she said she spoke Lao at home,
which was recorded on a home-language survey. The district labeled her
as an ELL without testing her English skills, according to her lawyer.
Then the district, in an effort to comply with the No Child Left
Behind law’s requirement to test ELLs on their annual progress in
English, gave her an English-proficiency test later that year. She
passed the test, but she was still considered an ELL because Iowa
requires students to stay in the category until they have passed the
English-proficiency test two years in a row.

Ms. Phanachone, who was born in Reading, Calif., said in an interview
that she’d attended public schools in both California and New York and
never been considered an ELL and never gotten special help to learn
English.

At Storm Lake High, she was getting good grades in mainstream classes
and considered it discriminatory that she was required to take the
English-proficiency test designed for ELLs, she said. During her
junior year, Ms. Phanachone said, she protested having to take the
test by marking the same answer, C, for every test question, so
technically she failed it.

In her senior year, she refused to take the test at all, creating a
standoff with school administrators. She said the vice principal told
her that she was “no Rosa Parks” and that it was in his power to
decide whether she graduated. She landed a three-day suspension.
Teachers put her out of the National Honor Society, she said.

Civil rights groups got involved, and eventually the school district
cleared her record and she was reinstated in the National Honor
Society. The district worked with the U.S. Department of Justice and a
commission of the Iowa Department of Human Rights focused on Asians
and Pacific Islanders to create a plan to systematically identify and
serve ELLs.

In an interview this month, Paul Tedesco, the superintendent of Storm
Lake Community Schools, stressed that the district was developing a
plan to formalize how ELLs were identified and taught before the
incident with Ms. Phanachone. He noted that 55 percent of the
district’s 2,100 students are ELLs, most of whom are from families
that arrived in the last decade.

“We’re doing a better job of identifying who should be placed in the
ELL program,” Mr. Tedesco said.

At Issue in Arizona
The No Child Left Behind Act and federal civil rights law require that
districts have a process to identify and serve ELLs. Home-language
surveys are used ubiquitously as part of that process, but what
questions are on them varies from state to state and even within
states.

When asked what civil rights laws, regulations, or guidance say about
home-language surveys, Jim Bradshaw, a spokesman for the federal
Education Department, pointed to guidance documents that say school
districts must have some procedure in place for identifying and
assessing ELLs, but don’t explicitly require a home-language survey.
In the “enforcement experience” of the office for civil rights, wrote
Mr. Bradshaw in an e-mail, “the most prevalent means of idetification
is the home-language survey.” He said that student-language surveys
and teacher observation are also used.

Debate over what should be on the home-language survey used in Arizona
districts is attracting attention nationwide, renewing discussion on
how ELLs can best be identified.

The survey traditionally asked parents what primary language was
spoken in the home, the language most often spoken by the student, and
the student’s first language. If parents responded with a language
other than English to any of those questions, a student was given an
English-proficiency test to see if he or she was an ELL. The new
survey asks parents only to name the primary language of the child.

Margaret Garcia Dugan, the deputy superintendent for the Arizona
education department, said the survey was changed to focus on the
language of the child.

“It didn’t really matter what the parents spoke,” she said. She
believes that the old form led to overidentification of ELLs, which
she said is a violation of students’ civil rights every bit as much as
underidentification is.

Ms. Dugan said she does regret, however, that state officials didn’t
put out guidance for educators at the same time that use of the new
form was mandated. The guidance eventually released gives educators
flexibility to give students an English-proficiency test if they
suspect a student might be an ELL, even if English is his or her
primary language, she said.

Missing Students?
William L. Taylor, a longtime civil rights lawyer based in Washington,
said the question of what a child’s primary language is ought to
suffice on the home-language survey.

“Then if somebody thinks they are being shortchanged either way,” he
said, “they should be able to raise a question about what should be
done about it.”

But others are concerned that by asking only the one question, Arizona
is weeding out some children who really need ELL services.

The change in Arizona’s home-language survey is also one issue that
was raised by the lawyer for parents from the Nogales Unified School
District in the federal lawsuit concerning ELLs in Arizona. The U.S.
Supreme Court ruled last June in that case, Horne v. Flores, that the
federal district court had to re-examine the case because it had not
sufficiently looked at “changed circumstances” regarding the education
of ELLs in Arizona.

Timothy M. Hogan, the lawyer for the Flores side, argued in a motion
filed with the district court in September that the modification of
Arizona’s home-language survey is a violation of the federal Equal
Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. The state is failing “to
adequately identify ELL students who are entitled to additional
educational assistance to overcome language barriers,” the motion
said.

The federal court is scheduled to hear arguments in that case in August.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/02/24/22homelanguage_ep-2.h29.html?r=200654813

-- 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

 Harold F. Schiffman

Professor Emeritus of
 Dravidian Linguistics and Culture
Dept. of South Asia Studies
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305

Phone:  (215) 898-7475
Fax:  (215) 573-2138

Email:  haroldfs at gmail.com
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/

-------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list