If you do agree with the current legal status of LGBT students in your state, how will you defend it? What challenges (legal or otherwise) might you foresee?

Read the LGBT Students and Families section.Then read the profile of LGBT families, “Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals and Families” by Goates.

Research the legal landscape and determine what legal protections are available to LGBT students in your Louisiana. Then write a position paper that outlines:

The legal position in Louisiana

Whether or not you agree

If you do agree with the current legal status of LGBT students in your state, how will you defend it? What challenges (legal or otherwise) might you foresee?

If you do not agree with the current legal status of LGBT students in your state, how will you comply with the laws in a way that respects the laws and creates a supportive learning environment without compromising your conscience?

Requirements: 1-2 pages

© 2017 5600 49 Section 2. English Language Learners and Bilingual Program Models In this section of the course, through the course text and selected external readings, you will be learning about the needs English Language Learners (ELLs). ESL and Bilingual Program Models ERIC Digest Jeanne Rennie ED362072 Children from families in which English is not the language of the home represent a rapidly increasing percentage of students enrolled in U.S. schools. Language minority students can be found in schools across the country, not just those in large cities or in areas near the U.S.-Mexican border. All schools must be prepared to meet the challenge of an increasingly diverse student population, including many students who are not proficient in English. The effectiveness of various program models for language minority students remains the subject of controversy. Although there may be reasons to claim the superiority of one program model over another in certain situations (Collier 1992; Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey 1991), a variety of programs can be effective. The choice should be made at the local level after careful consideration of the needs of the students involved and the resources available. Factors to Consider in Selecting a Program Model It is critical to consider several variables that will ultimately influence the type of program most likely to be appropriate and effective in a given situation. 1. DISTRICT OR SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS. While some districts have a large population of students from a single language background, others have several large groups of students, each representing a different home language. Still others may have small numbers of students from as many as 100 different language backgrounds scattered across grade levels and schools. The total number of language minority students, the number of students from each language background, and their distribution across grades and schools will influence the selection of the type of program to meet the needs of district students (McKeon, 1987).

© 2017 5600 50 2. STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS. Some language minority students enter U.S. schools with strong academic preparation in their native language that may equal or surpass that of their grade-level peers in the United States. Others, however, may arrive in this country with little or no school experience. Social, economic, and cultural factors in their home country may have interrupted their schooling–if, indeed, they attended school at all. The needs of these students are clearly much different from those of students with a solid academic background (McKeon, 1987). 3. DISTRICT OR SCHOOL RESOURCES. Districts that have had a significant language minority enrollment for many years will likely have teachers, aides, and administrators trained to work with students who have limited English proficiency. They may be able to draw on a large pool of bilingual personnel in the community to staff bilingual programs. Other districts, faced with a sudden influx of students from one or more unfamiliar language backgrounds, may have to scramble to find qualified teachers or volunteers. Material resources will also influence the type of program that a district or school may be able to provide. Districts with declining enrollments may have classroom space available for magnet programs or ESL (English as a second language) resource centers. Other districts may be so overcrowded they cannot even find a classroom to accommodate ESL pull-out classes (McKeon, 1987). ESL Program Models ESL programs (rather than bilingual programs) are likely to be used in districts where the language minority population is very diverse and represents many different languages. ESL programs can accommodate students from different language backgrounds in the same class, and teachers do not need to be proficient in the home language(s) of their students. ESL pull-out is generally used in elementary school settings. Students spend part of the school day in a mainstream classroom, but are pulled out for a portion of each day to receive instruction in English as a second language. Although schools with a large number of ESL students may have a full-time ESL teacher, some districts employ an ESL teacher who travels to several schools to work with small groups of students scattered throughout the district. ESL class period is generally used in middle school settings. Students receive ESL instruction during a regular class period and usually receive course credit. They may be grouped for instruction according to their level of English proficiency. The ESL resource center is a variation of the pull-out design, bringing students together from several classrooms or schools. The resource center concentrates ESL materials and staff in one location and is usually staffed by at least one full-time ESL

© 2017 5600 51 teacher. Bilingual Program Models All bilingual program models use the studentsÕ home language, in addition to English, for instruction. These programs are most easily implemented in districts with a large number of students from the same language background. Students in bilingual programs are grouped according to their first language, and teachers must be proficient in both English and the studentsÕ home language. Early-exit bilingual programs are designed to help children acquire the English skills required to succeed in an English-only mainstream classroom. These programs provide some initial instruction in the studentsÕ first language, primarily for the introduction of reading, but also for clarification. Instruction in the first language is phased out rapidly, with most students mainstreamed by the end of first or second grade. The choice of an early-exit model may reflect community or parental preference, or it may be the only bilingual program option available in districts with a limited number of bilingual teachers. Late-exit programs differ from early-exit programs Òprimarily in the amount and duration that English is used for instruction as well as the length of time students are to participate in each programÓ (Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991). Students remain in late-exit programs throughout elementary school and continue to receive 40% or more of their instruction in their first language, even when they have been reclassified as fluent-English-proficient. Two-way bilingual programs, also called developmental bilingual programs, group language minority students from a single language background in the same classroom with language majority (English-speaking) students. Ideally, there is a nearly 50/50 balance between language minority and language majority students. Instruction is provided in both English and the minority language. In some programs, the languages are used on alternating days. Others may alternate morning and afternoon, or they may divide the use of the two languages by academic subject. Native English speakers and speakers of another language have the opportunity to acquire proficiency in a second language while continuing to develop their native language skills. Students serve as native-speaker role models for their peers. Two-way bilingual classes may be taught by a single teacher who is proficient in both languages or by two teachers, one of whom is bilingual. Other Program Models Some programs provide neither instruction in the native language nor direct instruction in ESL. However, instruction is adapted to meet the needs of students

© 2017 5600 52 who are not proficient in English. Sheltered English or content-based programs group language minority students from different language backgrounds together in classes where teachers use English as the medium for providing content area instruction, adapting their language to the proficiency level of the students. They may also use gestures and visual aids to help students understand. Although the acquisition of English is one of the goals of sheltered English and content-based programs, instruction focuses on content rather than language. Structured immersion programs use only English, but there is no explicit ESL instruction. As in sheltered English and content-based programs, English is taught through the content areas. Structured immersion teachers have strong receptive skills in their studentsÕ first language and have a bilingual education or ESL teaching credential. The teacherÕs use of the childrenÕs first language is limited primarily to clarification of English instruction. Most students are mainstreamed after 2 or 3 years. Characteristics of an Effective Program Researchers have identified a number of attributes that are characteristic of effective programs for language minority students. 1. Supportive whole-school contexts (Lucas, Henz, & Donato, 1990; Tikunoff et al., 1991). 2. High expectations for language minority students, as evidenced by active learning environments that are academically challenging (Collier, 1992; Lucas, Henze, & Donato, 1990; Pease-Alvarez, Garcia, & Espinosa, 1991). 3. Intensive staff development programs designed to assist ALL teachers (not just ESL or bilingual education teachers) in providing effective instruction to language minority students (Lucas, Henze, & Donato, 1990; Tikunoff et al., 1991). 4. Expert instructional leaders and teachers (Lucas, Henze, and Donato, 1990; Pease-Alvarez, Garcia, & Espinosa, 1991; Tikunoff et al., 1991). 5. Emphasis on functional communication between teacher and students and among fellow students (Garcia, 1991). 6. Organization of the instruction of basic skills and academic content around thematic units (Garcia, 1991). 7. Frequent student interaction through the use of collaborative learning techniques

© 2017 5600 53 (Garcia, 1991). 8. Teachers with a high commitment to the educational success of all their students (Garcia, 1991). 9. Principals supportive of their instructional staff and of teacher autonomy while maintaining an awareness of district policies on curriculum and academic accountability (Garcia, 1991). 10. Involvement of majority and minority parents in formal parent support activities (Garcia, 1991). Conclusion Successful program models for promoting the academic achievement of language minority students are those that enable these students to develop academic skills while learning English. The best program organization is one that is tailored to meet the linguistic, academic, and affective needs of students; provides language minority students with the instruction necessary to allow them to progress through school at a rate commensurate with their native-English-speaking peers; and makes the best use of district and community resources. References Collier, V. P. (1992). A Synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, p. 187-212. Garcia, E. (1991). Education of linguistically and culturally diverse students: Effective instructional practices. Educational practice report number 1. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338 099) Lucas T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino language minority students: An Exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60 (1), 315-340. McKeon, D. (1987). Different types of ESL programs. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. Pease-Alvarez, L., Garcia, E., & Espinosa, P. (1991). Effective instruction for language minority students: An early childhood case study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 347-361.

© 2017 5600 54 Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Tikunoff, W., Ward, B., van Broekhuizen, D., Romero, M., Castaneda, L.V., Lucas, T., & Katz, A. (1991). A Descriptive study of significant features of exemplary special alternative instructional programs. Washington: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs. —– This Digest is based on an article published in the August 1993 issue of Streamlined Seminar (Volume 12, Number 1), the newsletter of the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). For information on Streamlined Seminar or NAESP, write NAESP, 1615 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3483. The author acknowledges the assistance of Denise McKeon of the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education in the preparation of this report.

© 2017 5600 55 Ten Common Fallacies about Bilingual Education ERIC Digest James Crawford ED424792 Researchers have made considerable advances in the fields of psycholinguistics, second language acquisition, bilingual pedagogy, and multicultural education. Today, we know a great deal more about the challenges faced by English language learners and about promising strategies for overcoming them. One such strategy, bilingual education, has been the subject of increasing controversy. Although a growing body of research points to the potential benefits, there are a number of commonly held beliefs about bilingual education that run counter to research findings. Based on current research, this digest clarifies some of the myths and misconceptions surrounding language use and bilingual education in the United States. Fallacy 1: English is losing ground to other languages in the United States More world languages are spoken in the United States today than ever before. However, this is a quantitative, not a qualitative change from earlier periods. Concentrations of non-English language speakers were common in the 19th century, as reflected by laws authorizing native language instruction in a dozen states and territories. In big cities as well as rural areas, children attended bilingual and non-English schools, learning in languages as diverse as French, Norwegian, Czech, and Cherokee. In 1900, there were at least 600,000 elementary school children receiving part or all of their instruction in German (Kloss 1998). Yet English survived without any help from government, such as official-language legislation. Fallacy 2: Newcomers to the United States are learning English more slowly now than in previous generations To the contrary, todayÕs immigrants appear to be acquiring English more rapidly than ever before. While the number of minority-language speakers is projected to grow well into the next century, the number of bilinguals fluent in both English and another language is growing even faster. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of immigrants who spoke non-English languages at home increased by 59%, while the portion of this population that spoke English very well rose by 93% (Waggoner, 1995). In 1990, only 3% of U.S. residents reported speaking English less than well or very well. Only eight-tenths of one percent spoke no English at all. About three in four Hispanic immigrants, after 15 years in this country, speak English on a daily basis, while 70% of their children become dominant or monolingual in English (Veltman, 1988).

© 2017 5600 56 Fallacy 3: The best way to learn a language is through Òtotal immersionÓ There is no credible evidence to support the Òtime on taskÓ theory of language learning–the claim that the more children are exposed to English, the more English they will learn. Research shows that what counts is not just the quantity, but the quality of exposure. Second-language input must be comprehensible to promote second-language acquisition (Krashen, 1996). If students are left to sink or swim in mainstream classrooms, with little or no help in understanding native-their lessons, they wonÕt learn much English. If native-language instruction is used to make lessons meaningful, they will learn more English–and more subject matter, too. Fallacy 4: Children learning English are retained too long in bilingual classrooms, at the expense of English acquisition Time spent learning in well designed bilingual programs is learning time well spent. Knowledge and skills acquired in the native language–literacy in particular–are ÒtransferableÓ to the second language. They do not need to be relearned in English (Krashen, 1996; Cummins, 1992). Thus, there is no reason to rush limited-English-proficient (LEP) students into the mainstream before they are ready. Research over the past two decades has determined that, despite appearances, it takes children a long time to attain full proficiency in a second language. Often, they are quick to learn the conversational English used on the playground, but normally they need several years to acquire the cognitively demanding, decontextualized language used for academic pursuits (Collier & Thomas, 1989). Bilingual education programs that emphasize a gradual transition to English and offer native-language instruction in declining amounts over time, provide continuity in childrenÕs cognitive growth and lay a foundation for academic success in the second language. By contrast, English-only approaches and quick-exit bilingual programs can interrupt that growth at a crucial stage, with negative effects on achievement (Cummins, 1992). Fallacy 5: School districts provide bilingual instruction in scores of native languages Where children speak a number of different languages, rarely are there sufficient numbers of each language group to make bilingual instruction practical for everyone. In any case, the shortage of qualified teachers usually makes it impossible. For example, in 1994 California enrolled recently arrived immigrants from 136 different countries, but bilingual teachers were certified in only 17 languages, 96% of them in Spanish (CDE, 1995). Fallacy 6: Bilingual education means instruction mainly in studentsÕ native languages, with little instruction in English Before 1994, the vast majority of U.S. bilingual education programs were designed to encourage an early exit to mainstream English language classrooms, while only a

© 2017 5600 57 tiny fraction of programs were designed to maintain the native tongues of students. Today, a majority of bilingual programs continue to deliver a substantial portion of the curriculum in English. According to one study, school districts reported that 28% of LEP elementary school students receive no native-language instruction. Among those who do, about a third receive more than 75% of their instruction in English; a third receive from 40 to 75% in English; and one third of these receive less than 40% in English. Secondary school students are less likely to be instructed in their native language than elementary school students (Hopstock et al. 1993). Fallacy 7: Bilingual education is far more costly than English language instruction All programs serving LEP students–regardless of the language of instruction–require additional staff training, instructional materials, and administration. So they all cost a little more than regular programs for native English speakers. But in most cases the differential is modest. A study commissioned by the California legislature examined a variety of well implemented program models and found no budgetary advantage for English-only approaches. The incremental cost was about the same each year ($175-$214) for bilingual and English immersion programs, as compared with $1,198 for English as a second language (ESL) ÒpulloutÓ programs. The reason was simple: the pullout approach requires supplemental teachers, whereas in-class approaches do not (Chambers & Parrish, 1992). Nevertheless, ESL pullout remains the method of choice for many school districts, especially where LEP students are diverse, bilingual teachers are in short supply, or expertise is lacking in bilingual methodologies. Fallacy 8: Disproportionate dropout rates for Hispanic students demonstrate the failure of bilingual education Hispanic dropout rates remain unacceptably high. Research has identified multiple factors associated with this problem, including recent arrival in the United States, family poverty, limited English proficiency, low academic achievement, and being retained in grade (Lockwood, 1996). No credible studies, however, have identified bilingual education among the risk factors, because bilingual programs touch only a small minority of Hispanic children. Fallacy 9: Research is inconclusive on the benefits of bilingual education Some critics argue that the great majority of bilingual program evaluations are so egregiously flawed that their findings are useless. After reviewing 300 such studies, Rossell and Baker (1996) judged only 72 to be methodologically acceptable. Of these, they determined that a mere 22% supported the superiority of transitional programs over English-only instruction in reading, 9% in math, and 7% in language. Moreover, they concluded that ÒTBE [transitional bilingual education] is never better than structured immersionÓ in English. In other words, they could find little evidence that bilingual education works.

© 2017 5600 58 Close analysis of Rossell and BakerÕs claims reveals some serious flaws of their own. Krashen (1996) questions the rigor of several studies the reviewers included as methodologically acceptable–all unfavorable to bilingual education and many unpublished in the professional literature. Moreover, Rossell and Baker relied heavily on program evaluations from the 1970s, when bilingual pedagogies were considerably less well developed. Compounding these weaknesses is their narrative review technique, which simply counts the votes for or against a program alternative–a method that leaves considerable room for subjectivity and reviewer bias (Dunkel, 1990). Meta-analysis, a more objective method that weighs numerous variables in each study under review, has yielded more positive findings about bilingual education (Greene, 1998; Willig, 1985). Most important, Krashen (1996) shows that Rossell and Baker are content to compare programs by the labels they have been given, with little consideration of the actual pedagogies being used. They treat as equivalent all approaches called TBE, even though few program details are available in many of the studies under review. Researchers who take the time to visit real classrooms understand how dangerous such assumptions can be. According to Hopstock et al. (1993), ÒWhen actual practices…are examined, a bilingual education program might provide more instruction in English than…an ÔEnglish as a second languageÕ program.Ó Moreover, from a qualitative perspective, programs vary considerably in how (one or both) languages are integrated into the curriculum and into the social context of the school. Finally, simplistic labels are misleading because bilingual and English immersion techniques are not mutually exclusive; several studies have shown that successful programs make extensive use of both (see, e.g., Ramirez et al., 1991). Even when program descriptions are available, Rossell and Baker sometimes ignore them. For example, they cite a bilingual immersion program in El Paso as a superior English-only (submersion) approach, although it includes 90 minutes of Spanish instruction each day in addition to sheltered English. The researchers also include in their review several studies of French immersion in Canada, which they equate with all-English, structured immersion programs in the United States. As the Canadian program designers have repeatedly stressed, these models are bilingual in both methods and goals, and they serve students with needs that are quite distinct from those of English learners in this country. Fallacy 10: Language-minority parents do not support bilingual education because they feel it is more important for their children to learn english than to maintain the native language Naturally, when pollsters place these goals in opposition, immigrant parents will opt

© 2017 5600 59 for English by wide margins. Who knows better the need to learn English than those who struggle with language barriers on a daily basis? But the premise of such surveys is false. Truly bilingual programs seek to cultivate proficiency in both tongues, and research has shown that studentsÕ native language can be maintained and developed at no cost to English. When polled on the principles underlying bilingual education for example, that developing literacy in the first language facilitates literacy development in English or that bilingualism offers cognitive and career-related advantages–a majority of parents are strongly in favor of such approaches (Krashen, 1996). References California Department of Education (CDE). (1995). Educational demographics unit. Language census report for California public schools. Sacramento: Author. Chambers, J., & Parrish, T. (1992). Meeting the challenge of diversity: An evaluation of programs for pupils with limited proficiency in English. Vol. IV, cost of programs and services for LEP students. Berkeley, CA: BW Associates. Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English? Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5, p26-39. Cummins, J. (1992). Bilingual Education and English Immersion: The Ramirez Report in Theoretical Perspective. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, p91-104. Dunkel, P. (1990). Implications of the CAI effectiveness research for limited-English-proficient learners. Computers in the Schools, 7, p31-52. Greene, J. P. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Claremont, CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. Hopstock, P., Bucaro, B., Fleischman, H. L., Zehler, A. M., & Eu, H. (1993). Descriptive Study of Services to Limited English Proficient Students. Arlington, VA: Development Associates. Kloss, H. (1998). The American Bilingual Tradition. Washington, DC and McHenry, IL.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics and Delta Systems Inc. Krashen, S. D. (1996). Under Attack: The Case Against Bilingual Education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. Lockwood, A. T. (1996). Caring, Community, and Personalization: Strategies to Combat the Hispanic Dropout Problem. Advances in Hispanic Education, 1.

© 2017 5600 60 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured immersion strategy, early-exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children. Executive summary. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Rossell, C., & Baker, K. (1996). The Educational Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, p7-74. Veltman, C. (1988). The Future of the Spanish Language in the United States. Washington, DC: Hispanic Policy Development Project. Waggoner, D. (1995, November). Are Current Home Speakers of Non-English Languages Learning English? Numbers and Needs, 5. Willig, Ann C. 1985. A Meta-Analysis of Selected Studies on the Effectiveness of Bilingual Education. Review of Educational Research, 55, p269-317. This Digest is drawn from the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE) report Best Evidence: Research Foundations of the Bilingual Education Act (1997), by James Crawford. For the complete report, see the NCBE home page at http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu. James Crawford is author of ÒBilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice,Ó 4th ed. (Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services, 1999) 800-448-6032.

© 2017 5600 61 Why Bilingual Education? ERIC Digest Stephen Krashen ED403101 Bilingual education continues to receive criticism in the national media. This Digest examines some of the criticism, and its effect on public opinion, which often is based on misconceptions about bilingual educationÕs goals and practice. The Digest explains the rationale underlying good bilingual education programs and summarizes research findings about their effectiveness. When schools provide children quality education in their primary language, they give them two things: knowledge and literacy. The knowledge that children get through their first language helps make the English they hear and read more comprehensible. Literacy developed in the primary language transfers to the second language. The reason is simple: Because we learn to read by reading–that is, by making sense of what is on the page (Smith, 1994)–it is easier to learn to read in a language we understand. Once we can read in one language, we can read in general. The combination of first language subject matter teaching and literacy development that characterizes good bilingual programs indirectly but powerfully aids students as they strive for a third factor essential to their success: English proficiency. Of course, we also want to teach in English directly, via high quality English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) classes, and through sheltered subject matter teaching, where intermediate-level English language acquirers learn subject matter taught in English. The best bilingual education programs include all of these characteristics: ESL instruction, sheltered subject matter teaching, and instruction in the first language. Non-English-speaking children initially receive core instruction in the primary language along with ESL instruction. As children grow more proficient in English, they learn subjects using more contextualized language (e.g., math and science) in sheltered classes taught in English, and eventually in mainstream classes. In this way, the sheltered classes function as a bridge between instruction in the first language and in the mainstream. In advanced levels, the only subjects done in the first language are those demanding the most abstract use of language (social studies and language arts). Once full mainstreaming is complete, advanced first language development is available as an option. Gradual exit plans, such as these, avoid problems associated with exiting children too early (before the English they encounter is comprehensible) and provide instruction in the first language where it is most needed. These plans also allow children to have the advantages of advanced first language development.

© 2017 5600 62 Success without Bilingual Education? A common argument against bilingual education is the observation that many people have succeeded without it. This has certainly happened. In these cases, however, the successful person got plenty of comprehensible input in the second language, and in many cases had a de facto bilingual education program. For example, Rodriguez (1982) and de la Pena (1991) are often cited as counter-evidence to bilingual education. Rodriguez (1982) tells us that he succeeded in school without a special program and acquired a very high level of English literacy. He had two crucial advantages, however, that most limited-English-proficient (LEP) children do not have. First, he grew up in an English-speaking neighborhood in Sacramento, California, and thus got a great deal of informal comprehensible input from classmates. Many LEP children today encounter English only at school; they live in neighborhoods where Spanish prevails. In addition, Rodriguez became a voracious reader, which helped him acquire academic language. Most LEP children have little access to books. De la Pena (1991) reports that he came to the United States at age nine with no English competence and claims that he succeeded without bilingual education. He reports that he acquired English rapidly, and Òby the end of my first school year, I was among the top students.Ó De la Pena, however, had the advantages of bilingual education: In Mexico, he was in the fifth grade, and was thus literate in Spanish and knew subject matter. In addition, when he started school in the United States he was put back two grades. His superior knowledge of subject matter helped make the English input he heard more comprehensible. Children who arrive with a good education in their primary language have already gained two of the three objectives of a good bilingual education program–literacy and subject matter knowledge. Their success is good evidence for bilingual education. What about Languages Other Than Spanish? Porter (1990) states that Òeven if there were a demonstrable advantage for Spanish-speakers learning to read first in their home language, it does not follow that the same holds true for speakers of languages that do not use the Roman alphabetÓ (p. 65). But it does. The ability to read transfers across languages, even when the writing systems are different.

© 2017 5600 63 There is evidence that reading ability transfers from Chinese to English (Hoover, 1982), from Vietnamese to English (Cummins, Swain, Nakajima, Handscombe, Green, & Tran, 1984), from Japanese to English (Cummins et al.), and from Turkish to Dutch (Verhoeven, 1991). In other words, those who read well in one language, read well in the second language (as long as length of residence in the country is taken into account because of the first language loss that is common). Bilingual Education and Public Opinion Opponents of bilingual education tell us that the public is against bilingual education. This impression is a result of the way the question is asked. One can easily get a near-100-percent rejection of bilingual education when the question is biased. Porter (1990), for example, states that ÒMany parents are not committed to having the schools maintain the mother tongue if it is at the expense of gaining a sound education and the English-language skills needed for obtaining jobs or pursuing higher educationÓ (p. 8). Who would support mother tongue education at such a price? However, when respondents are simply asked whether or not they support bilingual education, the degree of support is quite strong: From 60-99 percent of samples of parents and teachers say they support bilingual education (Krashen, 1996). In a series of studies, Shin (Shin, 1994; Shin & Gribbons, 1996) examined attitudes toward the principles underlying bilingual education. Shin found that many respondents agree with the idea that the first language can be helpful in providing background knowledge, most agree that literacy transfers across languages, and most support the principles underlying continuing bilingual education (economic and cognitive advantages). The number of people opposed to bilingual education is probably even less than these results suggest; many people who say they are opposed to bilingual education are actually opposed to certain practices (e.g., inappropriate placement of children) or are opposed to regulations connected to bilingual education (e.g., forcing teachers to acquire another language to keep their jobs). Despite what is presented to the public in the national media, research has revealed much support for bilingual education. McQuillan and Tse (in press) reviewed publications appearing between 1984 and 1994, and reported that 87 percent of academic publications supported bilingual education, but newspaper and magazine opinion articles tended to be antibilingual education, with only 45 percent supporting bilingual education. One wonders what public support would look like if bilingual education were more clearly defined in such articles and editorials.

© 2017 5600 64 The Research Debate It is sometimes claimed that research does not support the efficacy of bilingual education. Its harshest critics, however (e.g., Rossell & Baker, 1996), do not claim that bilingual education does not work; instead, they claim there is little evidence that it is superior to all-English programs. Nevertheless, the evidence used against bilingual education is not convincing. One major problem is in labeling. Several critics, for example, have claimed that English immersion programs in El Paso and McAllen, Texas, were shown to be superior to bilingual education. In each case, however, programs labeled immersion were really bilingual education, with a substantial part of the day taught in the primary language. In another study, Gersten (1985) claimed that all-English immersion was better than bilingual education. However, the sample size was small and the duration of the study was short; also, no description of Òbilingual educationÓ was provided. For a detailed discussion, see Krashen (1996). On the other hand, a vast number of other studies have shown that bilingual education is effective, with children in well-designed programs acquiring academic English at least as well and often better than children in all-English programs (Cummins, 1989; Krashen, 1996; Willig, 1985). Willig concluded that the better the experimental design of the study, the more positive were the effects of bilingual education. Improving Bilingual Education Bilingual education has done well, but it can do much better. The biggest problem, in this authorÕs view, is the absence of books–in both the first and second languages–in the lives of students in these programs. Free voluntary reading can help all components of bilingual education: It can be a source of comprehensible input in English or a means for developing knowledge and literacy through the first language, and for continuing first language development. Limited-English-proficient Spanish-speaking children have little access to books at home (about 22 books per home for the entire family according to Ramirez, Yuen, Ramey, & Pasta, 1991) or at school (an average of one book in Spanish per Spanish-speaking child in some school libraries in schools with bilingual programs, according to Pucci, 1994). A book flood in both languages is clearly called for. Good bilingual programs have brought students to the 50th percentile on standardized tests of English reading by grade five (Burnham-Massey & Pina, 1990). But with a good supply of books in both first and second languages, students can go far beyond the 50th percentile. It is possible that we might then have the Lake Wobegon effect, where all of the children are above average, and we can finally do away with the tests (and put the money saved to much better use).

© 2017 5600 65 References Burnham-Massey, L., & Pina, M. (1990). Effects of bilingual instruction on English academic achievement of LEP students. Reading Improvement, 27(2), 129-132. Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K., Handscombe, J., Green, D., & Tran, C. (1984). Linguistic interdependence among Japanese and Vietnamese immigrant students. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency assessment: Research and application, pp. 60-81. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. (ED 249 793) de la Pena, F. (1991). Democracy or Babel? The case for official English in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. English. Gersten, R. (1985). Structured immersion for language-minority students: Results of a longitudinal evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(3), 187-196. Hoover, W. (1982). Language and literacy learning in bilingual education: Preliminary report. Cantonese site analytic study. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (ED 245 572) Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. McQuillan, J., & Tse, L. (in press). Does research matter? An analysis of media opinion on bilingual education, 1984-1994. Bilingual Research Journal. Porter, R. P. (1990). Forked tongue: The politics of bilingual education. New York: Basic Books. Pucci, S. L. (1994). Supporting Spanish language literacy: Latino children and free reading resources in schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 18(1-2), 67-82. Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S., Ramey, D., & Pasta, D. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit bilingual education programs for language-minority children (Final Report, Vols. 1 & 2). San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. (ED 330 216) Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez. An

© 2017 5600 66 autobiography. Boston: D. R. Godine. Rossell, C., & Baker, R. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(1), 7-74. Shin, F. (1994). Attitudes of Korean parents toward bilingual education. BEOutreach Newsletter, California State Department of Education, 5(2), pp. 47-48. Shin, F., & Gribbons, B. (1996). Hispanic parentsÕ perceptions and attitudes of bilingual education. Journal of Mexican-American Educators, 16-22. Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (5th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum. Verhoeven, L. (1991). Acquisition of literacy. Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquee (AILA) Review, 8, 61-74. Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55, 269-316.

© 2017 5600 67 A Global Perspective on Bilingualism and Bilingual Education ERIC Digest Richard G. Tucker ED435168 The number of languages spoken throughout the world is estimated to be 6,000 (Grimes, 1992). Although a small number of languages, including Arabic, Bengali, English, French, Hindi, Malay, Mandarin, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish serve as important link languages or languages of wider communication around the world, these are very often spoken as second, third, fourth, or later-acquired languages. Fewer than 25% of the worldÕs approximately 200 countries recognize two or more official languages, with a mere handful recognizing more than two (e.g., India, Luxembourg, Nigeria). However, despite these conservative government policies, available data indicate that there are many more bilingual or multilingual individuals in the world than there are monolingual. In addition, there are many more children throughout the world who have been and continue to be educated through a second or a later-acquired language, at least for some portion of their formal education, than there are children educated exclusively via the first language. In many parts of the world, bilingualism or multilingualism and innovative approaches to education that involve the use of two or more languages constitute the normal everyday experience (see, e.g., Dutcher, 1994; World Bank, 1995). The results from published, longitudinal, and critical research undertaken in varied settings throughout the world indicate clearly that the development of multiple language proficiency is possible, and indeed that it is viewed as desirable by educators, policy makers, and parents in many countries. Multiple Languages in Education The use of multiple languages in education may be attributed to numerous factors, such as the linguistic heterogeneity of a country or region, specific social or religious attitudes, or the desire to promote national identity. In addition, innovative language education programs are often implemented to promote proficiency in international language(s) of wider communication together with proficiency in national and regional languages. In Eritrea, for instance, an educated person will likely have had some portion of their schooling in Tigrigna and Arabic and English, and will have developed proficiency in reading all these languages, which are written using three different scripts (GeÕez, Arabic, and Roman). In Papua New Guinea, a country with a population of approximately 3 million, linguists have described more than 870 languages (Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1995). Here it is common for a child to grow up speaking one local indigenous language at home,

© 2017 5600 68 to speak another in the market place, to add Tok Pisin to her repertoire as a lingua franca, and to learn English if she continues her schooling. Analogous situations recur in many parts of the world in countries where multilingualism predominates and in which children are exposed to numerous languages as they move from their homes out into surrounding communities and eventually through the formal education system. Research on the Use of the First and Second Languages in Education A comprehensive review of research on the use of first and second languages in education, carried out for the World Bank (Dutcher, 1994), examined three different types of countries: (1) those with no (or few) mother tongue speakers of the language of wider communication (e.g., Haiti, Nigeria, the Philippines); (2) those with some mother tongue speakers of the language of wider communication (e.g., Guatemala); and (3) those with many mother tongue speakers of the language of wider communication (e.g., Canada, New Zealand, the United States). Several conclusions can be drawn from this study: ¥ Success in school depends upon the childÕs mastery of cognitive/academic language, which is very different from the social language used at home. ¥ The development of cognitive/academic language requires time (4 to 7 years of formal instruction). ¥ Individuals most easily develop literacy skills in a familiar language. ¥ Individuals most easily develop cognitive skills and master content material when they are taught in a familiar language. ¥ Cognitive/academic language skills, once developed, and content subject material, once acquired, transfer readily from one language to another. ¥ The best predictor of cognitive/academic language development in a second language is the level of development of cognitive/academic language proficiency in the first language. ¥ Children learn a second language in different ways depending upon their culture and their individual personality. ¥ If the goal is to help the student ultimately develop the highest possible degree of content mastery and second language proficiency, time spent instructing the child in a familiar language is a wise investment. Common Threads of Successful Programs In the research review conducted for the World Bank (Dutcher, 1994), the following common threads were identified in successful programs that aimed to provide students with multiple language proficiency and with access to academic content material.

© 2017 5600 69 ¥ Development of the mother tongue is encouraged to promote cognitive development and as a basis for learning the second language. ¥ Parental and community support and involvement are essential. ¥ Teachers are able to understand, speak, and use with a high level of proficiency the language of instruction, whether it is their first or second language. ¥ Teachers are well trained, have cultural competence and subject-matter knowledge, and continually upgrade their training. ¥ Recurrent costs for innovative programs are approximately the same as they are for traditional programs, although there may be additional one-time start-up costs. ¥ Cost benefit calculations can typically be estimated in terms of the cost savings to the education system, improvements in years of schooling, and enhanced earning potential for students with multiple language proficiency. Cross-Cutting Themes Two cross-cutting themes that appear critical for policy or planning discussions within the domain of language education reform are discussed below. ÒNurturing the first language.Ó Despite decades of sound educational research, there still remains a belief in many quarters that when an additional language is introduced into a curriculum, the child must go back and relearn the academic concepts already mastered. Although there remains much to be learned about the contexts and strategies that facilitate transfer across languages, the fact that such transfer occurs should not be a topic of debate. The work of Hakuta (1986) and his colleagues provides clear evidence that a child who acquires basic literacy or numeracy concepts in one language can transfer these concepts and knowledge easily to a second or third or other later-acquired languages. The literature and our practical experience are replete with examples confirming the importance of nurturing the childÕs mother tongue. Gonzalez (1998), in particular, writes and speaks especially compellingly about the need to develop basic functions of literacy, numeracy, and scientific discourse in the first language to the fullest extent possible while facilitating transfer to the second language. ÒImportation of models versus importation of cycles of discovery.Ó Swain (1996) described the need to ÒtransferÓ the stages and processes of evaluation, theory building, generation of hypotheses, experimentation, and further evaluation that will help to ensure the implementation of programs appropriate for the unique sociocultural contexts in which they will operate. That is, she cautioned that it is not a particular model of innovative language education (and, in particular, a Western model) that should be transferred but rather a Òcycle of discoveryÓ that should be transferred. Swain reminded us that the so-called threshold levels of second

© 2017 5600 70 language skills required for successful participation in formal education may differ dramatically across content areas, and that a majority of children face a language gap that must be bridged when they move from learning the target language to using the target language as a medium of instruction. Many policy makers have characterized bilingual education as a high risk undertaking, by which they mean that it is necessary to attend to a complex set of interacting educational, sociolinguistic, economic, and political factors. Key Issues Warranting Further Attention Based upon a review of available literature, four areas have been identified that appear to deserve additional attention. These include (1) sociolinguistic research throughout the world; (2) a more thorough examination of the concept and parameters of transfer; (3) materials development, reproduction, and distribution in the truly less commonly spoken languages (e.g., the majority of the African languages spoken in Namibia); and (4) development of a cadre of trained teachers who are proficient speakers of these languages. Despite several decades of extensive sociolinguistic fieldwork in many areas, there remains much to be done to describe the language situation in many parts of the world. Many of the worldÕs languages have yet to be written, codified, or elaborated. Furthermore, there are no materials available for initial literacy training or for advanced education; nor are there teachers who have been trained to teach via many of the worldÕs languages. These are all issues that have been identified as crucial by the World Bank (1995) in a recent report of priorities and strategies for enhancing educational development in the 21st century. They are issues that must be dealt with effectively before systemic reform that will encourage multilingual proficiency can be widely implemented. Questions to Address Regarding Multilingual Education in Your Community The cumulative evidence from research conducted over the last three decades at sites around the world demonstrates conclusively that cognitive, social, personal, and economic benefits accrue to the individual who has an opportunity to develop a high degree of bilingual proficiency when compared with a monolingual counterpart. Below are a number of important questions to be addressed whenever parents, educators, and administrators discuss the prospects of multilingual education for their communities. What are the explicit or implicit goals for formal education in the region? ¥ Is there general satisfaction throughout the region with the level of educational attainment by all participants (both those who terminate their education relatively early and those who wish to go on to tertiary studies)? ¥ Is the region relatively homogeneous or is it heterogeneous linguistically and

© 2017 5600 71 culturally, and how would bilingual education complement the linguistic and cultural characteristics of the community? ¥ Does the region have an explicit or implicit policy with respect to the role of language in education, and how would bilingual education fit or not fit with this existing policy? Is this policy based upon tradition or the result of language (education) planning? ¥ What priorities are accorded to goals such as the development of broadly based permanent functional literacy, the value of education for those who may permanently interrupt their schooling at an early age, and the power of language to foster national identity and cohesiveness? ¥ Are the language(s) selected for instruction written, codified, standardized, and elaborated? ¥ Is there a well developed curriculum for the various levels/stages of formal education–that is, a framework that specifies fairly explicitly a set of language, content, cognitive, and affective objectives that are then tied to or illustrated by exemplary techniques, activities, and supported by written materials? ¥ Are sufficient core and reference materials available for teachers and students in the language(s) of instruction? If not, are there trained individuals available who can prepare such materials? ¥ Is there a sufficient number of trained and experienced teachers who are fluent speakers of the language(s) of instruction and who are trained to teach via that language(s)? References Dutcher, N., in collaboration with Tucker, G.R. (1994). The use of first and second languages in education: A review of educational experience. Washington, DC: World Bank, East Asia and the Pacific Region, Country Department III. Gonzalez, A. (1998). Teaching in two or more languages in the Philippine context. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 192-205). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Grimes, B.F. (1992). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Summer Institute of Linguistics. (1995). A survey of vernacular education programming at the provincial level within Papua New Guinea. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Author.

© 2017 5600 72 Swain, M. (1996). Discovering successful second language teaching strategies and practices: From program evaluation to classroom experimentation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17, 89-104. World Bank. (1995). Priorities and strategies for education. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

© 2017 5600 73 The following guidelines have been issued by the Texas Education Agency regarding the instruction of students of limited English proficiency (LEP). Although this document references TexasÕ state requirements, the information provided is relevant to bilingual instruction in all states. Bilingual Education Strategies Every school district is responsible for providing all students an English language arts program that includes the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) of oral communication, reading with comprehension, composition, and the mechanics of language. Students of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) will need to receive instruction in language arts as a subject as well as language as medium for instruction in required subjects other than language. Administrators should provide a quality language arts program that develops expanded meaning of language, builds vocabulary, and teaches word recognition and comprehension techniques to both LEP and native English-speaking students. English-speaking students in the regular classroom have acquired prereading and basic reading abilities they can add to the specific requirements a language arts program demands. Therefore, these students have a good start in attaining a mental framework upon which to establish the additional competencies needed for successful reading in a language arts program. The content areas must be taught in the primary language as well as in English commensurate to the studentÕs needs in the Bilingual program. Bilingual teachers need to teach the ESL TEKS when instructing students in the content areas as well as language arts and reading. Particular attention needs to be paid to the modifications stated in the TEKS. On the other hand, the LEP student who is struggling to speak, read, and comprehend the English language will have few, if any, of the pre-skills necessary for academic success in language arts. The reading requirements are often extensive and unrealistic, and these studentsÕ comprehension of the abstract concepts basic to reading comprehension is minimal. Success in mastering language arts concepts is possible only to the extent that the LEP students have acquired the basic oral proficiency and reading skills, specialized abilities, and knowledge demanded in the content area. To ensure that a quality English language arts program is provided for LEP students: ¥ Instruction must include all the characteristics of a quality English language arts program for native speakers of English ¥ Administrators must provide this program through a required bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL) program

© 2017 5600 74 Transferring Skills between Languages Transfer is the process of connecting prior learning to present learning. Bilingual education as a mode for teaching English language arts is based upon the positive transfer process whereby original learning in the primary language boosts comprehension and retention of information given in the course of English instruction. Recent research on effective schools includes Effective Teaching Practices (ETPs) in the areas of: ¥ Teaching strategies ¥ Time on task ¥ Feedback techniques ¥ Learning climate Enumeration of these strategies as they affect LEP students provides administrators and teachers with some important indicators of the quality of the programs they are directing. Teachers and administrators should be aware that: ¥ Teachers need to provide information in a way that is clearly understood. For the LEP student, this means that instruction may need to be given in the studentÕs primary language and through ESL. ¥ Appropriate variations of instructional strategies increase the probability that students will master, retain, and transfer knowledge and skills. LEP students are best able to absorb knowledge through the language they know. Therefore, their English proficiency is strengthened through ESL until English becomes an appropriate modality for learning the language arts Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). ¥ Teachers should differentiate instruction for LEP students according to their entry-level language skills. ¥ Students understand complicated concepts by transferring known language competency to English and by developing conversational language abilities to abstract academic levels. When they are acquiring English language skills and simultaneously receiving reading instruction in print as well as orally, LEP students should concentrate on developing these basic competencies: ¥ Word recognition techniques to build reading vocabulary ¥ Comprehension of phrases, sentences, and expressions peculiar to reading instruction, syntax and grammar, and speaking skills

© 2017 5600 75 ¥ Ability to organize and sequence information logically ¥ Ability to follow specific oral and written directions A LEP student would have difficulty learning to speak, read and write a second language while simultaneously trying to comprehend complex reading passages. Therefore, a teacher specializing in language arts must consider two relevant and basic questions: ¥ How much prior skill and knowledge of the field does the student possess? ¥ How effectively is the student able to read the passages assigned? ¥ What is the academic level of the student in all of the content areas in the primary language? Unless the student has significant prior skill and knowledge and can effectively read the text, modifications of the lesson delivery will be necessary. Modifying the Language Arts Curriculum for LEP Students Educators employ two distinct programs, Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language (ESL), to modify the general education program to teach English language arts to students limited in English proficiency (LEP). A bilingual education program makes use of a LEP studentÕs native language as well as English. An ESL program uses the second language, English, as the medium of instruction along with adaptive methodologies. The instructional staff should assess LEP studentsÕ language abilities to determine which language should convey the content of the course. The selection of the appropriate medium is dependent on the language strengths and maturities of LEP students. LEP students vary in the extent of language proficiency that they bring to the classroom. Some students come to school without English language skills or with some basic word knowledge in English but are not able to communicate well with teachers or peers. Other students come to school with academic language proficiency in their primary language, but have not acquired sufficient content vocabulary in English to enable them to complete their classroom assignments or participate in oral assignments. Many students come to school with some knowledge of English and some proficiency in their primary language, but still need intensive language development in both languages. It is imperative that a careful diagnosis of language proficiency be done in English and, if possible, in the primary language. After the LEP studentsÕ language characteristics have been determined, teachers can identify the appropriate instructional methods, material, and pacing necessary to ensure mastery.

© 2017 5600 76 General Principles of Modification for Language Arts In a bilingual education program, teachers provide the regular curriculum through dual language use to meet studentsÕ academic needs. They modify the instructional program by altering the language in which the content is conveyed; however, they would not alter the scope of the curriculum in a bilingual education program. District planners should design their curriculum to ensure mastery of the English language arts Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). The curriculum that results from a dual language program should: ¥ emphasize acquisition of basic skills ¥ foster the critical thinking process ¥ stimulate continuous reorganization of the information presented ¥ encourage further investigation of the information presented ¥ use multiple learning styles Bilingual or ESL certified instructors may also form teams with other teaching or support personnel to develop supplementary programs for LEP students. Parent volunteers and paraprofessionals can work with regular instructional personnel cooperatively to deliver the needed programs in accordance with State Board rules. In other specific modifications appropriate for teaching the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), teachers may include instructional strategies with the following objectives: ¥ to help students build card files on needed vocabulary ¥ to show the same information through a variety of visual aids ¥ to encourage students to underline key words or important passages in written student assignments ¥ to teach vocabulary helpful in grouping words, language arts concepts, and techniques into meaningful categories ¥ to pair students for team learning ¥ to teach English expressions and colloquialisms ¥ to teach prefixes and suffixes peculiar to the English language ¥ to develop and translate meanings through the language arts materials and context rather than providing mere translation in the vernacular which does not guarantee the same meaning in the native language and often creates confusion Further, instructional personnel should be alert to language and concepts that may be unclear in materials used because of cultural differences.

© 2017 5600 77 Modifications in Pacing and Teaching Strategies for Language Arts The LEP studentsÕ program must be paced according to language and academic abilities. Teachers should give consideration to the progression of language development; listening, speaking, reading, writing. They may make modifications in the language of instruction in accordance with each studentÕs language ability, a factor that also should govern pacing of instruction. In an ESL program, pacing modifications concentrate on vocabulary and concept development; in a bilingual program, dual language instruction concentrates on a process approach to the content area. Instructional personnel should carefully investigate course selections and placement at the studentsÕ instructional levels in textbooks. Additional modifications may include the following: ¥ to explain special vocabulary terms in words known to the students ¥ to write shorter and less complex sentences ¥ to assign short homework tasks that require reading ¥ to teach the words that signal sequence ¥ to check understanding of written language that may convey complex concepts ¥ to rewrite story problems in simpler English by using shorter sentences and pictures ¥ to teach new vocabulary in each dayÕs unit and to review terms already mastered ¥ to tape short stories for independent listening assignments ¥ to de-emphasize speed and emphasize accuracy of reading ¥ to help students organize their materials, set realistic goals, and develop independent study habits Modifications of Materials Needed for Language Arts All materials, whether state-adopted textbooks in Spanish and English, teacher-made lessons, or district-developed aids to instruction, should be modified to meet the studentsÕ academic needs. Administrators and curriculum supervisors might encourage classroom instructors to: ¥ provide numerous pictures to illustrate new words ¥ offer a variety of reference materials at the studentÕs instructional level for independent use ¥ keep a variety of word games to be played by pairs of students or small groups ¥ use cartoons and leave the bubbles above the speakers blank to be filled in by the students

© 2017 5600 78 ¥ have students prepare glossaries of reading terms ¥ use drawings to identify concepts and relationships ¥ maintain a library of supplementary reference books, workbooks, and other materials that are written in simple English and that offer additional reading samples that are well illustrated ¥ provide films, records, filmstrips, and other materials that may be used independently or in small groups ¥ help students improve writing skills by highlighting transitional devices used in writing samples ¥ use pictures and other visual aids to assist in comparison and contrasts for comprehension of concepts General Principles of Modification for Mathematics To meet the instructional needs of the LEP student through bilingual education and ESL programs, districts may modify their programs for learning English and for mastering the mathematics Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) required. The program as modified in an ESL language program should begin: ¥ To emphasize and reinforce the concepts and ideas of mathematics as the students learn English ¥ To emphasize acquisition of basic mathematics skills ¥ To foster the thinking process ¥ To stimulate continuous reorganization of previously learned ideas ¥ To support multiple learning styles In an ESL program, the sequence in which the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are presented may be modified to accommodate the studentsÕ progress in acquiring English language skills. Emphasis on oral and visual stimuli aids students in comprehending concepts English-speaking students develop through written material. Modification of Methods for Mathematics Instructional strategies may include the following objectives: ¥ To help students build card files and glossaries on mathematics vocabulary ¥ To show the same information through a variety of different graphs and visuals ¥ To encourage students to underline key words or important facts in their written assignments ¥ To encourage students to underline key words into meaningful groups ¥ To pair students for team learning

© 2017 5600 79 ¥ To teach English expressions for mathematical operations such as ÒsquareÓ, ÒaddÓ, and ÒmultiplyÓ ¥ To teach measurement terms through use of the actual instruments and devices whenever possible ¥ To teach the names of currency, coins, and monetary units ¥ To teach words that indicate quantitative relationships such as ÒmoreÓ, ÒlessÓ, ÒlargerÓ, and Òtwice as manyÓ ¥ To teach prefixes peculiar to the language of mathematics such as ÒbiÓ, ÒdeciÓ, ÒcentiÓ, and ÒkiloÓ Modifications may also include the teaming of bilingual or ESL certified instructors with personnel on emergency teaching permits to develop supplementary programs for LEP students. Parent volunteers and paraprofessionals can work with regular instructional personnel cooperatively to deliver the needed programs in accordance with the State Board rules. Modification of Pacing and Placement for Mathematics The LEP studentsÕ program must be paced according to language and academic abilities and should employ teaching strategies that take these studentsÕ unique needs into consideration. Modifications may also involve placement of a student at an instructional level determined by what courses the students have successfully completed. Course selection and choice of state-adopted textbooks should be carefully supervised by teachers, counselors and administrators. Teachers of LEP students should teach the ESL TEKS and pay special attention to the modifications specified in them. In an ESL program, pacing modifications concentrate on vocabulary and concept development. In addition, teachers may be able: ¥ to explain special vocabulary terms in words known to the student ¥ to write instructions and problems using shorter and less complex sentences ¥ to prepare a sequence of ordinal numbers and identify the ordinal position of each one ¥ to extend understanding by writing the appropriate numerical symbol and word (i.e., Ò1st-firstÓ) ¥ to assign short homework tasks that require reading ¥ to limit the number of problems that must be worked ¥ to emphasize special mathematical meanings of words commonly used in English ¥ to tape record problems for independent listening assignments ¥ to de-emphasize speed and emphasize accuracy of work

© 2017 5600 80 Modification of Materials for Mathematics All materials, whether state-adopted textbooks in Spanish, teacher-made lessons, or district-developed aids for instruction, should be modified to meet the studentsÕ academic needs. Administrators and curriculum supervisors can encourage the classroom instructor: ¥ to provide numerous pictures to illustrate new words ¥ to offer a variety of reference materials at the studentÕs instructional level for independent use ¥ to keep a variety of number games to be played by pairs of students or small groups ¥ to maintain a library of supplementary books and workbooks written in simple English which offer additional illustrations for problems ¥ to keep listening tapes on mathematical problems for individual assignments ¥ to help students prepare glossaries of mathematics terms ¥ to encourage the use of diagrams and drawings as aids to identifying concepts and seeing relationships Texas Education Agency Bilingual/ESL Unit August 2004 Instructional Strategies for English Language Learners ¥ to support reading in mathematics by having films, records, filmstrips, and other materials which may be used independently or in small groups General Principles of Modification for Social Studies (SS) To meet the instructional needs of the LEP student through bilingual education and English as a second language programs, districts should modify their programs for learning English and for mastering the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) required in social studies programs. Assessments of mastery should be consistent with the method of instruction used and may be conducted in the primary language or in English. Teachers of SS need to teach the ESL TEKS when teaching SS with English as a second language methodology. Particular attention needs to be paid to the modifications stated in the TEKS. In a bilingual education program, the regular curriculum is provided through dual language use to meet studentsÕ instructional needs. The districts have the responsibility to ensure that instructors modify curriculum according to the learning styles and instructional needs of various students. The social studies curriculum that results from a dual language or ESL program should begin: ¥ to foster the critical thinking process ¥ to stimulate continuous reorganization of previously learned ideas ¥ to encourage further investigation of the information presented

© 2017 5600 81 Modification of Methods for Social Studies Instructional strategies may also include the following objectives: ¥ to help students build individual card files on needed vocabulary for social studies ¥ to show the same information through a variety of different graphs and visuals ¥ to build vocabulary needed to read maps and legends as these are discussed ¥ to encourage students to underline key words or important facts in their written assignments ¥ to teach necessary vocabulary for sorting categories of social studies concepts into groups and to explain this vocabulary in words known to the student ¥ to use student pairs for team learning (cooperative learning) especially for reports ¥ to teach the vocabulary helpful in evaluating material for logic of written expression and for categorizing as opinion or fact ¥ to write shorter and less complex sentences and paragraphs with fewer sentences for easier comprehension ¥ to use language experience techniques in discussing concepts and ideas ¥ to teach the words that signal sequence ¥ to check understanding of written language that may convey complex concepts ¥ to show students how to use a timeline to arrange and sequence important facts Modification of the Pacing and Placement for Social Studies Appropriate pacing may require reordering the sequence in which Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are provided until some degree of reading comprehension is reached. Further secondary LEP students, whose academic needs require fulfillment of graduation credits, will need assistance in pacing course selection to accommodate their language and academic abilities. Modifications may also involve placement to the student at an instructional level determined by what courses the student has successfully completed. Textbooks should be chosen to meet the studentÕs instructional needs. Informal reading inventories in the primary language and in English may be used to determine both instructional level and appropriate textbooks.

© 2017 5600 82 Modification of Materials for Social Studies Social studies state-adopted textbooks are available at the elementary level in the primary language (English, Spanish). Districts can also design their own appropriate instructional materials in the primary language by using social studies Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) as the content guide. In ESL programs, the district may use the state-adopted social studies textbooks adapted to ESL methodologies. Other instructional materials such as teacher-made and commercially-made products should be modified to adjust for the studentsÕ language and academic abilities. Additional suggestions for modifications may be: ¥ to provide a number of pictures to illustrate new words ¥ to offer a variety of reference materials at the studentsÕ instructional levels for independent use ¥ to use cartoons and leave the balloons above the speakers blank, to be filled in by the students ¥ to collect many of the available comic books that portray historic and cultural events in simplified language ¥ to provide biographies of significant men and women from different cultures ¥ to prepare difficult passages from textbooks on tape for listening activities ¥ to use outline maps for students to practice writing in the details and labels ¥ to support reading instruction in the social studies by maintaining films, records, filmstrips, and other materials which may be used independently or in small groups ¥ to present clear illustrations and concrete examples to assist the student in understanding complex concepts and skills ¥ to highlight written materials for readability by enlarging the size of print, by organizing chapters meaningfully, and by writing headings that show introductions for transition from one idea to another ¥ to use pictures, tables, maps, diagrams, globes, and other visual aids to assist in comparison and contrast for comprehension of concepts. General Principles of Modification for Science To meet the instructional needs of the LEP student through bilingual education and ESL programs, districts have the responsibility to modify their curriculum according to the learning styles and different instructional needs of various students. The program as modified for either dual language or ESL instructional should begin: ¥ to foster the critical thinking process ¥ to stimulate continuous reorganization of previously learned ideas ¥ to encourage further investigation of the information presented

© 2017 5600 83 Modification of Methods for Science The interdisciplinary nature of science experience provides students with opportunities to apply skills acquired in other content areas while in the process of acquiring science skills. Modifications may need to be made especially if the science activity requires reading or writing. Instructional strategies may include the following objectives: ¥ to practice cause and effect relationships in the environment, laboratory, and on field trips facilitated by providing language and visual cues ¥ to teach the special vocabulary of the scientist, particularly verbs such as discover, classify, and hypothesis ¥ to help students build notebooks of their hypotheses, materials, procedures, data, and conclusions or experiments and field experiences ¥ to ask numerous questions which require higher level thinking responses ¥ to limit the number of variables in laboratory experiments ¥ to show the same information through a variety of different charts and visuals ¥ to develop meanings through the science materials and activities rather than in terms of the equivalent words of the studentsÕ vernacular since direct translations often do not convey the exact meaning ¥ to stress definitions of terms based on the studentsÕ observations ¥ to read a variety of sources to highlight contributions of scientists, inventors, and researchers ¥ to contrast interrogative, negative, and affirmative statements drawn from the science lesson ¥ to encourage careful, thoughtful reading of short selections in which one main idea is presented ¥ to encourage students to underline key words or important facts in written assignments ¥ to teach interrogative words and expressions and show how they are used in science to answer such questions as who, how, when, and where and higher level questions ¥ to encourage complete sentences, correct spelling, and accuracy of expression of science methods and language Modification of the Pacing and Placement for Science Appropriate pacing may require reordering the sequence in which Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are provided until some degree of reading comprehension is reached. Further, secondary LEP students, whose academic needs require fulfillment of graduation credits, will need assistance in pacing course selections to accommodate their language and academic abilities.

© 2017 5600 84 Modifications may also involve placement of the student at an instructional level determined by what courses the student has successfully completed. Textbooks should be chosen to meet the studentÕs instructional need. Informal reading inventories in the primary language and in English may be used to determine both instructional level and appropriate textbooks. Modification of Materials for Science Along with the instructional approaches and pacing modifications noted, modifications of the instructional materials may also be needed for LEP students. For districts with a bilingual education program, state-adopted science textbooks in Spanish are available. Districts may also design appropriate instructional materials in Spanish by incorporating the science Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) in the content guide. In the ESL programs, the district may use the state-adopted science textbooks adapted to ESL methodologies. Other instructional materials such as teacher-made and commercially-made products should be modified according to the studentsÕ language and academic abilities. Additional suggestions for modification may include the following: ¥ to provide a number of pictures to illustrate terms such as names of living things, weather patterns, and parts of the body ¥ to develop interests and arouse curiosity through hands-on experiences, out-of-doors pictures, newspaper clippings, and periodicals ¥ to use cartoons and leave the balloons above the speakers blank, to be filled in by the students ¥ to have students prepare collections of science objects such as rocks and leaves ¥ to prepare difficult passages from textbooks on tape for listening activities ¥ to support reading instruction in science by having films, records, filmstrips, and other materials which may be used independently or in small groups ¥ to present clear illustrations and concrete examples to assist the student in understanding complex concepts and skills ¥ to highlight written materials for readability by enlarging the size of the print, by organizing chapters meaningfully, and by writing headings that show introductions for transition from one idea to another Adapted and revised by TEA, July 2004.

© 2017 5600 85 In addition to understanding the rationale for and practices to support bilingual or ESL programs, it is important for teachers to understand how to engage ELLs in learning and to understand their learnerÕs home and cultural contexts. The following three articles focus more specifically on this need. Strategies for Success: Engaging Immigrant Students in Secondary Schools ERIC Digest A’da Walqui ED442300 High dropout rates among language-minority secondary school students are one indication that many schools are failing to adequately support the needs of these students. The belief that student dropout is due to a lack of proficiency in English often leads educators to overlook the economic, cultural, academic, and personal issues that immigrant adolescents must confront on a daily basis. To be effective, programs must begin with a compassionate understanding of these students and recognize and build on the identity, language, and knowledge they already possess. Instruction developed for native-English-speaking students may not be appropriate for students who are still learning English. To engage immigrant adolescents in school, educators must provide them with avenues to explore and strengthen their ethnic identities and languages while developing their ability to study and work in this country. Ten Principles of Effective Instruction for Diverse Students 1. The culture of the classroom fosters the development of a community of learners, and all students are part of that community. Immigrant teenagers bring a variety of experiences to the classroom that, if tapped, can serve as a springboard for new explorations that enrich everyoneÕs experience. In effective classrooms, teachers and students together construct a culture that values the strengths of all participants and respects their interests, abilities, languages, and dialects. Students and teachers shift among the roles of expert, researcher, learner, and teacher, supporting themselves and each other. 2. Good language teaching involves conceptual and academic development. Effective English as a second language (ESL) classes focus on themes and develop skills that are relevant to teenagers and to their studies in mainstream academic classes. Immigrant students need to learn not only new content, but also the language and discourse associated with the discipline. Therefore, all subject matter classes must have a language focus as well.

© 2017 5600 86 Effective teaching prepares students for high-quality academic work by focusing their attention on key processes and ideas and engaging them in interactive tasks that allow them to practice using these processes and concepts. ESL teachers need to know the linguistic, cognitive, and academic demands that they are preparing their students for and help them develop the necessary proficiencies. Content-area teachers need to determine the core knowledge and skills that these students need to master. 3. StudentsÕ experiential backgrounds provide a point of departure and an anchor in the exploration of new ideas. Immigrant adolescents know a great deal about the world, and this knowledge can provide the basis for understanding new concepts in a new language. Students will learn new concepts and language only when they build on previous knowledge and understanding. Some students have been socialized into lecture and recitation approaches to teaching, and they expect teachers to tell them what lessons are about. But by engaging in activities that involve predicting, inferring based on prior knowledge, and supporting conclusions with evidence, students will realize that they can learn actively and that working in this way is fun and stimulating. 4. Teaching and learning focus on substantive ideas that are organized cyclically. To work effectively with English learners, teachers must select the themes and concepts that are central to their discipline and to the curriculum. The curriculum should be organized around the cyclical reintroduction of concepts at progressively higher levels of complexity and interrelatedness. Cyclical organization of subject matter leads to a natural growth in the understanding of ideas and to gradual correction of misunderstandings. 5. New ideas and tasks are contextualized. English language learners often have problems trying to make sense of decontextualized language. This situation is especially acute in the reading of textbooks. Secondary school textbooks are usually linear, dry, and dense, with few illustrations. Embedding the language of textbooks in a meaningful context by using manipulatives, pictures, a few minutes of a film, and other types of realia can make language comprehensible to students. Teachers may also provide context by creating analogies based on studentsÕ experiences. However, this requires that the teacher learn about studentsÕ backgrounds, because metaphors or analogies that may work well with native English speakers may not clarify meanings for English language learners. In this sense, good teachers of immigrant students continually search for metaphors and analogies that bring complex ideas closer to the studentsÕ world experiences.

© 2017 5600 87 6. Academic strategies, sociocultural expectations, and academic norms are taught explicitly. Effective teachers develop studentsÕ sense of autonomy through the explicit teaching of strategies that enable them to approach academic tasks successfully. The teaching of such metacognitive strategies is a way of scaffolding instruction; the goal is to gradually hand over responsibility to the learners as they acquire skills and knowledge. Delpit (1995) argues that the discourse of power–the language used in this country to establish and maintain social control–should also be taught explicitly, because it is not automatically acquired. Guidance and modeling can go a long way toward promoting awareness of and facility with this discourse. For example, preferred and accepted ways of talking, writing, and presenting are culture specific. Developing student awareness of differences, modeling by teachers of preferred styles, and study by students themselves of differences and preferred styles are three steps in the development of proficiency and autonomy that need to be included in the education of language minority students. 7. Tasks are relevant, meaningful, engaging, and varied. Some research indicates that most classes for immigrant students are monotonous, teacher-fronted, and directed to the whole class; teacher monologues are the rule (Ram’rez & Merino, 1990). If students do not interact with each other, they do not have opportunities to construct their own understandings and often become disengaged. Because immigrant students are usually well behaved in class, teachers are not always aware that they are bored and are not learning. Good classes for immigrant students not only provide them with access to important ideas and skills, but also engage them in their own constructive development of understandings. 8. Complex and flexible forms of collaboration maximize learnersÕ opportunities to interact while making sense of language and content. Collaboration is essential for second language learners, because to develop language proficiency they need opportunities to use the language in meaningful, purposeful, and enticing interactions (Kagan & McGroarty, 1993). Collaborative work needs to provide every student with substantial and equitable opportunities to participate in open exchange and elaborated discussions. It must move beyond simplistic conceptions that assign superficial roles, such as being the Ògo getterÓ or the Òtime keeperÓ for the group (Adger et al., 1995). In these collaborative groups, the teacher is no longer the authority figure. Students work autonomously, taking responsibility for their own learning. The teacher provides a task that invites and requires each studentÕs participation and hands over to the students the responsibility for accomplishing the task or solving the problem. 9. Students are given multiple opportunities to extend their understandings and apply their knowledge.

© 2017 5600 88 One of the goals of learning is to be able to apply acquired knowledge to novel situations. For English learners, these applications reinforce the development of new language, concepts, and academic skills as students actively draw connections between pieces of knowledge and their contexts. Understanding a topic of study involves being able to carry out a variety of cognitively demanding tasks (Perkins, 1993). 10. Authentic assessment is an integral part of teaching and learning. Assessment should be done not only by teachers, but also by learners, who assess themselves and each other. Considerable research supports the importance of self-monitoring of language learning (OÕMalley & Chamot, 1989). Authentic assessment activities engage second language learners in self-directed learning, in the construction of knowledge through disciplined inquiry, and in the analysis of problems they encounter. Calexico High School in Calexico, California, is attempting to put the principles described above into practice. Calexico is a bilingual/bicultural community on the southern border of the United States; 98% of the students are Latino, and 80% are English language learners. Once an unsupportive environment for English language learners, Calexico High School now operates with a philosophy that is based on such principles as respect for studentsÕ culture, language, and background; a strong belief that all students can learn; and equal opportunities for all students to pursue further education. Calexico staff view bilingualism as an asset for the future and strive to develop academic proficiency, regardless of language. They have eliminated the tracking system and have high expectations for all students. An efficient system of counseling is in place that provides support ranging from interventions to sustain or improve academic success to coordination with agencies outside the school that provide social services. Groups of students are organized into academies and supervised by teams of teachers to help all students feel connected academically. In addition, the school actively involves parents by holding all school meetings in Spanish and English and by having bilingual/bicultural staff that develop and maintain connections between home and school. Learning English is given utmost importance. However, teachers realize that developing second language fluency is a long process, and that while it is essential to continue supporting and nurturing language development, cognitive growth also has an impact on long-range academic outcomes. Strong support is given to continuous development of studentsÕ academic skills. Three language options are available for required courses: They may be taught through Spanish, English, or sheltered English. The same number of credits are

© 2017 5600 89 granted for all options, and all options provide academically challenging study for students that will open doors to postsecondary education and other opportunities. Through their commitment to providing all students with more opportunities to succeed, the staff at Calexico High School have created a highly effective secondary school program for immigrant students. (For a description of other successful secondary school programs for immigrant students, see Walqui, 2000). Conclusion The ten principles of effective programs discussed in this digest can contribute to the success of immigrant secondary school students by creating positive and engaging learning contexts. A strong commitment to the educational success of immigrant students is ultimately the foundation for all successful programs. For society, this commitment involves supporting the development of effective programs through resources, funding, professional development, and research. References Adger, C., Kalyanpur, M., Peterson, D., & Bridger, T. (1995). Engaging students: Thinking, talking, cooperating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Delpit, L. (1995). Other peopleÕs children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press. Kagan, S., & McGroarty, M. (1993). Principles of cooperative learning for language and content gains. In D.D. Holt (Ed.), Cooperative learning: A response to linguistic and cultural diversity (pp.47-66). McHenry, IL, and Washington, DC: Delta Systems and Center for Applied Linguistics. OÕMalley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1989). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Perkins, D. (1993). An apple for education: Teaching and learning for understanding (EdPress Elam Lecture, Rowan College of New Jersey). Glasboro, NJ: EdPress. Ram’rez, J.D., & Merino, B.J. (1990). Classroom talk in English immersion, early-exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs. In R. Jacobson & C. Faltis (Eds.), Language distribution issues in bilingual schooling (pp. 61-103). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Walqui, A. (2000). Access and engagement: Program design and instructional approaches for immigrant students in secondary schools. McHenry, IL, and Washington, DC: Delta Systems and Center for Applied Linguistics.

© 2017 5600 90 This digest was prepared with funding from the U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Library of Education, under contract no. ED-99-CO-0008.

© 2017 5600 91 Effective Approaches to Teaching Young Mexican Immigrant Children ERIC Digest. Julia Reguero de Atiles, Martha Allexsaht-Snider ED471491 Of the 22 million children currently enrolled in schools in the United States, more than 2 million have limited English proficiency (Macias, 2000). Preschoolers and elementary-age children make up the greatest proportion of the immigrant student population. Given these demographic trends, many teachers need support in educating young children from diverse linguistic backgrounds (Soto, 1991). The following review outlines strategies for working with Mexican and other immigrant children. The effectiveness of these research-based approaches has been affirmed by teachers. Myths About the Second-Language Learner A teacherÕs limited experience with second-language learners may lead her to believe that using the childÕs home language interferes with the childÕs ability to learn English (McLaughlin, 1992). Well-educated and less-educated bilingual parents frequently relate stories of well-meaning teachers who advised them, ÒYou should stop speaking Spanish at home so your child can learn English.Ó Because language and culture are intimately related, Byrnes and Cortez (1992) note that disregarding a childÕs native language is denying a part of who the child is and the cultural background the child brings to school. In addition, parent-child communication can be eroded if parents are persuaded that speaking in their native language is not in their childÕs best interest (Fillmore, 1991). Research literature indicates that bilingualism is in the best interest of children; the intellectual experience of learning two languages contributes to concept formation and mental flexibility (Cummins, 1991; Garcia, 1986; Genishi, 2002). When teachers respect and promote the development of the first language and encourage maintenance of the home culture, children feel cared for and connected to their family, school, and community (McGroarty, 1986). Language Acquisition Process Language acquisition is a complex process that may take a minimum of 12 years (Collier, 1989). Even when children seem to understand and express themselves in a second language, they may not have mastered more complex uses of the language that incorporate content knowledge in different subjects (August & Hakuta, 1997). The National Association for the Education of Young Children (1996) advises that

© 2017 5600 92 when we set unrealistic expectations too early, school assessments of seemingly proficient children may identify them as lacking vocabulary and problem-solving skills. Misreading the language development process can result in immigrant children being over-referred to special education (Baca & Cervantes, 1998; Harry, 1994). Teaching Strategies for Early Strategies for Early Childhood Teachers Encourage development of the first language. As we encourage children to maintain their first language we also support the development of the second language. When students feel relaxed and confident, language learning is maximized (Krashen, 1992). We know that literacy developed in the first language will transfer to the second language (Ada, 1993; Garcia, 1986; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Teachers and families can use materials, such as childrenÕs books in Spanish, to build childrenÕs confidence in their literacy skills (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Provide visible signs of childrenÕs first language, and learn Spanish. Teachers can label classroom objects and areas in Spanish. Authentic materials that incorporate labels and texts should be provided (for example, signs, catalogs, toys, household objects, newspapers, and menus). Teachers may also serve as role models by learning and using a few words of Spanish, thus demonstrating that taking risks in learning another language is valued (Calderon, 1997). Learn about Mexican culture, and teach acceptance. If teachers share knowledge of the Mexican culture, all children in the class may benefit from opportunities to learn about language and cultural differences and similarities (Lindholm, 1994; Wyner, 1989). Teachers can influence the motivation of their Mexican immigrant students by creating an accepting social environment (McGroarty, 1986). Classmates can be challenged to understand what it feels like to be somewhere where people speak a language different from their own and, thus, not understand what is going on around them (Kubota et al., 2000). Be sensitive to childrenÕs struggles, and follow a routine. Entering a new class can be intimidating for an immigrant child who may be faced with social isolation and linguistic constraints. Establishing and following predictable routines can be helpful. The routines allow children to concentrate on the language and what they are supposed to be learning, rather than on figuring out what is happening (Garcia, 1992). Acknowledge childrenÕs strengths, and use portfolio-style assessment. We tend to emphasize what the child does not know, forgetting to allow children to

© 2017 5600 93 display their interests and knowledge that often surpasses the limitations of language. When we regard children as capable, we are more likely to see their unique strengths and build upon them. Teachers face the challenge of fairly assessing the knowledge of immigrant students (OÕMalley & Valdez Pierce, 1996). Observational notes recording childrenÕs abilities as demonstrated in the flow of classroom activities can be combined with samples of student work in a portfolio. This approach can supplement report cards in conveying evidence of studentsÕ progress (Genesee & Hamayan, 1994; Leone & College, 1995; Tabors, 1998). Plan real-world language lessons, and provide a print-rich environment. Field trips, lessons with animals and plants, role-playing, and demonstrations of real-life activities can form the basis for language lessons (Krashen, 1992). Conducting pre- and post-discussions, writing a story together about the experience, cutting out sentences and rearranging their order, and changing the story by changing some words are game-like activities that enhance language and literacy learning. Communicate clearly. Teachers can maximize learning by speaking clearly, using concrete references, repeating and rephrasing, and utilizing gestures and visual aids. Speaking more slowly at first and using simplified English without distorting the language are also recommended (Freeman & Freeman, 1998). Allow for the developing stages of language production. Teachers working with children in the initial preproduction or silent stage may help the children Òtake inÓ the language by including music, movement, and dramatic play. Teachers may respect the silent phase by not requiring a child to speak, as well as by accepting forms of communication such as writing, drawing, and nonverbal responses. Children in the second stage of language acquisition (early production) may be asked questions that require a ÒyesÓ or ÒnoÓ response, or that require them to identify a familiar object or finish a statement. Subsequently, in the final expansion or production stage, teachers can motivate students to be more descriptive (Krashen, 1992). Aim for comprehension. Communicating meaning should always be the aim for teachers of a new language. Parroting teachersÕ speech does not promote language acquisition. A great deal of trial and error takes place as a young child learns a language. In addition, there are individual differences in language-learning time frames. Teachers may be supportive by having accepting attitudes during the trial and error phases. Instructional practices that emphasize grammar and construction are not recommended as they may interfere with the developmental progression of language acquisition. Songs and chants are excellent for reinforcing pronunciation and correct word stress (Freeman & Freeman, 1998). Allow children opportunities to practice their language skills with peers, and encourage student participation. It is important for children to practice their

© 2017 5600 94 language skills with peers. Teachers should structure interactions to ensure that second-language learners do not become socially isolated. Shared reading, cross-age activities, cooperative learning groups, peer tutoring, and community inquiry are valuable for all children (Slavin & Fashola, 1998). Conclusion In the preceding paragraphs, we have outlined effective strategies for facilitating immigrant Mexican studentsÕ language learning and cultural adjustment. Second-language learners benefit from contextual experiences that allow them to construct meaning for what otherwise would be merely words. Teachers hold the key to making the learning of young Mexican immigrant children a success through research-based, developmentally appropriate practices. References Ada, A. F. (1993). Mother-tongue literacy as a bridge between home and school cultures. In J. V. Tinajero & A. F. Ada (Eds.), The power of two languages: Literacy and biliteracy for Spanish-speaking students (pp. 158-163). New York: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Baca, L. M., & Cervantes H. T. (1998). The bilingual special education interface (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Byrnes, D. A., & Cortez, D. (1992). Language diversity in the classroom. In D. A. Byrnes & G. Kiger (Eds.), Common bonds: Anti-bias teaching in a diverse society (pp. 71-85). Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education International. Calderon, M. (1997). Staff development in multilingual multicultural schools (ERIC Digest). New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410 368) Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 509-531. Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89). New York: Cambridge University Press. Fillmore, L. W. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first.

© 2017 5600 95 Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(3), 323-347. Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (1998). ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Garcia, E. E. (1986). Bilingual development and the education of bilingual children during early childhood. American Journal of Education, 95(1), 96-121. Garcia, E. (1991). Effective instruction for language minority students: The teacher. Journal of Education, 173(2), 130-142. Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. V. (1994). Classroom-based assessment. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 212-239). New York: Cambridge University Press. Genishi, C. (2002). Young English language learners: Resourceful in the classroom. Young Children, 57(4), 66-72. Harry, B. (1994). The disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Theories and recommendations. Project FORUM. Final report. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374 637) Krashen, S. D. (1992). Fundamentals of language education. Torrance, CA: Laredo Publishing. Kubota, R., Gardner, K., Patten, M., Thatcher-Fettig, C., & Yoshida, M. (2000). Mainstream peers try on English language learnersÕ shoes: A shock language experience. TESOL Journal, 9(4), 12-16. Leone, B. (1995). A K-5 bilingual resource room: The first year. Bilingual Research Journal, 19(3-4), 551-569. Lindholm, K. J. (1994). Promoting positive cross-cultural attitudes and perceived competence in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. In R. DeVillar, C. Faltis, & J. P. Cummins (Eds.), Cultural diversity in schools: From rhetoric to practice (pp. 189-206). Albany: State University of New York. Macias, R. F. (2000). Summary report of the survey of the statesÕ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services, 1997-98. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, Center for the Study of Language and Education. Retrieved December 13, 2002, from

© 2017 5600 96 http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/seareports/97-98/ McGroarty, M. (1986). EducatorÕs responses to sociocultural diversity: Implications for practice. In California State Department of Education, Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 299-343). Los Angeles: California State University; Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center. McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: What every teacher needs to unlearn [Educational Practice Report 5]. Washington, DC: University of California, National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352 806) National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1996). NAEYC position statement: Responding to linguistic and cultural diversity – Recommendations for effective early childhood education. Young Children, 51(2), 4-12. OÕMalley, J. M., & Valdez Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Slavin, R. E., & Fashola, O. S. (1998). Show me the evidence! Proven and promising programs for AmericaÕs schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: Committee on the Preservation of Reading Difficulties in Young Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED416465) Soto, L. D. (1991). Understanding bilingual/bicultural young children. Young Children, 46(2), 30-36. Tabors, P. O.(1998). What early childhood educators need to know: Developing effective programs for linguistically and culturally diverse children and families.Young Children,53(6),20-26 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs. (2002). Helping your child become a reader. Jessup, MD: Author. Retrieved December 13, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/parents/Reader/reader.pdf Wyner, N. B. (1989). Educating linguistic minorities: Public education and the search for unity. Educational Horizons, 67(4), 173-176.

© 2017 5600 97 StudentÕs diverse backgrounds have a tremendous impact on the learning that occurs in the classroom. Tremendous efforts are underway to prepare diverse students for the school experience. As you will find in this article all learning, not just language learning, is dependent upon the social and cultural contexts in which instruction is provided. Language Learning in Social and Cultural Contexts Mei-Yu Lu ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication Digest #131 ED423531 In her book Ways with Words, Heath (1983) writes Ò. . . the different ways children learned to use language were dependent on the ways in which [members of] each community structured their families, defined the roles that community members could assume, and played out their concepts of childhood that guided child socializationÓ (p. 11). According to Heath, children learn language, be it spoken or written, through the process of socializing in the specific society they are in. Heath (1983) observed ways that three groups of children acquired and used language, and she discovered that children exhibited language behaviors in accordance with the values of their respective families and communities. Language Learning at Home Language learning takes place at least partly as a means of social participation (Goodman & Goodman, 1990), which usually begins at home. From birth, children are engaged in various interactions with family members. Infants learn the social function of language long before they are able to utter any intelligible words. During daily routines, parents and caregivers often talk with children in a special type of utterance called motherese. Motherese contains short, repetitive phrases with exaggerated intonation and clear pronunciation (Snow & Ferguson, 1977), such as ÒdadaÓ for ÒdaddyÓ and ÒbibiÓ for Òbaby.Ó Weaver (1994) suggested that such parent-child interaction facilitates the process of communication, the social function of language. In the process of acquiring oral language, young children are active agents. They not only receive language input from others, but they also generate hypotheses about rules of language use through social engagement with other more competent language users (Newman, 1985). Lindfors (1987) believes that even very young children are able to hypothesize, trying out language as they encounter it in particular contexts. Through feedback from parents and caregivers as well as further exposure and interaction, children eventually modify or confirm their hypotheses. Language Learning in Communities

© 2017 5600 98 In addition to their experiences at home, children also interact with community members. Such interaction contributes to childrenÕs overall language learning. Heath (1983) found that for children to get along with people and to accomplish social goals, they need to learn their communityÕs ways of language use, and they also acquire those ways of using language through experiences in various community activities and interactions. Heath suggests that each community has specific ways of socializing members and helping them function in the community. In addition, there are several features in childrenÕs social and linguistic environments which vary strikingly from one community to the other. These features include: Ò. . . the boundaries of the physical and social communities in which communication to and by children is possible; the limits and features of the situations in which talk occurs; the what, how and why patterns of choice which children can exercise in their uses of language; and the values these choices of language have for the children in their communities and beyond.Ó (p.144) For example, Heath found that children from Trackton and Roadville exhibited very different storytelling behaviors. The Trackton children were encouraged to exaggerate and to fantasize when telling a story, whereas children from Roadville, who were expected to recount factual information, interpreted that behavior as lying. These differences had an impact on how the children performed in school, at which another set of expectations prevailed. Language Learning Among Linguistic Minority Children In the past two decades, the number of children from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds in the United States has increased. Many of these children enter schools with little or no English. However, they bring into classrooms the knowledge of their mother tongues and their cultural and linguistic values. Schools need to encourage linguistic minority children to maintain the use of their mother tongue while learning a new language. Heath (1986) also proposes that in order for all children to achieve success in school, the ways children use language to learn must be given as much consideration as the specific language they speak. Information about their previously acquired Òways with wordsÓ can be used to facilitate their learning in school. Researchers (Heath, 1986; Wong-Fillmore,1983, 1989) have studied how linguistic and cultural minority children in America use language in the classroom. Their findings suggest that linguistic minority children have different ways of using language than their mainstream American peers and teachers. Both Wong-Fillmore (1983, 1989) and Heath (1986) studied children from Chinese-speaking and Spanish-speaking, mostly Mexican, families. Their research has shown that Chinese-

© 2017 5600 99 speaking children tend to be adult-oriented. They appear to interact frequently with adults and to be concerned about meeting the teacherÕs expectations. By contrast, Hispanic children are more peer-oriented in seeking assistance. Wong-Fillmore(1983) suggests that the class context strongly influences these childrenÕs learning in American schools. When in a classroom where students are mostly second language learners, the teacher becomes the main resource of English. In order to interact with each other, the students need to use English as the primary means for oral communication. It follows that they supply each other with less conventional versions of English. Under these circumstances, adult-oriented second language children tend to receive richer English input from their teacher and learn more than their peer-oriented counterparts. In a classroom where native English speakers outnumber linguistic minority children, peer-oriented second language learners will have more opportunities to interact with native speakers, thus receiving more English input than their adult-oriented counterparts. It is, therefore, important that educators be aware of the cultural and linguistic differences among children of different groups in order to design a conducive learning environment for all learners. In sum, language learning is a socio-cultural process. To fully function in a particular language, one not only needs to understand the mechanics, such as the grammar, but also to apply that language across various contexts, audiences, and purposes. It is through meaningful interaction with others as well as functional use in daily life that children develop competence, fluency, and creativity in language. With the increasing number of linguistic minority children in the United States, the school system needs to take into consideration the linguistic knowledge these children possess in their mother tongues in order to design a conducive learning environment. The linguistic resources these children bring into classrooms not only provide a foundation upon which to learn English but they also offer schools and society multicultural perspectives on learning. References Glover, J. A. & Bruning, R. H. (1987). Educational Psychology. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company Goodman, Y. M. & Goodman, K. S. (1990). Vygotsky in a whole language perspective. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky in education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 223-250). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. B. (1986). Sociocultural contexts of language development. In Beyond

© 2017 5600 100 language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 143-186). Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education, Sacramento, Bilingual Education Office. [ED 304 241] Lindfors, J. W. (1987). ChildrenÕs language and learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Newman, J. M. (1985). Insight from recent reading and writing research and their implications for developing whole language curriculum. In J.M. Newman (Ed.), Whole language: Theory in use. (pp. 17-36). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (1977). Talking to children. Cambridge: England: Cambridge University Press. Weaver, C. (1994). Reading process and practice: From socio- psycholinguistics to whole language. Port Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. [ED 367 962] Wong-Fillmore, L. (1983). The language learner as an individual: Implications of research on individual differences for ESL teacher. In J. Lindfors (Ed.), Paper presented at the Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. HI, Honolulu. [ED 228 893] Wong-Fillmore, L. (1989). Bridges or barriers? The role of schools in culturally diverse societies. In D. Philips (Ed.) The impact of American ideas on New ZealandÕs educational policy, practices, and thinking (pp. 103-120). Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Education Research. [ED 338 517] Digest #131 is EDO-CS-98-4 and was published in September 1998 by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English and Communication, 2805 E 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47408-2698, Telephone (812) 855-5847 or (800) 759-4723. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced. Additional copies may be ordered by contacting the ERIC Document Reproduction Service at (800) 443-3742. This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education under contract number RR93002011. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

VOL. 25 / NO. 2 / FALL 2015 67Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals and Same-Sex CouplesGary J. GatesSummaryThough estimates vary, as many as 2 million to 3.7 million U.S. children under age 18 may have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parent, and about 200,000 are being raised by same-sex couples.Much of the past decade’s legal and political debate over allowing same-sex couples to marry has centered on these couples’ suitability as parents, and social scientists have been asked to weigh in. After carefully reviewing the evidence presented by scholars on both sides of the issue, Gary Gates concludes that same-sex couples are as good at parenting as their different-sex counterparts. Any differences in the wellbeing of children raised in same-sex and different-sex families can be explained not by their parents’ gender composition but by the fact that children being by raised by same-sex couples have, on average, experienced more family instability, because most children being raised by same-sex couples were born to different-sex parents, one of whom is now in the same-sex relationship.That pattern is changing, however. Despite growing support for same-sex parenting, proportionally fewer same-sex couples report raising children today than in 2000. Why? Reduced social stigma means that more LGBT people are coming out earlier in life. They’re less likely than their LGBT counterparts from the past to have different-sex relationships and the children such relationships produce. At the same time, more same-sex couples are adopting children or using reproductive technologies like artificial insemination and surrogacy. Compared to a decade ago, same-sex couples today may be less likely to have children, but those who do are more likely to have children who were born with same-sex parents who are in stable relationships.In the past, most same-sex couples raising children were in a cohabiting relationship. With same-sex couples’ right to marry now secured throughout the country, the situation is changing rapidly. As more and more same-sex couples marry, Gates writes, we have the opportunity to consider new research questions that can contribute to our understanding of how marriage and parental relationships affect child wellbeing.www.futureofchildren.orgGary J. Gates is the Blachford-Cooper Distinguished Scholar and research director at the UCLA School of Law’s Charles R. Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy. Cynthia Osborne of the University of Texas at Austin reviewed and critiqued a draft of this article.

68 THE FUTURE OF CHILDRENThe speed with which the legal and social climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals, same-sex couples, and their families is changing in the United States has few historical precedents. Measures of social acceptance related to sexual relationships, parenting, and marriage recognition among same-sex couples all increased substantially in the last two decades. The legal climate followed a similar pattern. In 2005, when the Future of Children last produced an issue about marriage and child wellbeing, only one state allowed same-sex couples to legally marry. By June 2015, the Supreme Court had ruled that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry throughout the United States. Analyses of the General Social Survey, a biennial and nationally representative survey of adults in the United States, show that, in the years between 1973 and 1991, the portion who thought that same-sex sexual relationships were “always wrong” varied little, peaking at 77 percent in 1988 and 1991. The two decades since have seen a rapid decline in this figure, from 66 percent in 1993 to 40 percent in 2014.1 Conversely, the portion of those who say that same-sex sexual relationships are never wrong didn’t go much above 15 percent until 1993. From 1993 to 2014, that figure increased from 22 percent to 49 percent. Notably, 2014 marks the first time in the 30 years that the General Social Survey has been asking this question that the portion of Americans who think same-sex sexual relationships are never wrong is substantially higher than the portion who say such relationships are always wrong.The General Social Survey data demonstrate an even more dramatic shift in support for marriage rights for same-sex couples. In 1988, just 12 percent of U.S. adults agreed that same-sex couples should have a right to marry. By 2014, that figure had risen to 57 percent. Data from Gallup show a similar pattern, with support for marriage rights for same-sex couples increasing from 27 percent in 1996 to 60 percent in 2014.2 Gallup’s analyses document even larger changes in attitudes toward support for adoption by same-sex couples. In 1992, its polling showed that only 29 percent of Americans supported the idea that same-sex couples should have the legal right to adopt children. In a 2014 poll, that figure was 63 percent, even higher than support for marriage among same-sex couples.3Legal Recognition of Same-Sex RelationshipsThese shifts in public attitudes toward same-sex relationships and families have been accompanied by similarly dramatic shifts in granting legal status to same-sex couple relationships. California was the first state to enact a statewide process to recognize same-sex couples when it created its domestic partnership registry in 1999. Domestic partnership offered California same-sex couples some of the benefits normally associated with marriage, namely, hospital visitation rights and the ability to be considered next of kin when settling the estate of a deceased partner. In 2000, Vermont enacted civil unions, a status designed specifically for same-sex couples to give them a broader set of rights and responsibilities akin to those associated with marriage. Massachusetts became the first state to legalize marriage for same-sex couples in 2004. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act

VOL. 25 / NO. 2 / FALL 2015 69(passed in 1996) that limited federal recognition of marriages to different-sex couples.4 That ruling, in Windsor v. United States, prompted an unprecedented wave of lawsuits in every state where same-sex couples were not permitted to marry. After numerous rulings in these cases affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry in a series of states, the Supreme Court’s June 2015 decision meant that same-sex couples could marry anywhere in the country.5Globally, marriage or some other form of legal recognition through civil or registered partnerships is now widely available to same-sex couples across northern, western, and central Europe, large portions of North and South America, and in South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.6 Conversely, homosexuality remains criminalized, in some cases by punishment of death, throughout much of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, and in Russia and many Pacific and Caribbean island nations.7Effects on LGBT Relationships and FamiliesSocial norms and legal conditions affect how we live our lives. Psychologists document how social stigma directed toward LGBT people can be quite insidious and damage their health and wellbeing.8 It can also affect how they form relationships and families. For example, studies from the early 1980s found that same-sex couple relationships were, on average, less stable than different-sex relationships.9 My own analyses of data from the early 1990s showed that lesbians and gay men were less likely than their heterosexual counterparts to be in a cohabiting relationship.10 Is this because same-sex couple relationships differ from different-sex relationships in ways that lead to instability? Are lesbians and gay men just not the marrying type? Recent research suggests that the social and legal climate may explain a great deal about why same-sex couples behave differently from different-sex couples in terms of relationship formation and stability. As society has begun to treat same-sex couples more like different-sex couples, the differences between the two groups have narrowed. For example, compared to 20 years ago, proportionately more lesbians and gay men are in cohabiting same-sex relationships, and they break up and divorce at rates similar to those of comparable different-sex couples.11 As of March 2015, Gallup estimated that nearly 40 percent of same-sex couples were married.12As society has begun to treat same-sex couples more like different-sex couples, the differences between the two groups have narrowed.The social and legal climate for LGBT people also affects how they form families and become parents. In a climate of social stigma, LGBT people can feel pressure to hide their identities and have relationships with different-sex partners. Not surprisingly, some of those relationships produce children. Today, most children being raised by same-sex couples were born to different-sex parents, one of whom is now in the same-sex relationship. This pattern is changing, but in ways that may seem counterintuitive. Despite growing support for same-sex parenting, proportionally fewer same-sex couples report raising children today than in 2000. Reduced social stigma means that more LGBT people are coming out earlier in life. They’re less likely than

70 THE FUTURE OF CHILDRENtheir LGBT counterparts from the past to have different-sex relationships and the children such relationships produce.13 But that’s not the full story. While parenting may be declining overall among same-sex couples, adoption and the use of reproductive technologies like artificial insemination and surrogacy is increasing. Compared to a decade ago, same-sex couples today may be less likely to have children, but those who do are more likely to have children who were born with same-sex parents who are in stable relationships.14 Framing the DebateThe legal and political debates about allowing same-sex couples to marry tend to focus on two large themes that can be seen even in the earliest attempts to garner legal recognition of same-sex marriages. These two themes pit arguments about the inherent and traditional relationship between marriage and procreation (including the suitability of same-sex couples as parents) against arguments about the degree to which opposition to legal recognition of same-sex relationships is rooted in irrational animus and discrimination toward same-sex couples or lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB, used here because these arguments rarely consider the transgender population) individuals more broadly. (Throughout this article, I use LGB rather than LGBT when data or research focuses only on sexual orientation and not on gender identity.)In the United States, the earliest legal attempt to expand marriage to include same-sex couples began in 1970, when Richard Baker and James McConnell applied for and were denied a marriage license in Hennepin County, Minnesota.15 They filed a lawsuit that eventually came before the Minnesota and U.S. supreme courts. The Minnesota court ruling observed that the arguments in favor of allowing the couple to marry were based on the proposition that “the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory.” The court wasn’t persuaded by these arguments, ruling that “the institution of marriage as a union of a man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation of children, is as old as the book of Genesis.”16 The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case on appeal for lack of any substantial federal question.17More than 30 years later, in a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Baskin v. Bogan, which upheld a lower court’s ruling that Indiana’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples was unconstitutional, Judge Richard Posner offered a distinctly different perspective from that of the Minnesota court regarding similar arguments made in a case seeking to overturn Indiana’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples. He wrote:At oral argument the state’s lawyer was asked whether “Indiana’s law is about successfully raising children,” and since “you agree same-sex couples can successfully raise children, why shouldn’t the ban be lifted as to them?” The lawyer answered that “the assumption is that with opposite-sex couples there is very little thought given during the sexual act, sometimes, to whether babies may be a consequence.” In other words, Indiana’s government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of

VOL. 25 / NO. 2 / FALL 2015 71sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents—model citizens really—so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.18As in Baker v. Nelson, the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to take Baskin v. Bogan on appeal. But this time, the court’s inaction prompted a rapid expansion in the number of states that allowed same-sex couples to marry.This article explores the social and legal debates about access to marriage for same-sex couples, how social and legal change is affecting the demographic characteristics of LGBT people and their families, whether parents’ gender composition affects children’s wellbeing, and how social science research has contributed to those debates and can track the impact of these social changes in the future.LGBT Families: Demographic CharacteristicsDepending on which survey we consider, from 5.2 million to 9.5 million U.S. adults identify as LGBT (roughly 2–4 percent of adults).19 An analysis of two state-level population-based surveys suggests that approximately 0.3 percent of adults are transgender.20 More people identify as LGBT today than in the past. Findings from the 2012 Gallup Daily Tracking survey suggest that, among adults aged 18 and older, 3.6 percent of women and 3.3 percent of men identify as LGBT.21 Nearly 20 years ago, 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 percent of women identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual in a national survey.22 These estimates measure the LGBT population by considering who identifies themselves using the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Self-identity is not necessarily the only way to measure sexual orientation or gender identity. For example, if sexual orientation is measured by the gender of one’s sexual partners or sexual attractions, then population estimates increase. Findings from the 2006–08 National Survey of Family Growth, a national survey of adults aged 18–44 conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, show that 12.5 percent of women and 5.2 percent of men report at least some same-sex sexual behavior. An estimated 13.6 percent of women and 7.1 percent of men report at least some same-sex sexual attraction.23 Estimates for the number of cohabiting same-sex couples in the United States are most commonly derived from U.S. Census Bureau data, either decennial Census enumerations (beginning in 1990) or the annual American Community Survey (ACS). Unfortunately, the accuracy of the Census Bureau figures for same-sex couples has been called into question because of a measurement problem whereby a very small portion of different-sex couples (mostly married) make an error on the survey when recording the gender of one of the partners or spouses, so that the survey appears to identify the couple as same-sex. Findings from various analyses of Census and ACS data suggest that the presence of these false positives among same-sex couples could mean that from one-quarter to one-half of identified same-sex couples may be miscoded different-sex couples.24 In 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau released estimates of the number of same-sex

72 THE FUTURE OF CHILDRENcouples that were adjusted to minimize the inaccuracies created by the measurement problem. They reported nearly 650,000 same-sex couples in the country, an increase of more than 80 percent over the figure from Census 2000 of 360,000 couples.25 Same-sex couples represent about 0.5 percent of all U.S. households and about 1 percent of all married and unmarried cohabiting couples. My analyses of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), an annual survey of adults conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, suggest that there were approximately 690,000 same-sex couples in the United States in 2013, representing 1.1 percent of all couples, a modest increase from the 2010 figures.26 Gallup estimates from March 2015 suggest that the number of cohabiting same-sex couples may be close to 1 million.27The population of married same-sex couples appears to have doubled or even tripled in just one year.Estimating the number of married same-sex couples in the United States is difficult. Not all states collect administrative marriage data that explicitly identifies same-sex couples. A further complication comes from the measurement issues in Census Bureau data. Estimates of the number of same-sex couples who identify as married are now reported in annual ACS tabulations, but the measurement error that I’ve discussed likely means that these figures aren’t very accurate.28Based on NHIS data, I calculated that there may have been as many as 130,000 married same-sex couples by the end of 2013, approximately 18 percent of all same-sex couples.29 By contrast, ACS estimates from the same year suggested that there were more than 250,000 married same-sex couples. The NHIS and ACS estimates both were made before the majority of states allowed same-sex couples to marry. Gallup estimates from data collected in March 2015 found 390,000 married same-sex couples.30 Regardless of the accuracy of these estimates, it’s clear that same-sex couples are marrying at a rapid rate. The population of married same-sex couples appears to have doubled or even tripled in just one year.31LGBT and Same-Sex Couple Parents and FamiliesLGBT individuals and same-sex couples come to be parents in many ways. My own analyses estimate that 37 percent of LGBT individuals have been parents and that as many as 6 million U.S. children and adults may have an LGBT parent.32 I estimate that while as many as 2 million to 3.7 million children under age 18 may have an LGBT parent, it’s likely that only about 200,000 are being raised by a same-sex couple.33 Many are being raised by single LGBT parents, and many are being raised by different-sex couples where one parent is bisexual. Most surveys find that bisexuals account for roughly half of the LGBT population, and my NHIS analyses suggest that among bisexuals with children, more than six in 10 are either married (51 percent) or partnered (11 percent) with a different-sex partner.34 Only 4 percent are living with a same-sex spouse or partner. Data rarely provide clear information about the birth circumstances of children with LGBT parents or those living with same-sex couples. But, as I’ve already pointed out, my analyses of ACS data suggest that

VOL. 25 / NO. 2 / FALL 2015 73most children currently living with same-sex couples were likely born in previous different-sex relationships. Two-thirds of children under age 18 living with a same-sex cohabiting couple (married or unmarried) are identified as either the biological child or stepchild of one member of the couple. Only about 12 percent of them are identified as adopted or foster children, though that figure has been increasing over time.35 My research also shows that, among people who have ever had a child, LGB individuals report having had their first child at earlier ages than their non-LGB counterparts.36 This is consistent with many studies documenting that LGB youth are more likely to experience unintended pregnancy or fatherhood when compared to their non-LGB counterparts.37 Researchers speculate that social stigma directed toward LGB youth contributes to psychological stress. That stress can sometimes lead them to engage in risky behaviors, including sexual activity that results in unplanned pregnancies.Analyses of many data sources show that racial and ethnic minorities (particularly African Americans and Latinos) who are LGB or in same-sex couples are more likely to report raising or having had children. The proportion of all same-sex couples raising children tends to be higher in more socially conservative areas of the country, where LGB people may have come out relatively later in life, so were more likely to have children with a different-sex partner earlier in life.38 These patterns likely also contribute to the broad economic disadvantage observed among same-sex couples and LGB individuals who are raising children. They have lower incomes than their different-sex couple or non-LGB counterparts and have higher levels of poverty.39 In fact, same-sex couples with children are twice as likely as their married different-sex counterparts to be living in poverty.The evidence of economic disadvantage among same-sex couples with children is intriguing given the overall high levels of education historically observed among those in same-sex couples. Nearly all research shows that individuals in same-sex couples have higher levels of education than those in different-sex couples.40 But this pattern differs among couples raising children. While nearly half of those in same-sex couples have a college degree, only a third of those raising children have that much education. Same-sex couple parents also report higher rates of unemployment than their different-sex counterparts. Individuals in same-sex and different-sex couples with children report similar levels of labor force participation (81 percent and 84 percent, respectively), but those in same-sex couples are more likely to be unemployed (8 percent versus 6 percent, respectively). While in the majority of same-sex and different-sex couples with children, both spouses or partners are employed (57 percent and 60 percent, respectively), same-sex couples are more likely to have neither partner employed (8 percent versus 5 percent, respectively).41The percentage of same-sex couples who are raising children began declining in 2006.42 As I’ve said, this may actually be a result of social acceptance and LGBT people coming out (being more public about their LGBT identity) earlier in life today than in the past. In a Pew Research Center study, for example, younger respondents reported that they first told someone that they were LGBT at younger ages than did older respondents.43 It may be that lesbians and gay men are less likely now than in the past to have different-sex sexual relationships

74 THE FUTURE OF CHILDRENwhile young and, therefore, are less likely to have children with a different-sex partner. Today, about 19 percent of same-sex couples are raising children under age 18, with little variation in that statistic between married and unmarried couples. Among LGB individuals not in a couple, the figure is also 19 percent.44Social Science and Political DebatesTo the extent that social scientists have weighed in on the debate about allowing same-sex couples to marry and the consequences that such a change might have on society and families, they have largely focused on parenting. Questions regarding the extent to which LGBT individuals and same-sex couples become parents, how they come to be parents, and whether and how sexual orientation or gender composition of children’s parents might affect their health and wellbeing have all been considered within the framework of the debates about legalizing marriage for same-sex couples.Social Science on TrialThis dynamic may be best observed in the testimony that emerged from a trial in the case of DeBoer v. Snyder, a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan that challenged the state’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples. The case originated when plaintiffs April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse were denied the ability to complete a joint adoption (where both partners are declared a legal parent to the child) because Michigan allowed such adoptions only among married couples. Judge Bernard A. Friedman ordered a trial, the first such trial in a case involving marriage rights for same-sex couples since a challenge to California’s Proposition 8 (a 2008 ballot initiative, later overturned by the courts, that made marriage for same-sex couples illegal). Given the origins of the lawsuit, litigants on both sides assembled expert witnesses from the social sciences, including me, to testify regarding what social science tells us about parenting among same-sex couples.In addition to me, expert witnesses for the plaintiffs included psychologist David Brodzinsky and sociologist Michael Rosenfeld. Defense experts included family studies scholar Loren Marks, economists Joseph Price and Douglas Allen, and sociologist Mark Regnerus. A significant focus of the trial concerned the degree to which social scientists agree, or legitimately should agree, with the proposition that research overwhelmingly shows that the gender composition of two-parent families is not associated with differences in their children’s health and wellbeing.The courtroom can be a challenging environment for academic debates about scholarly theoretical frameworks and research methodology. The setting tends to value argumentation using assertion and provocation over the more scholarly rhetorical tendency of detailed explanation. But I present the research in the context of the trial as a way to emphasize the degree to which policy debates about the meaning of marriage and family can affect how scholars interpret research findings. In the end, I argue that the research on same-sex parenting and families is remarkably consistent. It shows that children raised by same-sex couples experience some disadvantages relative to children raised by different-sex married parents. But the disadvantages are largely explained by differences in experiences of family stability between the two groups. Many children being raised by same-sex couples have experienced the breakup of their different-sex parents, resulting in more

VOL. 25 / NO. 2 / FALL 2015 75instability in their lives. That instability has negative consequences. These findings are consistent in research conducted by scholars on both sides of the debate regarding marriage for same-sex couples. No research suggests that the gender composition or sexual orientation of parents is a significant factor in negative child outcomes.The earliest attempts to systematically study parenting by LGB people or same-sex couples occurred in the 1980s. In their 1989 study of gay parenting, Jerry Bigner and Frederick Bozett wrote: “The term gay father is contradictory in nature. This is more a matter of semantics, however, as gay has the connotation of homosexuality while father implies heterosexuality. The problem lies in determining how both may be applied simultaneously to an individual who has a same-sex orientation, and who also is a parent.” They assert that “although research is limited, it appears that gay fathers are at least equal to heterosexual fathers in the quality of their parenting.”45 More than two and a half decades later, this statement was still being debated in a Michigan courtroom.Child Health and WellbeingFor example, let’s compare a commentary piece by expert witness Loren Marks with a friend-of-the-court brief from the American Sociological Association that was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court cases challenging California’s Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry) and the federal DOMA (Windsor v. United States), and refiled in the Michigan case.46 Marks takes serious issue with an assertion in a brief on gay and lesbian parenting published by the American Psychological Association, which says, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”47 Based on his review of several decades of parenting research, Marks argues that the bulk of research focused on same-sex couple parenting uses relatively small samples that cannot be generalized to the population as a whole. He points out that the research does not sufficiently capture the diversity of same-sex couple parenting, because study populations are biased toward female parents with relatively high education and socioeconomic status. In the absence of large-scale longitudinal parenting studies (that is, studies that follow a group of people over time) with representative samples, Marks concludes that it is premature to assert that gender composition in two-parent families is not related to child health and wellbeing.The American Sociological Association, examining many of the same studies considered by Marks, came to a very different conclusion. Its amicus brief opens by arguing:The social science consensus is clear: children raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as children raised by opposite-sex parents. Numerous nationally representative, credible, and methodologically sound social science studies form the basis of this consensus. These studies reveal that children raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples across a wide spectrum of child-wellbeing measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse.48The brief concludes: “The social science consensus is both conclusive and clear: children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents as when they are raised by opposite sex parents. This consensus holds true across a wide range of

76 THE FUTURE OF CHILDRENchild outcome indicators and is supported by numerous nationally representative studies.” The disparate conclusions drawn from these two reviews of largely the same research studies result from philosophic differences about the conditions necessary to draw consensus conclusions about social science research. Marks argues for a bar of more large, representative, and longitudinal studies. The American Sociological Association asserts that the absence of negative findings among a large group of smaller and often nonrepresentative samples is compelling and supported by enough larger studies using representative and longitudinal samples to substantiate a claim that children are not harmed by having same-sex parents.Three other recent studies (all discussed in great detail in the Michigan trial) using population-based data purport to challenge the American Sociological Association’s assertion of a consensus that parents’ gender composition doesn’t harm child outcomes. First, in a study of young adults, sociologist Mark Regnerus found that those who reported having parents who had a same-sex sexual relationship fared far worse on a wide variety of health and wellbeing measures than did those raised largely by their married, different-sex biological parents.49 Second, Douglas Allen and colleagues published a commentary concerning a study by Michael Rosenfeld that questioned Rosenfeld’s decision, in his analyses of data from U.S. Census 2000, to limit his sample of children in same-sex and different-sex couples to those who have lived in the household for at least five years.50 Allen and colleagues found that when they loosened that restriction in the data, children raised by same-sex couples showed educational disadvantages compared to those with different-sex married parents. Rosenfeld’s original analyses reported no significant differences between the two groups. Third, Allen conducted another study that analyzed Canadian Census data and purported to show that young adults living with same-sex couples have lower high school graduation rates when compared to those living with different-sex married couples.51Family Structure and StabilityThe scholarly debates surrounding these studies all focus on the degree to which it’s necessary to take a history of family instability into account when assessing differences in outcomes among children living in different types of family structures. Most research suggests that living in unstable families can harm children’s wellbeing.52 This issue is at the heart of the widespread criticism of Regnerus’s New Family Structures Study.53 Regnerus took histories of family instability into account for some, but not all, of the comparison groups that he established to consider how family structure affects child outcomes. One group included all respondents who indicated that a parent had had a same-sex sexual partner before the respondent turned age 18, regardless of past experiences of family instability (for example, divorce or separation of parents); Regnerus compared that group to respondents who had specific types of family stability or instability, including those who lived only with their married biological parents, those who lived in stepfamilies, and those who lived with single parents. Critics argued that the negative outcomes of children with a parent who had a same-sex sexual relationship were much more likely related to a history of family instability than to either the sexual orientation or gender composition of the parents. A later analysis of the Regnerus data supports critics’ arguments and shows that

VOL. 25 / NO. 2 / FALL 2015 77most of the negative outcomes documented in the original study don’t hold when we take into account the family instability history of respondents who reported parents who had same-sex relationships.54Allen and colleagues’ challenge to Rosenfeld’s study essentially reanalyzed data after removing Rosenfeld’s control for family stability, which Rosenfeld achieved by limiting the sample to children who had been in the same family structure for five years. When they didn’t take family instability directly into account, Allen and colleagues, like Regnerus, found negative outcomes when they compared children raised by same-sex couples with children raised by different-sex married couples. If it’s true that most children being raised by same-sex couples were born to different-sex parents, then they are likely, on average, to have experienced more family instability in their lives than children living with different-sex married parents have experienced. Rosenfeld argued that because Allen and colleagues expanded the sample to include all children without concern for whether they lived in the observed family structure for any length of time, the differences they found in child outcomes were more likely the result of family instability than of their parents’ gender composition. A careful reading of Allen’s Canadian Census study actually confirms Rosenfeld’s assertion. In his assessment of differences in high school graduation rates among young adults, Allen showed that when household mobility (having lived in the household for at least five years) is taken into account, the differences between respondents in same-sex and different-sex married households aren’t significant. Notably, this finding is presented in an appendix table but isn’t discussed in the body of Allen’s paper.One of the most intriguing aspects about the expert social science witnesses in the Michigan trial is that, upon closer inspection, witnesses for both the plaintiffs and the defense substantially agreed about the research on same-sex couple parenting. Allen’s analyses of education outcomes using Canadian Census data mirrored the findings of plaintiffs’ witness Rosenfeld. The sample of respondents who reported a parent who had a same-sex sexual relationship in Regnerus’s study shared many of the same demographic traits that I have observed in my own work studying children being raised by same-sex couples, particularly with regard to economic disadvantage. The real disagreements between the plaintiffs’ and defense witnesses largely revolved around what conclusions can be drawn from particular methodological approaches and the degree to which any contradictory findings should be a factor in determining whether same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. Upon closer inspection, witnesses for both the plaintiffs and the defense [in the Michigan trial] substantially agreed about the research on same-sex couple parenting.In the end, Judge Friedman, a Reagan appointee to the federal judiciary, issued a strongly worded opinion in favor of the plaintiffs’ right to marry.55 His opinion was later overturned by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, but upheld by the Supreme Court. In his ruling, Freidman dismissed arguments suggesting that the limitations

78 THE FUTURE OF CHILDRENof social science research with regard to same-sex couple parents were sufficient to cause concern about how allowing same-sex couples to marry would affect children and families. Though Friedman’s judicial ruling hardly settles the debates among social scientists about LGBT and same-sex couple parenting, it has affected legal cases that followed. Judge Posner’s words that I cited earlier demonstrate that lawyers defending Indiana’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples effectively conceded that same-sex couples make entirely suitable parents. Since the Michigan ruling, it has become very rare for those opposed to allowing same-sex couples to marry to base their arguments partly on questions about the suitability of same-sex couples as parents or on possible negative consequences for children’s health and wellbeing.Married Same-Sex CouplesSubstantial evidence shows that marriage promotes stability in couples and families.56 Stability, and the financial and social benefits that come with it, contribute to better outcomes for children raised by married parents. The widespread acceptance of marriage for same-sex couples comes at a time when more of them are pursuing parenting as a couple through adoption and reproductive technologies and fewer are raising children from prior different-sex relationships. Will marriage have the stabilizing effect on same-sex couples and their families that we’ve seen in different-sex couples? Evidence suggests that it might, since lesbians and gay men have a strong desire to be married and have views about the purpose of marriage that are similar to those of the general population.Desire for MarriageIn two recent studies, the Pew Research Center has found that 56 percent of unmarried gay men and 58 percent of unmarried lesbians would like to be married someday, compared to 45 percent of unmarried bisexuals and 46 percent of the unmarried general population.57 The views of bisexuals and the general population may be similar because the vast majority of coupled bisexual men and women report having different-sex spouses or partners. At the time of the Pew survey, neither marriage nor recognition of a legal relationship through civil union or domestic partnership was yet widely available for same-sex couples in the United States. So it isn’t surprising that lesbians and gay men were less likely to be married or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership when compared to bisexuals or the general population. When current marital status was taken into account, approximately 60 percent of LGBT adults in the Pew survey were currently married or said they would like to be married someday, compared to 76 percent of the general population.Relationship FormationWhile desire for marriage may be relatively high among lesbians and gay men, there are differences between the groups, and between LGB individuals and heterosexuals, in patterns of forming relationships. Among LGB men and women, lesbians are the most likely to be in cohabiting relationships, usually at rates very similar to those of non-LGB women. Overall, LGB individuals are less likely than non-LGB individuals to be in a married or unmarried cohabiting relationship. My analyses of the 2013 NHIS show that roughly six in 10 non-LGB adults are living with a partner or spouse, compared to about four in 10 LGB individuals. However, the likelihood of having a cohabiting spouse or partner is markedly higher among lesbians, at 51 percent, than among gay men or bisexual

VOL. 25 / NO. 2 / FALL 2015 79men and women, about one in three of whom are coupled. The difference between lesbians and non-LGB women (58 percent) in the NHIS was not statistically significant.58 In an older paper, Christopher Carpenter and I also found that cohabiting partnerships were more common among lesbians than among gay men (though the data were from California only) and that lesbians’ levels of cohabitation were comparable to those found in heterosexual women.59 LGBT respondents were no different from the general population in their belief that love, companionship, and making a lifelong commitment were the three most important reasons for a couple to marry.Findings from a Pew Research Center survey of LGBT adults showed that, consistent with the NHIS analyses, 37 percent of LGBT adults were cohabiting with a spouse or partner. The Pew findings also showed that lesbians were more likely than gay men to have a spouse or partner (40 percent versus 28 percent, respectively). Unlike the NHIS findings, bisexual women were the most likely among LGB men and women to have a spouse or partner at 51 percent, compared to 30 percent of bisexual men. Among the general population, Pew found that 58 percent of adults were cohabiting with a spouse or partner. Regardless of cohabitation, 40 percent of gay men were in a committed relationship, compared to 66 percent of lesbians. Among bisexual men and women, the figures were 40 percent and 68 percent, respectively. In the general population, Pew estimates that about 70 percent were in committed relationships.60 As we’ve seen, lesbians and gay men appear to be partnering at higher rates today than in the past. In analyses of the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey, a population-based survey of adults focused on sexual attitudes and behaviors, 19 percent of men who identified as gay and 42 percent of women who identified as lesbian reported being in a cohabiting partnership.61 This suggests that gay men are nearly twice as likely to partner today as they were in the early 1990s. It also confirms that the pattern of higher levels of coupling among lesbians when compared to gay men has persisted over time.Reasons to MarryThe Pew survey also considered the reasons that people marry. LGBT respondents were no different from the general population in their belief that love, companionship, and making a lifelong commitment were the three most important reasons for a couple to marry. The only substantial difference between LGBT respondents and the general population in this regard was that LGBT people gave more weight to legal rights and benefits as a reason to marry than did the general population.62 This difference may not be surprising given the substantial media attention focused on the legal rights and benefits that were not available to same-sex couples in places where they could not marry.The findings also suggested that lesbians and gay men were largely responsible for the fact that rights and benefits were ranked higher among LGBT respondents; lesbians and gay men ranked rights and benefits,

80 THE FUTURE OF CHILDRENas well as financial stability, as much more important than bisexuals did (bisexuals were similar to the general population in this regard, and this portion of the analyses didn’t separately consider transgender respondents).63 Recall that the Pew findings show that most coupled bisexuals are with different-sex partners, while coupled lesbians and gay men are with same-sex partners. Given their more limited access to marriage, rights, benefits, and financial stability might be more important for lesbians and gay men. Social ImpactWhen social scientists examine the issue of marriage rights for same-sex couples, they do so largely through the medium of parenting and family studies. Broader public discourse and debate often involves more philosophical (rather than empirical) arguments about marriage as a social and legal institution and the degree to which allowing same-sex couples to marry reflects a fundamental or undesirable change to that institution (a book that pits philosopher John Corvino against political activist Maggie Gallagher, Debating Same-Sex Marriage, provides an example of these arguments).64 However, social scientists certainly have led the way in tracking contemporary changes in patterns of family formation and marriage. Sociologist Andrew Cherlin, for example, has documented many of these changes, including: increases in the age of first marriage; diverging patterns of both marriage and divorce by education, such that those with lower levels of education are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce when compared to those with higher educational attainment; increases in nonmarital births and cohabitation; and increases in the number of children living in families not headed by their married biological mothers and fathers.65 Some public debate has emerged regarding the degree to which these social changes are related to allowing same-sex couples to marry. Political commentator Stanley Kurtz argues that marriage for same-sex couples in Europe has contributed to and hastened the institutional decline in marriage, to the detriment of families and children.66 Journalist Jonathan Rauch disagrees, arguing that allowing same-sex couples to marry will enhance the prestige of the institution and reinvigorate it during a period of decline.67The empirical evidence for a link between the emergence of marriage rights for same-sex couples and broader marriage, divorce, and fertility trends is weak. Economist Lee Badgett has shown that trends in different-sex marriage, divorce, and nonmarital birth rates did not change in European countries after they legalized marriage for same-sex couples.68 Another study, using data from the United States, found that allowing same-sex couples to marry or enter civil unions produced no significant impact on state-level marriage, divorce, abortion, and out-of-wedlock births.69 In the Netherlands, where marriage for same-sex couples has been legal for more than a decade, neither the country’s domestic partnership law nor the legalization of same-sex marriage appears to have affected different-sex marriage rates. Curiously, however, there appear to be different effects among liberals and conservatives: the introduction of same-sex marriage was associated with higher marriage rates among conservatives and lower rates among liberals.70 Conclusions: New Opportunities for Family ResearchThe demographic and attitudinal data that I’ve summarized suggest that same-sex and different-sex couples may not look as

VOL. 25 / NO. 2 / FALL 2015 81different in the future as they do today. Already they have similar perspectives on the desire for and purpose of marriage, and increasing numbers of same-sex couples are marrying and having their children as a married couple. Even under the challenging circumstances of social and legal inequality between same-sex and different-sex couples, it’s clear that same-sex couples are as good at parenting as their different-sex counterparts, and their children turn out fine. Lesbian and gay parents report outcomes similar to those of their heterosexual counterparts with regard to mental health, stress, and parental competence. Same-sex and different-sex parents show similar levels of parental warmth, emotional involvement, and quality of relationships with their children. So, not surprisingly, few differences have been found between children raised by same-sex and different-sex parents in terms of self-esteem, quality of life, psychological adjustment, or social functioning.71 As the legal and social playing fields become more equal for same-sex and different-sex couples, we have the opportunity to consider new research questions that can contribute to debates about whether and how parental relationship dynamics affect child wellbeing. For example, while society has changed in its views about LGBT people and their families, it has also changed in its attitudes about gender and the norms associated with how men and women organize their relationships and families. In 1977, more than half of Americans thought that having a mother who works outside the home could be harmful to children. In 2012, only 28 percent of Americans thought so.72 Changing social norms concerning gender and parenting likely play a role in explaining the decisions that couples make about how to divide time between work and family. Since those decisions can affect family finances and involvement in parenting, research has considered the effects that family division of labor can have on child wellbeing.73 Same-sex couples raising children give us the opportunity to assess how parents divide labor in the absence of gender differences between spouses or partners. However, comparisons between same-sex and different-sex couples are more complicated when same-sex couples don’t have access to marriage. Decisions about employment and division of labor among same-sex couples could be directly associated with their inability to marry if, for example, their access to health insurance for each other or their children were contingent on both partners working, because spousal benefits would not be available. But there is also evidence that same-sex couples intentionally favor more egalitarian divisions of labor precisely as a rejection of traditional male/female roles in parenting.74With equal access to marriage among same-sex and different-sex couples and trends toward greater intentional parenting among same-sex couples (as opposed to raising children from prior relationships), the two groups now look more similar in many ways, except, of course, in the couple’s gender composition. These are the right conditions for a kind of “treatment” and “control” approach to studying the two groups (or perhaps three, if you think that male and female same-sex couples might behave differently based on gendered behavioral norms) and isolating the influence of gender roles in decisions about how much and which parents work outside the home, how much they interact with their children, and, ultimately, whether any of those decisions affect children’s wellbeing. There’s already

82 THE FUTURE OF CHILDRENsome evidence that children raised by same-sex couples may show fewer gender-stereotyped behaviors and be more willing to consider same-sex sexual relationships (though there is still no evidence that they are more likely than other children to identify as LGB).75The award-winning television program Transparent highlights the increasing visibility of parenting among transgender individuals, a relatively understudied subject. In a survey of more than 6,000 transgender individuals in the United States, nearly four in 10 (38 percent) reported having been a parent at some time in their lives.76 Existing research offers no evidence that children of transgender parents experience developmental disparities or differ from other children with regard to their gender identity or development of sexual orientation. As with LGB people, several studies have shown that people who transition or “come out” as transgender later in life are more likely to have had children than those who identify as transgender and/or transition at younger ages. This suggests that many transgender parents likely had their children before they identified as transgender or transitioned.77 Just like comparing same-sex and different-sex parents, studying transgender parents offers another fascinating opportunity to better understand the relationship between gender and parenting. Transgender parenting research could consider whether the dynamics of parent/child relationships change when a parent transitions from one gender to another. In essence, this would give us another “treatment” and “control” group to explore parent-child relationships when the same parent is perceived as and perhaps conforms behaviors to one gender versus when that parent presents and parents as another gender.While arguments about what drives trends and changes in marriage and family life may continue, it appears that, with the Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, heated debates about the subject may be drawing to a close, at least in the United States. Polling data suggest that a substantial majority of Americans now support allowing same-sex couples to marry and raise children. For decades, scholarship regarding LGBT and same-sex couple parenting has occurred in a contentious political and social environment that invited unusual scrutiny. For example, publication of the Regnerus study in 2012 prompted unprecedented responses from scholars who both criticized and supported it.78 LGBT advocates actually initiated legal action amid charges of academic malfeasance and fraud.79 This article highlights how research on LGBT and same-sex couple parenting can not only advance our understanding of the challenges associated with parenting in the face of stigma and discrimination, but also contribute more broadly to family scholarship. While robust political and social debates can be critical in allowing social and political institutions to progress and advance, they can make it hard to advance scholarly goals of objectivity and academic freedom. Let us hope that as the debates about LGBT rights and marriage for same-sex couples cool, scholars can work in a less volatile political and social environment and advance much-needed research that includes and explores parenting and family formation among same-sex couples and the LGBT population.

VOL. 25 / NO. 2 / FALL 2015 83ENDNOTES 1. Figures based on author’s analyses of General Social Survey data using the University of California, Berkeley’s Survey Documentation and Analysis web-based analysis tool (http://sda.berkeley.edu/index.html). 2. Justin McCarthy, “Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage,” Gallup, May 20, 2015, http://www.gallup.com/poll/183272/record-high-americans-support-sex-marriage.aspx?utm_source=Social%20Issues&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles. 3. Art Swift, “Most Americans Say Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Adopt,” Gallup, accessed May 20, 2015, http://www.gallup.com/poll/170801/americans-say-sex-couples-entitled-adopt.aspx. 4. Windsor v. United States 570 US ___(2013). 5. Freedom to Marry, “History and Timeline of the Freedom to Marry in the United States,” accessed October 10, 2014, http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/history-and-timeline-of-marriage. 6. For a current list of the legal relationship status for same-sex couples around the world, see Freedom to Marry, “The Freedom to Marry Internationally,” accessed October 10, 2014, http://www.freedomtomarry.org/landscape/entry/c/international. 7. For a current summary of laws regarding homosexuality and gender identity around the world, see the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association website, http://ilga.org/. 8. Ilan H. Meyer, “Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence,” Psychological Bulletin 129 (2003): 674–97, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674. 9. Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, American Couples: Money, Work, Sex (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1983). 10. Dan Black et al., “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources,” Demography 37 (2000): 139–54. 11. Michael Rosenfeld, “Couple Longevity in the Era of Same-Sex Marriage in the United States,” Journal of Marriage and Family 76 (2014): 905–18, doi: 10.1111/jomf.12141; M. V. Lee Badgett and Christy Mallory, Patterns of Relationship Recognition for Same-Sex Couples: Divorce and Terminations (Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2014), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Badgett-Mallory-Divorce-Terminations-Dec-2014.pdf 12. Gary J. Gates and Frank Newport, “An Estimated 780,000 Americans in Same-Sex Marriages,” Gallup, accessed May 20, 2015, http://www.gallup.com/poll/182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex-marriages.aspx. 13. Gary J. Gates, LGBT Parenting in the United States (Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2013), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf. 14. Ibid. 15. William N. Eskridge and Darren R. Spedale, Gay Marriage: For Better or for Worse? What We’ve Learned from the Evidence (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). 16. Baker v. Nelson. 291 Minn. 310 (1971). 17. Baker v. Nelson. 409 US 810 (1972). 18. Baskin v. Bogan, 7th Cir. No. 14-2386, 2014 WL 4359059 (2014). 19. Gary J. Gates, LGBT Demographics: Comparisons among Population-Based Surveys (Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2014), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/lgbt-demogs-sep-2014.pdf.

84 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN 20. Gary J. Gates, How Many People Are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender? (Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2011), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf. 21. Gary J. Gates and Frank Newport, “Special Report: 3.4% of US Adults Identify as LGBT,” October 18, 2012, http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx. 22. Edward O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). 23. Anjani Chandra et al., “Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth,” National Health Statistics Reports no. 36 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2011). 24. Dan Black et al., “The Measurement of Same-Sex Unmarried Partner Couples in the 2000 US Census,” Working Paper 023-07 (Los Angeles, CA: California Center for Population Research, 2007), http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-CCPR-2007-023/PWP-CCPR-2007-023.pdf; Gary J. Gates and Michael D. Steinberger, “Same-Sex Unmarried Partner Couples in the American Community Survey: The Role of Misreporting, Miscoding and Misallocation” paper presented at the Population Association of America Annual Meeting, Detroit, MI, 2009, http://economics-files.pomona.edu/steinberger/research/Gates_Steinberger_ACS_Miscode_May2010.pdf; Martin O’Connell and Sarah Feliz, “Same-Sex Couple Household Statistics from the 2010 Census,” Working Paper Number 2011-26 (Washington, DC: Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division, US Bureau of the Census, 2011), http://www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/ss-report.doc. 25. O’Connell and Feliz, “Same-Sex.” 26. Gary J. Gates, LGB Families and Relationships: Analyses of the 2013 National Health Interview Survey (Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2014), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/lgb-families-nhis-sep-2014.pdf. 27. Gates and Newport, “780,000 Americans.” 28. D’Vera Cohn, “Census Confirms More Data Problems in Sorting out the Number of US Gay Marriages” Fact Tank, September 22, 2014, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/22/census-confirms-more-data-problems-in-sorting-out-the-number-of-u-s-gay-marriages/. 29. Gates, LGB Families. 30. Gates and Newport, “780,000 Americans.” 31. Ibid. 32. Gates, LGBT Parenting. 33. Ibid. 34. Gates, LGBT Demographics: Comparisons. 35. Gates, LGBT Parenting; Gary J. Gates, “Family Formation and Raising Children among Same-Sex Couples,” NCFR Report (Winter 2011), F1–4, http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-Badgett-NCFR-LGBT-Families-December-2011.pdf. 36. Gates, “Family Formation.” 37. Elizabeth M. Saewyc, “Research on Adolescent Sexual Orientation: Development, Health Disparities, Stigma, and Resilience,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 21: 256–72 (2011), doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00727.x. 38. Gary J. Gates, Same-Sex and Different-Sex Couples in the American Community Survey: 2005–2011 (Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2013), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/ACS-2013.pdf.

VOL. 25 / NO. 2 / FALL 2015 85 39. M. V. Lee Badgett et al., New Patterns of Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community (Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2013), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGB-Poverty-Update-Jun-2013.pdf. 40. Black et al., “Demographics”; Lisa K. Jepsen and Christopher Jepsen, “An Empirical Analysis of the Matching Patterns of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Couples,” Demography 39 (2002): 435–53; Gary J. Gates and Jason Ost, The Gay and Lesbian Atlas (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 2004); Gates, American Community Survey; Gates, LGBT Families. 41. Author’s analyses of 2012 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample. 42. Gates, “Family Formation”; Gates, American Community Survey. 43. Pew Research Center, A Survey of LGBT Americans: Attitudes, Experiences and Values in Changing Times (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2013), http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/06/SDT_LGBT-Americans_06-2013.pdf. 44. Gates, LGB Families. 45. Jerry J. Bigner and Frederick W. Bozett, “Parenting by Gay Fathers,” Marriage & Family Review 14, nos. 3-4 (1989): 155–75, doi: 10.1300/J002v14n03_08. 46. Loren Marks, “Same-Sex Parenting and Children’s Outcomes: A Closer Examination of the American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting,” Social Science Research 41: 735–51 (2012), doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.006; American Sociological Association, “Brief of Amicus Curiae American Sociological Association in Support of Respondent Kristin M. Perry and Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, Hollingsworth v. Perry, Windsor v. United States,” Supreme Court of the United States of America 12-144, 12-307 (2013), http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20(C_%20Gottlieb)_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf. 47. American Psychological Association, Lesbian and Gay Parenting (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2005), http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf. 48. Studies cited by the ASA include: Daniel Potter, “Same-Sex Parent Families and Children’s Academic Achievement,” Journal of Marriage & Family 74 (2012): 556–71, doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00966.x; Alicia L. Fedewa and Theresa P. Clark, “Parent Practices and Home-School Partnerships: A Differential Effect for Children with Same-Sex Coupled Parents?” Journal of GLBT Family Studies 5 (2009): 312–39, doi: 10.1080/15504280903263736; Michael J. Rosenfeld, “Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School,” Demography 47 (2010): 755–75; Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen S. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson, “Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents,” Child Development, 75 (2004): 1886–98, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00823.x; Jennifer L. Wainright and Charlotte J. Patterson, “Peer Relations among Adolescents with Female Same-Sex Parents,” Developmental Psychology 44 (2008): 117–26, doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.117; Charlotte J. Patterson and Jennifer L. Wainright, “Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health,” in Adoption by Lesbians and Gay Men: A New Dimension in Family Diversity, ed. David M. Brodzinsky and Adam Pertman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 85–111; Jennifer L. Wainright and Charlotte J. Patterson, “Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use among Adolescents with Female Same-Sex Parents,” Journal of Family Psychology 20 (2006): 526–30, doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.526. 49. Mark Regnerus, “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research 41 (2012): 752–70, doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.009.

86 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN 50. Douglas W. Allen, Catherine Pakaluk, and Joseph Price, “Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld,” Demography 50: 955–61 (2013), doi: 10.1007/s13524-012-0169-x. 51. Douglas Allen, “High School Graduation Rates among Children of Same-Sex Households,” Review of Economics of the Household 11: 635–58 (2013), doi: 10.1007/s11150-013-9220-y. 52. Paula Fomby and Andrew Cherlin, “Family Instability and Child Well-Being,” American Sociological Review 72: 181–204 (2007), doi: 10.1177/000312240707200203; Cynthia Osborne and Sara McLanahan, “Partnership Instability and Child Well-Being,” Journal of Marriage and Family 69: 1065–83, (2007), doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00431.x. 53. Gary J. Gates et al., “Letter to the Editors and Advisory Editors of Social Science Research,” Social Science Research 41 (2012), doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.08.008: 1350–51; American Sociological Association, “Brief”; Andrew J. Perrin, Philip N. Cohen, and Neal Caren, “Are Children of Parents Who Had Same-Sex Relationships Disadvantaged? A Scientific Evaluation of the No-Differences Hypothesis,” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health 17: 327–36 (2013), doi: 10.1080/19359705.2013.772553. 54. Simon Cheng and Brian Powell, “Measurement, Methods, and Divergent Patterns: Reassessing the Effects of Same-Sex Parents,” Social Science Research 52 (2015): 615–26, doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.04.005 55. Bernard A. Friedman, “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” Deboer v. Snyder, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, 12-CV-10285, 2014, https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/PDFFIles/12-10285DeBoerFindings.pdf. 56. Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (New York: Broadway Books, 2001). 57. Pew Research Center, Survey of LGBT Americans; Pew Research Center, The Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2010), http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/11/pew-social-trends-2010-families.pdf. 58. Gates, LGB Families. 59. Christopher Carpenter and Gary J. Gates, “Gay and Lesbian Partnership: Evidence from California,” Demography 45 (2008): 573–90, doi: 10.1353/dem.0.0014. 60. Pew Research Center, Survey of LGBT Americans. 61. Black et al., “Demographics.” 62. Pew Research Center, Survey of LGBT Americans. 63. Ibid. 64. Jon Corvino and Maggie Gallagher, Debating Same-Sex Marriage (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). 65. Andrew J. Cherlin, “Demographic Trends in the United States: A Review of Research in the 2000s,” Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (2010): 403–19, 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00710.x. 66. Stanley Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: The ‘Conservative Case’ for Same-Sex Marriage Collapses,” The Weekly Standard, February 2, 2004, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp. 67. Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, (New York: Times Books, 2004).

VOL. 25 / NO. 2 / FALL 2015 87 68. M. V. Lee Badgett, “Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage?” Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 (2004): 1–10, doi: 10.1525/srsp.2004.1.3.1. 69. Laura Langbein and Mark L. Yost, “Same-Sex Marriage and Negative Externalities,” Social Science Quarterly 90 (2009): 292–308, 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00618.x. 70. Mircea Trandafir, “The Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Different-Sex Marriage: Evidence From the Netherlands,” Demography 51 (2013): 317–40, doi: 10.1007/s13524-013-0248-7. 71. Abbie E. Goldberg, Nanette K. Gartrell, and Gary J. Gates, Research Report on LGB-Parent Families (Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2014), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/lgb-parent-families-july-2014.pdf. 72. Author’s analyses of the General Social Survey. Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that having a mother working does not harm children. The figures reported represent the portion who disagreed with that statement. 73. Suzanne M. Bianchi et al., “Housework: Who Did, Does, or Will Do It, and How Much Does It Matter?” Social Forces 91 (2012): 55–63, doi: 10.1093/sf/sos120. 74. Abbie E. Goldberg. “‘Doing’ and ‘Undoing’ Gender: The Meaning and Division of Housework in Same-Sex Couples,” Journal of Family Theory & Review 5 (2013): 85–104, doi: 10.1111/jftr.12009. 75. Goldberg, Gartrell, and Gates, Research Report. 76. Jaime M. Grant et al., Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2011), http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf. 77. Rebecca L. Stotzer, Jody L. Herman, and Amira Hasenbush, Transgender Parenting: A Review of Existing Research (Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2014), http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/parenting/transgender-parenting-oct-2014/. 78. Gates et al., “Letter”; Byron Johnson et al. “Letter to the Editor,” Social Science Research 41 (2012): 1352–53, doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.08.009. 79. Human Rights Campaign, “Judge Overturns Order to Disclose Documents Detailing Publication of Regnerus’ Junk Science,” news release, April 17, 2014, http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/judge-overturns-order-to-disclose-documents-detailing-publication-of-regner.

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.