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) i

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.