Bilingual Education

Bilingual Education Language Learners

Last Updated Oct 5, 2008 03:47 PM

As stakeholders in the education of Texas students, we offer the following data as
crucial to the equitable funding of bilingual programs, the training of bilingual teachers, and the
monitoring of bilingual programs to ensure federal and state compliance and research-based
practices in these same programs.

The total student enrollment in Texas for 2003-04 is 4,328,028. Of those students,
660,707 are identified as limited English proficient (LEP), 15.3 percent of the total student
enrollment. Ninety-one percent of the identified LEP population speaks Spanish in the home
(National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction
Educational Programs, 2003).

From 1989 to 1990 when the identified LEP student enrollment represented 9 percent of
the total student enrollment in Texas, the total student enrollment in Texas had grown at a rate
of 25.6 percent while the LEP student enrollment had more than doubled (113.2 percent) during
the same period. In 1981, when the bilingual education legislation was enacted, the Texas LEP
enrollment totaled approximately 25,000 students. Twenty-four years later, the LEP count
numbers approximately 660,000 pupils (Texas Education Agency LEP Student Census 1980-
2003).

In the current school year, a total of 40,676 who were identified as LEP students were
not enrolled in a bilingual/ESL program under exceptions, in large part because of the
persistent shortage of certified bilingual and ESL teachers (Texas Education Agency 2003-
2004). With Texas Hispanic population among the fastest growing populations in the Texas, it is
projected that the Texas LEP population will approach 1 million pupils by 2010, or approximately
31 percent of projected enrollment growth (IDRA, 2004).
The strongest predictor of English language learners (or LEP student achievement in
English) is the amount of formal native language schooling provided to those pupils.

The more
native language grade-level schooling, the higher the English language achievement (Collier
and Thomas, 2004). Bilingually-schooled students outperform students taught in one language
in academic achievement in all subjects, after four to seven years of bilingual schooling (Texas
Education Agency: Texas Successful Schools Study: Quality Education for Limited English
Proficient Students [TEA] 2000).

English language learners whose parents refuse bilingual/ESL services show large
decreases in reading and math achievement by grade five. Cross-sectional findings indicate that
the largest number of dropouts come from this group. The cumulative cost (forgone income, lost
tax revenues, and increased job training, welfare, unemployment and criminal justice costs) of
dropouts in Texas between 1985 and 2003 was nearly $500 billion (Texas Education Policy
Digest Series; IDRA Newsletter, October 2003).

Current state education policy in Texas notes that, “English is the basic language of this
state.” Public schools are responsible for providing a full opportunity for all students to become
competent in speaking, reading, writing, and comprehending the English language. Large
numbers of students in the state come from environments in which the primary language is
other than English. Experience has shown that public school classes in which instruction
is given only in English is often inadequate for the education of those students.

Given
that the mastery of basic English language skills is a prerequisite for effective participation in the
state’s educational program, bilingual education and special language programs are necessary
for those students. This facilitates their integration into the regular school curriculum (Texas
Education Code, Section 29.051).
Based on research and recognized best practices, we the coalition in support of bilingual
education, have adopted the following unified positions.

Funding Equity
The bilingual education coalition will support:
 Funding weights for special populations and will oppose block grant funding for these
groups.
 Separate funding weights for bilingual education and compensatory education based on
different student characteristics.
 A bilingual and ESL weight of no less than 0.25 of the adjusted basic allotment.
 Limiting allowable administrative costs to no more than 15 percent of bilingual education and
compensatory education allocations (TEC Section 42/153).
 Provisions that strengthen requirements that funding generated by bilingual and ESL pupils
shall be used only to provide services to those LEP students served in bilingual education
and ESL programs.

Evidence and Rationale
Under-funding of the program at the state level passes on costs to local school districts,
which contributes to increases in local property taxes.
Studies dating back to the 1970s estimated that add-on costs for bilingual education
were approximately 22 percent to 25 percent of regular program costs (Bilingual Education Cost
Analysis, IDRA, 1976).

Studies conducted in the 1980s in Texas estimated that total bilingual education add-on
costs were 40 percent of regular program expenses (Texas School Finance Coalition, 1984).
Some states provide substantially more funding than Texas, with some providing up to a
weight of 0.50 per pupil (“State School Funding Policies and Limited-English-Proficient
Students,” Bilingual Research Journal, 26:3 fall 2002).
Funds from special allotments for bilingual education and ESL are invariably used to
enhance total campus program offerings and are not used to directly impact training of teachers,
quality of instruction, and materials support in program offerings for the LEP population (Texas
State Auditor Report on Bilingual Education, March 2002).

Monitoring Bilingual Program Implementation and
Compliance with State Requirements
The bilingual education coalition will support:
 Expanding TEA on-site monitoring of bilingual education programs on a three-year cycle
consistent with the requirements of U.S. v. Texas: Civil Action 5281.
 Monitoring of bilingual education programs conducted by qualified evaluators and other
personnel knowledgeable in bilingual education/ESL programs.
 Limiting bilingual exceptions and waivers granted by TEA and SBEC in districts that
continue to hire non-fully certified personnel to two years.


 Returning to an associate commissioner for bilingual/ESL education by creating a
department at TEA with ample resources to carry out the bilingual and ESL mandates found
in state and federal policy.
Evidence and Rationale
Ineffective oversight efforts have perpetuated serious non-compliance by many Texas
school districts.

This non-compliance has resulted in a failure to address the linguistic and
academic needs of English language learners, particularly the LEP student population in grades
pre-K to two with effective bilingual education and ESL programs, thereby reducing the
opportunities for closing the achievement gap (An audit report on the Texas Education Agency’s
Monitoring of School Districts Regarding Bilingual Education, Texas State Auditors office, March
2002).
Although TEA conducted more than 1,000 on-site reviews during the 2001-02 school
year, agency data show that it did not monitor bilingual education every three years as required
by the Texas Education Code (Texas State Auditor, March 2002). In fact, the report notes that
TEA conducted almost all of its on-site visits during the summer when few students were
present.

Monitoring for compliance of bilingual education and ESL programs is done by a group
of educators and administrators who participate in the Texas School Improvement Initiative
(TSII), the District Effective and Compliance (DEC) and accreditation visits. Invariably, the
“monitors” are individuals of limited Spanish proficiency who participate in one week of training
initially and an additional week of training each year. Reports of non-compliance when districts
are to be cited usually are delayed beyond the 30-day turnaround requirement found in both the
statute and U.S. vs. Texas: Civil Action 5281.
Assessment instruments are not aligned to instruction and are not linguistically
appropriate.

Bilingual exceptions to the required bilingual education program continue to be
numerous, repetitive and procedurally approved each year by TEA. TEA has failed to carry out
the accountability provisions presently found in TEC Chapter 29.054
Bilingual education is unique because it is a microcosm of all major education issues
including assessment, curriculum, textbooks, research, evaluation, finance and accountability.
Teaching Quality, Bilingual Teacher Recruitment,
Preparation and Retention
The bilingual education coalition will support:
 Improving the quality of teachers in bilingual education programs by recruiting, retaining and
re-integrating certified bilingual teachers and providing increased funding and training at
universities.

 Implementing a statewide campaign to encourage more students to enter teacher
preparation programs in bilingual education.
 Providing funding for universities, community colleges and education service centers to
collaborate in recruiting prospective bilingual education teachers.
 Adopting a loan forgiveness program for teachers trained and employed in bilingual
education.

 Increasing base salary for teachers in bilingual education and ESL.

 Providing funding for certified teachers who have left bilingual education to return to the
classroom as teachers of LEP children.
 Providing incentives and professional support to encourage retention of certified teachers in
bilingual education.

 Supporting SBEC efforts to improve the teaching of bilingual education as a part of
continuing professional development for teachers.
Evidence and Rationale
School districts continue to assign poor quality teachers and permanent substitutes to
work with the LEP population. The practice of using permanent substitutes is used by school
districts to circumvent TEA and SBEC requirements. This practice is usually in the lower grades
where the highest number of LEP students are enrolled.
Studies have documented that identification and successful recruitment of bilingual and
ESL certified teachers have been a pervasive problem in school districts throughout Texas and
continue to be critical shortage areas (State Board for Educator Certification, 2002).

Researchers have determined that at least one of three, or approximately 30 percent, of
new teachers hired to work in bilingual or ESL classrooms are not certified to teach in those
areas. The highest incidence of non-certified teachers occurs in the elementary level (Texas
A&M University New Teachers Study, 2002).
Demographic and enrollment trend data indicate that LEP pupils will become an
increasing proportion of the Texas student population, thereby expanding the need for more
teachers prepared to work in bilingual education and ESL classes (Steve Murdock, Texas
Population Center, 2002; Texas Education Agency, 2002).
The bilingual education coalition reserves the right to include additional items to this
position statement.

See also Bilingual Education 357 1 - 20