Reflection # 4

The Texas Education Agency provides the English language proficiency standards and student expectations for English language learners (ELLs) and requires School districts to implement this as an integral part of each subject and is also to be linked along with the Texas Essentials Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for each subject. This means that the TEA provides the frame work and legal requirement to implement the program by all school district. The TEA policies also provide for effective instruction in second language giving Ells the opportunity to develop all aspects of a language such as listen, speak, read and write at current levels of development that would gradually lead to linguistic complexity.  

The TEA clearly defines the expectations through the TEKS; stating that “It is the policy of the state that every student in the state who has a home language other than English and who is identified as limited English proficient shall be provided a full opportunity to participate in a bilingual education or English as a second language program, as required in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 29, Subchapter B”. With this policy the TEA requires all school districts to:

·         Identify limited English proficient students based on criteria established by the state,

·         Provide bilingual education and English as a second language program as provided in the Texas Education Code 4.002’

·         Provide certified teaching personnel, so that students with limited English proficiency have full opportunity to master the essential skills and knowledge ,

·         Finally schools should be able to assess achievement for essential shills and knowledge in accordance with the Texas Education Code 39.

I do see that the TEA has provided a very comprehensive framework or guidelines to implement an effective language program for limited English language learners, the effect of the legal provision or policy could be nullified if the schools don’t implement the program understanding the need and the spirit behind helping students with limited English language proficiency.

It is also interesting to note that there is a partnership program between the TEA and the Ministry of Education of Spain to provide Spanish resource centers with American Universities, visiting teaching programs and development of other education programs that involves American students and teachers to promote teaching Spanish as a second language and culture.

The requirement of 89.1205 requires a bilingual program to be offered only if the enrollment of limited English proficient students is 20 or more, so my concern is what happens if there are only 15 students, could the school deny language support if it wishes do to so?

I believe that the number of students should not be limited to 20; all schools should be required to implement a program for students with limited English proficiency as the academic progress of the student will greatly be influenced by the language skills.

Title I (NCLB 2001, ARRA 2009)

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 aimed at improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged so as to ensure all children have a fair, equal opportunity to obtain high quality education by which they achieve minimum proficiency on state academic achievement standards and academic assessments.

The major components of Title I  are:

Title I : Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged

Title I, Part A : Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational agencies

Title I School Improvement Program : Title I School Improvement Program

Title I, Part B, Subpart 1 : Reading First

Title I, Part B, Subpart 3 : William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Program

Title I, Part C : Education of Migratory Children

Title I, Part D : Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are

Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk

Title I, Part F : Comprehensive School Reform

The goal  of Title I, Part A ARRA funds was to stimulate the short term economy and to invest in education to improve results for low achieving students. With these goal the ARRA funds were required to be spend quickly to save and create jobs, improve student achievement through progress toward rigorous college and career ready standards and high quality assessments. The funds are also available for improving teacher and school leader effectiveness, providing intensive support and effective interventions for the lowest achieving  schools. The program also required establishing data systems that track progress and foster continuous improvement.

The NCLB Act of 2001 aimed at  prioritizing education with an attempt to give equal educational opportunities to all ,closing the achievement gap with stronger accountability, flexibility(more freedom for states and communities, proven education methods and more choice( for parents), so that no child is left behind

It is heartening to note that the financial support is there through the ARRA 2009 and NCLB 2001, the extra funding is there for bridging the academic gaps by providing the required supplemental educational support in reading, math or any  subjects. There has always been this debate about the inequality in educational funding, these Acts provide for those gaps  and does bridge the cost to ensure all children have a fair, equal opportunity to obtain high quality education by which they achieve minimum proficiency on state academic achievement standards and academic assessments.

As of May 14,2010 approximately  $ 84 billion has been awarded through the Recovery Act and the state of Texas has $ 948 M in the Title I, Part A Stimulus funding, with all these provisions I feel it is the responsibility of the schools to plan and take advantage of these funds, by implementing programs, providing services, investing in technology so as to enhance the quality of education in particular for  the economically disadvantaged.

Reflection # 2

Reflection # 2

Education as perceived in the earlier days was focused mainly on providing knowledge, the rote way, in the core academic subjects, and strict discipline was used to keep the children focused(Katz,1972), does this approach work even today is being debated by all in the field of education.

There is research based evidence that a mismatch exists between what the schools provide and the need; due to changes in cultural, social and linguistic diversity, and this is evident from the performance of students as compared to the academic and behavioral expectations. Is education keeping pace with the constantly changing society that is being heterogeneous, this is bound to happen and it should not be a matter of surprise to educators; because the environment that students are growing up is constantly changing.

The order of the day is split families, single parents, technology, prevalence of sex, drugs, violence and countless other factors contribute to the changing face of today's youth. Ingersoll and Leboeuf (1997) concluded that high quality, alternative programs provided by professional staff can decrease truancy  and act as deterrents to poor behavior, minimize suspensions, expulsions and will be able to enhance higher academic success.

The desire to provide alternative education programs in the United States began as early as 1925 by exploring different approaches to  providing education to high risk students, some who had even dropped out of school. Over time, there has been a significant increase in the number of alternative schools; such as charter , court, detention and magnet schools.

Fitzsimons Hughes and her colleagues (2006) provide three different types of settings that serves a specific population of children and youth. Type 1 Serves mainly gifted or advances students who have engaged in substance abuse, who are pregnant or with a history of truancy. Type 2 serve students on a short term basis for those that pose serious discipline problems and are court mandated due to serious behavioral infractions at school. Type 3 serves children and adolescents with serious emotional or behavioral problems. This approach is good as the alternative program should meet the different needs.

Finally for any program to be successful and sustain Quinn and Rutherford(1998)   identify six components as essential to quality alternative programs (a) good procedures for conducting functional assessment of academic and nonacademic behavior;(b)flexible curriculum for academic, social and life skills;(c)effective and efficient instructional strategies;(d)good transitional programs that provides smooth transition from alternative to mainstream settings;(e)comprehensive systems that provides alternative educational services and external community base services;(f) adequate resources and professional staff, who are passionate about serving such students.