A PROPOSAL ON ESL/EFL IN U.S.A.

: AN ULTIMATE APPROACH TO LANGUAGE

TEACHING LEARNING

NAMES AND SURNAMES: GLORIA MARTINEZ ESCOBAR

USCIS – UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE

JUNE 28 2022
Abstract

The aim of this study is to present a viable, effective and sustainable proposal for a total
improvement of the US bilingual programs run at public schools. The methodology used
relies on the information gathered through a variety of sources. I focus on the attention to
the students with specific needs of educational support; The coordination of school
administrators, teachers, teacher training; English Language assistants, human resources;
study materials; students' motivation, the methodology; the loss of content and vocabulary
in the mother tongue; the need of bilingual academies, extracurricular activities in English
to complete training; and segregation. The current proposal deals with improvement and
results, especially in relation to training and coordination with ESL/EFL teachers.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………...4

BACKGROUND LITERATURE…………………………………………………………………...5

RATIONALE………………………………………………………………………………………...6

METHOD AND DESIGN…………………………………………………………………………..7

SIGNIFICANCE AND CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………..14

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………14
INTRODUCTION

With the rapid increase of immigration from Latin America to the U.S.A, many US public
schools are struggling with the thorny question of "how best to educate new comers
immigrant youth with low levels of English proficiency.” The present proposal examines
what some might consider an anachronistic educational model. A segregated bilingual
school for Latin immigrants. The paper argues that the school vision of second language
acquisition as a social process building on the speech community itself and not just as the
individual psycholinguistic process of students is the key to its success.

The proposal specifies the factors characterizing this speech community model of bilingual
education. My proposal establish programs that really encourage children and teenagers'
development of bilingualism and biliteracy, and connect them to various cultures and
communities, highlighting the growing importance of diversity in socio-cultural expression,
problem solving, and cultural empathy.

I provide an ultimate proposal, which is a great, practical and smart option for different
circumstances in the context of formal education.

This proposal is the product of a deep reflection on the use and implementation of a
bilingual model that meets the students' needs in US public schools. Based on the latest
teaching approach, the present proposal open the doors to keep improving in a reliable
way our teaching performance, not only inside the public schools, but in real life where
English is the vehicle of communication.

Some changes are proposed in order to make it more functional and closer to the
curriculum and US Government policies without forgetting the main purpose, which is the
L2 acquisition throughout a friendly and enjoyable environment school administrators and
ESL/EFL teachers, to be successful, must give learners enough of grounding for them to
be able to continue autonomously. Johnson & Marrow (1981, pg7)

The current proposal on US bilingual education programs analyze its limitations and
perspectives in the process of its implementation. I am quite certain it is worth it.
BACKGROUND LITERATURE

The history of bilingual education in US has shifted between tolerance and repression
depending on politics, the economy, and number of immigrants. Language barrier has
been seen as a social problem to be solved by school administrators somehow. There is
still a discussion in progress about the most effective way to educate new comers whose
primary language is not English. Research has accumulated showing a clear advantage
for "maintenance" dual language and bilingual programs over English - only or transitional
programs with respect to achievement, attainment, and a number of other outcomes.
However, many struggles remain to implementing such programs on a large scale: The
politics of bilingualism and the shortage of highly qualified teachers are among the primary
obstacles.

Nevertheless, if Federal and State education policies supported by bilingualism as an

important goal for all US students incentives must be created to recruit and train bilingual
school administrators and highly qualified ESL/EFL teachers.

Through the current proposal, I am quite certain that USA can rapidly join other developed
countries that have long supported multilingualism and nurtured it in their students. The
involvement of the federal government in bilingual education dates back to 1960. It was a
response to the educational issues faced by school age children who speak a language
other than English at home.

In view of the varied premises underlying federal intervention and the economic
implications of Federal policies relating to the process of instruction and the selection of
ESL/EFL teachers and bilingual school administrators in areas with large numbers of
language - minority students, it is not surprising that Federal policy in this area is
controversial. Federal decisions greatly affect the autonomy of local school districts,
educational and funding priorities, and hiring practices.

I Think districts must decide whether EFL/ESL teachers are selected primarily from the
language minority community or from the community at large Debate about bilingual
programs focus on goals and appropriate strategies for achieving these goals.

Some have argued that programs should center on English Language instruction so that
children and youth might compete more effectively for education and employment in an
English speaking Country.
The present proposal considers the legal background of Federal policy and the relevance
of research findings to public policy in this highly politicized subject-matter.

Even though a notorious number of political, social and economic items are important to
an evaluation of bilingual education in US, the current proposal centers on two topics : (A)
Federal policy in bilingual education since 1968, and (B) results of research which
compare the effectiveness of a variety of educational programs for language minority
children.

RATIONALE

The present proposal is aimed to enhance US bilingual public education by implementing

an innovative and updated approach to language teaching. I am aware that most
immigrant children enter the US school system with little to no proficiency of the English
language (Alkire, 2002; Garrinson, Roy & Azar, 1999) I intend that state Legislators along
with public school administrators can improve the educational realities unraveling in U.S.A
and so provide its rapidly expanding immigrant children population with a comprehensive
education curriculum that both facilitates the development of English skills and also,
fosters language abilities in the learners' native tongue.

In order to develop my pedagogical project successfully, I propose to put into practice my

English program which is an ecleptical approach based on “CLIL” methodology (Content
Language Integrated Learning) and "CLL' (Computer Language Learning) both fit perfectly
in ESL/EFL classroom in US bilingual public education. My goal is to overcome all the
obstacles presented by current curriculums and show the ways to implement my project
plan in US bilingual public schools.

On the other hand, we also require a comprehensive approach that takes into account how
to learn, that is to say, the way we relate information and knowledge in US society
including also social and emotional aspects.

Above all, the main goal is to develop the basic communicative skills in the target
language.

Oral and written expression and comprehension skills which can be develop through
synchronous and asynchronous communication tools like creating videos, interactive
posters, podcasts, collaborative documents, cartoons and sharing on line with others.
The use of technologies along with a functional communicative approach will make
learning exciting, enhance productivity and promote creativity.

METHOD & DESIGN

The goals of the proposed program are to enhance the competence and integrity of native
language teachers, with the aim of stimulating children's development of bilingualism and
bi-literacy in addition to promoting mutual understanding between the people of U.S.A and
the people of other countries through educational exchange.

My method & design is actually the implementation of a methodological approach and a

technique in language learning in search of positive results.

CLIL methodology suggested for this proposal will take place in US bilingual public
schools. CLIL stands for "Content & language Integrated learning" which deals with the
students' needs such as appealing topics and the usage of technology to explore topics of
interest to the students

Our approach also integrates an important area of language learning that is (Computer
Language Learning (CALL)). The ultimate goal is to implement a method & design that
better match students' expectations in US bilingual education.

The main objective is to show a complete pedagogical method which use technology
(CALL) for effective learning of ESL/EFL.

I propose a learning model that is comprised of an advanced ecleptical summary of

pedagogic methods and technics to realize a CLIL methodology at lower through higher
education institutions.

Low and negative outcomes as a result in US bilingual education has allowed me to make
the following proposal.

I conducted several Surveys for the CLIL course students and their course coordinator.
Learners completed an online test with close and open-ended questions; the course
coordinator passed an oral interview. My work team and I carried out a quantitative
analysis of the data obtained and then identified the weaknesses of the CLIL course
implementation. To improve the educational process, students' performance and their
learning outcomes, we have developed an integrated learning model that is built on a CLIL
methodology as a framework and flipped classroom activities, project – based learning as
pedagogic tools for creating a blended learning environment. My work team and I assume
that the use of the present model will encourage students in cultural knowledge and
language skills acquisition and also drive them to continuous education, raise of self-
efficacy and motivation.

My proposal is aware that bilingual education in U.S.A has primarily been a program whose unique
goal is to teach English rather than to develop bilingualism bileteracy. Most US bilingual program
are designed for students are for those who are learning English as a second language. Over the
past 30 years, new forms of bilingual education, referred to as a dual language, have been
developed and implemented in U.S well, dual language bilingual programs have the goal of
developing bilingualism/biliteracy and cross-cultural, competence and include in their student
body students who are monolingual speakers of English as well as those who are learning English
as an additional language.

Bilingual programs whose goal is English acquisition are generally termed "TRANSITIONAL
BILINGUAL PROGRAMS” and have been labeled "subtractive" in language lexicography. Whereas
dual language bilingual programs and some other forms of bilingual education may have different
practices on its implementation.

The vast majority of bilingual education programs in the USA are labeled as transitional bilingual
education (TBE) and TBE programs can serve any non-English language group; however, the
majority of TBE programs serve Spanish-speaking students. Transitional bilingual programs are
subdivided into early-exit and late-exit programs. TBE programs were developed as a way of
responding to various local, state, and federal mandates that required schools in the USA to
provide equal access to educational opportunities for students who enter US schools with limited
proficiency in English. These programs are designed for students who are labeled as English
Language Learners (ELLs) or students whose proficiency in English is so limited that they would not
be able to benefit from schooling offered only in English (see Lau v. Nichols, 1974), and as their
label suggests were designed to use students' native languages to help them transition to English.

With regard to language policy, TBE programs utilize two languages as media of instruction for all
or part of the school day in order to enable ELLs to access the content of math, science, social
studies, and reading and language arts while they are learning English. In addition to learning
content in the non-English language, TBE programs include the study of English as a Second
Language (ESL) in their curriculum. The underlying rationale for TBE programs is to utilize students'
native languages to teach content so that these students do not fall behind in their learning of
content while they are learning English. TBE programs are organized to gradually transition
students from learning school content in a non-English language to learning school content all in
English. Early exit programs strive to attain this transition in 1-3 school years, while late-exit
programs favor a more gradual transition of 4-5 school years (Crawford 2004). In all cases, the
ultimate goal is the acquisition of English.

TBE programs of all types have been widely criticized in the US for being subtractive and
assimilationist. Subtractive in that they are not intended to develop bilingualism and biliteracy and
frequently result in loss of students' native language, and assimilationist in that they do not foster
the development of multicultural perspectives or cross-cultural competence. Despite this criticism,
there is a plethora of research that indicates that the use of students' home languages in
instruction, even for short periods of time as in TBE programs is beneficial (August and Shanahan
2006; Goldenberg 2013). The research base is particularly strong with regard to learning to read in
students' native languages, and the consensus around numerous experimental studies conducted
over the past 40 years is that learning to read in a non-English language boosts reading skills in
English (Goldenberg 2013)

A second type of bilingual education program that is growing in popularity is labeled Dual
Language Education. There are three major types of dual language programs: (1) Developmental
or maintenance dual language, (2) Two-way immersion programs, and (3) Immersion programs in
languages other than English. Unlike TBE programs, dual language programs have as their goal the
development of bilingualism (the ability to speak fluently in two languages), biliteracy (the ability
to read and write in two languages), academic achievement (equal to that of students in nondual
language bilingual programs), and cross-cultural competence (García 2009; Genesee 2004). Their
intent is to use two languages for content and literacy instruction for a sustained period of time (at
least 5 years) (Howard et al. 2003). Further, two-way dual language programs include students
who are native mono lingual English speakers as well as students for whom English is an additional
language. These programs are considered to be additive in nature because they build on and
extend students' existing language competencies and aim to broaden students' linguistic
repertoires. In dual language bilingual programs, all students learn at least two languages and all
students learn content area subjects in English as well as other languages. Like TBE programs, the
vast majority of dual language bilingual programs in the USA are offered at the elementary school
level and are Spanish/English programs. However, there are small but growing numbers of pro
grams in middle and high schools and programs that involve languages other than Spanish (Center
for Applied Linguistics 2014).

It is important to note that bilingual education programs in the USA of all types have largely been
developed, debated, and researched around language of instruction issues. Languages of
instruction debates have included which languages should be used as media of instruction, for
whom, and how long. While important, debates around language of instruction have prevented
the field from engaging in equally important debates about quality of instruction. For example, it is
not just important that a TBE or dual language bilingual program teach children to read and write
in English and Spanish for 1 h a day, it is equally important to insure that during this 1 h of
instructional time, quality teaching methodologies are implemented. There is a dire need for
research on the development of pedagogical practices that can enhance and improve instruction
in all types of bilingual education programs (Slavin and Cheung 2005; Genesee et al. 2006;
Goldenberg and Coleman 2010).

Research on Bilingual Education

Following a very short "honeymoon” after the passage of the Bilingual Education Act in 1968,
bilingual education began to come under attack for being ineffective and a waste of money. In
response to the controversy, the federal government commissioned its first evaluation of bilingual
education from the American Institutes for Research in 1977-78 (Danois 1978). This study
compared students in 38 Title VII bilingual programs with similar students in ESL classrooms and
found no impact of the bilingual programs on test scores. The study was roundly criticized for
including programs in the two groups solely on the basis of program labels without examining the
educational treatment provided. This, and other methodological problems, left the findings of the
study in significant dispute. A second, large-scale comparative study was commissioned by the
federal government. This one conducted by David Ramirez and his colleagues (1991) was much
more complex and involved a 4-year comparison of English immersion, early-exit transitional
bilingual, and late-exit transitional bilingual programs on various achievement out comes in both
English and Spanish. The researchers were careful to examine the instruction provided in each,
and the amount of time dedicated to each language, as well as teacher characteristics and
pedagogical strategies. Nonetheless, there were very significant differences in the students
assigned to each program type with late exit students being much more low income and with a
significantly lesser chance of having attended preschool. Also, programs could not usually be
compared to others in the same district or school so that school and district effects were likely
powerful contributors to uncontrolled differences among the groups (Meyer and Feinberg 1992).
Moreover, very heavy attrition of students called into question many of the results. In sum, the
researchers found a small positive difference in first grade reading outcomes for the early-exit
bilingual model over the English immersion, but overall the study did not find significantly
different outcomes for the three groups of students.

A number of meta-analyses of smaller studies have also been conducted. The first was a narrative
review commissioned by the US Department of Education to determine if English-only programs
were more effective with respect to English language outcomes than bilingual programs based on
existing research. Keith Baker and Adriana de Kanter (1981) reviewed over 300 studies but found
only 28 that met sufficient methodological rigor to be included in their qualitative analysis of the
programs – "yes" the evaluation found positive effects for bilingual instruction, "no", it did not.
There was no attempt to quantify the degree of effectiveness. This very widely cited study found,
"The case for the effectiveness of transitional bilingual education is so weak that exclusive reliance
on this instructional method is clearly not justified (p. 1)." In other words, they did not find a
definitively positive outcome for either of the two methods tested.

Diane August and her colleagues (2010) more recently reviewed a “best evidence synthesis" and
four meta-analyses conducted of second language programs since the early 1980s, selecting only
those that used rigorous meta-analytic methods, and that were conducted by researchers from
varying disciplines and perspectives. In the best evidence study, Robert Slavin and Alan Cheung
(2005) found that among the 17 studies that met their strict criteria for inclusion, 13 favored
bilingual programs (all Spanish-English) and 4 found no differences. The effect size for the
averaged score differences was between 33 and .45, indicating a "medium positive effect.” It :: has
been pointed out that this is approximately the same effect size as for significant reduction in class
size (Goldenberg 2008). Across both the best evidence study and the four meta-analyses, August
et al. (2010, p. 143) found "differences in favor of native-language instruction, with effect sizes
ranges from small to moderate.” The researchers also note that the better the technical quality of
the studies, the larger were the effect sizes. In another synthesis of the research on reading
instructional approaches for English learners, Goldenberg (2008, p. 14) also concludes that
“Teaching students to read in their first language promotes higher levels of reading achievement
in English," a finding that is often thought to be counterintuitive.

Most evaluation research on bilingual education has focused narrowly on short term outcomes for
reading and math in English. Very little attention has been paid to longer-term effects or to other
potential outcomes. In fact, many of the studies that have found no difference or less positive
effects for bilingual instruction have been based on very short-term analyses: Genesee and his
colleagues (2006) reporting on a synthesis of research on English learners note:

Evaluations conducted in the early years of a program (Grades K-3) typically reveal that students in
bilingual education scored below grade level... [but] Almost all evaluations of students at the end
of elementary school and in middle and high school show that the educational outcomes of
bilingually educated students, especially those in late-exit and two way programs, were at least
comparable to and usually higher than their comparison peers. (p. 201)

A recent study that followed thousands of students in one large school district in transitional
bilingual, dual language bilingual, and English-only programs beginning in kindergarten and
following them into high school found that the students who had remained in bilingual instruction,
and especially dual language bilingual programs, outperformed the students in English-only
instruction on all measures --they ultimately reclassified to English proficient at higher rates,
scored higher on English Language Arts and on measures of English proficiency (Umansky and
Reardon 2014).

With respect to outcomes other than test scores or English proficiency, there is now a large and
growing body of research on a host of outcomes. Bialystock (2001) has found that bilingually
educated students have greater cognitive flexibility, working memory, and executive functioning
(e.g., concentration); Portes and Hao (2002) have found that bilingual students have more
cohesive family relations and fewer behavior problems in school; Santibañez and Zárate (2014)
have found that students who maintain their bilingualism into high school are more likely to go to
college and for Latinos, to 4 year colleges; and Rumbaut (2014) has found that these students who
maintain bilingualism are less likely to drop out of high school and to secure higher level positions
in the workforce. Agirdag (2014) has also found that these young bilinguals will earn significantly
more in the labor market compared to their monolingual peers “with immigrant roots." These
findings call attention to the need to be more specific about the goals of instructional programs for
English: learners. If the goal is simply oral English proficiency, it may not matter greatly which
program is provided; however, if educators are concerned about cognitive growth, reading ability,
social adaptation, drop out, college-going, or eventual earnings, the research is all pointing in the
direction of bilingual instruction and especially those programs that offer strong models of both
languages.

Contemporary Dilemmas in Bilingual Education in the USA,

There are a myriad of issues that challenge the full implementation of bilingual education
programs in the USA. Since the early 2000s, federal policy has established definitively that bilingual
education is for the purpose of teaching English and not about actually educating a student in two
languages (Gándara and Contreras 2009). In addition, there are other contemporary dilemmas to
full implementation of bilingual programs in the USA. These include: (1) changing demographics
with regard to language minority populations; (2) the implementation of the new Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) which are currently: monolingual and monocultural; (3) a concomitant new
high stakes testing system to assess account ability to the CCSS and which currently exists only in
English; and (4) a chronic teacher shortage, in part, caused by English-only educational policies of
the past two decades. Each of these dilemmas is discussed below.

Currently, the majority of bilingual programs in the USA are designed for students who are labeled
as “English Learners.” These models follow sequential models of bilingual development in that
literacy and content knowledge is developed in the non-English language first as students learn
English as a second language. This is the structure of the majority of TBE and many dual language
bilingual programs. These models work well for students who enter school having had little or no
exposure to English.

However, over the past 20 years, the profile of English learners has changed and program designs
have not kept pace with the changes. In some areas of the USA, the majority of English learners
are simultaneous bilinguals who were born in the USA and have been exposed to English since
birth. They are children of immigrants, but are not immigrants themselves. The Urban Institute
reports that 77 % of elementary aged English learners are born in the USA as are 56 % of
secondary aged English learners (Capp et al. 2005). There are few, if any, bilingual programs
designed for simultaneous emerging bilingual children although there is growing interest in this
demographic (García 2009; Escamilla et al. 2014). They represent a "new normal” and new
programs and policies need to be designed for them.

In addition to the changing profile of English learners, the USA has recently instituted two
additional national policy initiatives that will likely not support the creation of new bilingual
program models regardless of the population to be served. The initiatives are the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) and their accompanying assessment systems known as Partnership for
Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC). Developed in 2009, the goal of the CCSS is to provide a framework to better
prepare students for life after high school whether in college or the work force. Forty-five states
will begin implementation of the CCSS in the 2014-2015 school year with the hope that the
implementation of the CCSS will improve the international ranking of the USA on assessments and
that having national standards will insure that all states are teaching the same things in the same
grades (Council of Chief State School Officers 2012). PARCC and SBAC assessments will be used to
measure the extent to which individual states, districts, and students are meeting the new CCSS.
As these new reforms are implemented, teachers will have little control over the curriculum they
teach and the time they can allocate for instruction, thereby making the implementation of
transitional bilingual and dual language bilingual programs more challenging (Berliner and Glass
2014).

These reforms are thought to be necessary to boost the USA's international standing. Ironically,
neither the CCSS standards nor the high stakes testing programs that are meant to assess their
progress include standards about bilingualism, biliteracy, and cross-cultural competence. In fact,
the standards and assessments are currently all in English. The research cited above affirms that
bilingualism, biliteracy, and cross-cultural competence are highly desirable skills, especially for the
twenty-first century, and yet there is no inclusion of them in the new standards. Since
bilingualism/biliteracy imply meeting standards in two languages, the new CCSS would actually
appear to be lowering standards rather than raising them. Moreover, 11 states have already
passed legislation authorizing the Seal of Biliteracy and legislation is pending in the Congress to
make it nation-wide. The Seal of Biliteracy is awarded to students who can demonstrate full
proficiency in two or more languages (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) upon high school
grad uation. In 2014, almost 25,000 students were able to earn this recognition in California
alone.

It is axiomatic that programs of transitional bilingual and dual language bilingual education cannot
be implemented without fully qualified teachers. Historically, one of the greatest obstacles to
quality implementation of bilingual programs has been the availability of fully prepared teachers,
and this dilemma continues. For school year 2009–2010, the Biennial Report on Title III (the
federal government's office of English Language Acquisition), it was estimated that 47,185
additional English as a second language or bilingual certified teachers would be needed over the
following 5 years to fill Title III teacher positions. These numbers are likely conservative estimates
(US Department of Education 2013). Further, in 2009–2010 the American Association of Colleges
of Teacher Education (AACTE) reported that only 1 % of bachelor's degrees nationally were
awarded to teachers preparing to be bilingual and/or ESL teachers. Added to this is that fact that
the potential teaching force of bilingual/biliterate teachers has been diminished due to state
mandates over the past 15 years that in some cases have outlawed bilingual education outright or
have emphasized the acquisition of English over the development of bilingualism/ biliteracy. The
future bilingual teaching force includes emerging bilingual students who are currently sitting in US
classrooms and who because of current federal and state policies are lacking opportunities to
develop their skills and knowledge in two languages.
Ongoing and unresolved debates about immigration, testing and assessment, and teacher
evaluation also constitute significant issues that might impede the future of bilingual education in
the USA. In short, despite growing interest in bilingual education among parents and local
communities, there remain some formidable challenges to the creation and widespread
implementation of bilingual education in the USA in the near future.

SIGNIFICANCE AND CONCLUSION

Virtually all of the recent growth in US public schools is attributable to the children of immigrants.
These children bring enormous cultural and linguistic assets to the nation. Research suggests that
building on these assets through bilingual instruction would be the most effective way to increase
their academic achievement and social and psychological well being, but it would also strengthen
both their own labor market prospects and the economy of the nation.

REFERENCES

B. H. O'Connor, N. González: Language Education and Culture. In Volume: Language Policy and
Political Issues in Education

W. Wright: Language Policy and Education in the USA. In Volume: Language Policy and Political
Issues in Education

K. SchuItz and G. Hull: Literacies In and Out of School in the United States. In Volume: Literacies
and Language Education

M. Farr: Literacies and Ethnolinguistic Diversity: Chicago. In Volume: Literacies .. and Language
Education

M. Met and A. Melnyk Brandt: Foreign language learning in K-12 classrooms in the United States.
In Volume: Second and Foreign Language Education

R. Brooks: Language Assessment in the US Government. In Volume: Language Testing and

Assessment

Agirdag, O. (2014). The literal cost of language assimilation for the children of immigration:
The effects of bilingualism on labor market outcomes. In R, Callahan & P. Gándara (Eds.), The
bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the U.S. labor market (pp. 162–182).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

August, D., Goldenberg, C., & Rueda, R. (2010). Restrictive state language policies: Are
they scientifically based? In P. Gándara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English
learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 139–158). New York: Teachers College Press.

Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.).

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, K., & de Kanter, A. (1981). Effectiveness of bilingual education: A review of the
literature. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education/Office of Technical and Analytic
Systems.

Batalova, J., & McHugh, M. (2010). Number and growth of students in U.S. schools in need
of English instruction. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Berliner, D., & Glass, G. (2014). 50 Myths and lies that threaten America's public schools: The
real crisis in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bialystock, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Center for Applied Linguistics. (2014). Directory of two-way bilingual programs in the U.S. 1991-
2004. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th
ed.). Culver City: Bilingual Education Services.

Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis. The consequences of failed
social policy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students?
In T. K. Bahtia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism and multiculturalism (pp. 547–576).
Malden: Blackwell.

Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does - and does
not Say. American Educator Summer 2008.

Goldenberg, C., & Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting academic achievement among English
learners: A guide to the research. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Howard, E., Olague, N., & Rogers, D. (2003). The dual language program planner: A guide
for designing and implementing dual language programs. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics and the Center for Research on Education/Diversity and Excellence.

Ramirez, D. J., Yuen, S. D., Ramey, D. R., & Pasta, D. J. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study
of structured-English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual
education programs for language-minority children (Vol. 1 & 2). San Mateo: Aguirre International.

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8, 15-24.

Santibañez, L., & Zárate, M. E. (2014). Bilinguals in the United States and college enrollment. In R.
Callahan & P. Gándara (Eds.), The bilingual advantage: Language literacy and the U.S. labor market
(pp. 213-234). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Umansky, I., & Reardon, S. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner
students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American
Educational Research Journal, 51(3), 879.