Details

Published: 20 May 2025

Hits: 44

Hempenstall, K. (2004). Education for language minority students: Recent events. Direct Instruction News, 4(1), 10-22.

I wrote a piece called Education for Language Minority Students: Recent Events. Its purpose is covered in my opening piece below:

“How is an education system that teaches its curriculum in the English language able to manage with students who have little or no experience with the language of instruction? If numbers are low, or if there is little assessment of later educational outcomes, then the issue may not arouse a great deal of attention. However, the number of immigrants without English is very high and increasing in many developed countries. For example, the number of students who have limited English proficiency (LEP) has doubled in the last 10 years, whilst the general school population has grown by only 12% (Kindler, 2002). Within 50 years in the United States, the proportion of children beginning school whose language is not English could be as high as 40% (Lindhlom-Leary, 2000).”

So, this issue was interesting to me as an educational psychologist who had past classroom experience where such an issue was growing to my interest. So, I decided to catch up on what relevant information was around. It didn’t seem to be attended significantly at that time. I wrote the “Education for Language Minority” some time ago and it was around 2000 and lower.

Relatively recently I began to approach newer recent information because I wondered if today’s research and practices have changed. I wanted up-to-date information on people currently experiencing these education difficulties.

 To seek the new information, I decided to collect the data only that collected from years 2020 to 2025.

The total paper will contain two sections – the opening section will be the new material on how much data is found relevant to addressing the issues on Education for Language Minority Students: Recent Events.

The second half of the document is my older document that goes back to around the year 2000.

Now, let’s look at some of the newish academic text material. The initial piece looks widely on how well our educational system broadly is doing.

 In Australia, academic achievement is typically measured using PISA (an international standardised test conducted every three years by the OECD for 15 year old students)

NAPLAN results have been relatively flat (2024)

NAPLAN provides important insights into the performance of Australian students. Unlike PISA, NAPLAN tests key aspects of reading and numeracy against the Australian Curriculum and assesses all students at regular intervals in their schooling. In contrast to the declining picture of student outcomes suggested by PISA, NAPLAN results point to generally flat results albeit with some improvements among primary school students. Average NAPLAN numeracy scores remained steady across all year levels between 2013 and 2021 (figure 2.4). While numeracy scores decreased across all year-levels between 2021 and 2022, only the decline in year 5 scores was statistically significant.

What has been happening to student outcomes? (2024)

Key points

Education improves the future life prospects of students. • Students who benefit from a quality school education have higher incomes, experience lower levels of unemployment, and exhibit higher levels of civic engagement and trust. Despite a 21 per cent increase per student in real recurrent funding for schools over the past decade, broad improvements in student outcomes have not materialised. •

Student outcomes, spanning academic achievement, educational attainment, engagement and wellbeing are mixed. The performance of Australian school students in national and international assessments of literacy and numeracy has been largely flat over the past decade.

• Despite pockets of improvement, overall results have not improved in either Australia’s National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy (NAP AN) or the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
• While PISA results point to falling student outcomes, some of this decline is due to changes in the student sample. More students are not regularly attending school.
• In a trend that pre-dates COVID-19, the share of students attending school regularly has fallen, with only about 7 in 10 students attending school 90 per cent of the time. More people aged 20 to 24 are completing Year 12 or attaining equivalent qualifications.
• The share of young adults who complete year 12, an equivalent, or a Certificate III or above, has been steadily increasing, reaching 90 per cent in 2021. Persistent gaps in education outcomes for some cohorts of students point to systemic barriers.
• Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, students in outer regional and remote areas, and students with parents with low educational attainment are consistently below outcomes for the broader student population.
• The extent of the barriers faced by these students are significant, with gaps in outcomes as large as 5 years by the time students’ finish year 9.
• Gaps in outcomes, measured in years of learning, take longer to close as students’ progress through school.
• Gaps cannot be measured for students with disability, despite the Agreement naming them as a priority equity cohort, as there is no consistent data tracking their educational outcomes.

The purpose of the National School Reform Agreement (NSRA) is to contribute to a high quality and equitable education system for all students (chapter 1). Delivering on the objectives of the NSRA is about more than improving NAPLAN points — it means improving the life prospects of today’s students and Australia’s social and economic future.

Academic achievement in literacy and numeracy has largely stagnated over the past decade: In Australia, academic achievement is typically measured using PISA (an international standardised test conducted every three years by the OECD for 15 year old students) and numeracy and literacy results from NAPLAN (a national assessment undertaken by year 3, 5, 7 and 9 students every year).

Over the past decade or so, overall, Australian students’ results have not improved in either of these assessments. PISA results have declined, driven in part by changes in student cohorts Australian students’ average PISA results declined from 2009 to 201 (figure 2.3) — the most recent year for which results are available.

As one of the few measures that show declining (as opposed to stagnating) academic outcomes, much has been made of these results. However, when interpreting Australia’s PISA results, there are three important caveats to bear in mind.16 • As made clear by the OECD, the decline in results from 2015 and 2018 is not statistically significant for mathematics and reading — put simply, this means there is not sufficient evidence to suggest students’ ability declined over this period.

• Looking further back at results, while the decline in results between 2012 and 2018 is statistically significant for mathematics and reading, in part, it reflects changes in the composition of students sitting the test. As an example, in 2012, about 19 per cent of 15-year old students sitting the test were in Year 11; in 2018, this share dropped to only 7 per cent. That means about 12 per cent of students in the sample had an entire year less schooling than in previous samples. Adjusting for this reduces the extent of the decline by at least 25 per cent, and as high as 45 per cent (reading) and 30 per cent (mathematics) (Commission analysis).17 • Australia is one of a number of countries with declining PISA results. This raises a question of whether national curriculums are shifting away from the PISA assessment framework, making the PISA test more difficult for students in these countries (sometimes referred to as ‘curriculum drift’).

Preliminary analysis undertaken by the Commission shows that the decline in Australian students’ scores since 2012 is matched by a decline in the OECD average. Relative to the OECD mean, there is no evidence of a statistically significant decline in the average scores of Australian students (after controlling for year-level and demographic characteristics of students sampled) (appendix B). Notwithstanding the caveats set out above, PISA results remain important for comparing education outcomes across countries, as well as different groups or ‘cohorts’ within countries.”

Orhan Agirdag & Jozefien De Leersnyder (29 Aug 2024): Against the odds: Predictors of academic success and excellence in majority-minority schools, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2024.2385938

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Predictors of academic success (2024)

“Although schools with a high concentration of ethnic minorities often underperform, not much is known about the factors that predict high and even excellent achievement of pupils within these schools. Therefore, we examined which concrete diversity practices and key psychological processes increase or decrease the likelihood/odds for high and excellent performance on a standardized mathematics test, thereby utilizing multivariable logistic regressions among 855 10–12-year-olds in 18 majority minority schools in Flanders, Belgium.

While the odds for high and excellent mathematics scores were unaffected by language spoken at home or religiosity, they were negatively related to deficit-based assimilationist school practices, inconsistently related to meritocratic neutrality-based practices, and positively related to a strengths-based anti-racist school curriculum. Furthermore, while higher school belonging and a growth mindset increased the odds of high and excellent achievement, students’ experiences of peer or teacher discrimination decreased these odds dramatically. Implications for school effectiveness policies are discussed.

Introduction

Many states around the globe, and especially those in Europe and Northern America, face severe ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in education. Specifically, students from ethnic minority backgrounds – also those of third-generation immigrant descent who keep on being minoritized by society – and/or disadvantaged socioeconomic statuses (SES) tend to exhibit lower academic achievement than their counterparts belonging to ethnic majority groups and middle or upper classes (Baysu et al., 2023; Dekkers et al., 2000; Levels et al., 2008; Schleicher, 2019, 2023).

With migration on the rise, this persistent achievement gap has far-reaching consequences, not only for the future life chances of individual ethnic minorities but also for our societies at large. Like many industrialized countries, Flanders – the northern Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, where this study was conducted – is grappling with significant socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities. Belgium reportedly exhibits one of the largest educational disparities among all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries (Agirdag, 2020; Schleicher, 2019).

In the past few decades, numerous studies have documented the pervasiveness of this achievement gap, and while some identified factors may partially explain it (e.g., Baysu et al., 2023; Celeste et al., 2019; van den Bergh et al., 2010), the mechanisms that both account for the gap and provide avenues for interventions to close it are less well understood.

For example, there is ample evidence that schools matter such that the way a school operates impacts students’ academic achievements above and beyond the effects of individual student characteristics (e.g., Agirdag & Muijs, 2023). When examining differences between schools, a frequently investigated aspect is the impact of school composition in terms of SES and ethnicity.

Specifically, the school composition effect refers to the observation that two similar students can have different academic outcomes depending on the ethnic or SES composition of their school (van Ewijk & Sleegers, 2010). Regarding SES composition, it has been found that students attending schools with a lower mean SES perform worse than similar students at schools with a higher mean SES (Agirdag, 2018; Agirdag et al., 2013).

Regarding ethnic school composition, the results are less straightforward and only marginally related to the academic performance of individual students (van Ewijk & Sleegers, 2010). However, it would be incorrect to state that ethnic composition is an unimportant factor in students’ achievement because SES composition and ethnic school composition tend to be highly interrelated, with many schools experiencing double segregation (see Gándara, 2017), making it difficult to separate their effects.

Nevertheless, and despite the typically negative prospects of students in schools with a high concentration of ethnic minority (and also low-SES) students, there is significant variation in the students’ academic performance in this type of schools. In fact, some of these majority-minority schools can protect students against discrimination (e.g., Baysu et al., 2014) and even lift student performances such that they perform above average and even excellently (Hemmerechts et al., 2018; Merry & Agirdag, 2023). However, both the specific practices and (their associated) psychological factors contributing to academic success and excellence in these majority-minority schools remain unclear.

The current study aims to fill this gap by exploring the predictors of academic success.

The current study aims to fill this gap by exploring the predictors of academic success and excellence in these majority-minority schools in Flanders. Concretely, we will investigate to what extent students’ experience of a series of concrete diversity practices and psychological processes can change the odds of high and even excellent mathematics achievement.

Our study is part of the Ethnic-Cultural Diversity in Schools project and included 855 young adolescents (aged 10–12) in 18 primary schools that can be considered majority-minority schools because more than 80% of the children attending these schools had an ethnic minority background. We structure our empirical investigation through the lens of school diversity models – that is, the approaches schools take to deal with ethnic-cultural diversity (Plaut, 2010): assimilationist deficit-based thinking, which views cultural differences as barriers to be overcome; meritocratic neutrality-based thinking, which emphasizes individual effort; and multiculturalist strength-based thinking, which sees cultural diversity as a resource.

In addition, we will explore the impact of some key psychological processes that are either fostered or undermined by these school diversity models, such as school belonging, discrimination, and a growth mindset. This multifaceted approach provides a more nuanced understanding of the factors that contribute to academic achievement in majority-minority educational settings. By identifying these key factors, our study seeks to inform more effective educational policies and associated educational practices that can address and reduce educational disparities as well as foster the realization of all students’ potential, also “against the odds” when attending a majority-minority school.

Discussion

While many industrialized countries grapple with severe inequalities between students from ethnic minoritized and majority groups, as well as with disparities between schools, less attention is paid to the success and excellence of students within majority-minority schools. However, understanding the factors contributing to academic success and excellence in these schools might provide insights into breaking inequalities and revising educational policies that currently fail to reduce these inequalities. Therefore, the current study examined the factors contributing to high and excellent achievement in mathematics in majority-minority schools (>80% minoritized youth), utilizing a unique sample of 3,073 students across 58 primary schools in Belgium, of which 18 were majority-minority schools (N = 855). We categorized predictors as deficit-assimilation oriented, meritocratic-neutrality oriented, multiculturalist-strengths oriented, and process oriented.

We began our exploration by identifying factors that distinguish majority-minority schools from the general sample. An important finding is that, although less common than in the general sample, a considerable number of students perform highly (44%) and excellently (12%) in majority-minority schools. This contradicts the stereotypes about so-called “segregated” schools as homogeneously underperforming. Second, children in these schools are more likely to speak another language at home than the Dutch instruction language and are more religious. In addition, they perceive more assimilationist practices regarding identity at school, and face more teacher discrimination – factors that we later on showed to drastically lower the odds of achieving highly and excellently. At the same time, these students in minority-majority schools report lower levels of curriculum neutrality and anti-racism in education and feel less belonging to their schools than students in the general sample – which are all factors we later on showed to increase the odds of being high and excellent mathematics achievers. It is thus especially remarkable that still a significant group of children in these schools are among the high and top achievers in the entire sample.

Turning to our evaluation of how perceived school practices rooted in different diversity ideologies increase versus decrease the odds for achieving highly or excellently in majority-minority schools, we found a very clear picture regarding deficit-assimilation oriented predictors.

None of the considered variables were related to improved outcomes, while we observed clear negative effects of assimilationist school policies and practices. Indeed, our findings highlight the potential educational harm caused by assimilationist school policies and ideologies that disregard the identities and religions of ethnically minoritized populations: Pupils experiencing these are up to 5 times less likely to be among the excellent achievers. Thus, far from being a solution, this approach exacerbates disparities in education.

These findings are in sharp contrast to the dominance of this perspective in educational policy, especially in the domain of language. For instance, in Flanders, the last 20 years of educational policy have been dominated by the perspective that blames the home language of children from minoritized backgrounds as the single-most important cause of inequalities (Dursun et al., 2023). However, our study shows that speaking another language at home is not the cause of inequalities. Even when pupils’ ethnic minoritized status is not controlled for (see Appendix 1), pupils speaking another language than Dutch at home are not at risk for underperforming at school.

Our findings also contribute to the international literature that indicates that students who speak a language other than the language of instruction at home often face challenges in academic achievement, leading to an achievement gap between native-speaking students and language minority students.

However, the relationship between home language use and academic performance is complex and influenced by various factors, including SES and school characteristics. In some contexts, speaking a minority language at home is not detrimental and can even be positively associated with academic performance. Thus, effective educational strategies should balance heritage language use at school, promote inclusive environments, and avoid sociopolitical pressure towards monolingualism (Agirdag & Vanlaar, 2018; Kilpi-Jakonen & Alisaari, 2022).

Regarding predictors oriented towards meritocratic neutrality, our results revealed a nuanced and somewhat paradoxical picture. The relationship between these predictors and achievement varied depending on the specific domain and predictor.

For example, a curriculum oriented towards neutrality was associated with improved achievement. Interestingly, and as indicated by a strong bivariate correlation, this neutrality often coincided with an anti-racist curriculum approach, which could partly be due to the two items in the neutral-curriculum scale referring to teaching that we are all human beings regardless of our religious beliefs and to the item that teachers treat pupils as individuals and not as members of their cultural group.

In contexts marked by high levels of ethnic discrimination, the former two items may signal respect for one another and the latter may signal the absence of teacher discrimination. Therefore, on the basis of these findings, we warrant against adopting a neutrality-based curriculum per se; teaching about respect for one another and our shared humanness should be encouraged though.

In contrast, our findings are clear in regard to adopting a neutral stance on linguistic differences, which is essentially a laissez-faire approach: This is not advisable. Thus, while restrictive language policies, such as prohibiting the use of students’ home languages or penalizing their use (a practice still common in Flanders), are not or negatively related to achievement (although they do undermine belonging, see Konings et al., 2024), not establishing clear rules to navigate linguistic diversity is neither an option.

This is in line with prior work showing that properly managed linguistic diversity can be an invaluable educational resource (Blom et al., 2014; Edele & Stanat, 2016) and that inequalities related to linguistic diversity typically emerge when teachers feel unprepared or unsupported to handle multilingual environments, or when the multilingual skills of language-minority children are overlooked (Alisaari et al., 2019; Kirsch & Duarte, 2020; Umansky & Dumont, 2021). A potential way forward is thus to establish clear rules on when one’s home language can and cannot be used, thereby emphasizing how a shared language can be used as a means for inclusion, not exclusion.

Finally, student effort emerged as a significant predictor of high mathematics achievement. While no surprise in itself, and pointing at achievement being in part based on meritocracy, it is quite striking that one only has 3.7 times more chance of being among the high achievers when putting in all possible effort versus no effort at all – this odds ratio is similar in magnitude as those of having a neutral curriculum or an anti-racist one (see below). It is also smaller than those of other process-oriented variables (see below), which is quite striking as well since policymakers often like to believe that effort is the (sole) key to academic success. Putting the finding in this perspective, one thus cannot conclude that meritocracy alone can guarantee equity in education.

Regarding predictors oriented towards multiculturalism and strengths, our findings displayed both insignificant and positive effects. For example, incorporating Belgian colonial history in the curriculum showed no significant relation to academic achievement in these majority-minority schools, thereby contrasting findings within the larger sample where it did have positive effects (see Konings et al., 2024).

In contrast, an anti-racist curriculum emerged as a strong predictor of high achievement, with students exposed to such anti-racist lessons being, despite their young age (which is often used as an argument to not provide such lessons), almost 3 times more likely to be high achievers. A key takeaway from this is that not all forms of multicultural education lead to better outcomes in all types of schools, underscoring the need for a critically oriented multiculturalist approach. This approach should not only celebrate diversity but also actively acknowledge and address existing exclusion. Additionally, our study found that enrolment in community-based schools significantly predicted excellent achievement. This corroborates previous research suggesting that schools founded by minoritized communities, such as Islamic schools, hold promise in narrowing the achievement gap (Merry & Agirdag, 2023). This latter finding also highlights the detrimental impact of policies that overlook the value and emancipatory potential of these schools. Our study reveals that the most consistent and strongest effects are associated with process-oriented variables.

Notably, perceived discrimination from peers and teachers significantly decreased pupils’ chances to be among the high and excellent achievers: Pupils were 5 to 10 times less likely to end up in these groups, respectively, when they always experience discrimination as compared to peers who never experience discrimination.

Conversely, pupils with a growth mindset and a very high sense of belonging at school increased their odds of being among the high achievers with a factor of 2 (growth mindset) and 4 (belonging); the chances of achieving excellent mathematics scores were 7 times as high for pupils with the highest levels of school belonging, which was one of the strongest effects in our study. Despite being based on cross-sectional data, these findings align with previous international comparative studies examining the impact of perceived discrimination and school belonging (Baysu et al., 2023) and longitudinal studies documenting such effects over time (e.g., Celeste et al., 2019).

This latter set of findings also suggests potential indirect pathways from school diversity policies to achievement via these psychological processes. In that sense, and based on the literature reviewed above, an assimilationist school policy may be even more harmful since it undermines belonging for ethnic minority students (see also Konings et al., 2024) and usually leaves discrimination unaddressed (i.e., it is the minoritized pupils who should “overcome their deficits”).

In contrast, a strengths based multiculturalist school policy may have a more positive impact on achievement than would be expected on the basis of the direct links investigated here. By recognizing and valuing cultural diversity, fostering a sense of belonging and a growth mindset, as well as through addressing and fighting against discrimination and systemic inequalities, a multicultural approach can scaffold the necessary psychological processes to thrive in education. As such, a strengths-based approach has the potential to transform educational experiences and outcomes for all students, and particularly those from marginalized communities, even against the odds when attending majority-minority schools.”

Agirdag, O., & De Leersnyder, J. (2024). Against the odds: predictors of academic success and excellence in majority-minority schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 35(3), 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2024.2385938

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Student performance and equity in education (2023).

“PISA 2022 students and immigrant background. The Student Questionnaire collected information about where students and their parents were born. These data were used to create a measure of immigrant status with 3 categories: Australian-born, first-generation and foreign-born.10 Table 1.12 shows that 52% of the students who participated in PISA 2022 were Australian-born, 34% were first generation students and over 14%were foreign-born students.

PISA 2022 students and language spoken at home The Student Questionnaire asked students which language was spoken in their homes most of the time. A measure of language spoken at home was derived to identify students who spoke English at home and students who spoke a language other than English at home. In PISA 2022, 86% of students indicated that English was spoken at home most of the time, while 14% of students indicated they spoke a language other than English at home most of the time.”

De Bortoli, L., Underwood, C., & Thomson, S. (2023). PISA 2022. Reporting Australia’s results. Volume I: Student performance and equity in education. Australian Council for Educational Research. 

https://doi.org/10.37517/978-1-74286-725-0

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (2023).

“The provision of school resources to facilitate the literacy development and growth of students at schools in which the majority of students enter with few literacy skills is critical in ensuring that all students have equal opportunities to develop these skills.

Students entering school with literacy skills School principals were asked to indicate what proportion of students in their school (more than 75%; 51–75%; 25–50%; or less than 25%) had basic literacy skills, such as being able to write letters of the alphabet or write sentences, when they began their first year of primary school

The PIRLS 2021 school questionnaire asked principals what proportion of the student body had English as their first language. Figure 4.2 presents the proportion of Australian students in each of the 3 language group categories (50% or less; 51 to 90%; more than 90% have English as a first language), along with their average reading scores. According to Australian principals, 47% of Year 4 students attended schools in which more than 90% of the student population spoke English as their first language, while 20% attended schools in which 50% or less of the student body spoke English as their first language.

Language background of school populations

 The predominant language spoken at home can be an important factor in the development of a student’s reading literacy (see Bruggink et al., 2022 for a summary of research on reading comprehension among multilingual students). Additionally, when a student body is composed predominantly of students who do not have the language of instruction as a first language, there may be added layers of challenge for schools and teachers in communicating with parents about reading approaches, learning strategies, even homework requirements. Not speaking the language of instruction and the language of reading literacy at home may not be the same obstacle for the Australian PIRLS 2021 cohort as it was in the past. Results presented in Chapter 2 indicated that there was no difference in the average PIRLS 2021 reading scores of students who spoke English as their main language at home and the reading scores of students who spoke another language at home. The PIRLS 2021 school questionnaire asked principals what proportion of the student body had English as their first language. Figure 4.2 presents the proportion of Australian students in each of the 3 language group categories (50% or less; 51 to 90%; more than 90% have English as a first language), along with their average reading scores. According to Australian principals, 47% of Year 4 students attended schools in which more than 90% of the student population spoke English as their first language, while 20% attended schools in which 50% or less of the student body spoke English as their first language. Interestingly, there were no significant achievement differences between the 3 groups of schools. This contrasts with PIRLS 2016 results, in which average reading scores for students who attended schools where almost all (more than 90%) of students spoke English as their first language were significantly higher than for students in the other 2 groups.

PIRLS definition of reading literacy is … the ability to understand and use those written language forms required by society and/ or valued by the individual. Readers can construct meaning from texts in a variety of forms. They read to learn, to participate in communities of readers in school and everyday life, and for enjoyment (Mullis & Martin, 2019).”

Hillman, K., O’Grady, E., Rodrigues, S., Schmid, M., & Thomson, S. (2023). Progress in International Reading Literacy Study: Australia’s results from PIRLS 2021. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.37517/978-1-74286-693-2

https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=pirls

“International and national data continue to identify poor literacy standards among secondary school students. The researchers, in collaboration with a metropolitan secondary school in Perth, Western Australia, elected to use the Direct Instruction Reading Mastery program to improve students' reading skills. Data on reading performance was collected from 59 Year 7-9 students identified by their teachers as having poor reading skills. Students were assessed using the Woodcock Reading Mastery III and were retested twice during the remainder of the year. Teaching staff were observed delivering the program and were interviewed in the final term of the year to ascertain their experiences while using the program. Results showed a statistically significant improvement in students' reading performance. There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between higher reading improvement and higher attendance.

The program was effective for students regardless of equity group. Semi-structured interviews with the teacher and teaching assistants delivering the program indicated they were overwhelmingly positive about the program but identified difficulty delivering it with fidelity. This was also noted during classroom observation. The results from this research support the efficacy of using Direct Instruction programs, such as Reading Mastery, to improve the reading outcomes for adolescent students who are struggling to read. However, they also highlight the complexity of influencing reading success for students in secondary schools, with factors such as attendance and fidelity of delivery influencing the success of the program.”

Susan Main; Margie Backhouse; Robert Jackson; Susan Hill  (2020). Mitigating Reading Failure in Adolescents: Outcomes of a Direct Instruction Reading Program in One Secondary School. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, v43 n2 p152-166 2020

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Quality of teaching in schools increases students’ progress of attainment (2024).

“Abstract: Parents have the option of enrolling their children in the first stage of early childhood education (from 0 to 3 years of age). However, not all parents decide to do so, waiting until the second stage of early childhood education to enrol them in the education system (from 3 to 5 years of age), or even until compulsory education when their children are around 6. We intend to analyse the influence of students' enrolment in the first stage of early childhood education on their fourth-grade reading scores. This analysis has been performed using data from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 and 2016 for 39 countries and an instrumental variable approach to go beyond simple correlation. We find that attending the first stage of early childhood education has a positive influence on students' reading scores in 18 countries, whereas it presents a null influence in 16 countries.”

Bernhard, R., McDermott, T., Hasenhüttl, C., Burn, K., & Sammons, P. (2024). A focus on quality of teaching in schools increases students’ progress of attainment. Evidence from English secondary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2024.2398601

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

AI Overview

“The claim that schools with a high concentration of ethnic minorities underperform is a complex one, with research suggesting a nuanced relationship between school composition and student outcomes. While some studies show that schools with higher proportions of students from low SES and minority backgrounds may have lower average student outcomes, it's crucial to consider the various factors at play and avoid generalizations. 

Here's a more detailed look at the issue:

Factors Contributing to Perceived Underperformance:

• Socioeconomic Disparities:

Schools serving communities with higher rates of poverty and lower SES may have fewer resources, less experienced teachers, and may face challenges related to student access to quality education and resources. 

• School Composition Effects:

Studies suggest that students from all socioeconomic backgrounds tend to improve their outcomes when attending schools with larger proportions of high SES students. 

• Discrimination and Implicit Bias:

Ethnic minority students may experience implicit bias from teachers and peers, leading to reduced engagement and lower academic performance. 

• Cultural Mismatches:

Differences in language, culture, and learning styles between school systems and minority families can also impact academic outcomes. 

• Lack of Institutional Trust:

A sense of disrespect and injustice can lead minority students to disengage, defy authority, and underperform. 

Counterarguments and Nuanced Perspectives:

• Strengths-Based Approaches:

Schools that embrace diversity and incorporate strengths-based curricula can foster a sense of belonging and achievement among minority students. 

• Role of Social Capital:

Co-ethnic and co-racial peer networks can provide social support and positive influences, even in integrated settings. 

• Importance of Family Involvement:

Parental support and involvement in education can significantly impact student outcomes, particularly for ethnic minority students. 

• Rapid Language Acquisition:

Some ethnic minority children may start school with limited English proficiency, but quickly develop language and other learning skills, making rapid progress in attainment. 

• Motivation and Aspirations:

Research suggests that the motivation and aspirations of ethnic minority students can play a crucial role in their academic success. 

Conclusion:

While schools with high concentrations of ethnic minorities may face challenges and disparities, attributing underperformance solely to ethnicity is an oversimplification. The issue is complex, influenced by a variety of factors, including socioeconomic disparities, discrimination, cultural differences, and the role of schools, families, and communities. A more nuanced understanding is needed to address the root causes of educational inequities and ensure that all students have the opportunity to succeed.”

“While the gap in high school completion has narrowed over time, the percentage of Black and Hispanic high school graduates is still significantly less than that of their White counterparts. Throughout the nation, minority students experience disparities in their educational experience that directly impact their long-term learning and success. The most significant contributors to educational disparities amongst the nation’s racial and ethnic minorities include poverty, segregation and racial school districting, inadequate language resources for English language learners, bullying, and lack of access to health resources.

The consequences of educational disparities among these minorities include continued poverty, decreased college enrollment and performance, long-term professional disparities, and decreased political participation. Leading practices to reduce educational disparities include sending adequately trained educators to regions in need, providing free, easily-accessible means of education to students requiring additional assistance, implementing early educational programs, and providing the nation’s most disparaged students with tutoring, mentorship, and financial support.

Key Takeaways

  While advances in policy and practice have increased overall equality towards the nation’s minorities, the United States’ history of racial segregation in schools and overall societal structure continues to play a key role in the educational disparities experienced among minority students.

  Educational inequality throughout the nation is most commonly caused by poor funding or diminished attention to impoverished or minority school districts, often leading to poor performance and achievement levels.

  National economic reports suggest there is a strong correlation between educational achievement and income, suggesting lower quality education can lead to lower income later in life.

  Poverty level, minority or racial status, language, and peer or family history are proven to contribute to educational disparities; most of which are also found to be consequences of low academic involvement and achievement. This is referred to as the education disparity cycle.

  The most successfully reported interventions to reduce continuation of the education disparity cycle are to provide early childhood education programs, financial support, and individualized mentoring and assistance to help students mobilize out of the cycle.

Key Terms+

Educational disparity—Inequalities within the education system reflected in test scores assessing academic achievement, such as reading and mathematics; percentages of those repeating one or more grades; dropout and graduation rates; proportions of students involved in gifted and talented programs; enrollment in higher education; and behavioral markers of adjustment, including discipline, suspension, and expulsion rates.¹

Education disparity cycle—The cyclical continuation of diminished educational involvement or academic success across multiple generations. Similar to repeating patterns of the poverty cycle.²

Dropout—A student who discontinues their schooling prior to the reception of a high school diploma, preventing him or her from graduating high school or starting college.³

Gifted and talented programs—Programs that cater to students with the capability to academically perform at higher levels than other students of their same age, experience, and environment. These programs help these students to progress at levels equivalent to their abilities.^{4, 5}

No Child Left Behind—Officially titled the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, this US federal law aimed at improving public primary and secondary school performance. The law significantly increased the federal government’s role in holding schools responsible for the academic progress of all students and placed a special focus on ensuring that states and schools boosted performance of typically underperforming students (such as English language learners), students in special education, and poor and minority students whose achievement, on average, did not meet that of their peers.⁶

Redlining—Resulting from government surveying and economic districting in the 1930s, redlining is “the systematic denial of various services to residents of specific, often racially associated, neighborhoods or communities, either directly or through the selective raising of prices.”

Bushnell, Lauren. (2021).  Educational Disparities Among Racial and Ethnic Minority Youth in the United States. Ballard Brief. www.ballardbrief.org

https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/educational-disparities-among-racial-and-ethnic-minority-youth-in-the-united-states

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Social Segregation in Australian Schools is Amongst the Highest in the World (2023)

“Overview:

A new report released by the OECD shows that social segregation in Australian schools is amongst the highest in the world. Australia has the 8th highest rate of social segregation out of 71 countries participating in the OECD’s Programme of International Students Assessments in 2015. Australia’s social segregation is also the 4th highest in the OECD.

This is one of the most alarming results to come out of PISA 2015. It shows that social apartheid is an enduring feature of Australia’s school system. Students are sharply divided by social class in schools. Other research shows staggering levels of ethnic and religious segregation in schools.

Social segregation in schools has dire consequences for education outcomes and the nature of our society. It is a key factor behind the high inequity in education in Australia as evidenced by the large achievement gaps between high socio-economic status (SES) students and low SES, Indigenous and remote area students. It allows privileged groups to maintain and enhance their advantages. It allows prejudice and social discrimination to hold sway.

School choice policies in Australia have compounded the effects of housing segregation.

Government funding policies have fostered the expansion of private schools and have denuded many public schools of the resources they need to provide quality learning opportunities and outcomes for their students. Many advantaged families have abandoned their local public school in a search for better-resourced, high quality schools. The result has been an increasing concentration of disadvantaged students in some public schools and increasing concentration of advantaged students in others.

Governments must ensure that all schools are excellent schools. This requires increased funding for disadvantaged schools to provide them with the human and material resources necessary to provide high quality learning opportunities for their students. This can be financed by re-directing government funding from private schools whose total income exceeds that of public schools to disadvantaged public and private schools.

Ensuring that all local schools are excellent, well-resourced schools would reduce the incentive for families to look for more advantaged schools outside their local area. It would make for a better social mix of students in public schools.

High social segregation in schools:

The extent of social segregation in Australian schools is only exceeded in the United Arab Emirates, Peru, Israel, Indonesia, Hungary, Qatar and Chile [see Chart 1 below]. It is very much higher than in other high performing countries such as Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Finland, Poland and New Zealand.

In the OECD, the extent of social segregation in Australian schools is only exceeded in Israel, Hungary and Chile [Chart 2]. Australia’s rate is significantly above the average for the OECD.

The new OECD report analysed social segregation by the mix of students from blue-collar and white- collar occupations in schools. The concentration of students is measured by a social segregation index ranging from 0 to 100, with values close to 0 indicating that children of blue-collar and white- collar workers are distributed evenly across schools, and values closer to 100 indicating that children of blue-collar and white-collar workers are likely to attend different schools.

The report also examined the extent of social segregation between public and private schools. Its analysis shows that Australia has the 7th highest rate in the world [Chart 3]. Only Peru, Uruguay, Brazil, Malta, Spain and Columbia have greater segregation between public and private schools. Australia has the 2nd highest social segregation between public and private schools in the OECD, only behind Spain [Chart 4]. Australia’s rate is much higher than the average for the OECD.

The extent of social segregation between public and private schools in Australia accounts for 16% of the total segregation in schools. This is also high by world and OECD standards, as only 11 other countries have a higher percentage. It implies that social segregation is also high in public and private schools. However, the new report does not analyse the extent of social segregation in public and private schools separately.

Social segregation is exacerbated by school choice policies

While residential segregation is an important factor behind social segregation in schools, it is exacerbated by education policies. This is the case in Australia where education policies at the federal and state levels have promoted choice and competition between schools across both the public and private sectors.

Commonwealth Government policies for the past 15 years or more were instrumental in increasing social segregation between public and private schools. The Howard Government supported the expansion of school choice by abolishing restrictions on the number, size and growth of private schools which had discouraged the proliferation of new, small schools in areas already satisfactorily serviced by both public and private schools. The Howard Government also massively boosted funding for private schools under the new SES funding model. These changes fostered a massive increase in the number of private schools, predominantly in the so-called Independent sector.

Government policies have also fostered highly segregated private schools by class, ethnicity and religion. We have a social hierarchy of private schools according to fee levels, with even the richest schools serving the wealthiest families receiving government funding. Researchers have found

“staggering’’ levels of ethnic segregation among predominantly white, elite private schools. There are separate Catholic order, Anglican, Uniting Church, Lutheran, evangelical Christian, Seventh-Day Adventist, Jewish, Sunni and Shia Muslim schools. Now, the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia want to be able to create "satellite" Indigenous-only campuses in their schools.

Public schools are also increasingly characterised by class and ethnic self-segregation. Government funding policies have denuded many public schools of the resources they need to provide quality learning opportunities and outcomes for their students. Many advantaged families have abandoned their local public school in a search for better-resourced, high quality schools in neighbouring suburbs.

Disadvantaged students, including many migrants and refugees, are increasingly concentrated in some schools, while neighbouring schools largely accommodate middle-class white students.

White advantaged families are paying hundreds of thousands, even millions, to buy homes in suburbs to gain entry to coveted schools. Well-off Asian families are paying thousands of dollars to private coaching colleges to ensure entry to selective schools in Sydney and Melbourne. For example, senior lecturer at the University of Technology Sydney, Christine Ho, has concluded that selective schools in Sydney are “ethnically unbalanced’’ which results in “hyper-racialised’’ environments.

Ho says that there is “society-wide obsession with competition and choice in education” in Australia. Unrestricted school choice has fuelled status competition as some, mostly the well-off, strive to gain more status than others by monopolising socially desirable schools. Popular schools cherry pick high achieving students from other schools to maintain their status in the community. Social segregation and a social hierarchy of schools is the inevitable outcome. As Ho says, government policies have created a marketplace in schools that has led to self-segregation by providing more school choice for parents.

Many studies over the past 20 years have shown that more choice leads to greater social segregation in schools. Leading US expert, Henry Levin, Professor of Economics and Education at Columbia University in New York, recently said that school choice has precipitated “the systematic separation of students by ethnicity, social class and religion” everywhere it has been implemented. A major US study published recently in the American Journal of Sociology found “overwhelming evidence” that school segregation increases with the decentralization of local schooling markets and greater school choice.

The OECD has consistently found that increased choice and competition between schools has increased social segregation between schools. For example, a brief analysing data from PISA 2012 concluded: “Competition among schools is related to greater socio-economic segregation among students” [p.3].

A review of school choice policies in OECD countries conducted by the OECD secretariat concluded:

In the last 25 years, more than two-thirds of OECD countries have increased school choice opportunities for parents. The empirical evidence reviewed here reveals that providing full parental school choice results in further student segregation between schools, by ability, socio-economic and ethnic background, and in greater inequities across education systems. [abstract]

This conclusion was echoed in the OECD report Equity and Quality in Education:

Providing full parental school choice can result in segregating students by ability, socio economic background and generate greater inequities across education systems. [p.90]

Another OECD report, Equity, Excellence and Inclusiveness in Education, noted:

School-choice schemes that do not take equity considerations into account can lead to greater sorting and segregation of students by ability, income and ethnic background. [p.61]

It said that policy makers should “avoid socio-economic segregation within school systems” [p.101]. This is because social segregation in schools has very large negative consequences for students and society.”

Lawrence, C. (2023). Social Segregation in Australian Schools is Amongst the Highest in the World. Social Segregation Teachers Union of Western Australia (SSTUWA).

https://www.sstuwa.org.au/research/social-segregation-australian-schools-amongst-highest-world#:~:text=for%20the%20OECD.-,The%20extent%20of%20social%20segregation%20between%20public%20and%20private%20schools,in%20public%20and%20private%20schools

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

“In 2020 and beyond, educational practices for language minority students have increasingly emphasized the importance of using their first language in learning, recognizing the unique challenges and strengths these students bring to the classroom. The focus is on fostering inclusivity, valuing diverse languages and cultures, and ensuring equitable educational outcomes. 

Key Developments and Trends:

• Emphasis on First Language Use:

The UN and educational experts have emphasized the importance of teaching in a student's native language, particularly for language minorities, as it leads to better academic results, reduces dropout rates, and improves literacy in both the first and second languages. 

• Recognizing Cultural Capital:

Educators are encouraged to acknowledge and utilize the existing knowledge, lived experiences, and cultural capital that students bring to the classroom. 

• Support for English Language Learners (ELLs):

Strategies like identifying a student's level of English proficiency, providing focused opportunities for first language use, and understanding the silent period are crucial for supporting ELLs. 

• Promoting Multilingualism and Biliteracy:

Encouraging multilingualism and biliteracy is recognized as beneficial for students' cognitive development, academic achievement, and social-emotional well-being. 

• Utilizing Technology:

Digital tools and online resources are being used to enhance language learning and provide access to learning materials for language minority students. 

• Inclusive and Equitable Practices:

Schools are encouraged to create inclusive and equitable learning environments that celebrate linguistic and cultural diversity, foster a sense of belonging, and provide individualized support for all students. 

• Policy and Research:

Policies and research on language and education are increasingly addressing the needs of diverse student populations and exploring innovative approaches to language education. 

Challenges and Considerations:

• Language Barriers:

Language barriers can limit access to education, healthcare, and other essential services for language minority students. 

• English Language Dominance:

The dominance of English in education can create challenges for multilingual students and may not adequately support their linguistic and cultural development. 

• One-Size-Fits-All Approach:

A one-size-fits-all approach to language education can be ineffective and may not address the unique needs of individual students. 

• Testing and Evaluation:

High-stakes testing can lead to performance anxiety and discourage intrinsic motivation for language learning, particularly for students who are navigating multiple languages. 

Looking Ahead:

The focus on language minority student education is expected to continue to evolve, with an increasing emphasis on:

• Teacher training and professional development: on supporting multilingual learners. 
• Developing innovative teaching methods: and resources that cater to the diverse needs of language learners. 
• Advocating for policies and practices: that promote equity and inclusion for all students. 
• Conducting research: to better understand the needs of language minority students and the effectiveness of various educational approaches. 

• English as an additional language.”

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Education+for+Language+Minority+Students%3A+2020+and+2025%22&oq=%22Education+for+Language+Minority+Students%3A+2020+and+2025%22&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAjIHCAIQIRiPAtIBCTM5MTk3ajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

“This study explored contextual factors of student teachers’ weak academic language (AL) performance in a pre-service teacher education programme at a university in Namibia. The aim was to capture their experience in the BEd programme in which English as a second language is the medium of instruction. In interviews with the students (n = 15) and their lecturers (n = 6), as well as analyses of curriculum- and policy documents and students’ writing artefacts, it was evident that the students did not have enough opportunity to practice AL skills, which were introduced in the English for academic purposes (EAP) course and in subsequent courses. Data from interviews, documents and students’ written artefacts showed that the AL interventions had not been integrated across the curriculum. The main suggestion emanating from the study is that programme designers should embed AL across the disciplines in disciplines, with academic staff and the writing centre colleagues working together.

As we argue for an embedded AL approach, we concede that the redesign of a university programme comes with several challenges. We do not agree with Krashen (Citation2018, 6) that students cannot be ‘taught’ AL skills. We suggest that they can – provided they have sufficient guided opportunities for practice and access to self-help programmes. By 2025, many of these will be available online and teacher educators at UNAM can advise students to make a reliable selection of tools to use. The framework that we suggest in this paper is likely to be adjusted when evidence about its feasibility surfaces.

There are challenges for any such intervention, specifically in terms of research grants needed for the two PhD students, finding the best match of researchers for the topic, and setting aside time for the planning, which should, preferably, not be in an entirely virtual modality.

The limitations of the current study have alerted the first author to planning in future. Ideally, a longitudinal study could have served the research questions of the current study better and a larger sample of students would have added to the overall usability of the outcomes. However, having conducted the study during the difficult times of the Covid pandemic, we would suggest that the work contributed to our understanding of AL in one teacher education programme.

Nevertheless, the research questions with which we initiated the research of this paper can serve as a starting point. The views and experiences of students and other stakeholders, along with the documents comprising policy and course content, and examples of the students’ writing can potentially lead to innovation in the UNAM programmes of teacher education. We would also argue that the research may be useful for studies about AL with similar participants in comparable environments.”

Shingenge, F., & Henning, E. (2024). Towards embedded academic language development in a teacher education programme. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2024.2414914

“What, then, are the implications of massication, internationalisation and the role of English as a global language for tertiary education? Universities, in Australia and elsewhere, need to be particularly mindful of the factors described above. Over a quarter of students on Australian campuses have English as a second/additional language (Knight, 2011). This does not include those ‘Australian’ students of non-English speaking background who may not be very proficient in English, depending on their previous exposure to English in Australia or elsewhere. A great number of these students will require varying levels of support and continuing language development. For while students may be able to satisfy English language entry requirements, this simply acknowledges the fact that they are able to ‘start’, but not necessarily to complete, their course of study without support (Rochecouste, Oliver, Mulligan & Davies, 2010).

The new regulatory body for Australian Universities, the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA) has indicated that it will require universities to provide robust support in this area (Murray, 2011). International students will also need to develop intercultural communication skills if they are to successfully engage with Australian people and culture and to complete their studies successfully (Briguglio & Smith, 2012). Indeed all students in Australian universities need to develop intercultural communication skills in order to prepare for future workplaces which may take them anywhere across the world. Even in the unlikely event that students do not travel or work outside Australia, they will in any case come face to face (or screen to screen) with intercultural communication contexts. Australian universities have largely paid lip-service to the rich cultural diversity on Australian campuses, espousing the potential for intercultural learning. However, research indicates that there is little mixing among students in class and that very little intercultural learning actually takes place within the context of the curriculum (Arkoudis et al., 2012; Sawir, Marginson, Deumert, Nyland & Ramia, 2008; Volet & Ang, 2012). In the university of the 21st century, academic staff also need to develop intercultural communication skills in order to address the varied needs of diverse student populations and to function effectively in the teaching and learning context. Many staff are aware of the language difficulties faced by international and local students. However, few of them feel equipped to deal with this issue in any concrete way. Largely, academic staff see it as their responsibility to convey discipline knowledge and not language skills (Dunworth & Briguglio, 2011) although there is a sort of hovering anxiety about the latter, which often remains unexpressed (Bretag, 2007).”

Briguglio, C., & S. Watson. (2014). Embedding English Language Across the Curriculum in Higher Education: A Continuum of Development Support. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy 37 (1): 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651933.

 (Open in a new window)Google Scholar

“Virtual laboratories (VL) can provide students with learning experiences simulating practical experiments in a traditional laboratory. Evidence is presented that students believe in the truth of results from the VL as well as those from the traditional laboratory. The underlying reasons for these beliefs are explored, through Russell’s description of truth and Kuhn’s paradigm model.

This paper describes part of a small-scale study of level 3 science students in a large Further Education college. Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews are used to investigate learning in both traditional and virtual laboratories; to gain insights into users’ views and experiences. Differences emerged through themes of: reality; control; skills; theory; truth and risk.

The paper focusses on truth; students tend to believe the results of both real and virtual experiments. Their belief in the VL is based on external authority, such as universities, large companies and their teacher, while belief in the traditional laboratory is based on empirical evidence. When presented with a conflict between the results, their level of confidence in the VL appears to correlate with their A-level grades.”

Peirson, N. F. (2025). Lived experiences of science education: a preliminary exploration of students’ experience of truth in virtual and traditional science laboratories in further education. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 30(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2025.2469010

It is my older document that goes back to around the year 2000 and lower.

*****************************************************

Education for Language Minority Students: Recent Events

https://www.nifdi.org/resources/hempenstall-blog/hempenstalls-referenced-documents/di-news-articles/347-education-for-language-minority-students-recent-events-spring-2004/file.html

How is an education system that teaches its curriculum in the English language able to manage with students who have little or no experience with the language of instruction? If numbers are low, or if there is little assessment of later educational outcomes, then the issue may not arouse a great deal of attention. However, the number of immigrants without English is very high and increasing in many developed countries. For example, the number of students who have limited English proficiency (LEP) has doubled in the last 10 years, whilst the general school population has grown by only 12% (Kindler, 2002). Within 50 years in the United States, the proportion of children beginning school whose language is not English could be as high as 40% (Lindhlom-Leary, 2000). The recent emphasis on accountability for educational outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) at national and state levels has focused attention on how best to assist LEP students to manage the adjustment to a new culture, language, and education system. It has long been recognized that most LEP students were born into economically disadvantaged families, and their arrival in a new country often creates even more profound disadvantage. Many newly arrived parents have little or no English and may have experienced little or no formal education. Thus, many LEP students will come to school with little of the background knowledge that is prerequisite for academic progress, nor with a family culture of learning. LEP students represent an educationally at-risk group—most perform below grade level in educational attainment and are in educational settings with fewer than average resources. There has been strong concern about the predictable trajectory of such disadvantaged students and an awareness of the need to interrupt the pattern for the sake of the new arrivals—and also because it creates a cycle of further disadvantage that entrenches a subclass in society.

Endeavours to maximise opportunities for the LEP children have been complicated by a contentious, politically enmeshed issue—the language in which most or all early education should take place (Porter, 2000). History Schools employing the native language of new arrivals were established by enterprising European immigrant groups as far back as the 1800s, and of course, many children of that period received their education at home in their parents’ language rather than in the school system. Nationalistic fervour following the First World War led to the belief that rapid assimilation to the culture and language was the ideal outcome for new arrivals. In education, the non-English speaking student was largely left to his own devices—to dive, survive, or thrive—a model that became known as submersion. No particular assistance was provided to the students, who were placed immediately in regular classes with their English-speaking peers. This approach was later tempered when regular instruction in English as a Second Language (ESL) was introduced. ESL is a model in which children attend regular classes in English, but are provided with an additional period of English instruction either daily or several times per week (Rossell, 1998). The rise of multiculturalism after the 1960s introduced a different atmosphere—one in which diversity was to be cultivated rather than submerged. From this perspective, the dominant culture is enhanced by encouraging different languages, customs, and lifestyles to coexist, thrive, and merge. Indeed, the students’ native culture (including language) should be celebrated and respected as the equal of that of the dominant culture (Mora, 2002). Partly deriving from this broad sociocultural belief system is the expectation that schools should provide early teaching in the child’s first language in a discrete, largely single-language class.

The instructional rationale is that at least some degree of first language competence is necessary for students’ cognitive development (Rossell, 2003), and that literacy skills developed in this first language will readily transfer to learning to read and write in English (Mora, 2002; Rossell, 2003). This bilingual approach is intuitively attractive, as it provides a sense of the familiar in a potentially threatening environment, and it also begins with instruction that makes use of the child’s strengths. Thus, it is argued, students should make progress consonant with that of their peers because they do not have to master both English and the school curriculum simultaneously. It became known as a bilingual education system, because education is provided by the school in more than one language. Students would learn to read, write, and experience the school curriculum (math, science, etc.) in their native language, with an increasing amount of English instruction as their progress dictated (Guzman, 2002). The expectation was that it might entail a couple of years or even as many as 7 before their English proficiency would enable full inclusion in all regular classes, but certainly within their elementary school career.

Another advantage was the capacity whereas 32% considered that at least some subjects would be better taught in native languages. Most parents, it appears, consider immersion a better option for their children’s participation in society. Some interested parties have argued that multiculturalism is a vitally important social goal that is best promoted by the bilingual approach of teaching in and about other languages and cultures (Mora, 2002). Others have suggested that one reason why bilingualism became so entrenched was as an element in the broader social goal of reducing prejudice in society (Aboud & Levy, 1999).

Thus, efficacy is not the only criterion employed in discussion about the competing approaches. The bilingual approach has been the dominant approach for many years but has received increasing criticism over the past 10 years. For example, the time spent in maintaining development of the native language has an opportunity cost. It is time that could have been spent in practising English, and critics argue that the costs outweigh the benefits (Gersten & Baker, 2000; Guzman, 2002). Numerous studies and reviews have been performed, yet methodological quality has frequently been questioned (Rennie & Marcos, 2003; Slavin, 2004), making consensus difficult to obtain. This has led to an entrenching of positions as protagonists laud studies supporting their perspective and strongly criticize others. Their opponents condemn those lauded studies and defend the criticised studies (Rossell, 2003). In particular, the choice of studies deemed acceptable to various meta-analysts has been an area of disagreement. Slavin’s (2004) recent “best evidence synthesis” (Slavin, 1986) regarding reading instruction is an attempt to overcome some of the apparent variability in determining thereby to full participation in society (Porter, 2000). This scenario of inclusion in the same class as one’s peers is potentially less stigmatising, and also provides opportunities for English language learning to be accelerated through increased peer contact and the sheer volume of English experienced peer contact and the sheer volume of English experience. English instruction is provided intensively for a year, and then children are assigned to a grade with students of similar levels of English development. A specialist teacher provides instruction for every subject in English, with allowance for some excursions into the native language as the need arises, such as for difficult concepts. This is unlikely to exceed about 10%–30% of the instructional time, and the language sophistication employed by the teacher is expected to match the capabilities of the particular group of students (Baker, 1998).

Which general approach is most effective may appear to be an empirical question; however, much more heat than light has been shed on this question. The goal of the protagonists in this debate is surely identical—to enable students to make optimal use of educational and social opportunities so as to enjoy productive and satisfying lives in their new land. However, there are other ideals competing with efficacy. For example, the United Nations asserts that children have a right to be educated in the language of their home should parents seek it, a position also adopted by the International Reading Association (2001). When a Public Agenda poll (Farkas, Duffett, & Johnson, 2003) asked immigrants for their views, 63% responded that all classes should be conducted in Eng education at the beginning stages, when they might otherwise have been excluded by the language barrier.

Parents to be involved in their child’s ages, when they might otherwise have been excluded by the language barrier. An extension of bilingualism is known as two-way immersion (Christian, Howard, & Loeb, 2000) and involves all kindergarten students participating in learning a second language from the beginning of the school year. In this model, all instruction occurs in two languages (for example, English and Spanish), and all students remain in the same classroom. The assertion is that each group benefits to a greater degree than they would were they segregated. The language minority students rapidly develop English through authentic discourse and interlanguage transfer of skills, whilst the language majority students reap the bonus of proficiency in a second language. Despite the apparent loss of instructional time available for the language majority students to attend to curriculum issues, it is argued that the process occurs without jeopardising their academic progress (Christian et al., 2000).

A later approach, structured immersion, was based on the premise that progress may be more rapid if the language minority student receives his or her education in English alongside the locally born peers and also participates in English language instruction in a special class for a year. The underlying beliefs are that learning a new language is easier when a child is young and that immersion in the language promotes optimal development (Morlan, 2000).

Philosophically, immersion is attractive because of its presumed advantages in producing fluency in the English language, an essential step on the path to an equal education, and thereby to full participation in society (Porter, 2000).

This scenario of inclusion in the same class as one’s peers is potentially less stigmatising, and also provides opportunities for English language learning to be accelerated through increased peer contact and the sheer volume of English experience. Philosophically, immersion is attractive because of its presumed advantages in producing fluency in the English language, an essential step on the path to an equal education, and thereby to full participation in society (Porter, 2000).

To complicate matters further, a relatively low proportion of students in bilingual classes participate in statewide testing (Rossell, 2003), as such tests are printed in English. Thus, the system-wide attainment levels of students in bilingual education programs have been less well scrutinised than is desirable. A further exploratory meta-analysis by Baker and Gersten (1997) was prompted by a desire to tease out instructionally important variables. But, as was noted in the National Research Council report, the research to that time had been insufficiently well controlled to enable any firm conclusions about such variables. Indeed, Gersten and Baker (2000) describe the pace of instructional research focused upon LEP students as “glacial” (p. 454).

Mandated Change The criticisms developed enough momentum among Californians that, in 1998’s Proposition 227, they replaced bilingual education in the state’s public schools with English immersion programs that allow education in a transitional sheltered immersion program only for the 1st year. After that year, they are expected to manage in an all-English language classroom. Although parents have the right to request bilingual education, fewer than half the former number of students are currently in bilingual programs (Rossell, 2002). Several other states have taken, or are considering, similar action. Of course, not all states make special provision for LEP students—there are 16 that do not, and there is considerable variation in the models of assistance that other states provide (Kellis et al., 2001).

The long term impact in the states adopting immersion programs is not yet clear. Rossell’s (2002) analysis notes improved outcomes in California, partly because, according to her The length of time students spend outside the mainstream has also elicited criticism. Those children who begin bilingual intervention early (ages 4–7 years) could be segregated for between 3 and 10 years, while later starters (ages 8–11 years) average 2 to 7 years. When students arrive later into programs (ages 12–15 years), they may never leave—remaining segregated for 6 to 8 years (Kellis, Brezovsky, & Silvernail, 2001). The current state of education for LEP students is creating great concern, yet clear unambiguous solutions are not easy to find.

An influential report commissioned by the National Research Council (August & Hakuta, 1997) noted that there was insufficient evidence that teaching programs in one’s native language was more effective than English immersion or English as a Second Language programs.

The report further noted a paucity of well designed studies of the dominant model’s effectiveness, calling for more fine-grained research that would allow for decisions to be based upon measurable student outcomes. Rossell and Baker (1996), in reviewing 300 studies, reported that only 72 were of adequate design. From this data, they concluded that there was little evidence to recommend bilingual education over other approaches or, indeed, over submersion. Several authors have challenged the criteria employed in this meta-analysis and Ad hominem attacks on opponents are not unknown. For example, Mora (2002) asserts that arguing for structured immersion implies a belief that other languages and cultures are inferior to English-based cultures. She further claims, “In order to curtail rights of access to education for language minority students and their parents, the anti-bilingual education forces have constructed a lie” (para 8). Further clouding the issue are problems of definition. There can be considerable difficulty in determining precisely what instructional components are employed in programs that carry the label bilingual. There is a great deal of variation across programs, a scenario similar to that which plagued the whole language evaluation question for so long. Some consider almost all intervention programs bilingual if some native language is used at some part of the day. Others consider bilingual programs to include a narrow band of specified features (de Cos, 1999).

It is conceivable that different reviews may include the same study but under any of the categories: structured immersion, bilingual, or ESL (Clark, 1999; Rossell, 2003). Recent Public Concern However, some statistics have troubled parents and policy makers. Under bilingualism, non-English proficient students have higher grade-repetition rates and four times the dropout rate of their English-fluent peers (Marnie, 2001). They present with lower school achievement, whether assessed by their teachers or on standardized tests of reading and math (Moss & Puma, 1995). Teachers often express concern about poor attitude and lack of motivation among many LEP students, although it is now being recognised that these secondary obstacles to progress are more often a result of difficulties with language acquisition, rather than a cause of their learning problems (Ganschow, Sparks, & Javorsky, 1998). The report further noted a paucity of well designed studies of the dominant model’s effectiveness, calling for more fine-grained research that would allow for decisions to be based upon measurable student outcomes. Direct Instruction News 13 make 1 year’s progress from one year to the next. It offers a more transparent view of individual student progress than is obtained by only summing results and examining averages (Barker & Torgesen, 1995). Over one year, Stanford 9 test scores for first-graders increased from the 24th percentile to the 49th percentile in reading, from the 38th to the 48th percentile in math, and from the 22nd to the 46th percentile in language.

School officials announced last year that the percentage of student scores in the top 25 percent nationally had increased from 4 percent to 18 percent in just one year. (Soifer, 2001, para 9) More recent data (2003) from the Arizona Department of Education reveals that 74% of Advantage students in math and 72% of students in reading made a year’s growth between 2002 and 2003, a result above the state average.

These outcomes are surprising given the high support needs of the students at intake (GreatSchools.net, 2003). This school pays careful attention to instructional details for LEP students. It includes Direct Instruction programs in reading, writing, and math among its curriculum. Rather than categorising students according to age, instructional groupings are determined by initial assessment of attainment in each of these areas. Teaching occurs intensively in small homogeneous groups. It is highly structured, with extended opportunities for practice, continuous assessment, and regular feedback of progress. Acceleration occurs regularly, as movement to and from groups is based on day-to-day performance, rather than on assumptions about a student’s ability.

Any students whose progress begins to decline are thus readily detected and able to obtain additional targeted instruction. third grade (Hart & Risley, 2003). Almost certainly this additional hurdle contributes to the continued concerns for many LEP students, even those in structured immersion programs. Soifer (2001) points out that the elevated achievements of some structured immersion programs derive from important structural and curriculum components, rather than simply because of the change of philosophy.

In successful programs, care is taken to ensure that appropriate levels of resources are available for instructional materials. The successful schools adopted a code emphasis reading program, and a carefully structured English language development program, and ensured that instructional time was sacrosanct, regardless of competing day-to-day priorities. Thus, influences on progress that are now well accepted for general education students (such as academic learning time) are intentionally controlled to promote similarly improved progress for LEP students. Phoenix Advantage Charter School in Arizona has also reported very strong outcomes for its high proportion (30%) of LEP students. It is a school in a disadvantaged area (80% free meals), yet it has managed to dramatically alter the trajectory of its students over a relatively short period of time. The Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) results compare each student’s Stanford 9 scores from one year with the same students’ scores in the following year to determine how many students data, bilingual programs had produced generally negative effects on achievement.

Some other reported improvements include a statewide 20% elevation of standardized test scores for minority language speakers on the California state test (Prop. 227’s promise, 2000). In one school district employing structured immersion, LEP students’ scores increased by 47% in a school year, whilst another largely bilingual district’s scores increased by only 4% (Baker, 2000). The New York Times (Soifer, 2001) reported that, since the introduction of immersion, there had been an increase of 11 percentile points in reading and 19 percentile points in math on Stanford 9 test scores for limited English proficient students in the Oceanside Unified School District. Although gains have been noted across all levels, the most significant improvements have been with younger children (Amselle & Allison, 2000). This finding is consistent with the generally accepted view that learning a new language is easier when a child is young (Johnson & Newport, 1989). In a different interpretation, these young LEP students are not strictly learning a second language, rather they are simply continuing the process of learning a language, though in a new language, English (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994). Of course, many students arriving in a new country have difficulties beyond that of a lack of English. A high proportion will have lived in poverty with the attendant problems that entails. Their parents may be uneducated, and the children’s early language development even in their native language may have been severely limited.

Thus, LEP students may have additional vocabulary problems (McLaughlin et al., 2000)—sharing one similar obstruction to progress with locally raised disadvantaged students (Hart & Risley, 2003). An early vocabulary deficit has been shown to be remarkably predictive of language growth and reading comprehension to at least Rather than categorising students according to age, instructional groupings are determined by initial assessment of attainment in each of these areas. 14 Spring 2004 Gersten, Baker, Unok Marks, and Smith (1999) and Gersten and Baker (2000) provide quite specific recommendations that include the necessity for formal explicit programming that emphasises the structure of the English language. Indeed, they recommend that content learning and language learning should be separated into discrete educational objectives if both are to be achieved. Explicit Systematic Programs and LEP Students In a British study (Stuart, 1999), 224 school beginners, 96 of whom were LEP students, were assigned to one of two intervention groups for 12 weeks. One group participated in the Jolly Phonics programme, a structured code emphasis approach.

The other group received a whole language introduction to literacy through Holdaway’s (1979) Big Books. The Jolly Phonics programme produced stronger effects on the students’ phonemic awareness and phonics knowledge and their usage of these skills in reading and writing.

In a 1- year follow up, the students in the Jolly Phonics group were still significantly more advanced in all the phonological and literacy measures.

Another explicit, structured program is Language for Learning (Engelmann & Osborn, 1999), an update of the Distar Language I program (Engelmann & Osborn, 1976). It is designed to teach oral language skills to young school children whose language underdevelopment is threatening to impede their literacy and general academic progress. It emphasizes the language usage conventions—the information and concepts that will assist those at risk, including LEP students, to manage the demands of the classroom. The emphases include syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic skills—general information, descriptions of objects, background knowledge, words used in in what contexts is it best encouraged, how is professional development for promoting literacy best provided, and how should literacy be assessed among LEP students. The panel is expected to release its report in January 2004.

One of the enduring issues in early elementary education involves the degree to which direct instruction is considered to be important in language development. Some teachers consider language development to be a natural process that occurs when students have adequate communication opportunities in everyday activities, such as listening to story reading and engaging in conversation with peers and teachers. Thus, a child-centered teacher endeavors to create a pleasant, supportive environment to motivate students to engage in a discovery process of acquiring language.

This perspective is popular, and relatively few teachers deem it necessary or desirable to provide explicit instruction (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). A different perspective holds that too many students do not induce language conventions merely by exposure to them, and that careful attention to the language of the classroom can make a large difference in the trajectory of these students. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive if an empirical rather than an ideological perspective is adopted.

Thus, there is no valid reason why a structured approach cannot coexist alongside the provision of ample opportunities for the activities favoured by the child-centered protagonists. As noted above, there is considerable variation across bilingual programs, and similar variation is also likely across structured immersion programs. It is important, then, to define what instructional qualities are present in programs when they are evaluated. In 2002, the U.S. Department of Education’s research office formed a 14 member National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The National Reading Panel (2000) did not include literacy development among language minority students in its report; in fact, much of the experimental research on literacy specifically excludes such students (Stuart, 1999). Apart from the focus on LEP students, the National Literacy Panel is established along similar lines to the National Reading Panel, although it accepts a broader range of studies, including quantitative experimental studies, quantitative nonexperimental studies, and qualitative studies.

Perhaps the additional inclusiveness was a reaction to the dearth of methodologically sound research noted by other analysts (Baker & Gersten, 1997; Rossell & Baker, 1996), or it may be in anticipation that a larger net will enable the raising of interesting research questions, even if at the cost of providing clear answers. Gersten and Baker (2000) also responded to the paucity of sound studies with a qualitative analysis technique—multivocal synthesis. It is a method for discerning patterns and trends from disparate data sources. The National Literacy Panel’s stated intention is to produce the definitive analysis of the research literature to date that will eventually lead to instructional guidelines to aid optimal development of literacy in LEP students. The report will examine such issues as the relationship between oral proficiency and literacy, the transfer of literacy skills from a student’s first language to the second language, how literacy develops among LEP students, One of the enduring issues in early elementary education involves the degree to which direct instruction is considered to be important in language development. Direct Instruction News 15 their use of the same standard instructions to introduce similar tasks. This consistency reduces the language load for students who are better able to concentrate on the concepts, reducing the risk that they may fail to comprehend the instructions for the task.

Assessment occurred across reading, language, math, and spelling at 6-week intervals to enable monitoring for the purposes of acceleration or additional support. Results were outstanding, with both the LEP students and their English-speaking peers performing above national median levels after 1 to 2 years in the program. After leaving the program, the students’ 1- and 2-year follow-up data indicated that these high levels of performance were maintained. Further studies by Gersten and colleagues (Becker & Gersten, 1982; Gersten, 1985; Gersten & Woodward, 1985, 1995) reported increased high school graduation rates and reduced grade retention when the Direct Instruction curricula were employed.

In fact, Gersten (1996) noted that even monolingual teachers could be effective in teaching literacy when using these curricula. In recent times two studies have evaluated the Language for Learning program (Benner et al., 2002; Waldron-Soler et al., 2002), although not with LEP students. The first (Benner et al., 2002) employed the program over a school year to a general sample of 21 kindergarten students. They noted educationally significant improvements in receptive language compared to the results for students maintained in the regular school language program. The Waldron-Soler et al. (2002) evaluation was a brief study (30 lessons over a 15-week period) with 36 preschool participants, of whom 8 had developmental delays.

Though the study design allows only a cautious interpretation, the results offered support for the program’s value for both disabled and Language for Learning, in particular the highly structured, fast paced and intensive administration are thought to contribute significantly to its effectiveness in improving the language skills of children (Sparzo, Bruning, Vargas, & Gilman, 1998; Wanzek, Dickson, Bursuck, & White, 2000). Gersten, Brockway, and Henares (1983), after some early success with the response of young LEP students to Distar Language and Distar Reading (Engelmann & Bruner, 1974), developed the DILE (Direct Instruction for those with Limited English) for LEP students throughout the elementary years—but particularly to assist those students first arriving at school in the intermediate years. It involved teaching reading, oral language, and mathematics in small, ungraded groups. Sessions were 30 min with a great deal of oral student–teacher interaction.

The ungraded feature enabled intermediate grade students to receive instruction appropriate to their actual attainment levels. Gersten et al. make the point that although in structured immersion instruction occurs in English, it is important that it be at a language level understandable by the student.

One advantage of the scripted Direct Instruction programs is instructional settings, problem-solving, concepts, classification, and problem solving strategies. The curriculum focus is sometimes described as the language of instruction—a level of communication skill often assumed, in the everyday discourse of infant grade teachers, to have been mastered by all their students.

Not only are the relevant curriculum skills carefully delineated, but the nothing-left-to-chance attitude of the designers extends to the mode of instruction. It is an explicit approach that employs scripted lessons, choral responses on cue, immediate error correction, massed and spaced practice, cumulative review, and the principles of mastery learning (Robinson, 2002).

The earlier (Distar Language I) program has been shown to be effective for atrisk students of various types, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and those with physical, sensory, or intellectual disabilities (Cole & Dale, 1986; Cole, Dale, & Mills, 1991; Cole, Dale, Mills, & Jenkins, 1993; Darch, Gersten, & Taylor, 1987; Gersten & Maggs, 1982; Gregory, Richards, & Hadley, 1982; Lloyd, Epstein, & Cullinan, 1981; Maggs & Morath, 1976; Mitchell, Evans, & Bernard, 1978). The Distar interventions have occasionally been evaluated with LEP students. For example, Kenny (1980) employed the Distar Language I program (Engelmann & Osborn, 1976) with a group of infant grade LEP students. She compared it with the Tate Oral English course (Tate, 1971), a program designed to teach the structure of English as opposed to the language of the classroom. It operates always at the level of the whole sentence, and differs from the Distar approach—and is broadly described as holistic and discovery oriented.

Results favoured the Distar program on measures of morphology, syntax, concept development, and expressive language. The techniques apparent in Distar Language 1 One advantage of the scripted Direct Instruction programs is their use of the same standard instructions to introduce similar tasks. This consistency reduces the language load for students who are better able to concentrate on the concepts, reducing the risk that they may fail to comprehend the instructions for the task. 16 Spring 2004 behind must be taught to learn faster—this implies a focus on features of teaching designed to improve efficiency. These features derive from the design of instruction and from process variables such as how the curriculum is implemented.

Curriculum is designed with the goal of “faultless instruction” (Engelmann, 1980), that is, sequences or routines for which only one interpretation is logical. The designer’s brief is to avoid ambiguity in instruction—the focus is on logicalanalysis principles. These principles allow the organisation of concepts according to their structure and the communication of them to the learner through the presentation of positive and negative examples. Engelmann (1980) highlighted four design principles:

First, where possible, teach a general case, that is, those skills which when mastered can be applied across a range of problems for which specific solutions have not been taught (e.g., decoding regular words). These generalizations may be taught inductively by examples only, or deductively, by providing a rule and a range of examples to define the rule’s boundaries.

Second, teach the essentials. The essentials are determined by an analysis of the skills necessary to achieve the desired objective. There is an underlying assertion that, for reading, it is possible to achieve skilled reading by analysis and teaching of subskills in a cumulative framework. Advocates of a “whole language” perspective would disagree with the possibility, or desirability, of teaching in this manner.

Third, keep errors to a minimum. Direct Instruction designers consider errors counterproductive and time wasting. For remedial learners a high success rate is useful in building and maintaining motivation lost through a history of failure. This low error rate is achieved by the use of the instructional design principles explained in Theory of Instruction (Engelmann & influential in the process of learning than the special characteristics of any particular student population” (p. 6).

Further support for the view that well designed instruction transcends learner characteristics is the finding that Direct Instruction has also been found to accelerate the progress of average and gifted students (Noon & Maggs, 1980). The breadth of effect extends to many curriculum areas. Direct Instruction no longer has a sole emphasis on basic skills such as reading, spelling, math, language, and writing—but has broadened its area of application to include higher order skills, for example, literary analysis, logic, chemistry, critical reading, geometry, and social studies (Carnine, 1991; Casazza, 1993; Darch, 1993; Grossen & Carnine, 1990; Kinder & Carnine, 1991). Use has been made of technology through computer-assisted instruction, low-cost networking, and videodisc courseware (Kinder & Carnine, 1991), and researchers have begun to test the model in non-English speaking countries, for example, third world countries (Grossen & Kelly, 1992) and Japan (Nakano, Kageyama, & Kinoshita, 1993).

There are a number of important characteristics of Direct Instruction programs (Becker, 1977). It is assumed that all children can learn and be taught, thus failure to learn is viewed as failure to teach effectively (Engelmann, 1980). Children who are and nondisabled students across receptive and expressive language domains, and in their social interactions.

An interesting addition to the Language for Learning program is an integrated complement entitled Español to English (SRA/McGraw-Hill, 2003). It is designed to be used in conjunction with Language for Learning for Spanish speaking students in English language classrooms. It provides Spanish scaffolds strategically, for example, to assist with the introduction of new information. Spanish is gradually faded as students gain competence in English. Instructional Design and Effective Teaching Principles In considering curriculum issues for LEP students, it is helpful to appreciate that the principles underlying all Direct Instruction programs have been successfully employed across a range of curriculum areas and learner types (Adams & Engelmann, 1996).

Studies demonstrating effective student outcomes include populations of disadvantaged students (Gregory, 1983), special education students (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993; White, 1988), and students with learning disabilities (Hendrickson & Frank, 1993; Kavale, 1990) and traumatic brain injury (Glang, Singer, Cooley, & Tish, 1992). In fact, Gersten (1985), in his review of studies involving students with a range of disabilities, concluded that Direct Instruction usually produced higher academic gains than traditional approaches, a finding supported by the meta-analysis of Adams and Engelmann.

In education, it has become apparent that the intuitive proposition that differential diagnosis of disability should lead to differential treatment regimens has not been empirically supported. O’Neill and Dunlap (1984) argued that “…the principles underlying effective instruction may be more In education, it has become apparent that the intuitive proposition that differential diagnosis of disability should lead to differential treatment regimens has not been empirically supported. Direct Instruction News 17 gously, teachers who were strong leaders and did not base their teaching around student choice of activities were more successful.

Solomon and Kendall (as cited in Rosenshine, 1980) indicated that permissiveness, spontaneity, and lack of classroom control were “negatively related, not only to achievement gain, but also to positive growth in creativity, inquiry, writing ability, and self-esteem for the students in those classrooms” (p. 18).

The instructional procedure called demonstration-practice-feedback (sometimes, model-lead-test) has strong research support. This deceptively simple strategy combines in one general model three elements of teaching strongly related to achievement. It comprises an invariant sequence in which a short demonstration of the skill or material is followed by guided practice, during which feedback is provided to the student (and further demonstration if necessary).

The second phase usually involves response to teacher questions about the material previously presented. It would appear that the over learning this phase induces is particularly valuable.

The third phase, that of independent practice, is later evaluated by the teacher. Medley’s (1982) review indicated the efficacy for low SES students of a controlled practice strategy involving low cognitive level questions, a high success rate (above 80%), and infrequent criticism. The popularity among many teachers of high cognitive level questions implicit in discovery learning models is difficult to justify empirically. These high level questions require students to manipulate concepts without having been shown how to do so. Research on discovery approaches has indicated a negative relationship with student achievement. Winnie’s (1979) review of 19 experimental studies on higher order questions made this point very strongly, as did Yates (1988).

To summarize the findings of research into teacher variables with a positive Rosenshine (1980) used the expression direct instruction to describe a set of instructional variables relating teacher behavior and classroom organization to high levels of academic performance for primary school students. High levels of achievement were related to the amount of content covered and mastered. Hence the pacing of a lesson can be controlled to enhance learning.

Academic engaged time refers to the percentage of the allotted time for a subject during which students are actively engaged. A range of studies (Rosenshine & Berliner, 1978) has highlighted the reduction in engagement that occurs when students work alone as opposed to working with a teacher in a small group, or as a whole class. The choral responding typical of Direct Instruction programs is one way of ensuring high student engagement. As an example, the author counted 300 responses in the 10 min of teacher-directed decoding activity in a Year 7 reading group (Hempenstall, 1996). A strong focus on the academic was found to be characteristic of effective teachers. Non academic activities, while perhaps enjoyable or directed at other educational goals, were consistently negatively correlated with achievement. Yet in Rosenshine’s (1980) review of studies it was clear that an academic focus rather than an affective emphasis also produced classrooms with high student self-esteem and a warm atmosphere. Less structured programs and teachers with an affective focus had students with lower self-esteem.

Teacher-centred rather than student-centred classrooms had higher achievement levels. Analo Carnine, 1982), and by ensuring that students have the preskills needed to commence any program (via a placement test). Fourth, provide adequate practice. Direct Instruction programs include the requirement for mastery learning (usually above 90% mastery).

Students continue to focus on a given task until that criterion is reached. The objective of this strategy is the achievement of retention without the requirement that all students complete the identical regimen. The practice schedule commences with massed practice, shifting to a spaced schedule. The amount of practice decreases as the relevant skill is incorporated into more complex skills.

Advocates of Direct Instruction argue that this feature of instruction is particularly important for low achieving students and is too often paid scant regard (Engelmann, 1980). Although this emphasis on practice may be unfashionable, there is ample supporting research, and a number of effective schools are increasingly endorsing its importance (Rist, 1992). “The strategies that have fallen out of style, such as memorizing, reciting, and drilling, are what we need to do. They’re simple—but fundamental— things that make complex thinking possible” (p. 19). These principles of instructional design set Direct Instruction apart from traditional and modern behavioral approaches to teaching.

However, the model does share a number of features with other behavioral approaches (e.g., reinforcement, stimulus control, prompting, shaping, extinction, fading) and with the effective teaching movement (mastery learning, teacher presentation skills, academic engaged time, and correction procedures). These latter features have been researched thoroughly over the past 30 years and have generally been accepted as comprising “direct instruction” (note lower case letters) (Gersten, Woodward, & Darch, 1986).

A strong focus on the academic was found to be characteristic of effective teachers. 18 Spring 2004 It enables the recording of ecobehavioral variables (i.e., instructional environment, teacher and student variables), and is based on a 15-s momentary-time sampling system enabling reliable record keeping. The ESCRIBE code allows for the recording of:

1. the variety of regular and special education service delivery settings in which instruction is delivered,

2. the type of instructional model used,

3. the range of teacher-to-student ratios that occur,

4. the actual activity engaged in by the target student,

5. the materials the student is using during instruction and the language of the material,

6. the size of the instructional grouping in which the target student receives instruction,

7. the variety of teaching persons who deliver instruction to the target student,

8. the behavior of teaching persons as well as the persons to whom that behavior is directed,

9. the languages used for and during instruction,

10. the corrective/affirmative characteristics of the discourse,

11. the concurrent recording of academic and verbal interaction behaviors of the target student,

12. the languages used by the target student, and

13. the initiating and responding characteristics of the student’s language (para 10).

This instrument may provide a level of objectivity often missing in more subjective, holistic observation schedules. While directing attention to well defined behavioral and contextual variables, it also ensures that student passivity is noted. It is through careful attention to detail that researchers approaches that adapt the effective teaching findings produce stronger outcomes for LEP students, especially in basic skills, than do the approaches that favor innovation over rigor. Further, they argue that the research emphasis is best directed away from head to head, apples versus oranges comparisons, and rather focused on manipulating a few variables whilst controlling other potentially confounding variables. One of the problems in making pronouncements about the relative effectiveness of bilingualism and structured English immersion has involved the amount of noise introduced by marked variations in instructional features within the approaches. Given that the structured nature of the bilingually-based approach Foro Abierto Para la Lectura is similar to that of the structured English immersion model described earlier, opportunities for a comparison of outcomes would be feasible and may provide useful outcome comparison research opportunities.

Observation Tools

A device that may assist in this fine grained analysis is the Ecobehavioral System for the Contextual Recording of Interactional Bilingual Environments (ESCRIBE) (Arreaga-Mayer, 1992; Arreaga-Mayer, Carta, & Tapia, 1994). impact on student learning, Rosenshine and Berliner (1978) provide a definition for direct instruction, a concept related to but distinct from Direct Instruction. Direct instruction pertains to a set of teaching behaviors focussed on academic matters where goals are clear to students; time allocated for instruction is sufficient and continuous; content coverage is extensive; student performance is monitored; questions are at a low cognitive level and produce many correct responses; and feedback to students is immediate and academically oriented.

In direct instruction, the teacher controls the instructional goals, chooses material appropriate for the student’s ability level, and paces the instructional episode. (p. 7) Effective Teaching and LEP Students Of course the principles of effective teaching can be equally applied in a bilingual program, in a structured immersion program, or in any of their variants, and the presence of these principles may be more potent than the language of instruction (Slavin, 2004).

Interestingly, Open Court (Adams et al., 2002), a literacy program that has been recommended as effective (American Federation of Teachers, 1998; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998), has now been released in a K–6 Spanish-translated version, Foro Abierto Para la Lectura. Its publication is based upon the belief that LEP students have the best chance of achieving English literacy when they first learn to read in their native language. Its sole intention is to teach children how to read, write, and communicate in Spanish, employing an explicit, structured, scripted, code-emphasis approach.

In their review of research, Gersten et al. (1999) revealed that those in their review of research, Gersten et al. (1999) revealed that those approaches that adapt the effective teaching findings produce stronger outcomes for LEP students, especially in basic skills, than do the approaches that favor innovation over rigor. Direct Instruction News 19 otherwise, similar errors may continue to be made without the teacher ever becoming aware of them.

One outcome of this latter scenario is a tendency to blame the intervention content rather than the intervention delivery. Thus, one may lose faith in an effective approach when the problem lies in a different domain. An example of this phenomenon is sometimes seen when home-based parent reading programs are introduced without examining the household situation. Despite the fact that an excellent program may be adopted, some factors that may preclude satisfactory implementation are previous daily time commitments, work schedules, parent literacy skills, parent-child relationship, parent assertiveness, student levels of resistance, marital relationship, between-parent support, and/or parent mental health.

There are many such potential problems capable of scuttling an otherwise well-researched and developed program. For example, teachers, without an understanding of its principles, may be tempted to reduce the structure, fail to correct errors, omit sections, ignore firming procedures, and provide less practice.

When a lack of success becomes evident, they may discard a program instead of recognizing the true source of the problem. Even worse is the possibility that blame may be shifted to the student or family to account for the intervention failure. A teacher’s acceptance of responsibility for ensuring that interventions are successful does provide an added burden, but it has benefits in increased effectiveness and in a clearer understanding of the complexities of the profession.

Despite this emphasis on tailoring programs to meet particular circumstances when necessary, Fitzgerald (1995) found no evidence that LEP students require unique forms of instruction in basic skills.

Other areas for investigation include the optimum means of ensuring vocabulary growth, and the importance of effective with other learners, a number of which have been described above. Gersten and Baker (2000) also point to the need to be alert to the need for any modifications that may enhance such programs’ effectiveness with LEP students.

This capacity to tailor interventions to meet the idiosyncratic needs of a particular group has been called situational empathy (Hempenstall, 1996) in recognition of the process involved in ensuring an intervention is effective. The teacher asks the question—what may interfere with the effectiveness of the intervention in this situation? Put more positively— what steps should I take to give this intervention strategy the best possible opportunity to be successful in this situation?

In order to list the potential obstacles to success, the teacher figuratively enters the environment of the LEP students through observation, questioning, past experience, or through consultation with other experienced teachers. The process is analogous to that involved in program field trials in which the responses of students to a program produce the data from which appropriate program modifications are enabled.

This skill is a high order one, and should continue to develop across a teacher’s career. The proviso is that the teacher maintains this mental set and remains committed to evaluation; have noticed such surprising findings as only 21% of the time did observed students in English-language development classes use written or oral language (Arreaga-Mayer & Perdomo-Rivera, 1996). Just because time is scheduled for a particular activity doesn’t mean that the intended activity actually occurs. Just as a microscope provides a different perspective to that of the naked eye, so too can an ecobehavioral observation system like ESCRIBE offer a different perspective on a classroom lesson.

Current

Research Themes Gersten and Baker (2000) argue for the emergence of several important themes from the research that when addressed are likely to be beneficial to LEP students.

One of the themes relates to the passivity of students described in the paragraph above—a characteristic of many classrooms for LEP students, whether conducted in English or in students’ native tongue. The importance of high rates of student response was raised earlier, and deserves greater emphasis in curriculum planning. There is also a concern that insufficient time is being devoted to promoting English language acquisition. Gersten and Baker (2000) suggest that studies are needed to explore a better balancing of the provision of instructional time, resources, and strategies in order to produce both curriculum mastery and language development.

Related to this is the need to discern the optimal ratio of conversational and academic oral language activities—an objective that class wide peer tutoring (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996) and cooperative learning groups (when highly structured) may be useful in addressing (Slavin, 2004). Another theme highlights the importance of investigating explicit programs that have been demonstrably A teacher’s acceptance of responsibility for ensuring that interventions are successful does provide an added burden, but it has benefits in increased effectiveness and in a clearer understanding of the complexities of the profession. Review, 47, 518–543. Becker, W. C., & Gersten, R. (1982). A follow up to Follow Through: The later effects of native language could be an effective strategy.

Similarly, reducing the language complexity of the teachers’ English explanations can make a considerable difference to student comprehension. There can also be advantages (only when complex questions are involved) in teaching LEP students to employ their first language when constructing answers that they will then provide in English.

Finally, Gersten and Baker (2000) warn against spending inordinate time developing conversational language to the detriment of the formal English language principles necessary to enable academic progress. They argue that language development and academic growth should be considered as separate goals. Whether by English immersion or bilingual instruction, the LEP student needs to complete more learning in the same time as students born into the dominant culture.

The LEP students are also likely to have difficulties additional to that of language. Thus, the expectation of learning more than the average home grown student may be unrealistic in normal circumstances. Educationists attempting to produce such accelerated learning have control over curriculum and time. The logical responses are, first, to increase the effective available time through an extended school day and/or year. The second response is to increase the opportunities for learning, employing only programs and strategies with evidence for their effectiveness, presented in small groups to enable extensive dialogue between teacher and student (Baker, 1998). Since the Direct Instruction programs are also demonstrably effective with other learner groups, then principles of integration and parsimony make the curricula an obvious choice.”

Ahh, finished!