From “Referendum Question 2” to Programs for English Learners

Referendum Question 2, which passed in November 2002, became law as Chapter 386 of the Acts of 2002 in December and was implemented across the state in the Fall of 2003. Chapter 386 defines Sheltered English Immersion as the method of English language acquisition in which most classroom instruction is in English but with a curriculum and a presentation appropriate for English Learners (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2002). As is common in SEI models, the law requires that books and instruction materials be written in English and that academic subjects be taught in that language, although teachers may use a minimal amount of the child’s native language when necessary. In order to minimize the use of na- tive languages, the law encourages that children of different languages and similar English fluency be placed together. As in California and Arizona, the law has the goal that children could stay in the program FOR one year, after which children cease to be “English Learners” and are placed into General Education classrooms..

1.1 Accountability

Chapter 386 mandates that districts identify students of limited English proficiency every year and that students in Grades 2 through 12 be tested yearly to assess English proficiency using a nationally normed test and to assess progress in academic areas using a standard- ized test in English of academic subject matter. Massachusetts meets the requirements for testing English proficiency with the Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPA). The MEPA-R/W assesses proficiency in reading and writing at grade spans 3–4, 5–6, 7–8, and 9–12, while the MELA-O assesses LEP students’ proficiency in listening (comprehension) and speaking (production) at Grades K–12 (MDESE, 2008b).

The requirements for subject matter testing are met through the Massachusetts Compre- hensive Assessment System (MCAS), which was established as part of the Massachusetts Educational Reform Act of 1993. At the time of the observations for this study, MCAS tested English Learners in Reading (Grade 3), English Language Arts (Grades 4, 7, and 10), Math (Grades 4, 8, and 10), and Science (Grades 5 and 8) (MDESE, 2008a). English Learners who have been in U.S. schools for less than one year are exempt from the ELA test, and Spanish Speaking ELs who have been in US schools for less than three years may take a math test in Spanish in Grade 10 (MDOE, 2003–2006). Students must pass Grade 10 Math and ELA in order to graduate from high school; the high-stakes requirement began with the tenth grade testing in AY2001 and was a graduation requirement for the class of 2003, the year before the beginning of the implementation of Question 2 in Massachusetts.

1.2 Waivers

ians to request a waiver of enrollment in an SEI program. If the waiver is granted, the child can attend a bilingual education program, which must be offered when more than 20 children who speak the same native language at the same grade level in a school receive a waiver) (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2002). Waivers are cumbersome for both parents and schools and favor secondary over elementary school students. Parents can request a waiver if the student already knows English and is at least 10 years old, if the school princi- pal and teachers believe it is in his/her best interest, or if the student has special physical or psychological needs. The law requires that the parent request the waiver personally and that he/she be provided accessible information about all the programmatic options available. A parent must request a waiver annually. Waiver requests for children over 10 years of age can be approved by the principal, but for children under 10 the requirements are stricter: the student must be in an SEI program for 30 days, the teacher and the principal must make a case for why the child should be placed in a different type of program, and the waiver must be approved by the Superintendent of the district.

1.3 Readiness for Implementation.

As was also the case in California, the Massachusetts’ Chapter 386 was not a clear blueprint for implementation. The legislature was specific about the use of language in instruction and about accountability, but it left it to the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to develop guidelines for the districts on several crucial matters. These included the academic content of the SEI programs and how these could be made to comply with state curriculum frameworks, the criteria to be used in transitioning students from the programs to mainstream classrooms, and the type of training that would be required for teachers (Rennie Center, 2007). The legislature did not clearly address the responsibility of districts to inform parents of their right to waivers. Finally, it also provided no budget relief to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to facilitate the implementation of the law—including, particularly, the required training of the teacher corps.

In April 2003 the Massachusetts Board of Education published regulations for the new law, affirming the right of parents to opt out of the programs and place their children in other forms of bilingual education, but it offered little guidance overall about implementation (MDOE, 2003a). Also in the legislative period in 2003, lawmakers approved an amendment which allowed Two-Way immersion programs as an option, assuring the survival of programs which were popular and whose excellence in addressing the needs of English Learners was well recognized.

During the summer of 2003, as districts readied to implement the programmatic changes in September, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education created a two-year SEI initiative to develop plans to implement the policy.16 _{The Department invited 30 dis-} tricts with more than 100 LEP students to work with them in this initiative, using federal funds provided to the state under Title III.17 _{As a first step, it issued language proficiency} requirements for teachers under Question 2 and guidelines meant to help districts maneuver through the transition (MDOE, 2003b, 2003c). These guidelines describe the elements of SEI and the ways in which languages other than English can be used in the classroom; reiterate the support for a broad set of offerings in addition to SEI for students who are waived by parental action out of the SEI programs; and define the training needed by teachers (MDOE, 2003d). These guidelines were issued by the Department in August of 2003, days before the start of the school year in which the changes required by Question 2 began to be implemented in the Commonwealth’s schools.

1.4 Assessments of the Implementation of Chapter 386

Massachusetts has not yet fielded a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of Chapter 386 and its impact on English Learners. Initial research shows that models of implementation have varied substantially across the districts (DeJong, Gort, & Cobb, 2005; Rennie Center, 2007).

1.4.1 Models of Implementation and the Role of the Waiver Provisions. As was the case in California, districts have developed a wide array of programs in response to Question 2. Some have continued to cluster their students by language group while others mix students of different language groups. Some districts have interpreted the law’s requirements flexibly and creatively and have developed of an array of programs for their students (DeJong, Gort, & Cobb, 2005; Rennie Center, 2007).

As in California, a district’s approach to the waiver provisions marks its ability to retain programmatic flexibility. Massachusetts’ districts have developed diverse approaches to the waiver provisions and some districts encourage parental waivers while others do not. Districts which have encouraged parental waivers have retained their bilingual education programs while offering SEI as an alternative. This is possible because the law requires that districts develop alternatives to SEI in schools where more than 20 children of one language other than English are enrolled and have had their waivers to SEI approved by the district. By using the waiver provisions, districts currently implement a broad range of programs including Two-Way Bilingual programs, ESL, TBE, World Language, and General and Modified Bilingual Education programs in addition to SEI (DeJong, Gort, & Cobb, 2005; Rennie Center, 2007). For example, of the three districts described by DeJong, Gort, and Cobb (2005), two were able to maintain their high school bilingual programs while the third, already imple- menting a program similar to SEI prior to Question 2, continued it. At the elementary level, one district was able to maintain its TBE program through a concerted waiver effort involving parents, teachers, and the district.

Others have in practice made it difficult for parents to obtain waivers by not informing parents of their rights or by creating alternative processes to bypass enrollment in programs for English Learners. In these districts nearly all of the students requiring support in language acquisition are enrolled in SEI programs. This is the case of Boston, as we will illustrate below.

There have been no studies similar to the ones conducted in California which shed light on these differences in district policy and program decisions. The California research reported above indicates that those districts with strong bilingual education programs and strong commitment to teacher training have been motivated to retain most programmatic flexibility (Gándara, 2000; Gándara et al., 2000).

1.4.2 Professional Development of Teachers. The training of teachers in SEI practices has also varied. At first the attention focused on the qualifications of existing TBE teachers and particularly their command of English (MDOE, 2003b, 2003c). In June 2004, after a year of implementation had passed, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion provided guidance as to the types of skills necessary for SEI instruction and began to develop training for teachers.18 _{The training involved both ESL and sheltered academic} content instruction. ESL teachers required licensing at the appropriate grade level. The skill areas in content instruction included: Category 1: Second Language Learning and Teaching; Category 2: Sheltering Content Instruction, Category 3: Assessing Speaking, and Category 4: Listening, Reading and Writing in the Sheltered Content Classroom (Rennie Center, 2007).

Districts were instructed to develop 75 hours of professional development covering the four categories. Sixteen districts received grants to develop their own curricula while adhering to state standards, but most recently the state has contracted with two local universities to work on the development of SEI trainings for teachers. In 2006, the Rennie Center (2007, p. 3) reported that 35% of the estimated number of teachers requiring content training had received it and that 64.2% of the state’s ESL training needs had been met.

1.4.3 Student Outcomes. So far, there have been no analyses of the outcomes of students under SEI across Massachusetts or in individual districts. The only report of outcomes of English language acquisition post–Question 2 comes from the Rennie Center (2007), which found that, after one year in Massachusetts schools, the proportion of ELs transitioning out of the program reached above 22% only in Grades 3 and 4.