Current national data show that by the year 

2030, 40% of all school-age children will 

be English language learners (ELL) (Thomas 

& Collier, 2002). English language learners’ 

performance is a critical concern, especially 

given the projected increase in this segment 

of the school-age population. The purpose 

of this report is to provide a synthesis of 

research studies that yield policy findings about 

instructional policies and programs for ELL 

students. This report highlights various ELL 

programs across the SERVE region and describes 

current federal and state legislative and policy 

trends as well as the status of ELL instruction in 

the Southeast.

PRELL

POLICY REPORT

English Language Learners 

in the Southeast:

Research, Policy, & Practice

©SERVE, 2004

Proprietary—Not for copying without the express permission of SERVE

First Printing, 2004

Produced by 

The Regional Educational Laboratory serving the southeastern United States

Associated with the School of Education, University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Written for SERVE by

Victoria Mikow-Porto, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, SERVE

Stephanie Humphries, M.A., Program Specialist, SERVE

Paula Egelson, Ed.D., Director of Reading and School Improvement, SERVE

Debra O’Connell, Ph.D., Program Specialist, SERVE

John Teague, M.A., Consultant to SERVE

With assistance from Lauren Rhim, Ph.D., Consultant to SERVE

Edited by

Donna Nalley, Ph.D., Director of Publications, SERVE

Karen DeMeester, Ph.D., Senior Program Specialist, SERVE

Designed by

Shelley Call, Graphic Designer, SERVE

The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, 

commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

This document was produced with funding from the Institute for Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education, under contract #ED-01-CO-0015.
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................ 4

Introduction and Purpose of the Publication ....................................................... 5

Definitions of Key Terms ................................................................................... 9

Chapter One

Federal and State English Language Learner Policies ........................................ 13

■ Introduction ............................................................................................14

■ Federal Legislation and Policies .............................................................14

■ State Legislation and Policies .................................................................21

■ Summary ...............................................................................................23

Chapter Two

Types of English Language Learner Instructional Models ................................... 25

■ Introduction ............................................................................................26

■ Programs That Promote English Proficiency 

But Not Bilingual Proficiency ..................................................................26

■ Programs That Promote Bilingual Proficiency .........................................33

■ Summary ...............................................................................................36

Chapter Three

Research on Instructional Models for English Language Learners ...................... 37

■ Introduction ............................................................................................38

■ Student Characteristics ..........................................................................38

■ Characteristics of Instructional Program Models .....................................40

■ School Characteristics ............................................................................46

■ Summary ...............................................................................................47

Chapter Four

English Language Learners: National, Regional, and State Trends ..................... 49

■ Introduction ............................................................................................50

■ National Trends ......................................................................................50

■ Regional Trends: The Southeast .............................................................54

■ Policies and Practices in SERVE States ..................................................58

■ Summary ...............................................................................................67

Table of Contents
Chapter Five

Examples of English Language Learner Programs in the Southeast ......................69

■ Introduction ............................................................................................70

■ English Language Learner Programs in the Southeast ............................70

■ Albertville City Schools, Alabama

■ Morgan County Schools, Alabama

■ Hillcrest Elementary School, Orange County Schools, Florida

■ DeKalb County Schools, Georgia

■ Biloxi Public Schools, Mississippi

■ Chapel Hill–Carrboro City Schools, North Carolina

■ Collinswood Language Academy, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 

North Carolina

■ Lee County Schools, North Carolina

■ Richland School District One, South Carolina

■ Summary ...............................................................................................81

Chapter Six

Conclusions ....................................................................................................83

References ..................................................................................................... 87

Appendix ........................................................................................................ 97

■ Resources ..............................................................................................97

■ Feedback Form ....................................................................................105

■ SERVE Organizational Capabilities .......................................................107
4

Acknowledgments

Reviewers 

Elvira Armas, Los Angeles Unified District, Los Angeles, California

Tracy Atcheson, State of Georgia Research Analyst, Atlanta, Georgia

Margaret Bingham, SEIR◆TEC @ SERVE, Durham, North Carolina

Ruda Couet, ESL/Bilingual Education, South Carolina Department 

of Education, Columbia, South Carolina

Kathleen Dufford-Melendez, SERVE, Tallahassee, Florida

Claude Goldenberg, California State University-Long Beach, 

Long Beach, California

Jane Griffin, SERVE, Greensboro, North Carolina

Linda Higgins, Special Programs/Projects, Lee County Schools, 

Sanford, North Carolina

Frances Hoch, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 

Raleigh, North Carolina

Joanne H. Lottie, Language and ESOL, DeKalb County, Chamblee, Georgia

Susan Martelli, SERVE, Tallahassee, Florida

Pam Paterson, ESL, Lee County Schools, Sanford, North Carolina

Maria Petrea, Charlotte–Mecklenberg Schools, Charlotte, North Carolina

Brazilia Ricks, International Programs, Richland County School 

District One, Columbia, South Carolina

John R. Sanders, SERVE, Greensboro, North Carolina

Aliette Scharr, Orange County Schools, Orlando, Florida

John Slivka, Federal Programs, Albertville City Schools, Albertville, Alabama 

Ronald Solorzano, Occidental College, Los Angeles, California

Special thanks to:

Cori Alston, South Carolina Department of Education

Gloria Baez, Florida Department of Education

Evelyne Barker, Georgia Department of Education

Dee Brewer, SERVE, North Carolina Senior Policy Research Analyst 

Vicki Davidson, Mississippi Department of Education

Jeff Gagné, SERVE, Georgia Senior Policy Research Analyst

Frances Hoch, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

Brenda Lee, Florida Department of Education

Cindy McIntee, SERVE, South Carolina Senior Policy Research Analyst 

Robin Miles, Mississippi Department of Education

Joel Overton, SERVE, Florida Senior Policy Research Analyst

Dely Roberts, Alabama Department of Education

Jean Scott, SERVE, Alabama Senior Policy Research Analyst

Frankie White, SERVE, Mississippi Senior Policy Research Analyst
5

Introduction and Purpose 

of the Publication
6

Introduction

and Purpose

Shifts in the population dynamics of the United States are 

a part of our culture and history. Such shifts impact many 

facets of our lives, including public education. For example, 

by the year 2030, nearly 40% of all school-age children will be 

English language learners (Thomas & Collier, 2002) or children for whom English is not a first language. The growth in the 

proportion of English language learners (ELLs), particularly in 

regions of the country with little recent exposure to such linguistic 

diversity, causes educators to ask how best to meet the needs of 

increasingly diverse groups of students. 

In spite of our best efforts to provide answers, however, “available 

data on student outcomes indicate distressing results for English language learners—both in the short-term outcomes of test 

scores and teacher judgments and in longer-term outcomes such 

as high school completion rates” (August & Hakuta, 1998). Additionally, a number of research studies and both state and national 

data suggest that the majority of ELLs do not receive the services 

needed to produce a level of English proficiency that will assist 

in the elimination of the achievement gap that separates them 

from their English-speaking peers (Borden, 2001; Grissmer, Flanagan, Kawata, & Williamson, 2000; NCES, 2001a, 2001b). As a 

result, English language learners are more likely to be held back, 

tracked into low academic groupings, placed in special education, or to drop out of school altogether (Borden, 2001; Council of 

Chief State School Officers, 1990; Zehr, 2001a). 

These trends are indeed troubling. Although federal legislation and 

court decisions have long maintained that districts establish programs for ELLs that are based on sound educational theory, well 

implemented, and regularly evaluated, the evidence suggests that 

too many ELLs are not gaining proficiency in English and mastery 

of academic content. In light of the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2002 and the accountability measures included therein, it becomes 

clear that the question of how to improve educational outcomes for 

English language learners requires an immediate answer. 

This question is particularly relevant to states in the SERVE region: 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina. Though only one of these states, Florida, hosts over 

100,000 English language learners, four states (Alabama, Georgia, 
7

Introduction

and Purpose

North Carolina, and South Carolina) experienced over 350% population growth of ELLs from 1992 to 2002 (NCELA, 2002a). Moreover, demographic projections suggest that this pattern of growth 

is likely to persist into the foreseeable future. 

To help educators in the Southeast meet the needs of English 

language learners, SERVE has developed this report, which provides a synthesis of federal and state policies, descriptions of and 

research on instructional programs, and a closer look at trends, 

policies, and programs in the Southeast. The summary data presented here should be viewed by educators in the Southeast as a 

starting point when developing strategies to best serve the needs 

of ELLs. Together with ongoing research, resources listed in the 

appendices, and the findings of the National Literacy Panel, this 

publication should help decision makers identify practices that 

appear to differentially impact English language learners. Certainly, finding answers related to addressing the needs of English language learners will better enable all of us to draw upon 

linguistic and cultural diversity to enrich our future, just as it has 

our past.
8

Introduction

and Purpose
9

Definitions of Key Terms
10

Definitions 

of Key Terms

Though many terms are used to refer to students whose 

native language is not English and to describe programs 

designed to support these students, there are important 

and, sometimes, subtle distinctions between them. The list below 

is a good starting point. For more in-depth glossaries, please refer 

to the resources listed in the Appendix. 

Bilingualism: On the surface, defining bilingualism is an easy 

task. In most cases, and in this report, bilingualism is defined 

as the ability to use two languages. People develop this ability 

either by acquiring two languages in childhood or by learning 

a second language after having acquired their first language. 

Related terms include multilingualism, or the ability to use more 

than two languages.

On closer examination, however, defining bilingualism becomes 

problematic. In some contexts, bilingualism refers only to proficiency in speaking and aurally comprehending two languages, 

not to the ability to read or write in two languages, which some 

people refer to as biliteracy. When referring to educational programs, however, bilingual describes various programs that use 

the student’s native language, as well as English, for instructional purposes. 

Some bilingual programs are transitional in nature, using the 

student’s native language for a limited amount of time (generally 

one to four years) until the student is able to function in an allEnglish environment. Other bilingual programs aim to help students become fully bilingual—that is, able to comprehend, speak, 

read, and write in two languages. Such programs continue to provide instruction in both the student’s native language and English 

beyond the one-to-four-year period. 

Also complicating the definition of bilingual is the fact that individuals not only vary in their proficiency across language skills 

(aurally comprehending, speaking, reading, writing) but also may 

be more proficient in one language than the other, especially 

across settings, functions, and purposes. Language proficiency 

also varies over time (Baker & Jones, 1998). These are all important factors to consider when determining what a given writer 

means by the term bilingual. 
11

Definitions 

of Key Terms

Biliteracy: Commonly refers to the ability to read and write in 

two languages. However, sometimes this term also incorporates 

bilingualism, so biliteracy may refer to the ability to aurally comprehend, speak, read, and write in two languages.

English language learner: Following the suggestion of the 

National Research Council (August & Hakuta, 1998), the term 

English language learner (ELL) is used throughout this document 

to refer to students from a non-English-speaking background 

who have not yet developed sufficient proficiency to master an 

English-only curriculum and instruction in school. It is important 

to note that this definition addresses both linguistic and academic achievement; ELLs are students who could not reach their 

academic potential due to limited English proficiency. This group 

is also referred to as limited English proficient (LEP) students. 

Rooted in legislation, the definition of limited English proficient 

can be found in Part A, Section 9101 of Title IX of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Both ELL and LEP are often 

used in legislative and policy contexts (Lessow-Hurley, 1991), 

referring primarily to individuals aged 3 through 21. 

Increasingly, ELL is used in place of LEP.

English as a Foreign Language (EFL): EFL is used in reference 

to non-native-English-speaking students who are learning English but do not reside in a country where English is a primary language (TESOL, 2004). 

English as a Second Language (ESL) and English for Speakers 

of Other Languages (ESOL): ESL is used to describe programs 

in English-speaking countries where students learn English as 

a second language. While sometimes used synonymously with 

ESL, ESOL is more common in contexts where learners are multilingual and may be learning English as a third or fourth language. ESOL is also a more general acronym that may be used 

to refer to both ESL and EFL simultaneously (TESOL, 2004). 

EFL, ESL, and their related acronyms refer to the field, discipline, 

and teacher education programs. As examples, Teaching English 

as a Second Language (TESL) and Teaching English as a Foreign 

Language (TEFL) usually refer to teacher education programs. 

Teachers of English to Speakers of Others Languages (TESOL) 

refers to both the field and a professional organization. 
12

Definitions 

of Key Terms

First language: The language a child learns as his or her native language or mother tongue. First language is often abbreviated as L1.

Second language: A language an individual learns in addition to his 

or her first language. Second language is often abbreviated as L2.

Language majority speaker: An individual who speaks the primary language of the country in which he or she resides. For 

example, a person whose first language is English and lives in the 

United States is referred to as a language majority speaker.

Language minority speaker: A person whose native language is 

not the primary language of the country in which he or she resides; 

hence, a person living in the United States whose first language is 

not English is referred to as a language minority speaker.

Other specialized vocabulary related to English language learners, such as names of instructional programs, will be explained 

upon first reference. More extensive glossaries can be referenced 

using the websites listed in the Appendix.
13

Chapter One Federal and State 

English Language Learner Policies
14

Chapter One

Introduction

Although the U.S. government annually allocates funding 

directly and indirectly to programs that target English language 

learners, no single federal agency is charged with the responsibility for coordinating policies, programs, resources, or research 

in this area (United States General Accounting Office [US GAO], 

2001). Instead, policies and practices pertaining to the education 

of English language learners are governed by a variety of legislative acts, court decisions, recommendations, and interpretations 

thereof at the federal, state, and district levels. 

Federal Legislation and Policies

The United States has a rich history of linguistic diversity and, 

correspondingly, schooling options for speakers of languages 

other than English. Throughout the eighteenth century, for 

example, Native American and immigrant groups formed community schools that used varying degrees of native language 

instruction (Hacsi, 2002, p. 66). By the end of the eighteenth 

century, however, instructional models for non-native English 

speakers were being more intensely debated. From the 1920s 

through the 1960s, few resources were targeted for these students, who were held at grade level until they were proficient 

enough in English to master the subject matter. As a result, 

many immigrant students left school having learned just enough 

English to “get by” (Hacsi, 2002, p. 68).

However, two major legislative acts in the 1960s proved instrumental in helping students who spoke languages other than 

English gain access to educational services. Title VI of The Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of 

race, color, or national origin in any federally assisted program 

(NCELA, 2004). Additionally, Title VII of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1968 (The Bilingual Education Act) established federal policy for bilingual education for 

language minority students who were economically disadvantaged, recognized the challenges non-English-speaking students 

encountered, and allocated funding for innovative programs 

(NCELA, 2004). Together, these two Acts would help ensure 

that English language learners received sufficient academic and 

linguistic support to succeed, not just “get by.”
15

Chapter One

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

Forming the basis of numerous court decisions that would 

impact educational services for ELLs, Title VI of The Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, 

or national origin in any federally assisted program (NCELA, 

2004). Perhaps the most cited of these cases is Lau v. Nichols. 

In 1974, a class action suit filed by parents of Chinese-American students not proficient in English against the San Francisco 

Unified School District resulted in a ruling by the U.S. Supreme 

Court that identical education does not constitute equal education under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that 

school districts must take affirmative steps to overcome educational barriers faced by non-English-speaking students in the 

district [414 U.S. 563 (1974)]. In a ruling that disallowed a “submersion” approach, placing non-native speakers of English in 

regular classrooms with no additional support, Justice William 

O. Douglas wrote: “There is no equality of treatment merely in 

providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, 

and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are 

effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education” (as cited 

in Hacsi, 2002, p. 71). 

The Lau v. Nichols decision was extended to all schools when 

Congress passed the Equal Educational Opportunity Act 

(EEOA) of 1974, a civil rights statute that prohibited states 

from denying equal educational opportunity by the failure of an 

educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students 

in its instructional programs [20 U.S. C. § 1203 (f)]. Despite 

the Lau v. Nichols ruling, however, districts and states still had 

unanswered questions. In response, the Office of Education in 

the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare formed a 

panel to craft the Lau remedies, a set of guidelines that were not 

law but helped shape district and state policies related to the 

instruction of non-native speakers of English.

In what is considered one of most significant court decisions 

affecting language minority students, second only to Lau v. 

Nichols, in Castañeda v. Pickard, a federal court agreed with the 

plantiffs’ claim in that the Raymondville, Texas School District’s 

language remediation program violated the EEOA. Moreover, 
16

Chapter One

the Fifth Circuit Court went on to establish criteria used to determine school district compliance with the EEOA (NCELA, 2004). 

In what became known as the “Castañeda Test,” the following criteria were put forth to determine school district compliance with 

the EEOA regarding programs for English language learners: 

1. Theory: The school must pursue a program based on an educational theory recognized as sound or, at least, as a legitimate experimental strategy.

2. Practice: The school must actually implement the program 

with instructional practices, resources, and personnel necessary to transfer theory to reality. 

3. Results: The school must not persist in a program that fails to 

produce results [648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir., 1981)]. 

The “Castañeda Test” soon demonstrated its reach. In 1983, 

in Keyes v. School District #1, a U.S. District Court found that 

a Denver public school district had failed to meet the second 

criterion by not adequately implementing a plan for language 

minority students. 

Today, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is charged with enforcing 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Neither federal law nor 

the OCR requires or advocates a particular program of instruction for English language learners. Instead, all programs for 

English language learners must be based on sound educational 

theory, adequately supported so that the program has a realistic chance of success, and periodically evaluated and revised, 

if necessary (OCR, 2004). In order to assist districts and states, 

the OCR offers guidance, including policy documents, as well as 

resources related to ELL program development and evaluation, 

ELL teacher qualifications, and criteria for exiting students from 

ELL programs (US GAO, 2001). 

Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

The Bilingual Education Act, Title VII of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) enacted in 1968, recognized 

the challenges non-English-speaking students encountered, 

established federal policy for bilingual education for language 

minority students who were economically disadvantaged, and 
17

Chapter One

allocated funding for support services to LEP students. Subsequent reauthorizations and amendments to Title VII of the 

ESEA in 1978, 1984, 1988, and 1994 continued to shape 

policies regarding the education of English language learners. 

The 1978 reauthorization of Title VII, for example, emphasized 

the strictly transitional nature of native language instruction, 

expanded eligibility to all students who were limited English 

proficient, and allowed English-speaking students to enroll in 

bilingual education programs. 

The 1984 and 1988 reauthorizations allowed for some native 

language maintenance, provided funding for programs for 

LEP students with special needs, supported family English literacy programs, increased funding to state education agencies, 

expanded funding for certain English-only programs, placed 

a three-year limit on participation in most Title VII programs, 

and both emphasized and established a fellowship program 

for professional training (NCELA, 2004). When reauthorized in 

1994 as part of the Improving America’s School Act, Title VII 

was restructured to give states an increased role and priority to 

applicants seeking to develop bilingual proficiency (OCR, 2004; 

Zehr, 2001b). LEP students also became eligible for services 

under Title I on the same basis as other students. 

Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act

Most recently, Congress passed Title III, Language Instruction 

for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students of the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2002, which reauthorized and renamed 

Title VII. While essentially continuing the core tenets of the 

original Act, Title III consolidates the 13 current bilingual and 

immigrant education programs. Title III impacts states in that it 

requires state education agencies (SEAs) or specially qualified 

agencies to submit funding requests outlining: 

■ The process for awarding subgrants

■ How the agency will establish standards and objectives for 

raising the level of English proficiency that are aligned with 

state standards

■ How the SEA will hold districts, eligible entities, and schools 

accountable for meeting all annual measurable achievement 
18

Chapter One

objectives and making adequate yearly progress (AYP) for 

LEP children (USED, 2002)

To help ensure that programs are successfully implemented at 

the local level, state education agencies whose appropriations 

exceed a designated threshold must agree to spend at least 95% 

of their allotment to award formula subgrants to districts. In addition to ensuring that funding is used for resources in ELL classrooms, Title III also provides guidance regarding personnel who 

work with ELLs. Teachers of ELLs must be proficient in English 

and in any other language used by the program, in both oral and 

written language domains (USED, 2002). Additionally, districts 

are required to provide high-quality, research-based professional 

development to classroom teachers, principals, administrators, 

and other personnel. 

Although it includes specific requirements regarding how 

resources are distributed and personnel who support ELLs are 

trained, the legislation provides discretion over instructional 

methods. However, just as with the “Castañeda Test” and OCR 

criteria, districts must use Title III funds to provide “high-quality 

language instruction programs that are based on scientifically 

based research, and that have demonstrated that they are effective in increasing English proficiency and student achievement” 

(USED, 2002, p. 93).

Results and accountability are measured under Title III primarily 

in terms of student achievement data. Under Title III, states must 

hold subgrantees accountable for making adequate yearly progress as described in Title I and for meeting all annual achievement objectives. As a result, states are required to establish 

standards and benchmarks designed to both raise the level of 

English proficiency that ELLs attain and ensure that ELLs meet 

challenging academic standards that are in line with state and 

Title I achievement standards (USED, 2002). 

In addition to requirements regarding the instruction and academic performance of ELLs, Title III also obliges local education agencies (LEAs) to communicate with parents of ELLs 

regarding program placement. LEAs must explain to the parents of English language learners why their children need a 

specialized language instruction program and allow parents to 
19

Chapter One

choose between programs if more than one type of instructional program is offered, as well as to remove their children 

from a program if they wish.

It is too early to judge what impact the federal law will have 

on state and district policies and, ultimately, English language 

learners. Nevertheless, advocates have cheered the instructional 

flexibility encouraged by the law but expressed concern about 

the possible high-stakes nature of the annual testing for students 

with limited English proficiency (Zehr, 2001b).

Two concerns often expressed by educators regarding the testing required of ELLs under NCLB are that ELLs are tested before 

they have had the necessary time to gain proficiency in English 

and that students who have gained proficiency in English are no 

longer considered ELLs, so their scores are no longer included 

for that subgroup. Two new policies announced by Secretary of 

Education Rod Paige in February 2004 address these concerns. 

The first policy, which applies to ELLs in their first year of 

instruction in U.S. public schools, allows schools to substitute 

an English language proficiency assessment for the reading 

competency assessment. All ELLs, however, would continue to 

take the mathematics assessments, with appropriate accommodations. Schools could, but would not be required to, include 

the results of English language learners’ proficiency tests toward 

adequate yearly progress goals, while the test would be credited toward the 95% participation rate for the subgroup (USED, 

2004). In short, this policy allows schools one more year to help 

ELLs gain English language proficiency before their reading 

competency test scores affect AYP calculations (USED, 2004).

The second policy permits states to include the test scores of 

ELLs who have gained English proficiency in calculations of 

AYP for the LEP subgroup for up to two years after the students 

have gained proficiency. This optional policy should help states 

better understand and demonstrate how well ELLs are improving 

their English language proficiency from year to year, as well as 

rewarding schools that continue to support ELLs even after they 

have reached certain acceptable levels of English language proficiency (USED, 2004).
20

Chapter One

Key Activities for Districts Under Title III 

of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002

✓

Use Title III funds to provide high-quality language 

instruction programs based on scientifically based 

research, whose effectiveness in increasing English 

proficiency and student achievement has been demonstrated.

✓

Provide high-quality professional development to 

classroom teachers, principals, administrators, 

and other personnel in order to improve the 

instruction and assessment of LEP students.

✓ Be accountable for making Adequate Yearly Progress as described in Title I and meeting all annual achievement objectives.

USED, 2002, p. 93.

Key Activities for SEAs Under Title III 

of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002

✓ Award subgrants to improve education of LEP students.

✓ Approve subgrantees’ evaluation measures.

✓ Develop annual measurable achievement objectives 

for LEP students.

✓

Hold subgrantees accountable for meeting annual 

measurable achievement objectives and for 

making adequate yearly progress (AYP).

✓

Require subgrantees failing to make appropriate AYP 

to develop an improvement plan and require sanctions 

if subgrantees fail to meet the annual measurable 

achievement objectives for four consecutive years.

✓

Report to the USED on program activities and 

on the effectiveness of programs in improving 

education provided to LEP children.

USED, 2002, p. 93.
21

Chapter One

State Legislation and Policies

In a recent report to Congress, the U.S. GAO (2001) summarized 

the current policy climate for issues related to English language 

learners in the following manner: “Policymakers are faced with 

particularly difficult decisions with regard to students with limited 

English proficiency because their needs are varied and experts 

disagree about the best methods to teach them” (p. 31). Because 

federal policies allow discretion concerning instructional programs for English language learners, it is state and district policymakers who are tasked with providing legislative guidance and 

funding for ELL instructional programs, in addition to ensuring 

that ELLs receive effective instruction at the school level.

States vary considerably in terms of legislation and funding for 

ELL programs. 

■ States that have both legislative provisions and funding for 

LEP instructional programs include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, 

Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

■ Other states, including Kentucky, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wyoming, as well as the District of 

Columbia, offer legislative guidance but no funding. 

■ Meanwhile, states such as Alabama, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia have 

neither legislative provisions nor funding for LEP instructional 

programs in place (McKnight & Antunez, 1999). 

Within the SERVE region, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina 

have legislative provisions and funding for ELL programs, while 

Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina do not. Thus, although 

a general consensus exists and, indeed, is mandated concerning 

the goals of instruction for ELLs in terms of both English language proficiency and mastery of academic content, states vary in 

their approaches.
22

Chapter One

One reason states vary in their approaches is that there is no 

general consensus regarding how language proficiency and mastery of subject matter are best achieved (US GAO, 2001). This 

lack of a consensus concerning how to best educate English 

language learners is apparent in states with high proportions of 

English language learners, especially in reference to legislation 

regarding bilingual education (Thomas & Collier, 1997). Hence, 

though instructional programs are described more fully in Chapter Two and research on instructional programs is presented in 

Chapter Three, instructional models, particularly bilingual programs, should also be mentioned within the context of state legislation and policy.

State Legislation and Policies on Bilingual Education

Prior to the Lau v. Nichols ruling, some states had already passed 

laws supporting bilingual education (Hacsi, 2002, p. 73). Massachusetts was the first state to require bilingual education, mandating it in school districts where at least 20 English language 

learners spoke the same language. Other states that backed bilingual education early on, either through law or funding, included 

New Mexico, Colorado, Michigan, and Connecticut. Other states 

were pushed into action by lawsuits on behalf of various groups of 

students or by the Bilingual Education Act, as amended in 1974 

and 1978. The amended Act required that children attending public schools who had little or no proficiency in English be taught 

in their native language to the extent that such instruction would 

help them succeed in school. However, in the early 1980s, in light 

of growing opposition to bilingual education and difficulty recruiting bilingual teachers, districts were allowed more flexibility as 

long as they protected the civil rights of and effectively educated 

English language learners (Hacsi, 2002, p. 75). 

Examples of recent legislative action in opposition to bilingual education include when, in 1998, California voters passed 

Proposition 227, severely limiting the use of students’ primary 

language in instructional programs for English language learners. In practice, a wide array of approaches to teaching English 

language learners are still in use in California, including bilingual education, since such programs were allowed to continue 

in schools where parents requested them (Hacsi, 2002, p. 93). 

Researchers and evaluators are currently assessing the impact 
23

Chapter One

of Proposition 227 on student performance on state tests (Gandara, 2000; Zehr, 2001c). 

Similarly, in November 2000, Arizona followed California’s 

lead when 63% of voters approved a ballot initiative to repeal 

instruction for ELLs in their primary language (Zehr, 2000) and 

to limit ELLs to one year of English-immersion courses (Education Commission of the States, 2000; Hacsi, 2002, p. 94). While 

the California law allows parents to apply for waivers in order to 

have their children taught in bilingual classrooms, the Arizona 

law is even more restrictive and limits parents’ opportunities 

to seek waivers (Zehr, 2000). Efforts to ban bilingual education gained momentum in Colorado and Massachusetts (Sutner, 

2001; Yettick, 2002) in 2002. The ballot issue was defeated in 

Colorado but passed in Massachusetts. 

In contrast to states that have adopted policies restricting bilingual education, some states report that more than half of LEP students receive instruction in their native languages. These states 

include Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, and New Mexico. States where English is the exclusive language of instruction for more than 95% of ELLs include Alabama, 

Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia (Kindler, 2002). 

Summary

Policies and practices regarding the education of ELLs are governed by a variety of legislative acts, legal decisions, guidelines, 

and interpretations thereof at the federal, state, and district levels. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1968 (The 

Bilingual Education Act) helped ensure that districts established 

programs for ELLs that increased their proficiency in English 

and mastery of academic content. Such programs, as outlined 

in decisions such as Castañeda v. Pickard, should be based on 

sound educational theory, well implemented, and regularly evaluated and revised. 

Similar to the “Castañeda Test” and OCR recommendations, 

Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, which reauthorized and renamed Title VII, states that school districts should 
24

Chapter One

provide “high-quality language instruction programs that are 

based on scientifically based research and that have demonstrated that they are effective in increasing English proficiency 

and student achievement” (USED, 2002, p. 93). Implementation 

of such programs is addressed by requiring that school districts 

help ensure quality instruction of ELLs by providing professional 

development to teachers and administrators. 

Demonstrated effectiveness is integral to Title III, which requires 

each state education agency receiving funding to outline how it 

will raise the level of English proficiency for ELLs and holds districts and states accountable for meeting all annual measurable 

achievement objectives and making adequate yearly progress 

for LEP students (USED, 2002). Thus, though states enjoy flexibility regarding the design and funding of programs to meet the 

needs of diverse groups of English language learners, all programs must meet pre-established requirements.
25

Chapter Two Types of English 

Language Learner Instructional Models
26

Chapter Two

Introduction

As mandated by law, public school students identified as LEP 

should be placed in instructional programs designed, at minimum, to assist them in becoming proficient in English and 

mastering content area subject matter. Though many program 

models exist (Genesee, 1999; Linquanti, 1999; Zelasko & 

Antunez, 2000) and all programs strive to help students meet 

these goals, they differ according to variables such as the underlying goals and objectives, the degree to which the student’s 

native language is used and maintained, the resources and local 

conditions required, and the manner in which they are implemented at the building level (August & Hakuta, 1998; Genesee, 

1999; Zelasko & Antunez, 2000). 

The program descriptions that follow are based on those outlined 

by Genesee (1999) and fall into two main categories—those 

program models that strive to promote bilingual proficiency and 

those that promote proficiency only in English (Genesee, 1999; 

US GAO, 2001). In the section that follows, each program model 

is described, the goals and theoretical underpinnings explicated, 

and necessary local conditions or resources noted. The program 

models are also summarized in chart form later in this document. 

These descriptions are offered in the spirit that there is no one 

best approach. Instead, “many different approaches can be successful when implemented well. Local conditions, choices, and 

innovation are critical ingredients of success” (Genesee, 1999, 

p. 4). Indeed, as will be discussed in Chapter Three, quality programs for English language learners seem to share some common features. Moreover, many districts, realizing that ELLs are 

a diverse rather than monolithic group, combine approaches to 

meet the needs of these learners.

Programs That Promote English Proficiency 

But Not Bilingual Proficiency

When districts seek to help a group of ELLs become proficient 

in English as quickly as possible and master academic content, 

but either do not desire to promote bilingualism for this group 

of students or do not have the necessary local resources to do 
27

Chapter Two

so, they adopt one or more of several program models. These 

program models may include a transitional bilingual education model, a newcomer program, sheltered instruction, or ESL 

classes. Both newcomer programs and sheltered instruction are 

often combined with other program models. Indeed, because of 

its flexibility and use across program models, sheltered instruction is often described as an instructional approach rather than a 

program. Hence, though they are discussed in this section, newcomer programs can be designed to support bilingualism or not, 

and sheltered instruction is best viewed as an approach that can 

be integrated with any program model.

Transitional Bilingual Education 

Transitional bilingual education (TBE) or early-exit bilingual 

education (Ramirez, 1992) is the most common form of bilingual education for ELLs in the United States (Genesee, 1999, 

p. 18). TBE does not aim for bilingual proficiency. Instead, TBE 

programs, which usually start in kindergarten, use the students’ 

first language for instruction while helping them gain oral proficiency in English. English is the language of instruction in nonacademic subjects, such as art, music, and physical education 

(Medina, 1995). As students become more proficient in English, 

they are gradually taught academic subjects, one at a time, in 

English rather than the students’ first language. As students 

transition into English instruction, math computations are often 

the first content area they begin to learn in English. As students 

gain proficiency, they also begin studying science, then social 

studies, in English. Most students are mainstreamed into regular 

classrooms within three years (Genesee, 1999).

Some of the theoretical underpinnings of TBE programs include 

that such programs avoid putting students at academic risk 

because students can gain the literacy skills and grade-appropriate academic skills that they might not be able to if instructed 

only in English. That is, proponents maintain that it is easier for 

students to learn in a language they know than in one they do 

not know and are simultaneously learning to speak. Supporters 

of TBE programs also suggest that literacy skills from the first 

language will transfer to the second language (English), that the 

knowledge gained through instruction in the first language will 
28

Chapter Two

help students subsequently learn the information in English, that 

such programs speed up the process of learning English, and 

that TBE programs increase parental involvement since families’ 

cultures and native languages are validated. 

Some considerations that need to be taken into account when 

using a TBE model, or any model, center on the student population to be served, as well as available resources and personnel. 

First, TBE models require a sizeable population of English language learners who speak the same language. Since all students 

in TBE programs will need support when transitioning from the 

native language to English, the transition should be gradual, and 

teachers should both employ sheltered instruction strategies as 

well as point out similarities and differences between reading 

and writing in the students’ first language and English (Genesee, 

1999, p. 20). Moreover, because TBE programs are transitional in nature, districts should provide follow-up programs to 

ensure that English language learners perform as well as their 

native English-speaking classmates after they have transitioned 

out of the program and are in regular classrooms. Teachers in 

TBE programs should be proficient in both languages and have 

access to bilingual teaching materials and assessments in order 

to provide the instruction and meaningful activities that are part 

of strong TBE programs.

Newcomer Programs

Newcomer programs are designed to help ELLs with limited literacy skills or previous schooling acculturate to the U.S. school 

system and develop the linguistic and academic skills necessary to participate in existing programs for ELLs. Newcomer 

programs offer intensive, specialized instruction that is usually 

limited to one or two years (Genesee, 1999, p. 14). Although 

newcomer programs exist for all grade levels, they are most 

common at the middle and high school levels. Some newcomer 

programs may have additional goals, such as promoting students’ native languages. Thus, newcomer programs may promote bilingual proficiency or only English proficiency, depending 

on how the newcomer and follow-up programs are designed. 

The organization of newcomer programs varies considerably. 

In many cases, districts share a common intake center where 
29

Chapter Two

students are assessed. In some cases, students may travel to 

study at one or a handful of district newcomer centers, then, upon 

completion of the program, transition to their home schools. In 

contrast, other newcomer programs are within the student’s home 

school. Students in newcomer programs based at their home 

schools participate in art, music, physical education, and other 

non-academic classes with native English speakers. 

The most common rationale for establishing a newcomer program is that some students, especially those with limited literacy 

skills or previous schooling, need additional support beyond what 

the district offers to ELLs. For example, proponents of newcomer 

programs may point out that a refugee who enters the U.S. at age 

15 and has never attended school has very different needs than 

an immigrant who arrived in the U.S. at age seven, already having studied English in school in his or her native country. 

Special considerations to take into account when establishing a 

newcomer program include the recruitment of qualified teachers. 

Such teachers should be trained in literacy development, second 

language acquisition, strategies for integrating content and language objectives, and cross-cultural awareness (Genesee, 1999, 

p. 16). Indeed, because some students in newcomer programs 

might have very limited previous educational experiences, teachers in these programs should be comfortable using special literacy strategies for adolescents. Additionally, courses or activities 

should provide student orientation to U.S. schools and even to the 

community. Appropriate instructional materials for newcomer programs should be cognitively demanding, available in English and 

the students’ first languages, and in line with students’ proficiency 

levels. As with other transitional programs, the process for exiting 

newcomer programs and entering follow-up programs should be 

well articulated (Genesee, 1999). This is especially true for ELLs 

who will be transitioning away from a districtwide newcomer center to a new school. Finally, depending on the type of newcomer 

program desired, transportation from students’ home schools to 

districtwide newcomer centers may need to be arranged.

Sheltered English Instruction

Sheltered Instruction (SI) integrates content area objectives and 

goals for language development. SI can be used “wherever and 
30

Chapter Two

whenever English language learners receive academic instruction 

in English” (Genesee, 1999, p. 9). SI can be used not only as an 

instructional approach for English language learners and incorporated within the framework of a program, but it can also be the 

sole approach a district takes in supporting ELLs. Thus, SI can be 

thought of as a way of teaching. When delivering SI, teachers use 

the core curriculum but modify it to meet the needs of ELLs (Institute for Policy Analysis and Research, 2000). Though SI uses the 

strategies found in quality language instruction for native speakers of English, it is characterized by the teacher’s careful attention 

to the distinctive second language development needs of ELLs 

(Genesee, 1999, p. 9). As result, SI is a way of teaching that, if 

implemented effectively, “ensures that English language learners 

comprehend academic instruction when it is delivered in English” 

(Genesee, 1999, p. 41). In some contexts, SI may also be referred 

to as Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English, Structured Immersion, or Content-Based ESL (NCELA, 2004).

The theoretical rationale behind SI is that learners can acquire 

knowledge, concepts, and skills related to content at the same 

time that they improve their second (English) language skills 

(Genesee, 1999, p. 9). Those who support SI maintain that 

language acquisition is enhanced by meaningful interactions 

using the second language (Genesee, 1994). SI lessons are 

often characterized by modeling and techniques designed to 

make content more accessible to students, such as demonstrations, graphic organizers, adapted texts, and visual aids. Lessons integrate skills from all four language domains (listening, 

speaking, reading, and writing) and teacher-student interaction 

is characterized by frequent discussion, sufficient wait time 

for student responses, encouragement to elaborate comments 

about lesson concepts, and the explicit teaching and opportunities to practice conversational skills via meaningful activities 

(Genesee, 1999, p. 10).

Because SI integrates content and language objectives, it requires 

districts to develop grade-level curricula for each subject they 

offer, with clearly defined objectives and standards that reflect a 

sequential pattern for learning. Another consideration those who 

create an SI program should bear in mind is that teachers must 

be trained in SI strategies. Teachers in SI programs may be ESL 
31

Chapter Two

teachers with content-area training or content specialists with 

training in second language acquisition processes, ESL methodologies, and cross-cultural awareness (Genesee, 1999, p. 11). 

Given requirements concerning “highly qualified” teachers under 

the No Child Left Behind Act and the importance of ensuring that 

ELLs complete credit requirements in a timely fashion, districts 

may adopt a whole-school approach, training teachers who are 

already certified in content areas in SI strategies. Finally, schools 

and districts should be able to offer flexible scheduling so that 

students can enter mainstream classes one subject at a time as 

they are able, as well as offer support for teachers and students, 

including after-school tutoring and resource classes to help students who have been mainstreamed.

ESL

ESL (or, often, ESOL) is a broad term used to describe diverse 

educational approaches that use English as the language of 

instruction for ELLs. Some descriptions of program models for 

ELLs do not list ESL as a separate category; however, it is a 

designation often used by school districts and practitioners. 

For ESL programs, the rapid acquisition of basic English proficiency is the goal for beginning students (Zelasko & Antunez, 

2000). To accomplish this goal, English language learners 

attend ESL classes in which English, the language of instruction, has been adapted to match students’ proficiency levels. 

Students may share the same first language or be from different 

language backgrounds (NCELA, 2004). ESL programs can be 

combined with other programs. Thus, while not in ESL classes, 

students may be in mainstream classrooms, an immersion 

program, or a bilingual education program. Students are often 

grouped according to proficiency level. 

ESL programs vary primarily in terms of the focus of instruction and the amount of time students spend in classrooms with 

English-speaking peers. Some ESL programs may use a special curriculum and focus exclusively on the use of the English 

language. Such ESL programs are usually pull-out programs, 

meaning that students leave classrooms where they study with 

English-speaking classmates to spend part of their day receiving 

ESL instruction (NCELA, 2004). The amount of time students 
32

Chapter Two

in pull-out programs spend in ESL classes varies from about 30 

minutes per day to a half-day (Thomas & Collier, 1997). 

Once students attain basic English proficiency, they are usually 

mainstreamed, meaning that they attend classes with Englishspeaking peers. After being mainstreamed, ELLs may attend 

no or a few ESL classes designed to provide ongoing support 

and promote higher levels of proficiency. Thus, the instruction 

students receive in pull-out ESL programs varies over time and 

according to proficiency levels. As an example, a beginning student may spend the majority of the school day in ESL classes, 

which might initially focus on speaking and aural comprehension. Later on, the same student might spend less time in ESL 

classes, which now focus on vocabulary and grammar. Even 

advanced students may attend ESL resource classes, where they 

receive individualized instruction. 

Other ESL programs seek to promote English language proficiency and mastery of content at the same time. Such ESL programs integrate content area curricula with language objectives 

and offer content-based ESL rather than focusing instruction 

solely on the use of the English language. Programs of this type 

are often self-contained, meaning that ELLs spend the majority of their day learning academic content away from Englishspeaking classmates. These programs are sometimes referred to 

as content-based ESL.

Because ESL is broadly used for programs that vary widely, 

general statements regarding the theoretical rationale and 

resources needed to implement ESL programs will not apply to 

all programs. Content-based ESL programs, for example, share 

similar theoretical underpinnings and require the same resources 

as do programs based on sheltered instruction. ESL programs 

that focus on the use of the English language are often based 

on the belief that ELLs need explicit, supplemental language 

instruction that they cannot or do not receive in content area 

classes they attend with their English-speaking peers. 

Most ESL programs require districts to develop grade-level curricula with clearly defined objectives and standards that reflect 

a sequential pattern for learning. Depending on state guidelines, 

teachers in ESL programs may be initially licensed in ESL or 
33

Chapter Two

initially licensed in another area, then gain ESL licensure as an 

add-on. Teachers should be trained in second language acquisition processes, ESL methodologies, cross-cultural awareness, 

and, depending on the program, specific content areas to be 

taught. Finally, schools should be able to offer flexible scheduling so that students can enter mainstream classes one subject at 

a time, as they are able, in addition to ongoing support for ELLs 

who have been mainstreamed.

Programs That Promote Bilingual Proficiency

As with all program models for ELLs, those described in this 

section strive to improve English language learners’ proficiency 

in English and their mastery of academic content. Unlike those 

program models outlined in the previous section, however, the 

programs described here also seek to promote students’ proficiency in their first language. These programs include developmental bilingual education programs and two-way immersion 

programs. Two additional programs, newcomer programs and 

SI, though described in the preceding section, can also be used 

to promote bilingual proficiency. In the descriptions that follow, 

each program model is outlined, the goals and theoretical rationale explained, and some considerations that should be taken 

into account mentioned. 

Developmental Bilingual Education

Developmental bilingual education (DBE) programs are also 

known as late-exit bilingual programs (Ramirez, 1992) and were 

formerly referred to as maintenance bilingual programs (Genesee, 1999). DBE programs are described as additive programs 

or enrichment programs. Rather than aiming to replace English 

language learners’ first language with English, additive programs 

such as DBE strive to develop the students’ first language while 

also helping them master academic content and become proficient in English. DBE programs usually begin in kindergarten or 

first grade, with schools adding one grade each year (Genesee, 

1999, p. 24). Academic subjects are taught in both English 

and the other language. Although both languages are used for 

instruction in DBE programs, each language is used separately, 

and teachers instruct students in one language for prolonged 

periods of time, rather than switching between languages within 
34

Chapter Two

a given lesson. Students learn together for most or all of the day, 

regardless of their proficiency levels in either language (Genesee, 

1999, p. 26). Since there is some evidence that more proficient 

bilinguals reap cognitive advantages that their less proficient 

counterparts do not (Cummins, 1981) and that ELLs may not 

close the achievement gap until after four-to-seven years of bilingual instruction (Collier, 1992, 1995), districts ideally support 

DBE programs through high school.

Some theoretical arguments used in favor of DBE programs 

include that developing a student’s first language results in cognitive advantages (Cummins, 1996), especially when the first 

language is developed through Piaget’s formal operations stage 

at puberty (Genesee, 1999, p. 25). Thus, promoting students’ 

native languages rather than replacing the native language with 

English results in uninterrupted cognitive development that leads 

to increased academic achievement. In other words, by engaging students in cognitively challenging work using their first language and engaging them in meaningful content in the second 

language (English), the academic growth of ELLs can be accelerated, thereby narrowing the achievement gap between them and 

their native English-speaking classmates (Genesee, 1999, p. 25). 

In fact, proponents point out that students in effective DBE programs can outperform their monolingual English-speaking peers 

on standardized tests across the curriculum (Thomas & Collier, 

1997). Moreover, some researchers cite sociocultural and affective reasons for using DBE or other models that make extensive 

use of students’ first language, arguing that building on the knowledge students gain at home and in their communities can have 

positive impacts on learning (Moll, Amanti, & Gonzalez, 1992). 

Before trying to establish an effective DBE program, districts 

should first ensure that enough ELLs speak the same language 

and that demographic projections suggest that this will continue 

to be the case. Additionally, parents and the community need to 

understand and agree to actively support bilingualism. Another 

consideration related to DBE programs is the recruitment and 

training of bilingual teachers who are proficient in using both 

languages for academic purposes, certified in content areas, and 

adept at integrating content and language objectives. In cases 

where teachers are proficient in only one language, classes may 
35

Chapter Two

be team taught, with each teacher working alternately with two 

classes of students and serving as an academic model in only 

one language (Genesee, 1999, p. 27). Finally, both languages 

should be integrated into all domains of schooling.

Two-Way Immersion Programs

Two-way immersion (TWI) programs, also known as two-way 

bilingual education and dual language immersion programs

(Genesee, 1999, p. 36), strive to ensure that two linguistically 

diverse groups of students master academic content, attain proficiency in their first languages, attain proficiency in a second 

language, and become more cross-culturally aware (Christian, 

1994). Language and content are integrated, with academic 

subjects taught in both English and the other language. Most 

TWI programs require that the non-English language be used 

for at least 50% of instruction (Sugarman & Howard, 2001; Torres-Guzman, 2001). Thus, two-way immersion programs are 

additive programs since students develop, not replace, their first 

language while becoming proficient in a second language.

Though TWI programs vary, they share some similarities. TWI 

programs usually start in kindergarten or first grade and continue for four-to-six years. Each class is typically composed of 

50% native English speakers and 50% native speakers of the 

other language. Languages are used separately, meaning that 

teachers instruct for extended periods of time in one language, 

rather than switching between languages in a single lesson. 

Students are integrated, meaning that native speakers of each 

language study together for all or most of the day, with students 

sometimes separated by language background for instruction in 

language arts (Genesee, 1999, p. 36).

Theoretical assumptions that underlie TWI programs include 

that the first language provides a basis for the acquisition of 

literacy and those skills transfer without difficulty from the first 

to the second language. Another argument used in favor of twoway immersion programs is that, for all students, acquiring academic knowledge in one language makes it easier to acquire 

the same knowledge in another language (Collier, 1989). Additionally, supporters of TWI suggest that language is used best 

as a med-ium of instruction and for real communicative needs 
36

Chapter Two

rather than the exclusive focus of instruction (Genesee, 1999, 

p. 36). Finally, those who advocate TWI programs maintain that 

language-majority students can develop “advanced levels of 

second language proficiency without compromising their academic achievement or first language development” (Genesee, 

1999, p. 36).

Several factors should be considered in reference to TWI programs. Just as with DBE programs, districts should ensure that 

enough ELLs speak the same first language, that both languages 

have equal status and are integrated into all domains of schooling, and that teachers are proficient in at least one language 

(ideally, both languages), certified in content areas, and skilled 

in integrating content and language objectives. Additionally, a 

sizeable proportion of the majority language (English) speakers, 

their parents, and the administration must support bilingualism. 

Summary

As educators strive to find ways to meet the educational 

needs of English language learners but are limited in terms of 

human and financial resources, decisions must be strategic 

and well informed. Certainly, the minimum goals for all programs designed to support English language learners have 

been defined. Programs must be based on scientifically based 

research, be well implemented, and be evaluated and revised 

on a regular basis. Thus, all programs must minimally strive 

to promote English language proficiency and mastery of academic content among ELLs. Instructional program models vary 

primarily according to their theoretical underpinnings and the 

additional goals they assume for students. Examples of these 

additional goals include first language proficiency for ELLs, 

second language proficiency for native speakers of English, or 

cross-cultural awareness. 

Determining what is “best” for English language learners thus 

depends on a variety of contextual and local factors. Such factors include the district’s goals and resources (Genesee, 1999), 

the school community, and the needs and characteristics of its 

students (August & Hakuta, 1998; Genesee, 1999; Hakuta 2001; 

Thomas & Collier, 1997, 2002).
37

Chapter Three Research on Instructional 

Models for English Language Learners
38

Chapter Three

Introduction

Although a considerable body of research exists on second language acquisition and topics related to the education of English 

language learners, few conclusions regarding how best to educate ELLs can be drawn. In some cases, the research is strong 

but may not have implications for instructional practices in 

settings such as ESL classrooms. In other cases, the research 

lacks rigor or offers contradictory findings. In still other areas, 

there simply is not enough research. As the National Literacy 

Panel finishes its review of all the available research printed in 

English on second language learners, stronger conclusions and 

more guidance should emerge (for findings of the National Literacy Panel, please see www.cal.org).

Until then, educators should benefit from the research reviews 

presented in this section. The first section on possible student 

characteristics related to the differential success of second language learners, whatever the instructional program, provides 

readers with an appreciation of the diversity among English 

language learners. The second section outlines research related 

to characteristics of instructional programs for English language 

learners, with special emphasis on the use of students’ first languages and the length of time students are enrolled in ELL programs. The final section reviews some common program models 

regarding local practices that may help increase the success of 

English language learners. 

Student Characteristics

A multitude of factors have been examined to determine the 

degree to which they may or may not differentially impact learners’ rates of acquisition and ultimate attainment of second languages. Such factors include but are not limited to age, aptitude, 

social-psychological factors, attitude, personality, cognitive style, 

brain hemisphere specialization, gender, and prior experience 

(Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). 

Of these factors, age is perhaps the one most often cited to 

explain learners’ varying degrees of proficiency in a second 

language. It is also a variable that is often misunderstood. Conventional wisdom assumes that language acquisition is easier 
39

Chapter Three

for younger students. Although researchers have disagreed over 

the existence of a critical period for language learning and the 

degree to which constraints on language learning may be biologically driven, it has long been recognized that younger students have advantages for some aspects of second language 

learning and disadvantages for others, just as older learners do 

(Bucuvalas, 2002; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). 

Moreover, claims regarding the impact of age on language 

acquisition sometimes fail to consider important points. Misconceptions then result that can influence perceptions regarding young English language learners’ needs. For example, as 

Catherine Snow points out, “younger language learners, like 

older ones, work hard and struggle while learning” (Bucuvalas, 

2002). As a result, they need appropriate support. Additionally, 

while younger second language learners are more likely to attain 

native-like proficiency in the second language (Bucuvalas, 

2002; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991), they are also more likely 

to lose proficiency in their first language (Bucuvalas, 2002). 

Thus, although older students might not reach the same levels 

of proficiency in the second language as younger learners tend 

to, they usually meet the cognitive and linguistic demands necessary to maintain two languages.

Such distinctions have important implications for ELL instructional program models. For instance, new immigrants between 

the ages of four and seven sometimes need two more years of 

linguistic and academic support than those between the ages 8 

and 11 (US GAO, 2001). 

In addition to age, other individual student characteristics, 

such as the amount of formal schooling a student received in 

his or her home country and others too numerous to discuss 

here, are also important to consider when developing instructional programs for English language learners (US GAO, 2001; 

Thomas & Collier, 2002). 

Especially given the language barrier that ELLs face, accurately 

identifying and serving English language learners with disabilities is emerging as a growing challenge (Brice & RoseberryMcKibben, 1999; Oritz, 1997, 2001; Zehr, 2001a). English 

language learners may be over-represented in special education 
40

Chapter Three

when some aspect of second language acquisition is mistakenly 

interpreted as a learning disability. Conversely, English language 

learners may also be under-represented (Development Associates, 2003) when just the opposite occurs—learning disabilities 

are mistakenly attributed to the process of acquiring a second 

language. Whether students are over identified or under identified, 

their limited English language skills can mimic or mask a disability (Artiles & Ortiz, in press; Zehr, 2001a). Misdiagnosis may 

be caused and compounded by the fact that there is a shortage 

of special education assessment specialists and teachers who are 

able to address students’ “language and disability-related needs 

simultaneously” (Ortiz, 2001, p. 1), so that, contrary to the Office 

for Civil Rights (OCR) policy, some students may be assigned to 

special education programs on the basis of criteria that measure 

and evaluate English language skills rather than learning disabilities. The Appendix offers resources on this topic.

Characteristics of Instructional Program Models 

Use of Primary Language in Instruction

The evaluation literature on instructional program models for 

English language learners has focused almost exclusively on 

comparisons between broadly defined bilingual programs and 

English-only programs. That is, most studies have strived to 

provide insights regarding the efficacy of one approach or the 

other (August & Hakuta, 1997). As a result, one limitation of the 

research is that variations and subtleties of instructional models, 

whether bilingual or not, have rarely been compared in order to 

determine what might work best. Furthermore, many who have 

conducted and reviewed research in this area claim that some 

of the evaluation literature is problematic (Baker and de Kanter, 

1983; Willig, 1985). Despite these limitations, however, questions and suggestions regarding evaluation methodology and 

program implementation, as well as hypotheses regarding ELL 

instruction emerge from the existing body of research.

Evidence Cited Against Using 

Students’ Native Languages in Instruction 

Some studies that have raised questions concerning the efficacy of bilingual education either have found little conclusive 
41

Chapter Three

evidence that English language learners in bilingual programs 

perform better than those in English-only programs (Baker & 

de Kanter, 1983; Rossell & Baker, 1996) or that students in 

bilingual programs fare worse in some way (Danoff et al., 

1978). In the first large-scale evaluation of bilingual programs, 

researchers at the American Institutes for Research (AIR) found 

that students in the bilingual programs they examined performed as well in math but worse in English than did native 

Spanish speakers who were not enrolled in bilingual programs. 

The AIR report has been criticized for confounding correlation and causation in the case of first language instruction and 

second language measures, mistakenly including students 

who were fluent in English and for not distinguishing between 

bilingual programs that varied widely (Hacsi, 2002). Similarly, 

critics point out that Baker and de Kanter (1983) reviewed 

hundreds of summaries but used only 28 for their review 

(Hacsi, 2002), and, though they concluded that English-only 

instruction was preferable to bilingual education, they suggested that an adult who spoke the students’ first language 

might be needed in the classroom. Finally, critics of the Rossell and Baker (1996) review suggest that inappropriate studies whose instructional approaches were ambiguous and that 

did not control for student differences were included (Greene, 

1997) in that review.

Evidence Cited For Using 

Students’ Native Languages in Instruction

A number of studies suggest that bilingual education programs 

can have significant, positive effects on English language learners’ academic achievement and language proficiency levels 

(August & Hakuta, 1997; Cummins & Corson, 1997; Greene, 

1998; Willig, 1985; Sugarman & Howard, 2001), as well as 

their attitudes (Willing, 1985) and social development (August 

& Hakuta, 1997). In terms of academic achievement, students 

enrolled in bilingual education programs have been found to 

perform better in math, reading, and other subjects than students who do not receive instruction in their first language 

(Greene, 1998; Houston Independent School District, 1997; 

Thomas & Collier, 1997; Willig, 1985).
42

Chapter Three

Despite common misconceptions, learning in two languages 

simultaneously does not seem to jeopardize the development of 

second (English) language proficiency. Instead, the knowledge 

and literacy skills that children in quality bilingual programs 

receive allow them to more easily comprehend information in 

and transfer literacy skills to the second language (Snow, Burns, 

& Griffin, 1998). Such findings led the National Research Council to conclude that English language learners should be taught 

to read first in their native language (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 

1998). Indeed, Petitto and Kovelman (2003) maintain that “earlyexposed bilingual children exhibit neither ‘language confusion’ nor 

‘language delay.’ Instead, they develop into fully healthy language 

users, and as if they had two monolingual brains in one” (p. 16).

In spite of these positive findings, however, test scores of English 

language learners enrolled in bilingual programs may sometimes 

lag behind those of their counterparts in English-only classes, 

especially in the early grades (Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991; 

Thomas & Collier, 1997). In both of these studies, however, 

English language learners who received some instruction in 

their native language ultimately outperformed their peers who 

received English-only instruction, either by third grade (Ramirez, 

Yuen, & Ramey, 1991) or the end of high school (Thomas & 

Collier, 1997). In particular, English language learners who 

attended bilingual programs were most successful at closing the 

gap, finishing school with average scores at or above the 50th

national percentile (Thomas & Collier, 1997). In contrast, ELLs 

enrolled in the highest-quality content ESL programs closed 

only about half of the total achievement gap (Thomas & Collier, 

1997, p. 334), while ELLs who were immersed in mainstream 

classes showed large decreases in reading and math by grade 

five and were most likely to drop out of school. 

Just as with the literature that supports English-only instruction, 

some of the research above that supports bilingual education has 

been criticized. For example, critics suggest that the evidence presented in the Thomas and Collier (1997) study is less robust than 

the authors claim (Hacsi, 2002). Though 700,000 student records 

were examined, only 42,000 were included in the study. Attrition 

affected the results, but it is uncertain to what degree or in which 

direction (Hacsi, 2002). Additionally, claims the study makes 
43

Chapter Three

concerning how well programs were implemented or the sociocultural responsiveness of classrooms have been questioned, 

given that the number of classrooms precluded observations. 

Though hardly a problem unique to this study and one that many 

educational studies struggle with, the students self-selected into 

instructional programs, making it difficult to account for individual 

level variables. Despite these limitations, however, even critics 

concede that many of the claims the study makes have merit 

(Hacsi, 2002). Moreover, Thomas & Collier (1997) report that 

studies conducted by the three districts from which the data were 

obtained confirm the results presented in the study.

Clearly, the evaluation literature on ELL instructional programs 

provides insights and poses questions that are valuable to educators interested in making informed decisions. Many researchers in linguistics and learning agree that English-only instruction 

and transitional bilingual education are less robust options for 

improving long-term academic achievement in English language learners than programs that are intended to develop both 

bilingualism and biliteracy (August & Hakuta, 1998; Cummins 

& Corson, 1997). It appears that the impact of primary language 

instruction, though perhaps limited, is statistically significant 

and educationally meaningful (Greene, 1997; Willig, 1985). As 

with any educational program, available resources and quality 

of implementation are important factors to consider. This point, 

too often overlooked, has led some to suggest that “the biggest 

problem may be that we have had far more mediocre programs, 

of all kinds, than excellent ones” (Hacsi, 2002). 

Several of the studies cited above, from both sides of the bilingual 

debate, present secondary findings that are often omitted from 

discussions but offer important points related to program quality. When implementing and especially evaluating programs, it 

is always important to note how faithful program practice is to 

the model. Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey (1991) found that immersion programs and TBE programs were the most faithful to their 

models, with developmental bilingual programs the least faithful. 

Teachers in these programs were found to use far less Spanish than what was called for, particularly in the upper grades. 

Indeed, recruiting qualified teachers with the language proficiency 

required in academic contexts seems to be problematic for some 
44

Chapter Three

bilingual programs. Almost half of the teachers interviewed in the 

AIR report, for example, admitted that they were not proficient in 

the language in which they instructed students. 

As observed in several studies, the process used for mainstreaming ELL can sometimes be problematic (Danoff et al., 

1978; Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991). Transitions from bilingual classes to English-only classes seemed to impact student 

achievement in at least one case, with those students in DBE 

math classes that received more Spanish in the later grades 

scoring higher on math scores than did those whose classes 

shifted abruptly to English (Ramirez et al., 1991). Indeed, 

researchers suggest that ELL programs track the academic 

success of English language learners once they have been 

mainstreamed in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

instructional support they receive. Last but not least, quality 

of instruction was also noted in several studies (Ramirez, Yuen, 

& Ramey, 1991; Thomas & Collier, 1997), with the claim that 

instruction for ELLs should be cognitively challenging in both 

languages and on grade level (Thomas & Collier, 1997).

It is not surprising that quality, challenging instruction helps 

English language learners perform well linguistically and academically. In fact, as some preliminary findings in these studies suggest, English language learners benefit from many of 

the practices associated with quality schooling, just as other 

students do. With research efforts focused on the question of 

instruction in the primary language, however, other questions 

have remained unanswered. 

Duration of Enrollment in ELL Instructional Model

The answer to the question of how long English language learners should remain in ELL programs seems an easy one—for as 

long as they need to. Some indications that ELLs have received 

support of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration are that, 

once exited from support programs, ELLs 

1. Keep up with their English-speaking classmates.

2. Participate successfully in all aspects of the school’s curriculum without the use of simplified English materials.
45

Chapter Three

3. Have in-grade retention and dropout rates that are similar to 

those of their English-speaking peers (Williams, 1991). 

Beyond the somewhat simplistic response of “as long as needed” 

and the suggested indicators regarding whether or not ELLs have 

been mainstreamed too early, however, “no clear consensus exists 

among researchers and educators on the length of time needed 

for children of limited English proficiency to become proficient 

in English” (US GAO, 2001, p. 12). Several factors seem to 

make generalizations difficult (US GAO, 2001). First, individual 

student differences affect the rate of acquisition of English, just 

as they do other learning tasks. Additionally, the variability in 

both instructional programs and the measures states use to 

determine proficiency complicate attempts to determine a figure such as the average number of years students need to attain 

proficiency. Finally, just as with instructional program models, 

there is a lack of research (US GAO, 2001). 

Keeping these limitations in mind, the research that follows is 

offered in light of the fact that research and practice regarding 

length of enrollment often do not coincide. For example, while 

many schools aim to exit students from English-only programs 

within two-to-three years, Thomas and Collier (1997, 2002) 

found that it generally takes from five-to-seven years for a typical student who is achieving on grade level in their native language to reach the 50th NCE (normal curve equivalent, a score 

similar to percentile ranks) in the second language. Further, 

it takes most students in ESL programs seven-to-ten-or-more 

years to reach the 50th NCE (Thomas & Collier, 1997). Based 

on these findings, Thomas and Collier (2002) suggest that students who have no proficiency in English should be placed in 

programs that provide support and instruction for a minimum 

of four years. 

Based on nearly 20 years of research on English language learners in California, De Avila (1997) reached similar conclusions to 

those articulated by Thomas and Collier. De Avila (1997) noted 

that there is a large discrepancy between oral second language 

skills and reading and writing proficiency in English in the early 

grades. For example, while the aural comprehension skills of 

English language learners are close to 80% proficient by the third 
46

Chapter Three

grade, their reading and writing skills remain below 50% proficient compared to those of native English speakers. It is not 

until after grades five or six (or later for English language learners who begin at older ages) that biliteracy, or proficiency in 

reading and writing in the second language, begins to appear. 

As a result, De Avila (1997) suggests that acquiring English 

as a second language for students entering school with no proficiency in English takes approximately six-to-seven years. 

Similarly, Hakuta, Goto-Butler, and Witt (2000) concluded that 

it takes students three-to-five years to attain oral proficiency 

and four-to-seven years to attain the academic proficiency that 

enables students to succeed in school.

Thus, in answer to the question of how long English language 

learners should remain enrolled in ELL programs, the answer 

remains “as long as they need to.” Student characteristics and 

the type of instruction should certainly factor into estimates, 

as should differentiated rates of acquisition related to different 

language domains (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). 

Unfortunately, if ongoing and future research confirms that presented above, perhaps “as long as they need to” is longer than 

most programs are currently designed to offer support. 

School Characteristics

As mentioned in the discussion regarding instructional models, 

quality instruction for English language learners seems to be 

associated with practices typical of high-quality schooling for 

all children. In addition to being based on sound educational 

theory, well implemented, and regularly evaluated and revised 

(OCR, 2004), programs for ELLs may benefit from the practices outlined here. These practices do not comprise a definitive checklist, but are offered as “best guesses” still in need of 

empirical support. 

In terms of district and school culture, programs for ELLs benefit 

from a strong and knowledgeable leadership that is sensitive to 

the needs of English language learners, coordination of efforts 

among and between schools, and a supportive schoolwide environment (August & Hakuta, 1997; Genesee, 1999). Concerning curriculum and instruction, English language learners likely 

benefit from a developmentally appropriate curriculum and 
47

Chapter Three

instructional materials that incorporate both basic and higherorder skills, as well as explicit skill instruction. Additionally, 

English language learners should be held to high standards, 

regularly and systematically assessed, offered a “customized” learning environment, taught by qualified staff, and enjoy 

opportunities for student-directed learning. 

In particular, instructional personnel should be able to implement strategies that

1. Integrate language acquisition and academic achievement.

2. Promote proficiency in English (and the students’ native 

language, where applicable) for academic purposes, 

including literacy.

3. Ensure that academic instruction through the students’ 

second language is meaningful and comprehensible.

4. Link assessment methods to instructional objectives and 

inform instructional planning and delivery (Genesee, 1999).

Finally, ongoing and appropriate professional development that 

focuses on the development of specific strategies to identify the 

needs of English language learners, well articulated exit plans 

for ELL instructional programs that require such, and parental 

involvement (Goldenberg, 1993, 2004; Jeynes, 2003) may help 

improve English language learner outcomes, regardless of the 

program in place (August & Hakuta, 1997; Genesee, 1999). 

In particular, gradual-exit plans can help avoid the problem of 

mainstreaming students before their knowledge and literacy 

levels of English are adequate (Torres-Guzman, 2001). Once 

students are mainstreamed, their progress should be monitored 

and ongoing support provided. 

Summary

While it has long been clear that instructional programs for English language learners should be based on sound educational 

theory, well implemented, and regularly evaluated and revised 

(OCR, 2004), questions regarding the “best” approach for teaching English language learners have often resulted in a debate 

between program models (August & Hakuta, 1997). Drawing 

upon the available research, it appears that instructional program 
48

Chapter Three

models that use English language learners’ first language result 

in statistically significant and educationally meaningful outcomes 

for English language learners (Greene, 1997; Willig, 1985). Furthermore, it also becomes clear that English language learners 

need long-term, ongoing support in order to perform well academically. However, simply adopting one sort of program does 

not guarantee that English language learners will thrive. Instead, 

schools and districts often adopt more than one program model 

in accordance with various student characteristics and available 

resources. These programs should be regularly evaluated and 

revised, as well as aligned with practices in place at the school 

level that help all students succeed. 
49

Chapter Four English Language Learners:

National, Regional, and State Trends
50

Chapter Four

Introduction

The ELL population is growing at a faster rate than the rest of 

the school-age population (NCBE, 2000), and patterns of immigration are affecting some districts and schools that have not 

traditionally enrolled significant numbers of English language 

learners. In order to help educators place their experiences in 

context, the following paragraphs provide a broad overview of 

national trends related to the language backgrounds and enrollment patterns of ELLs, as well as how states identify, place, 

assess, and instruct ELLs. After the overview of national trends, 

trends within the SERVE region are discussed. Finally, this chapter briefly describes ELL education policies and practices within 

each SERVE state.

National Trends

Language Backgrounds 

In 2000–2001, states reported more than 460 languages 

spoken by LEP students (Kindler, 2002). Although Spanish 

is the native language of about 79% of English language learners, there is substantial regional variation in terms of linguistic 

diversity. In nine states, Spanish was not the dominant language among ELLs. Instead, the dominant languages were 

Blackfoot, French, Hmong, Ilocano, Lakota, Serbo-Croatian, 

and Yup’ik (Kindler, 2002). 

Enrollment Patterns

Between 1990 and 2000, the number of English language learners enrolled in public schools increased by more than 100% to 

approximately 4.5 million nationally. In contrast, the general 

school population increased just 12%. California has the greatest number of ELLs, over 1.5 million (Kindler, 2002). The chart 

on the following page shows the nation’s leaders in numbers of 

ELLs as of 2000–2001.

Most English language learners, 44%, are enrolled in prekindergarten through third grade. Grades four through eight 

account for 35%. High schools enroll only 19% of English 

language learners (Kindler, 2002).
51

Chapter Four

State Number of English language learners 

(2000–2001)

California 1,511,646

Puerto 

Rico 598,022

Texas 570,022

Florida 254,517

New York 239,097

Illinois 140,528

Arizona 135,248

Source: Kindler, 2002 

Identification, Placement, and 

Evaluation of English Language Learners

The first step in providing support to English language learners is identifying them as such as outlined in federal legislation. 

For this purpose, in the 1999–2000 school year, most state 

education agencies (SEAs) nationwide used tests, home language surveys, teacher observations, teacher interviews, and 

parent information (Hacsi, 2002; Kindler, 2002). More than half 

of SEAs also used student records, student grades, informal 

assessments, and referrals. About a dozen states, as of the mid1990s, required schools to use tests they had approved (Hacsi, 

2002, p. 96). Once English language learners are identified, 

they are assessed for proficiency in English and, sometimes, in 

their native languages. The most commonly used language proficiency tests include the Language Assessment Scales (LAS), 

the IDEA Language Proficiency Tests (IPT), and the WoodcockMuñoz Language Survey (Woodcock-Muñoz). 

Evaluating the progress of ELLs has traditionally taken into 

account several measures, including retention rates, reclassification rates, and standardized test scores. While states vary 
52

Chapter Four

in reference to the number of ELLs retained, nearly all states 

were using a formal assessment in the 1999–2000 school year 

to reclassify (Kindler, 2002), in addition to other measures such 

as student grades and teacher observation. The reclassification 

of English language learners in most states for the 1999–2000 

school year was based on the LAS, IPT, or Woodcock-Muñoz. 

Nationally, rates of reclassification vary by grade, with the highest proportion of ELLs reclassified in the third and fifth grades 

and the lowest proportion reclassified in K–2 and grade 9. Sometimes, as in California, states mandate how long ELLs may 

remain in instructional programs, regardless of how the students 

perform (Hacsi, 2002, p. 97). Despite the popularity of using 

measures such as retention rates, reclassification rates, and 

standardized test scores to evaluate the progress of English language learners and programs designed to support them, some 

researchers (Thomas & Collier, 1997) and groups suggest that 

they are not appropriate. Instead, the long-term academic success of ELLs is promoted as the real measure of a program’s 

effectiveness (Hacsi, 2002, p. 97).

Instructional Models

Nationally, English-based instructional approaches are more 

common than bilingual approaches (Institute for Policy Analysis 

and Research, 2000). In the 1999–2000 school year, approximately 23% of English language learners nationwide received 

instruction that incorporated the student’s native language, while 

54% received instruction in only English (Kindler, 2002, p. 14). 

However, reliable data on instructional approaches are difficult to 

attain and categorize. One reason why such classification is difficult stems from the fact that “the instructional approaches used 

to teach children with limited English proficiency are far more 

varied than the categories typically used to capture this information” (US GAO, 2001, p. 19). 

Moreover, ELLs often receive more than one type of instruction 

during a school day. Multiple research studies have documented 

that schools generally utilize a variety of ELL instructional models to fit the diverse needs of their particular student population 

(US GAO, 2001; Institute for Policy Analysis and Research, 

2000; Gandara, 1999). As articulated by the Institute for Policy 

Analysis and Research (2000), “A school might have a dual-
53

Chapter Four

language program for Cantonese LEP students and Englishspeaking LEP students but have a transitional bilingual program 

for Spanish-speaking students. [Or,] a school might have different programmatic approaches at different grades. For example, 

the school might employ a transitional bilingual design in the 

early grades and then have sheltered instruction after students 

have ‘exited’ the transitional program” (p. 42). 

Furthermore, the type of instructional programs offered to ELLs 

also tends to vary according to age group. As confirmed by 

a national study of all Title VII Comprehensive schools (i.e., 

schools that qualify for federal grants because they enroll significant concentrations of English language learners), native 

language instruction tends to be used more frequently in early 

grades, with English becoming more prevalent as students progress (Institute for Policy Analysis and Research, 2000). 

Teacher Preparation and Professional Development 

In terms of who was delivering the instruction, on national average in the 1999–2000 school year, there was one teacher certified in ESL for approximately every 44 ELLs and one teacher 

certified in bilingual education for every 47 ELLs. However, 

these numbers vary from state to state, with teachers most 

scarce in North Dakota, South Dakota, and South Carolina, 

where the ratio is over 1:600 (Kindler, 2002).

Undergraduate programs in ESL are not very common (Coltrane & Morrison, 2002), with many teachers opting instead for 

a degree in education with an endorsement in ESL. Though ESL 

has traditionally been an “add-on” endorsement, some states 

are offering initial, stand-alone certification in ESL. Graduatelevel programs in ESL, only some of which include K–12 certification, may be housed in linguistics departments, education 

departments, English departments, or foreign language departments (see Garschick, 2002, for a directory of teacher education programs in TESOL). Graduate programs vary, but most 

require courses in linguistics, language acquisition, and methods 

in English language teaching (Coltrane & Morrison, 2002). An 

understanding of educational linguistics, in particular (Fillmore 

& Snow, 2000), can enable teachers to grasp how language 

impacts teaching and learning, enhance instructional practice 
54

Chapter Four

in general and literacy instruction in particular (Snow, Burns, & 

Griffin, 1998), and prepare teachers to work with English language learners (August & Hakuta, 1998). 

Once in the classroom, teachers should receive quality professional development that will better enable them to help English 

language learners perform well academically. Because “there 

is a growing consensus in the literature regarding the elements 

of effective professional development” (Clair & Adger, 1999), 

current professional development for teachers of linguistically 

diverse students emphasizes, as does most teacher professional development, the need to “embed knowledge and skill 

acquisition within a framework of teacher growth and development, collaborative programs, and interactive research within 

a community of learners” (Rueda, 1998). Thus, quality professional development is long-term and takes the form of teacher 

networks and collaboratives (Little, 1993; Renyi, 1996), university-school partnerships (Darling-Hammond, 1994), action 

research groups (Check, 1997), or teacher study groups (Clair, 

1995, 1998). Such initiatives should combine principles of 

adult learning, be embedded in the reality of how schools work 

and the nature of teachers’ work, and be aligned with effective 

teaching and learning (Clair & Adger, 1999). Participation of 

content, ESL, and bilingual teachers in the same professional 

development activities promotes an exchange of knowledge and 

perspectives that can benefit English language learners (Clair, 

1998; González & Darling-Hammond, 1997).

The content of teacher professional development designed to 

improve academic outcomes for English language learners 

might include language and linguistics, second language acquisition and teaching, language and cultural diversity, or other 

topics related to students’ and teachers’ needs. Primarily, “professional development in culturally diverse schools must address 

specific knowledge and attitudes that are relevant to teaching 

English language learners” (Clair & Adger, 1999).

Regional Trends: The Southeast

Language Backgrounds 

In the SERVE region, Spanish is the first language of the majority of ELLs. In five of the six SERVE states, 70% or more English 
55

Chapter Four

language learners speak Spanish. In the sixth state, slightly over 

60% identify Spanish as their first language. Additionally, Vietnamese is one of the five most prevalent languages for English 

language learners in all six SERVE states (Kindler, 2002).

Most Common Native Languages of ELLs in the SERVE Region

Most

common

Second 

most

common

Third most

common

Fourth most

common

Fifth most

common

Alabama Spanish Vietnamese Korean Arabic Lao

Florida Spanish Haitian 

Creole Portuguese French Vietnamese

Georgia Spanish Vietnamese African 

(unspecified)

European 

(unspecified) Korean

Mississippi Spanish Vietnamese Choctaw Arabic Sudanese

North 

Carolina Spanish Hmong Vietnamese Arabic Chinese

South 

Carolina Spanish Russian Vietnamese Hmong Korean

Source: Kindler, 2002 

Enrollment Patterns

The fastest-growing segment of the population in the Southeast, both adult and school age, is Hispanic. Until the 1990s, 

the influx of Hispanics into the SERVE region was limited, with 

the notable exception of Florida. However, the Hispanic population in the SERVE region recently increased significantly. For 

the period 1991–1992 to 2001–2002, SERVE states hold four 

of the top six positions for percentage increases in ELL population. Georgia and North Carolina hold the top two positions with 

increases over 650% (NCELA, 2002a). On the other hand, Mississippi has experienced a drop in ELL enrollment, which can 

probably be attributed to changes in identification procedures 

and migration out of the state.

The following table presents data from each of the SERVE 

states—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

and South Carolina. Both raw numbers and percentages are presented to provide a picture of the magnitude of growth in ELL 

populations occurring in the SERVE region.
56

Chapter Four

ELL Enrollment Trends in SERVE States

State

Total Enrollment 

of Students 

2001–2002

LEP Enrollment

2001–2002

LEP Enrollment 

Increase

1991–1992 to 

2001–2002

Alabama 726,367 7,817 367.8%

Florida 2,500,161 290,024 198.1%

Georgia 1,470,634 61,307 670.7%

Mississippi 491,686 2,904 -5.0%

North 

Carolina 1,303,928 52,835 652.0%

South 

Carolina 648,000 7,004 377.8%

Source: NCELA, 2002b

This table demonstrates that most states in the SERVE region are 

experiencing considerable growth in the ELL population. Most of 

the English language learners are the children of Hispanic immigrants from Mexico and Central America (Therrien & Ramirez, 

2000). Generalizations about ethnic groups should be made with 

care, but several researchers have attempted to characterize new 

Hispanic immigrants. They state that, compared to the more 

economically and educationally advantaged Cuban population in 

Florida, new Hispanic immigrants tend to be poorer, more limited 

in English proficiency, less likely to have attended school regularly in their native countries, and have lower levels of educational 

attainment than other immigrant groups (Lockwood & Secada, 

1999; Secada et al., 1998; Vernez, Krop, & Rydell, 1999). Thus, 

developing solid, research-based programs that can effectively 

teach these new immigrants is essential to meeting their diverse 

needs and closing the achievement gap between English language learners and their English-speaking peers (Borden, 2001; 

Thomas & Collier, 1997, 2002; Vernez, Krop, & Rydell, 1999).
57

Chapter Four

Identification, Placement, and 

Evaluation of English Language Learners 

Across the Southeast, ELLs are first identified by home language surveys. Based on the results of this survey, their English 

language proficiency is then assessed using one of the common 

language proficiency tests. These include the Language Assessment Scales (LAS), the IDEA Language Proficiency Tests (IPT), 

the Language Assessment Battery (LAB), the Stanford English 

Language Proficiency Test (ELP), and the Woodcock-Muñoz 

Language Survey (Woodcock-Muñoz). Most southeastern states 

use one of these tests annually to assess the progress of ELLs. 

Florida, working under the guidelines of a 1990 consent decree, 

also employs an LEP committee to review student progress, discipline, and placement within academic programs. The committee consists of teachers, administrators, counselors, and other 

education professionals, plus the student’s parents.

Instructional Models 

School districts throughout the SERVE states have considerable 

freedom to choose the instructional models for their ELLs. Typically, each school district seeking state or federal funding submits an ELL education plan to its state department of education. 

The department then reviews the plan to ensure that it meets 

state or federal requirements. The majority of school districts 

choose ESL or ESOL pull-out programs. However, a wide variety of other models are in use in districts scattered throughout 

the Southeast. These models include sheltered instruction, dualimmersion, and newcomer programs. 

Teacher Preparation and Professional Development 

The typical ESL teacher in the Southeast holds a standard teaching degree. ESL certification is then acquired as an add-on 

endorsement gained from an approved program at a college or 

university. However, as more schools of higher education offer 

specialized training in ESL teaching, some states are coming to 

recognize stand-alone ELL certificates. 

Professional development is the responsibility of the local school 

district in SERVE states. To help meet the needs of ESL and regular classroom teachers, some state departments of education 
58

Chapter Four

offer ELL-focused training through such means as state broadcast networks, online seminars, and summer conferences.

Policies and Practices in SERVE States 

The rapid increase in the immigrant population in the Southeast 

has thrust the education of English language learners into central 

prominence. In an effort to determine how the needs of English 

language learners are being addressed in the Southeast, SERVE 

reviewed the policies and programs in each state. This review 

included an examination of public statements on the respective state department of education websites and, in most cases, 

a further telephone interview with a state representative. The 

review included questions focusing on each state’s:

■ ELL program goals

■ ELL models in use

■ ELL assessment, including both initial screening and 

state accountability tests

■ Teacher certification

■ Funding sources

■ Outreach to parents

Some regional trends emerge. For example, in all SERVE 

states, individual school districts have the primary responsibility for educating ELLs. That is, they make most of the decisions regarding how ELLs will be educated. However, the states 

vary widely in terms of the guidance and support offered at the 

state level. Some states provide no funding for ELL education. 

In these cases, the state’s districts rely almost solely on federal 

funding for ELL programs. Consequently, these programs are 

designed to meet federal requirements. In other states, such as 

Florida and Georgia, most of the funding comes from the state. 

As a result, the state plays a significant role in setting standards. 

These states tend to provide much more detailed guidance for 

their school districts regarding ELL education. 

All SERVE states also use a home language survey to identify 

and assess the basic needs of their ELLs. This is usually followed 

up by a standard instrument, such as the IDEA Proficiency Test, 
59

Chapter Four

to determine the student’s level of proficiency in English. Almost 

every state cites English proficiency as its primary goal, but they 

also add that this proficiency must lead to academic achievement. To attain this goal, most districts within the SERVE states 

use various types of pull-out programs. 

Students in ESL pull-out programs are typically taught by a certified ESL teacher. Most SERVE states provide teacher training 

for both ESL teachers and regular classroom teachers. While 

professional development is primarily a local responsibility, 

some states provide professional development for ESL teachers 

through distance learning and regional workshops. 

The next section describes ELL policies and programs currently 

in effect in the six SERVE states.

State Trends

Alabama 

Alabama currently has no legislative mandates regarding the 

education of English language learners, but all programs strive to 

help ELLs attain English proficiency that leads to mastery of academic content. Most federal funding for Alabama’s 12,000 LEP 

students comes through the Title III program. To ensure that districts are complying with Title III regulations, representatives from 

the state department of education monitor each school periodically. The state provides no funds earmarked for ELL education, 

but state statutes allocate separate funds for assistance programs 

of $100 per student for programs designed for at-risk students 

who are performing below State Board of Education Standards. 

There are 7,200 ELLs eligible for at-risk funding.

The individual school districts choose the models used for ELL 

education. Most districts use pull-out programs. A few districts 

use sheltered instruction, a model that the state encourages. 

Alabama uses two instruments for language-proficiency screening, the IDEA Proficiency Test (IPT) and the Language Assessment Scales (LAS). The state belongs to a consortium of 18 

other states working to develop the English-Language Development Assessment. Alabama will use that assessment in the 

future to move ELLs from level to level and exit them out from 

the program. All ELLs are mandated to take all state assess-
60

Chapter Four

ments in the content areas. The state tests are given in English. 

The state provides a list of accommodations to students who are 

determined by the school districts not to be proficient in English.

To be an ESL teacher in Alabama, an individual must meet one 

of three standards: 

1. An ELL certificate

2. An elementary education certificate (for high school 

language-acquisition teachers) 

3. A certificate in an appropriate foreign language 

Some districts recruit only teachers with ELL certification. Alabama issues the majority of certificates based on the completion 

of state-approved programs. ESL standards were developed for 

Class A (master’s level) programs, but one institution has submitted an innovative baccalaureate program.

Outreach to the parents of English language learners is a local 

matter. However, the districts do have outreach requirements 

as mandated by Title III. Examples of outreach include parent/

teacher meetings, parent organizations, and ELL advisory groups.

Florida 

Florida seeks both English language proficiency and subject 

matter mastery for the state’s 439,255 limited English proficient 

students (number as of 2003–2004). The state does not mandate 

which methodology or program model should be used for the 

instruction of LEP students. Schools that have even one LEP student are required to provide ESOL services. A school district may 

provide services utilizing a range of instructional delivery methods 

in a variety of combinations: self-contained ESOL instruction, 

English instruction through inclusion with ESOL instructional 

strategies, self-contained sheltered English instruction in the basic 

subjects, home language instruction in the basic subjects, instruction in the basic subjects through inclusion, and dual language 

programs, as well as other methods. Each district must submit a 

district LEP plan to the Florida Department of Education, which 

reviews the plan for compliance with LULAC et al. v. State Board 

of Education Consent Decree (1990). The goal is to ensure that 

all of Florida’s LEP students have equal access to comprehensible 

instruction, provided by highly qualified personnel. 
61

Chapter Four

All LEP students are initially screened in oral English language 

proficiency. Students in grades 4 through 12 who demonstrate 

oral proficiency are then assessed on the reading and writing 

portion of the test. LEP students in ESOL basic subject area 

classrooms shall have access to an individual proficient in their 

languages in addition to a trained ESOL subject area teacher. 

Schools that enroll at least 15 LEP students who speak the same 

native language shall provide at least one aide or teacher proficient in the same language and trained to assist in ESOL basic 

subject area instruction. Statewide assessments are given in 

English, with accommodations for LEP students. These accommodations include flexible timing and setting, the distribution of 

heritage-to-English dictionaries, and the presence of a bilingual 

aide or ESOL teacher to administer the test.

To ensure students are offered the most appropriate opportunities while adapting to a new language and culture, an LEP 

committee reviews the education of each LEP student. The 

committee may consist of ESOL teachers, administrators or 

designees, counselors, and other education professionals, 

along with the students’ parents. The committee reviews a 

variety of areas, including student progress and placement 

within academic programs. 

ESOL teachers must meet specialization requirements established by Florida’s Department of Education as well as provisions 

stipulated in the Consent Decree. These requirements include a 

bachelor’s or higher degree, certification, in-service training, and 

continuing education in ESOL-approved courses. Certification 

and training requirements vary depending on subject matter.

Parent involvement is significant for student academic achievement. To encourage parents of LEP students to participate in the 

education of their children, districts offer leadership training, orientation to the district’s LEP programs monitoring procedures, Parent 

Leadership Councils, and membership on advisory committees.

Georgia 

Georgia law requires the State Board of Education to create a 

program for LEP students, subject to appropriation by the General 

Assembly. The purpose of this program is to assist such students 

in developing proficiency in the English language—including 
62

Chapter Four

listening, speaking, reading, and writing—sufficient to perform 

effectively at the currently assigned grade level. Local districts 

may choose whether or not to offer the program to their students.

Georgia provides state funds for English language learners on a 

weighted program and student-teacher ratio. In the past, school 

districts funded the program from local funds for the first year 

before being eligible to draw state funds when actual enrollment 

was documented. In 2000, legislation was passed to provide 

funding for students on the basis of their actual count, beginning 

with the first year that the students are enrolled, through a midyear adjustment in funding.

As stated, the goal of Georgia’s state-funded LEP programs is 

English proficiency that leads to academic success. The state 

department of education allows districts that receive state funding 

to accomplish this goal through a variety of methods, including 

ESOL pull-out programs, cluster centers, and language resource 

centers and laboratories. Most districts pull LEP from regular 

classrooms for daily instruction by certified ESOL teachers. 

Georgia has been administering the Language Assessment Battery (LAB) to screen students for placement in ESOL programs 

since the late 1980s. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, all limited English proficient students must be evaluated annually for 

proficiency in both social and academic English. To that end, the 

LAB will be replaced next year by the English Language Development Assessment (ELDA). ELDA is the product of an 18-state 

initiative led by the Council for Chief State School Officers and 

was to be field-tested in the spring of 2004. 

A Language Assessment Conference reviews each student’s 

school records and test results to determine how the student’s 

needs can be best addressed. All statewide tests are administered in English, and LEP students must participate. The school’s 

LEP Testing Participation Committee makes testing decisions 

based on the needs of individual students. At a minimum, this 

committee consists of the ESOL teacher currently serving the 

student, a school-level administrator, a representative mainstream teacher currently serving the student, and, whenever possible and/or appropriate, the student’s parents or guardians. This 

committee determines whether or not accommodations should 
63

Chapter Four

be made for the student on statewide tests and, if necessary, 

which accommodations are appropriate. Georgia does not have 

a program for evaluating LEP programs. However, the state 

does require that each district applying for funds meet all state 

board of education rules that govern their ESOL program.

An individual with the ESOL endorsement is certified to teach 

ESOL in grades P–12. To add on an ESOL certificate, an individual must possess a professional certificate at the bachelor’s or 

higher certification level in a teaching field and have completed an 

approved program in the field, or have an out-of-state certificate 

in the field. By the end of the 2005–2006 school year, any ESOL 

teacher providing high school English instruction for core credit 

will be required to hold certification in secondary school English.

School districts have the responsibility of notifying the parents 

of LEP students regarding educational programs and student 

progress. Recognizing the importance of parental involvement in 

education, the state suggests a variety of ways to encourage parents of LEP students to participate. Examples include creating a 

network of host families, using adult translators for direct communications, providing adult tutoring programs in language and culture, and encouraging parents to volunteer in classroom activities.

Mississippi 

There are no state statutes or funding pertaining to ELL programs 

in Mississippi. The Mississippi Department of Education monitors 

schools and districts receiving Title III funds based upon federal 

regulations once the funds are received from the U.S. Department 

of Education. Title I and Title III funds are used by districts across 

the state. Title III funding for July 2003 through September 2005 

includes $821,494 for ELL and immigrant programs. Currently, 

approximately 3,500 students are served in Mississippi. 

English language acquisition and mastery of academic content are the primary goals of the state’s ELL programs. Districts 

across the state use ESL pull-out programs as their educational 

model. ESL teachers are on staff at the state’s 20 federally funded 

Title III schools. Non-Title III districts and schools use a combination of regular classroom teachers and ESL teachers. The effectiveness of the state’s ELL programs is determined by the local 

school districts. 
64

Chapter Four

Beginning in February 2004, an English language learner’s level 

of English language proficiency must be initially assessed using 

the Stanford English Language Proficiency (ELP) Test. The test 

will be administered yearly to monitor the progress and proficiency of English language learners and to identify areas in need 

of improvement. All statewide assessments are given in English 

and must be administered to English language learners. However, 

based on their needs, English language learners may receive 

some accommodations, such as word-to-word language dictionaries and others permitted in the Mississippi Statewide Assessment System Guidelines for Testing Special Populations (2004). 

Mississippi does not have a special license for ELL teachers. Teachers can receive a supplemental endorsement in ESL 

in addition to a standard license. For ESL teachers, the state 

requires an ESL endorsement. This endorsement is obtained 

through the completion of an approved program of study 

through an institution of higher learning. Additional professional 

development is offered through the Mississippi Department of 

Education to local school districts and teachers. 

Parent outreach varies from district to district but may include 

information dissemination (in the native language of each family), parent/home visits, parent liaisons, providing translation 

services for parents, and regular parent meetings.

North Carolina 

Legislation passed in 1998 requires the North Carolina State 

Board of Education to develop guidelines for identifying and providing services to students with limited English proficiency. A 

program for English language learners must be provided; it may 

be ESL, bilingual education, or another program that meets the 

needs of students. The majority of ELL programs in North Carolina are a combination of ESL pull-outs plus modifications in the 

regular classroom. A number of school districts are now putting 

students in newcomer programs. 

The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction has developed the English Language Development Standard Course of 

Study to guide local school districts in the education of English 

language learners. Its goal is English language proficiency, both 

everyday communicative proficiency and the necessary academic 
65

Chapter Four

language proficiency required to participate fully in the school 

curriculum. This course of study will be implemented in the 

2004–2005 school year.

Each eligible school system receives funding using a formula of 

50% based on a three-year average of LEP students in the district and 50% based on the percentage of those students in the 

total enrollment of the district. North Carolina school districts 

received $8 million from Title III in 2003. Funds are allocated 

based on the number of LEP students plus the number of immigrant students who are also LEP in a given year. The amount 

of state funds to support LEP students has increased each fiscal year. For the 2003–2004 school year, the amount was 

$33,000,000. There were 70,937 LEP students enrolled in North 

Carolina public schools for this same school year.

With the advent of No Child Left Behind, each district receiving 

Title III funds has to complete a performance report every two 

years. In addition, they now have annual measurable achievement objectives, both in content area testing and in English 

language proficiency. Many districts also perform their own program evaluations. 

Students are screened using the IDEA Proficiency Test (IPT), 

which is mandated by the North Carolina Department of Public 

Instruction. State policy requires that students identified as LEP 

as measured by the IPT remain in ESL services until they reach 

superior levels in oral, reading, and writing skills on the test. Local 

districts determine how these students may best be served.

A state-developed English Language Development Standard 

Course of Study for K–12 has been developed and will be implemented during the 2004–2005 academic year. From then, 

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) will be in 

place through 2014 to measure the English language proficiency 

of ESL students across the state. As a result of guidance from 

the U.S. Department of Education, LEP students who are in their 

first year of school in the United States may be excluded from the 

reading competency assessments. ELLs, otherwise, may not be 

exempt from annual testing. Students who are below certain levels of proficiency in reading and writing within their first two years 

are eligible for an alternative assessment called the N.C. Alternate 
66

Chapter Four

Academic Assessment Inventory, a combination of a checklist 

and a portfolio. 

In 2003, the state board of education passed new certification 

standards for ESL teachers. Until then, teachers had add-on ESL 

certification, meaning that they had to be certified in some other 

area first before adding on ESL certification. As of 2003, the 

state allows a stand-alone ESL certificate for teachers who do 

not hold a teaching license in any other area. The stand-alone 

certificate allows individuals, including undergraduates, to work 

toward ESL licensure without having to hold a license in another 

teaching area.

Regular classroom teachers often receive extra training, as determined by their school districts. The state board of education has 

also initiated a summer training program for ESL literacy facilitators. After completing the summer training, these facilitators 

return to their districts with the responsibility for training regular 

classroom teachers in reading instruction for LEP students. 

Outreach to parents is performed at the local level. Local districts have the primary responsibility for parent notification 

regarding the type of instruction their children will receive and 

their educational progress. 

South Carolina

South Carolina has no statutes or funding regarding the education of English language learners. Primarily, Title III funds are 

used for ESOL programs; however, many districts have opted to 

use Title I, Title II, and Title V programs to supplement language 

development activities or ESOL-related professional development. ESOL programs will be judged effective based on their 

compliance with regulatory mandates and their ability to support 

students’ success at reaching annual measurable achievement 

objectives in language proficiency and adequate yearly progress 

in content area achievement. 

ESOL is the model in use throughout the state. The vast majority 

of students are in pull-out ESOL services, though a very small 

number of districts offer center schools in which LEP students 

take ESOL courses. LEP students are placed by a variety of 

district-selected language proficiency assessments. Across the 
67

Chapter Four

state, the Language Assessment Scale (LAS), IDEA Language 

Proficiency Test (IPT), and Woodcock-Muñoz are used for this 

purpose, with the LAS being the most prevalent. These tests are 

administered in English. According to No Child Left Behind, all 

LEP students must be included in the state accountability tests, 

and all districts are aware of and familiar with this requirement.

In South Carolina, ESOL students are taught by certified personnel who either possess or are working toward the ESOL add-on 

certificate. In some instances, these personnel are assisted by 

instructional assistants, who may be bilingual. Regular classroom 

teachers are typically trained to work with LEP students in professional development sessions led by either the district ESOL coordinator, ESOL consultants, or the educational television network 

that carries trainings led by the state ESOL consultant.

Parental outreach is provided on a district-by-district basis and 

may include such activities as parent literacy workshops, multilingual websites, home visits, translation services, standards in 

other languages, ESOL family mini-field trips, ESOL luncheons, 

and ESOL parent advocates.

Summary

The demographic changes affecting the nation are being keenly 

felt in several states in the Southeast where the numbers of 

English language learners have increased dramatically within 

recent years. At both the national and state levels, the overwhelming numbers of these students speak Spanish as their 

first language, though several Asian languages are represented 

as well. Across the nation, school districts tend to follow similar 

patterns in areas such as assessing language proficiency. However, the nation and the region are more accurately characterized by the wide variety of ways in which schools address the 

needs of English language learners. For example, most state 

education agencies allow school districts to choose their own 

instructional models, within certain guidelines. Some states 

provide very detailed guidelines that limit choices. Other states 

provide few guidelines at the state level, relying instead on federal guidelines. The result is a marked lack of uniformity in educational practices for ELLs across the Southeast and diversity 
68

Chapter Four

among approaches within most states. However, lack of uniformity does not mean lack of concern. Several states are enacting 

new standards in areas such as assessment and teacher certification as they respond positively to the growing numbers of 

English language learners.
69

Chapter Five Examples of English Language 

Learner Programs in the Southeast
70

Chapter Five

Introduction

The rapid increase in the non-English-speaking student population brings a heightened challenge to schools in the SERVE 

states. Given a lack of resources, such as teachers who are certified in ESL or bilingual education, funding, and research specific 

to the region, programs and services for English language learners at the school level often represent a mixture of elements. 

Educators have learned to be creative and innovative as they 

make use of available resources; consequently, many of the programs serving English language learners in the SERVE region 

embody a blend of instructional approaches. 

English Language Learner 

Programs in the Southeast

The following descriptions were provided by programs that were 

selected on the basis of recommendations made by the ELL representative in each state department of education in the SERVE 

region. In terms of impact, the programs listed do not provide 

information on student performance or other effectiveness measures. The programs represent a wide variety of models that are 

in place throughout the SERVE region, and most programs combine two or more instructional models. Included are examples of 

two-way immersion, sheltered instruction, newcomer, and ESL 

pull-out programs. Each program description provides information regarding program history, student demographics, funding, 

assessments, instruction, teacher professional development, and 

parental involvement. Contact information is also provided. 

Albertville City Schools, Albertville, Alabama

P.O. Box 1487 

107 West Main Street 

Albertville, AL 35950 

Telephone 256-891-1183 

Fax 256-891-6303 

Dr. John Slivka, Administrator in Charge of Federal Programs

Albertville City Schools’ ESL program was implemented in the 

early 1990s to address the needs of a growing number of Hispanic students, many of whose parents were moving into the 
71

Chapter Five

area to work in the poultry industry. Presently, 16% of the student population in Albertville City Schools participates in the 

ESL program. The total student population is 1% African American, 18% Hispanic, and 81% Caucasian. 

The IDEA Proficiency Test (IPT) is administered to students 

to determine language needs, and English language learners 

participate in state assessments to monitor growth and progress. Exit from ELL service is based upon criteria gathered from 

assessments, academic performance, teacher recommendations, and parent input.

The ELL program design is based on student need and stateapproved standards. Services are provided through pull-out 

resources, inclusion, and newcomers/sheltered instruction. 

The type of ELL instruction is determined by the needs of 

the student. There is an after-school program with a focus on 

homework help for ESL students. An early childhood program 

for preschoolers provides an instructional focus on school 

readiness skills. Along with the preschool program, parenting 

classes are offered to teach parents how to enhance academic 

success at an early age. There is also an adult education program for ESL parents.

Staff development is ongoing and vital to the success of the ELL 

instruction. ELL teaching strategies, curriculum alignment, and 

modifications are essential in addressing the needs of English 

language learners. Both certified faculty and support staff participate in training sessions. Progress monitoring and data analysis 

are important aspects of the ELL in-service program. 

Morgan County Schools, Decatur, Alabama

1325 Point Mallard Parkway, SE 

Decatur, AL 35601 

Telephone 256-309-2145

Fax 256-309-2188 

Dr. Mary Horton, Director of Federal Programs

Ana Rosales, ESL Resource/Migrant Teacher 

Morgan County Schools has implemented a structured immersion program to serve the needs of ELLs. Students are identified 

by means of a home language survey and language proficiency 
72

Chapter Five

testing. Those who qualify are placed in regular content area 

classes where teachers make accommodations based on the 

student’s level of English proficiency. There is no time limit on 

a student’s participation in this program.

The ESL resource teacher assesses students and monitors their 

progress. This teacher serves as an advocate for the students 

and provides resource materials to support regular classroom 

teachers in their daily instruction.

Parental involvement is a key factor in the Morgan County English language learner program. The ESL resource teacher makes 

home visits to keep parents informed of their child’s progress in 

school. The teacher also facilitates parent teacher conferences 

and works with the parents to help them support their children’s 

educational objectives. Families are instructed on how to use 

resources available to them such as the public library, Head 

Start programs, and adult education classes.

Hillcrest Elementary School, Orange County Schools, 

Orlando, Florida

1010 East Concord Street 

Orlando, FL 32803 

Telephone 407-245-1770 

Fax 407-245-1779

Aliette Scharr, Principal 

Hillcrest Elementary School, The Foreign Language Academy, 

serving K–5 children, was started seven years ago to enable 

English language learners to make an easier transition to school, 

to enable native English-speaking children to learn another language, and to improve the literacy rate for all children. Before 

opening the school, educators and parents of Hillcrest instituted 

a year-long study on brain development, second language learning, and best practices in literacy. They also visited other sites 

and contacted coordinators of existing programs.

The school population is currently 17% African American, 34% 

Caucasian, 25% Hispanic, and 25% Vietnamese. The school uses 

a two-way immersion approach so that children are instructed 

in two languages each day. The languages offered include English, French, Vietnamese, and Spanish. Students are taught in 
73

Chapter Five

a language of their choice for 100 minutes each day, with the 

remainder of the day devoted to instruction in English. When 

entering the program and during his or her third year in the program, each ELL child is assessed using the Language Assessment Scale (LAS). The students also participate in the state 

testing program and informal classroom assessments. English 

language learners are able to remain at the school until they 

complete the fifth grade. 

Teachers at the school receive 300 hours of ESL training 

throughout the school year. They also receive staff development in the Literacy Collaborative Model that complements the 

school’s focus.

The school has received money from a Title VII grant and several 

state and local grants. Test scores continue to move upward each 

year, and the interaction and understanding children gain from a 

multicultural, multilingual environment are very beneficial. 

DeKalb County Schools, Chamblee, Georgia

DeKalb County International Center 

3075 Alton Road 

Chamblee, GA 30341 

Telephone 678-676-6602 

Fax 678-676-6608 

Dr. Joanne H. Lottie, Principal 

The International Center in DeKalb County began in 1985 and 

was designed to meet the needs of students whose first language was not English. The main population that is currently 

being served by the International Center is Hispanic. Many of the 

students’ families were attracted to the area due to job opportunities. The International Center provides intensive English 

instruction for students with no English language skills, thereby 

teaching these students survival English to ease the transition 

into their regular school. The Center also registers all international children and assists them with immunizations, guardianship, and legal residence verification. 

Students are assessed using the Language Assessment Battery 

(LAB) in listening, reading, writing, and speaking, as well as the 

Wide Range Achievement Test in Math and English (WRAT I 
74

Chapter Five

and II). Exit assessment procedures are based on audio-lingual 

testing at each grade level. 

Two DeKalb County high schools—Clarkston and Cross Keys—

contain the ESOL Lab program. This is a self-contained program 

for teenagers who are 14 years or older and have fewer than 

seven years of formal schooling in their native countries. It is a 

program designed to serve the needs of teenage refugees and 

immigrants who have limited formal education as well as a lack 

of English. It currently serves 250 students. It is designed to help 

students catch up to the appropriate grade level within three 

years. In this three-year program, listening, speaking, reading, 

and writing English are emphasized in every class, along with 

critical thinking skills and the basic concepts and vocabulary of 

each content area, including math, science, social studies, reading, health, and language arts. Practical applications, computer 

skills, and career awareness are emphasized. Hands-on activities, cooperative learning, and audio-visuals, including computers, videos, and the arts, are incorporated into class instruction. 

Ten DeKalb County schools have added Saturday school tutorials for parents and students. Students and parents are bused 

to school for these tutorial sessions. Beginner ESOL students 

are provided with language arts, while more advanced ESOL 

students attend a technology course. The parents of the ESOL 

students attend citizenship classes, orientation, and career 

awareness sessions.

Training to become an ESOL instructor consists of three university courses for an add-on licensure to a primary teaching 

certificate. Teachers also receive in-service training and staff 

development throughout the year as well as the opportunity to 

attend professional organizations and conferences. The program 

costs approximately 3.5 million dollars and is provided through 

grants and local, state, and federal funds.

Biloxi Public Schools, Biloxi, Mississippi

P.O. Box 168 

Biloxi, MS 39533 

Telephone 228-435-6331

Fax 228-435-6327 

Justine Barnett, English Language Learner Coordinator
75

Chapter Five

The program began in 1980 due to a large influx of Vietnamese 

refugees who were attracted to the Biloxi area’s shrimp and fishing industry. As educators developed the ELL program, they 

researched ELL methodologies and second language acquisition. Today, there are 18 languages represented in the district. 

Of the approximately 300 English language learners in the district, 70% is Vietnamese, 25% Hispanic, and the remaining 5% 

Korean, Japanese, Russian, Chinese, or Thai. As the ELL population has evolved over the past few years, the program has 

changed to meet the needs of all English language learners. 

Each school in Biloxi has an assessment coordinator to test new 

students and make recommendations for placement. Students 

entering the ESL program are assessed using the Stanford English Language Proficiency Test (Stanford ELP). 

The district ELL program is currently directed by an ELL coordinator, three full-time certified teachers, and one full-time tutor. 

LEP students are served though a pull-out instructional program 

as well as by regular classroom teachers who are supported and 

provided with materials for classroom use. Beginning in 2003 

and continuing in 2004, the program has been funded largely by 

Title III funds and also district funds. 

Chapel Hill–Carrboro City Schools, 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

750 South Merritt Mill Road 

Chapel Hill, NC 27516 

Telephone 919-967-8211 

Fax 919-933-4560 

Jo Harris, Director of Special Programs/ESL Supervisor

As Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) developed its 

ESOL program, a task force consisting of 31 members was created to examine ESOL research, review existing models, visit 

existing ESOL sites, and contact the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. In 1987, the first ESOL teacher was 

hired to work with approximately 60–70 students. At present, 

CHCCS has 27 full-time ESOL teachers. The program was initiated to comply with federal and state regulations and to reach 

the growing number of international families attracted to the 

area because of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and 
76

Chapter Five

the Research Triangle Park. The largest student population of new 

English language learners is Asian, but the fastest-growing population is Hispanic. Total annual funding for the program is approximately $750,000 and comes from state and local monies.

Students entering the program are assessed using the IDEA Proficiency Test (IPT). Exiting the program is based on IPT scores, 

teacher observations, student performance, parent comments, 

and teacher assessments. At the elementary level (K–5), two 

different methods are utilized: the pullout/traditional method, 

where students are taken out of their regular classrooms for 20 

minutes to one hour per day to work with the ESOL teacher, and 

the push-in model, where the ESOL teacher goes into the regular 

classrooms to work with English language learners. At the middle school level, ESOL students attend ESOL content classes in 

both reading and math. At the high school level, ESOL students 

continue to attend ESOL classes designed for beginning, intermediate, and advanced proficiency levels, as well as two sheltered classes in Latin American History and English 101. The 

push-in model is used within different content courses. There are 

one or two ESOL teachers per school, and every school has an 

ELL resource center with materials and handouts for teachers, 

students, and parents.

In addition to the ESOL program services, in the fall of 2002, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools launched two dual-language programs. Carrboro Elementary School and Glenwood Elementary 

School each have a kindergarten class and a first-grade class, 

with one grade added each year, in which students are instructed 

in two languages. At Carrboro Elementary, students are instructed 

in both Spanish and English, while at Glenwood Elementary, students are instructed in both Chinese and English. Forty-four LEP 

students are served in the dual immersion programs.

All ESOL teachers are certified and are provided with ongoing 

opportunities for regional and state staff development. They meet 

once a month to discuss methods and activities. New teachers 

are provided with an ESOL curriculum guide and have a full-day 

training session in ELL strategies to understand and become 

familiar with the districts ESOL program. Teachers are encouraged to attend summer institutes for further training. 
77

Chapter Five

Eight-week language survival classes are offered for all staff, 

faculty, and teachers in Spanish, Korean, Japanese, and Chinese. These classes enable instructional personnel to learn key 

words, greetings, and phrases in order to communicate with 

non-English-speaking children and their families. The Chapel 

Hill-Carrboro school system collaborates with the Department of 

International Studies at UNC-Chapel Hill, which provides translators for languages such as Korean, Japanese, and Chinese.

Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools has a six-session parent orientation that parents and students attend. During these sessions, 

the school handbook is reviewed, as well as basic survival skills 

needed with the schools and community. Other parent activities are offered at least four times per year and include activities 

such as a potluck dinner. The family involvement portion of the 

program enables parents to feel at ease about their child’s education and about the school enrollment process.

Collinswood Language Academy, 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 

Charlotte, North Carolina

4000 Applegate Road 

Charlotte, NC 28209 

Telephone 980-343-5820 

Fax 980-343-5850 

Maria Petrea, Principal 

Collinswood Language Academy is a K–5 magnet school that 

uses a two-way immersion program model, with roughly 50% 

of the students native Spanish-speakers and the remaining 

50% native English-speakers. Both language groups learn the 

North Carolina Standard Course of Study and develop fluency 

in one another’s language. At Collinswood, students are taught 

math, Spanish literacy, and social studies in Spanish and are 

taught science, English literacy, and writing in English. These 

core subjects are taught exclusively in the designated language, without translation. As a result, students learn abstract 

concepts, develop an extended vocabulary, acquire strong 

problem-solving skills, hone critical thinking skills, and gain 

an increased sense of cultural awareness.
78

Chapter Five

Collinswood’s ELLs are taught by ESL teachers who work with 

the students in an inclusion model and a pull-out model. Students are grouped together based on proficiency levels, as indicated by assessments. Groups containing the majority of ELLs 

work with an ESL teacher, a literacy teacher, and a teacher 

assistant. These teachers plan cooperatively to deliver instruction that focuses on building background knowledge of a story or 

topic and to introduce and teach vocabulary related to the topic. 

ESL teachers work in several different classroom-literacy groups 

each day. In addition, students at a beginning level of English 

are pulled out in the afternoon to work on oral fluency. Comparatively, beginning Spanish-speaking students are also pulled out 

in a program entitled “Spanish as a Second Language.”

All ESL teachers are required to receive in-services in quality 

literacy practices, and, in order to help teachers work in unison, 

ESL teachers receive the same literacy in-services as classroom teachers. 

Lee County Schools, Sanford, North Carolina

106 Gordon Street 

Sanford, NC 27331-1010 

Telephone 919-774-6226 

Fax 919-776-0443 

Pam Patterson, Director of Special Programs

The ESL program in Lee County, North Carolina began in 1988 

by serving 26 migrant families. Lee County educators began 

developing their ESL program by examining the research in 

the field of second language acquisition, contacting the Center 

for Applied Linguistics, visiting existing ESL programs at other 

school sites, writing grant proposals, and making contacts out 

in the field. Today, there are approximately 1,000 students representing 20 languages in Lee County Schools. The majority of 

the students are Hispanic. Many of these students’ parents come 

to the area to work in poultry processing plants, construction, 

or farming. These English language learners represent approximately 11% of the student population. Funding for the program 

comes from a number of sources, including Title III, local funds, 

Migrant Education Program funds, and North Carolina Limited 

English Proficiency funds. 
79

Chapter Five

A student’s English language proficiency is initially and then 

annually assessed with the IDEA Proficiency Test (IPT). LEP students continue to receive ESL services until they reach superior 

levels in oral, reading, and writing skills on the IPT. 

For ESL students at all levels, support may include pull-out 

services, inclusion, extended day, Saturday classes, Specially 

Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) at the high 

school, summer programs, and differentiated instruction within 

regular classrooms. ESL classes are small, ranging from 8 to 10 

students, and every attempt is made to group students by proficiency levels. Newcomer students are instructed one-on-one or 

in small groups as they enter ESL classes so that they may catch 

up with their peers in acquiring the survival language they need 

to function in school. Most ESL teachers speak both Spanish and 

English, and each school also has a bilingual ESL instructional 

assistant who assists with academic reinforcement activities alongside ESL teachers by interpreting and translating, tutoring, and 

serving as a liaison between parents and the school.

The SDAIE or sheltered instruction approach used at the high 

school is the result of a three-year Title VII grant, which enabled 

a group of high school classroom teachers to learn and train with 

the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (see Guarino, 

Echevarria, Short, Schick, Forbes, & Rueda, 2001; Echevarria, 

Vogt, & Short, 2004). As a result of this project, sheltered classes 

are currently offered in reading-competency-English, world history, and math. Additionally, the grant provided the funds necessary to employ a bilingual advisor who serves the growing 

number of Spanish-speaking students at the high school. 

In the month of June, the Lee County School District provides 

summer school instruction for ESL and migrant students in preK through eighth grade, during which students are involved in 

enrichment activities that enhance their literacy and mathematical skills as well as their social and artistic development. Last 

year, approximately 600 students enrolled in summer school.

In an effort to reduce teen pregnancy and high school dropout 

rates among Latino youth in the district, the ESL departments 

at the two middle schools and one high school involve ESL and 

migrant student in the Action, Inspiration, Motivation (AIM) 
80

Chapter Five

club and the Teen Outreach Program (TOP). The AIM club is 

funded by Lee County Schools and the North Carolina Migrant 

Education Program, and TOP is co-sponsored by The Coalition 

to Improve the Quality of Life in Lee County and the school district. Both programs are run as after-school activities and inform 

students about career choices, resiliency, engaging in school, 

goal-setting, healthy relationships, problem solving, community 

service learning, and abstinence. Approximately 100 students 

take part in these activities, with ESL teachers acting as club 

advisors and facilitators.

Throughout the school district, there is a strong parental involvement component at each school, including training for parents 

and activities for the entire family. A district-level parent advisory council for migrants is in place, and other leadership initiatives for Spanish-speaking parents have occurred with the help 

of the Southeastern Equity Center. We also end the school year 

with a celebration of cultures that brings together Latino families 

and other members of the community. Together, participants 

exhibit and share their respective customs and traditions, as well 

as display and celebrate ESL and migrant students’ academic 

accomplishments.

Richland School District One, 

Columbia, South Carolina

A.C. Flora High School 

1 Falcon Drive 

Columbia, SC 29204 

Telephone 803-738-7300 

Fax 803-738-7307

Renee Quick, ESL Teacher 

The Richland School District One ESOL program began nearly 25 

years ago due to a large influx of Vietnamese refugees. The ESOL 

program currently serves large populations of Latin American, 

Indian, African, European, and Asian students. These diverse populations are attracted to the Columbia area because of the University of South Carolina and other colleges, Fort Jackson, and both 

construction and restaurant jobs. Funding was originally provided 

through federal grant money, but the program has continued 

through funding provided by Richland School District One.
81

Chapter Five

Students are initially assessed using interviews, writing samples, reading placement tests, and the IDEA Proficiency Test. 

Exiting the program is based on standardized test scores, the 

English Language Development Assessment (ELDA), and 

monitoring. Students are monitored after they have exited the 

program.

At A.C. Flora High School, students are offered one-to-three 

periods of ESL daily and receive one elective credit per period. 

The ESOL program follows a district curriculum and emphasizes 

instruction in United States culture, reading, writing, speaking, 

listening, and vocabulary. A foundations class is available for 

beginners. Sheltered instruction is offered for English literature. 

The individualized program is a college-prep-oriented program 

that prepares students for college entry.

The school offers extracurricular activities, such as an international students’ club, International Month, a children’s fair 

where ESOL students teach classes about their own cultures 

to fourth-graders, and an International Day fair for the high 

school students. 

The ESOL program at A.C. Flora High School has two full-time 

teachers and a full-time teaching assistant. The South Carolina Department of Education and Richland School District One 

bring in speakers from other ESL programs and offer in-service 

training. ESOL teachers attend ESL conferences in both North 

Carolina and South Carolina. Funding was originally provided 

through federal grant money, but the program has continued 

through funding provided by Richland School District One.

Summary

The rapid increase in the ELL population in the Southeast 

combined with a paucity of resources, such as certified ESL 

and bilingual teachers, funding, and research, require educators to make tough decisions. The nine programs profiled in 

this section, selected on the basis of recommendations made 

by the ELL representative in each state department of education in the SERVE region, speak to educators’ creativity and 

innovation in an effort to meet students’ needs. Most of these 

nine districts have adopted several instructional models and 
82

Chapter Five

adapted them for local use. These snapshots, together with 

the contact information provided, should help educators in the 

Southeast learn about and from one another.
83

Chapter Six Conclusions
84

Chapter Six

The United States has a rich history of linguistic diversity 

and, correspondingly, schooling options for speakers of 

languages other than English. In the first half of the twentieth century, however, few resources were targeted for these 

students, who often learned just enough English to “get by” 

(Hacsi, 2002, p. 68). Since the 1960s, the education of English 

language learners has been shaped by a variety of legislative 

acts, guidelines, and interpretations thereof at the federal, state, 

and district levels. For example, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1968, and Castañeda v. Pickard have made clear that districts 

are responsible for establishing programs for ELLs that increase 

their proficiency in English and mastery of academic content 

and are based on sound educational theory, well implemented, 

and regularly evaluated and revised (OCR, 2004). 

Despite these recommendations, educating English language 

learners has sometimes been viewed with ambivalence, due to 

a host of factors (Borden, 2001). More likely to be tracked into 

low academic groupings, English language learners then suffer 

from a widening achievement gap between them and their English-speaking peers (Borden, 2001; Grissmer, Flanagan, Kawata, 

& Williamson, 2000; NCES, 2001a, 2001b) and too often drop 

out of school altogether (August & Hakuta, 1998). These trends 

need to be reversed. Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2002 not only requires states and districts to implement programs for English language learners that “have demonstrated 

that they are effective in increasing English proficiency and student achievement” (USED, 2002, p. 93) but also holds them 

accountable for meeting all annual measurable achievement objectives and making adequate yearly progress for LEP students 

(USED, 2002). Thus, under No Child Left Behind, such trends 

are not only unfortunate but also unacceptable.

Though requirements for ELL programs are clear, how best to 

reach these goals is not. States enjoy flexibility regarding the 

design and funding of programs to meet the needs of diverse 

groups of English language learners. However, the ambiguity 

between various ELL instructional models and desired student 

achievement outcomes, coupled with practical challenges regarding implementation, leave policymakers struggling with how best 
85

Chapter Six

to educate this growing segment of the American public school 

population. Though the available research on instructional models for ELLs indicates that the use of a student’s native language 

results in outcomes that are statistically significant and educationally meaningful (Greene, 1997; Willig, 1985), adequately 

staffing and fully implementing such programs may not be possible in all cases. As a result, educators must choose instructional programs based on available research, students’ characteristics, and local available resources. Fortunately, regardless 

of the instructional programs in place, schools and districts can 

do much to ensure that ELLs benefit from high-quality instructional programs and schoolwide support, particularly when such 

programs are regularly evaluated and revised.

In the Southeast, with the exception of Florida, the absolute 

number of English language learners is still relatively small. 

Despite the small number of ELLs, however, the Southeast is 

experiencing a high rate of growth of ELLs, oftentimes in school 

districts that previously had not enrolled significant numbers of 

English language learners. Because these ELLs represent various ages and languages, a plethora of programs are in place. 

Just as SERVE states are not uniform in their instructional approaches, they also differ in their statutory approaches to English language learners and funding for ELL programs. It may be 

that as the immigration of English language learners into the 

region continues to increase, a more regional response to English language learners’ needs will emerge. 

The data presented here provide a starting point for policymakers to build upon when considering how to best serve the 

English language learners enrolled in their districts. By working 

together, educators in the Southeast can ensure that English 

language learners do far more than “get by.” Indeed, by drawing 

upon the linguistic and cultural assets that these students bring 

to our classrooms and communities, we will all prosper.
86

Chapter Six
87

References

Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (In press). English language learners with special needs: Identification, placement and instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Schooling for language minority children. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1998). Educating language-minority 

children. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Baker, C., & Jones, S. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and 

bilingual education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Baker, K., & De Kanter, A. (1983). Federal policy and the effectiveness of bilingual education. In K. Baker & A. De Kanter 

(Eds.), Bilingual Education (pp. 33−85). Lexington, MA: 

DC Heath.

Borden, G. (2001). Creating an underclass through benign 

neglect: The plight of ethnic minorities with limited English 

proficiency. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 

8(2), 395–429. 

Brice, A., & Roseberry-McKibben, C. (1999). Turning frustration into success for English language learners. Educational 

Leadership, 56(7), 53–55.

Bucuvalas, A. (2002, October). Looking closely at second 

language learning: An interview with Shattuck Professor 

Catherine Snow. Retrieved January 28, 2004, from 

www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/snow10012002.html 

Check, J. (1997). Teacher research as powerful professional 

development. Retrieved May 31, 2004, from 

www.cal.org/resources/digest/0008teaching.html

Christian, D. (1994). Two-way bilingual education: Students 

learning through two languages (Educational Practice Rep. 

No. 12). Washington, DC, and Santa Cruz, CA: National 

Center for Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.

Clair, N. (1995). Mainstream teachers and ESL students. TESOL 

Quarterly 29, 189−196.
88

References

Clair, N. (1998). Teacher study groups: Persistent questions in 

a promising approach. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 465−492. 

Clair, N., & Adger, C. (1999). Professional development for 

teachers in culturally diverse schools (ERIC Document 

Reproduction Service No. ED 435 185). Retrieved May 31, 

2004, from www.cal.org/resources/digest/profdvpt.html

Collier, V. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in second language. TESOL Quarterly, 

23, 509−531. 

Collier, V. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term 

language minority student data on academic achievement. 

Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1−2), 187−212. 

Collier, V. P. (1995). Promoting academic success for ESL students: Understanding second language acquisition for school. 

Elizabeth, NJ: New Jersey Teachers of English to Speakers 

of Other Languages-Bilingual Educators.

Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English? Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 5, 26−38.

Coltrane, B., & Morrison, S. (2002, November). TESOL certification: What are the options? Language Link. Retrieved 

May 31, 2004, from www.cal.org/resources/langlink/

nov02feature.html

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1990). School success 

for limited English proficient students: The challenge and the 

state response. Washington, DC: Resource Center on Educational Equity.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development 

in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3−40). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. 

Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles: California 

Association for Bilingual Education.
89

References

Cummins, J., & Corson, D. (1997). Bilingual education, International encyclopedia of language and education 5. Dordrecht, 

The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Danoff, M. N., Coles, G. J., McLaughlin, D. H., & Reynolds, D. 

J. (1977−1978). Evaluation of the impact of ESEA Title VII 

Spanish/English bilingual education program (3 vols.). Palo 

Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research (ERIC Document 

Reproduction Service No ED154634).

De Avila, E. (1997). Setting expected gains for non- and limitedEnglish proficient students. Washington, DC: The National 

Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved February 13, 

2002, from www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/resource/setting

Development Associates, Inc. (2002). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities. U.S. 

Department of Education. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from 

www.ncela.gwu.edu/oela/summit2003/Presentations/

descriptive_study_of_services.pdf

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2004). Making content 

comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Boston: 

Allyn & Bacon.

Education Commission of the States. (2000). E-clips: Bilingual 

education. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to 

know about language. Retrieved May 31, 2004, from 

www.cal.org/resources/digest/0008teaching.html

Gandara, P. G. (1999). Review of research on the instruction of 

limited English proficient students: A report to the California 

legislature. Santa Barbara, CA: The University of California 

Linguistic Minority Research Institute (UCLMRI) Education 

Policy Center.

Gandara, P. G. (2000). In the aftermath of the storm: 

English learners in the Post-227 era. Bilingual Research 

Journal, 24(1 & 2). Retrieved February 20, 2002, from 

http://brj.asu.edu/v2412/articles/art2.html 
90

References

Garschick, E. (Ed.), (2002). Directory of teacher education programs in TESOL in the United States and Canada, 

2002−2004. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers 

of Other Languages.

Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons 

from immersion (Educational Practice Rep. No. 11). 

Washington, DC, and Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for 

Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.

Genesee, F. (Ed.). (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically 

diverse students (Paper epr1). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for 

Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Retrieved 

January 15, 2004, from http://repositories.cdlib.org/crede/

edupractrpts/epr1

Goldenberg, C. (1993). The home-school connection in bilingual 

education. In B. Arias & U. Casanova (Eds.), Yearbook of the 

National Society for the Study of Education. Bilingual education: Politics, research, and practice, 92(2), 225−250. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois.

Goldenberg, C. (2004). Successful school change: Creating settings to improve teaching and learning. New York: Teachers 

College Press.

González, J. M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). New concepts 

for new challenges: Professional development for immigrant 

youth. McHenry, IL, and Washington, DC: Delta Systems and 

Center for Applied Linguistics.

Greene, J. (1997). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker 

review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research 

Journal, 21(2/3), 103−122.

Greene, J. P. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of 

bilingual education. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 

Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. Retrieved February 12, 2002, 

from www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/symposia/reading/

article5/greene98.html 

Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J., & Williamson, S. (2000). 

Improving student achievement: What state NAEP test scores 

tell us. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Publishing.
91

References

Guarino, A. J., Echevarria, J., Short, D., Schick, J. E., Forbes, 

S., & Rueda, R. (2001). The sheltered instruction observation 

protocol. Journal of Research in Education, 11(1).

Hacsi, T. (2002). Children as pawns: The politics of educational 

reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hakuta, K. (2001, April). Key policy milestones and directions in 

the education of English language learners. Paper presented 

at the Rockefeller Foundation Symposium, Washington, DC. 

Retrieved August 28, 2002, from www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/

Docs/Rockefeller%20Executive%20Summary.doc

Hakuta, K., Goto-Butler, Y., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it 

take English learners to attain proficiency? University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute: Policy Report 

2000–1. Retrieved February 28, 2002, from http://lmri.ucsb.

edu/resdiss/2/pdf_files/hakuta.pdf 

Houston Independent School District. (1997). Multilingual education programs: 1996–1997. A research report on an educational program. Houston, TX: Department of Research and 

Accountability.

Institute for Policy Analysis and Research and the Center for 

Applied Linguistics. (2000, September). Going schoolwide: 

Title VII comprehensive school characteristics and student 

demographics. NCBE Resource Collection Series 15. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 

Retrieved March 1, 2002, from www.ncela.gwu.edu/

ncbepubs/resource/comprehensive.pdf 

Jeynes, W. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental 

involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. 

Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202−218.

Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and 

services 2000−2001 summary report. Prepared for the U.S. 

Department of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement 

for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA). Washington, 

DC: George Washington University, National Clearinghouse 
92

References

for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction 

Educational Programs (NCELA).

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to 

second language acquisition research. New York: Longman.

Lessow-Hurley, J. (1991). A commonsense guide to bilingual 

education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and 

Curriculum Development. 

Linquanti, R. (1999). Fostering academic success for English 

language learners: What do we know? San Francisco, CA: 

WestEd. Retrieved February 27, 2002, from www.wested.org/

policy/pubs/fostering

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of education reform. Education Evaluation and Policy 

Analysis, 15, 129−151.

Lockwood, A. T., & Secada, W. G. (1999). Transforming education for Hispanic youth: Exemplary practices, programs, and 

schools. Washington, DC: The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 

McKnight, A., & Antunez, B. (1999). State survey of legislative 

requirements for educating limited English proficient students. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, 

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved 

January 26, 2004, from www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/state-legislation/index.htm

Mississippi Statewide Assessment System Guidelines for Testing 

Special Populations. (2004). Mississippi Department of Education. Retrieved June 1, 2004, from www.mde.k12.ms.us/

acad/osa/Section1.pdf

Moll, L. C., Amanti, D. N., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of 

knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to 

connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31,

132−141.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2001a). Impact of 

selected background variables on students’ NAEP math 

performance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 
93

References

Retrieved February 24, 2002, from http://nces.ed.gov/

pubs2001/200111.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2001b). The nation’s 

report card: Fourth-grade reading 2000. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved February 23, 2002, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001499

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. (1998). Limited 

English proficient students and available educational programs and services, 1996–1997. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education.

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. (2000). Summary report of the survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational program and 

services, 1997–1998. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved 

February 23, 2002, from www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/

seareports/97–98/survey.pdf

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & 

Language Instruction Educational Programs. (2002a). ELL 

growth table. Washington, DC: The George Washington University. Retrieved January 26, 2004, from www.ncela.gwu.

edu/states/growthtable.htm

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & 

Language Instruction Educational Programs. (2002b). State 

elementary and secondary census data, 1990−2000, LEP 

enrollment growth, 2001−2002, most common languages, 

2000−2001. Washington, DC: The George Washington University. Retrieved January 26, 2004, from www.ncela.gwu.

edu/states/reports/statedata/2001/index.html

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition 

and Language Instruction Educational Programs. (2004). 

AskNCELA. Retrieved January 16, 2004, from www.ncela.

gwu.edu/askncela/glossary.htm

Office of Civil Rights. (2004). Programs for English language 

learners. Retrieved January 21, 2004, from www.ed.gov/

about/offices/list/ocr/ell/legal.html
94

References

Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly 

with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 

321–332.

Oritz, A. A. (2001). English language learners with special 

needs: Effective instructional strategies. ERIC Digest. Retrieved February 21, 2002, from www.cal.org/aericll/digest/

0108ortiz.html

Petitto, L. A., & Kovelman, I. (2003). The bilingual paradox: How 

signing-speaking bilingual children help us resolve bilingual 

issues and teach us about the brain’s mechanisms underlying 

all language acquisition. Learning Languages, 8(3) 5−18.

Ramirez, J. D. (1992). Executive summary. Bilingual Research 

Journal, 16(1−2), 1−62.

Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Executive 

summary, final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional 

bilingual education programs for language minority children. 

San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.

Renyi, J. (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional development for student success. New 

York: National Foundation for the Improvement of Education.

Rossell, C., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness 

of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 

30(1), 7−74.

Rueda, R. (1998). Standards for professional development: A 

sociocultural perspective (Research Brief No. 2). Santa Cruz, 

CA: University of California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

Secada, W. G., Chavez-Chavez, R., Garcia, G., Munoz, C., 

Oakes, J., Santiago-Santiago, I., & Slavin, R. (1998). No 

more excuses: The final report of the Hispanic Dropout Project. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press.
95

References

Sugarman, J., & Howard, L. (2001). Two-way immersion shows 

promising results: Findings from a new study. ERIC/CLL 

Language Link. Retrieved February 19, 2002, from http://

cal.org/ericcll/langlink/current2.html

Sutner, S. (2001, August 1). Bilingual reform facing battle. 

Worcester Telegram and Gazette. Retrieved February 28, 

2002, from www.onenation.org/0108/080101c.html

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (2004). 

Frequently asked questions (FAQ) about starting a career in 

TESOL. Retrieved February 9, 2004, from www.tesol.org/

careers/seekers-faq1.html#1 

Therrien, M., & Ramirez, R. R. (2000). The Hispanic population 

in the United States: March 2000, current population reports, 

P20–535. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Census. Retrieved 

February 26, 2002, from www.census.gov/population/www/

socdemo/hispanic/ho00.html

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for 

language-minority students. Report disseminated by the 

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Washington, 

DC: George Washington University.

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school 

effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, 

Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. 

Retrieved February 25, 2002, from http://crede.ucsc.edu/

research/llaa/1.1_final.html

Torres-Guzman, M. E. (2001). Dual language programs: Key 

features and results. Directions, 14. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind: A 

desktop reference. Retrieved January 21, 2004, from www.

ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/page_pg30.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2004, Feb. 27). Ed review. Retrieved May 11, 2004, from www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/

edreview/2004/0227.html 
96

References

U.S. General Accounting Office. (2001). Public education: Meeting the needs of students with limited English proficiency

(Report No. GAO-01-226). Washington, DC: Author. 

Vernez, G., Krop, R. A., & Rydell, C. P. (1999). Closing the education gap: Benefits and costs. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.

Williams, M. (1991, September 27). Policy update on schools’ 

obligations toward national origin minority students with limited-English proficiency (LEP students). Memorandum from 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Williams to the United 

States Department of Education, archived at www.ed.gov/

about/offices/list/ocr/ell/september27.html

Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the 

effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational 

Research, 55, 269−317.

Yettick, H. (2002, February 25). Survey shows support for bilingual limits. Rocky Mountain News. Retrieved February 25, 

2002, from www.rockymountainnews.com

Zehr, M. A. (2000, November 15). Arizona curtails bilingual education. Education Week, 20(11), 1, 21.

Zehr, M. A. (2001a, November 7). Bilingual students with disabilities get special help. Education Week, 21(10), 1, 22–23.

Zehr, M. A. (2001b, February 21). Bush plan could alter bilingual education. Education Week, 20(23), 17, 19.

Zehr, M. A. (2001c, September 5). English-language learners post 

improved California test scores. Education Week, 21(1), 29.

Zelasko, N., & Antunez, B. (2000). If your child learns in two 

languages. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for 

Bilingual Education. Retrieved February 20, 2002, from 

www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/parent
97

Resources Appendix 

Clearinghouses/Comprehensive 

American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL)

3416 Primm Lane

Birmingham, AL 35216

866-821-7700

www.aaal.org

Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

4646 40th Street NW

Washington, DC 20016-1859

202-362-0700

www.cal.org

Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence

University of California, Santa Cruz

1156 High Street

Santa Cruz, CA 95064

831-459-3500

www.crede.ucsc.edu

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition 

and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA)

(formerly the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education)

The George Washington University

2121 K Street NW, Suite 260

Washington, DC 20037

800-321-6223

www.ncela.gwu.edu

National Literacy Panel

Institute of Educational Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

Dr. Diane August, Principal Investigator, 

Center for Applied Linguistics

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/ncer/literacy.html

Office for Civil Rights

U.S. Department of Education

600 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20202-6510

800-421-3481

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html
98

Appendix 

Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA)

(formerly the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority

Languages Affairs)

U.S. Department of Education

600 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20202-6510

202-205-5463

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html?src=oc

Bilingual Education

The California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE)

16033 E. San Bernardino Road

Covina, CA 91722-3900

626-814-4441

www.bilingualeducation.org

National Association for Bilingual Education

1030 15th Street NW, Suite 470

Washington, DC 20005-1503

202-898-1829

www.nabe.org

Southwest Center for Education Equity and Language Diversity 

(SCEED) at Arizona State University

P.O. Box 871511

Tempe, AZ 85287-1511

480-965-7134

www.asu.edu/educ/sceed

Tomas Rivera Policy Institute

University of Southern California

School of Policy, Planning & Development

650 Childs Way, Lewis Hall, Suite 102

Los Angeles, CA 90089-0626

213-821-5615

www.trpi.org
99

Appendix 

ESL

Dave’s ESL Cafe

22287 Mulholland Highway #381

Calabasas, CA 91302-5157

www.eslcafe.com

ESCORT 

(formerly the Eastern Stream Center on Resources and Training)

State University College at Oneonta

Bugbee Hall

Oneonta, NY 13820

800-451-8058

www.escort.org

National Center on Educational Outcomes

University of Minnesota

350 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road

Minneapolis, MN 55455

612-626-1530

http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/default.html

National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education (NCLE)

4646 40th Street NW

Washington, DC 20016-1859

202-362-0700, ext. 200

www.cal.org/ncle

Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory 

Teaching Diverse Learners

New England Equity Assistance Center

222 Richmond Street, Suite 300

Providence, RI

800-521-9550, ext. 339

www.alliance.brown.edu/tdl

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)

700 South Washington Street, Suite 200

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

888-547-3369

www.tesol.org
100

Appendix 

WestEd

Bridging Cultures Project

730 Harrison Street

San Francisco, CA 94107

877-493-8933

www.edgateway.net/cs/bcp/print/docs/bcp/about.htm

Reading

Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement 

(CIERA)

University of Michigan School of Education

Rm. 2002 SEB, 610 E. University Avenue

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259

734-647-6940

www.ciera.org

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 

(NICHD)

P.O. Box 3006

Rockville, MD 20847

800-370-2943

www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubskey.cfm

The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL)

1775 I Street NW, Suite 730

Washington, DC 20006-2401

202-233-2025

www.nifl.gov

National Literacy Panel

Institute of Educational Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

Dr. Diane August, Principal Investigator, 

Center for Applied Linguistics

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/ncer/literacy.html

Reading Rockets

A service of WETA

2775 South Quincy Street

Arlington, VA 22206

703-998-2600

www.readingrockets.org
101

Appendix 

Southeast

ESCORT 

(formerly the Eastern Stream Center on Resources and Training)

State University College at Oneonta

Bugbee Hall

Oneonta, NY 13820

800-451-8058

www.escort.org

Region IV Comprehensive Center at AEL

P.O. Box 1348

Charleston, WV 25325-1348

800-624-9120 

www.ael.org/cac/miss2.htm

Region XIV Comprehensive Center

Educational Testing Service 

1000 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 312

Tampa, FL 33602

800-756-9003

www.ets.org/ccxiv

The SERVE Center for Continuous Improvement 

at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro

P.O. Box 5367

Greensboro, NC 27435

800-755-3277

www.serve.org

Southern Poverty Law Center

400 Washington Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36104

334-956-8200 

www.splcenter.org

Special Education

Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

4646 40th Street NW

Washington, DC 20016-1859

202-362-0700

www.cal.org/resources/faqs/rgos/special.html
102

Appendix 

Coordinated Campaign for Learning Disabilities

1200 New York Avenue NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20005-1754

www.aboutld.org

Council for Exceptional Children

1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22201-5704

888-232-7733

www.cec.sped.org

IDEA Practices

Funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20202 

877-323-4331

www.ideapractices.org

LD OnLine

A service of WETA

2775 South Quincy Street

Arlington, VA 22206

703-998-2600 

www.ldonline.org

Learning Disabilities Association of America

4156 Library Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1349

412-341-1515

www.ldanatl.org

National Center for Learning Disabilities

381 Park Avenue South, Suite 1401

New York, NY 10016

888-575-7373

www.ncld.org

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities

P.O. Box 1492

Washington, DC 20013

800-695-0285

www.nichcy.org
103

Appendix 

National Institute of Mental Health

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 8184

MSC 9663

Bethesda, MD 20892-9663

866-615-6464

www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/learndis.htm

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20202 

202-205-5507

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/index.html

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and

Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA)

(formerly the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education)

The George Washington University

2121 K Street NW, Suite 260

Washington, DC 20037

800-321-6223

www.ncela.gwu.edu

TeachingLD 

A service of the Division for Learning Disabilities (DLD)

Council for Exceptional Children 

1110 North Glebe Road, Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22201-5704

888-232-7733

www.teachingld.org

State Information (SERVE states)

Alabama State Department of Education

50 North Ripley Street

P.O. Box 302101

Montgomery, AL 36104

334-242-9700

www.alsde.edu/html/home.asp
104

Appendix 

Florida State Department of Education

Office of the Commissioner 

Turlington Building, Suite 1514 

325 West Gaines Street 

Tallahassee, FL 32399

850-245-0505

www.fldoe.org

Georgia State Department of Education

2054 Twin Towers East

Atlanta, GA 30334

404-656-2800; toll-free in Georgia 800-311-3627

www.doe.k12.ga.us

Mississippi State Department of Education

Central High School 

P.O. Box 771 

359 North West Street 

Jackson, MS 39205 

601-359-3513

www.mde.k12.ms.us

North Carolina State Department of Education

301 North Wilmington Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

919-807-3300

www.dpi.state.nc.us

South Carolina State Department of Education

South Carolina Department of Education 

1429 Senate Street 

Columbia, SC 29201 

803-734-8500

www.myscschools.com
105

Appendix 

English Language Learners in the Southeast: 

Research, Policy, and Practice

Feedback Form

Thank you for evaluating this publication. Your candid feedback will 

be used to improve subsequent editions of this publication and other 

products. Please tear out this form, complete it, and mail it to: RSI 

Program Assistant, SERVE, P.O. Box 5367, Greensboro, NC 27435. 

1. The content of the publication is: 

❍ Excellent ❍ Good ❍ Fair ❍ Marginal ❍ Poor

2. The organization and quality of writing is:

❍ Excellent ❍ Good ❍ Fair ❍ Marginal ❍ Poor

3. What is the potential of this publication to affect school practice?

❍ Very much so ❍ For the most part ❍ Somewhat 

❍ Only slightly ❍ Not at all

4. What did you like most about English Language Learners in the 

Southeast: Research, Policy, and Practice?

 _____________________________________________________________

 _____________________________________________________________

 _____________________________________________________________

5. What would make this publication more useful to you?

 _____________________________________________________________

 _____________________________________________________________

 _____________________________________________________________

6. What other topics related to English language learners would you 

like to learn more about?

 _____________________________________________________________

 _____________________________________________________________

 _____________________________________________________________

continued on next page

Feedback Form
106

Appendix 

7. Would you like to receive notices when other publications 

regarding English language learners become available? 

If so, please complete the information below.

Name: __________________________________________________________

School/Institution: ________________________________________________

School District: ____________________________________________

Address: __________________________________________________

City, State, Zip: ____________________________________________

E-mail: ____________________________________________________

Phone: ____________________________________________________
107

SERVE Organizational Capabilities Appendix 

SERVE 

Main Office

P.O. Box 5367 

Greensboro, NC 

27435

■

800-755-3277 

Toll-Free

336-315-7400 

Direct

336-315-7457 

Fax

■

John R. Sanders, 

Ed.D.,

Executive 

Director

■

www.serve.org

The SERVE Center for Continuous Improvement is an education 

organization with the mission to promote and support excellence in 

educational opportunities for all learners in the Southeast. The organization’s commitment to continuous improvement is manifest in an 

applied research-to-practice model that drives its work. Building on 

existing research and craft knowledge, SERVE staff develops tools 

and processes designed to assist practitioners and policymakers with 

their work, in support of improved student achievement in the region. 

Evaluation of the impact of these activities combined with input from 

affected stakeholders expands SERVE’s knowledge base and informs 

future research. 

An experienced staff strategically located throughout the region supports this vigorous and practical approach to research and development. This staff is highly skilled in providing needs-assessment 

services, conducting applied research in schools, and developing processes, products, and programs in response to identified needs. In the 

last four years, in addition to its R&D work with over 170 southeastern 

schools, SERVE staff has provided technical assistance and training to 

more than 18,000 teachers and administrators across the region. 

At the core of SERVE’s work is the operation of the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL). Funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, the REL at SERVE is one of 

ten regional organizations providing research-based information and 

services to all 50 states and territories. These Laboratories form a 

nationwide knowledge network, building a bank of information and 

resources shared nationally and disseminated regionally. Each of the 

ten Laboratories was assigned a different National Leadership Area. 

SERVE’s National Leadership Area focuses on Expanded Learning 

Opportunities (pre-K and extended-day programs).

In addition to the Lab, SERVE is involved in a broad spectrum of programs and activities that strengthen the usefulness of its work with 

schools, districts, and states. SERVE operates the Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium for Mathematics and Science Education 

at SERVE (SERC), the Southeast Initiatives Regional Technology in 

Education Consortium (SEIR◆TEC), and administers a subcontract for 

the Region IV Comprehensive Center. Additional funding from the U.S. 

Department of Education allows SERVE to provide services in migrant 

education and to operate the National Center for Homeless Education. 

Disseminating Research

A key role for SERVE is to provide timely, useful, and relevant 

research to southeastern K−12 practitioners, policymakers, and state 
108

Appendix 

department of education officials. The dissemination of research 

occurs through SERVE’s The Vision magazine, Policy Briefs, and Special Reports, which summarize research and practice on emerging 

issues, technical assistance, professional development, and training 

and are primary vehicles for disseminating research to practitioners 

across the region and nationally. Products and services are scaled up 

by SERVE, Inc., a commercial, not-for-profit outreach arm to UNCG 

(SERVE, Inc. is a 509(a)3 support corporation to UNCG). Annual 

SERVE conferences on school improvement and expanded learning 

opportunities and networking events for various role-alike groups such 

as rural school district superintendents and state education policy 

staff have also been implemented successfully by SERVE. In addition, 

SERVE conducts research and evaluation studies in collaboration with 

state school superintendents as part of an annual Memorandum of 

Understanding developed with each superintendent. 

SERVE works alone and with partners in describing and documenting the implementation of new initiatives such as class size reduction efforts, Comprehensive School Reform (CSR), state programs to 

assist low-performing schools, state efforts to develop Early Learning 

Standards, high-quality professional development as described in 

the No Child Left Behind Act, data use at the school level, and high 

school reform. Another important contribution of SERVE is conducting annual research syntheses to draw conclusions from analyses of 

recent studies on the impacts of particular kinds of expanded learning 

opportunities interventions, such as after-school, school readiness, 

and tutoring programs. 

Conducting Research and Development (R&D)

A key aspect of the R&D process is the use of data to inform continued 

improvements to the product or service and to answer questions about 

the product or intervention’s impact. Different kinds of evaluation questions and data are needed at various points in the development cycle. 

SERVE is committed to Evidence-Based Education, as demonstrated 

by our R&D methodology (and R&D quality assurance process), which 

lays out discrete stages of product development (concept paper, development, pilot, field test, scale up). R&D projects have always been a 

central focus of SERVE’s work. SERVE identifies regional needs and 

responds by developing, evaluating, refining, and disseminating new 

products and services that respond to the needs. SERVE also responds 

to specific requests for product development (such as the development 

of a training manual for classroom assessment) through contracting 

arrangements with states, districts, and schools. 
109

Appendix 

In 2004, SERVE is collecting data on implementation or impact on 

a variety of R&D products as listed below: 

Standards, Curriculum, and Assessment

■ Senior Project 

■ Competent Assessment of Reading Professional 

Development Program 

Educator Quality

■ SERVE Teacher Growth and Assessment System 

for Career and Beginning Teachers 

■ Training and On-Line Facilitation of Professional Learning Teams 

Reading Instruction

■ Advancing Reading Achievement Through Study Groups 

Providing Professional Development

SERVE is committed to providing high-quality professional development 

to educators. If student achievement is to improve, it will be through 

a focus on supporting those closest to students in reflecting on and 

improving the effectiveness of their instructional strategies. SERVE’s 

approach to professional development reflects the current thinking articulated in NCLB and the National Staff Development Council’s revised 

Standards for Staff Development. SERVE’s award-winning publication, 

Achieving Your Vision of Professional Development (1998) previewed 

the current focus on job-embedded professional development strategies. 

Another publication developed by the Eisenhower Consortium, Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics 

(2003), also offers key considerations for designing and implementing 

high-quality professional development. SERVE also worked on a collaborative effort with other Regional Laboratories to identify schools with 

exemplary professional development programs. 

The Eisenhower Consortium and SEIR◆TEC have successfully implemented regional academies to support the professional development 

of state and district level leaders. SERVE provides outstanding technical assistance to the states in its region of coverage as directed 

through funding sources and under contracts with schools, districts, 

and states. 

■ One approach to this technical assistance is direct on-site assistance. The REL at SERVE provides technical assistance to lowperforming districts in the Mississippi Delta. Since 2000, SERVE 

has provided an onsite team to support the North Bolivar School 

District in its efforts to improve. 
110

Appendix 

■ The Eisenhower Consortium at SERVE participates with other 

Eisenhower programs nationally in a Middle School Mathematics Project to provide support to mathematics teachers at selected 

low-performing middle schools. 

■ SERVE has also provided technical assistance to several low-performing districts through its participation in a group called SERVELeads, which is a district consortium that meets several times a 

year to plan strategies for improving the quality of instruction. 

Conducting Evaluations

The SERVE Evaluation staff has established a solid reputation in providing evaluation services and technical assistance to school districts, 

state education agencies, and community organizations. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches are used as appropriate.

SERVE, Inc.

SERVE, Inc. is an outreach arm of the University of North Carolina at 

Greensboro created to disseminate tested and proven products and 

services into communities, districts, schools, and classrooms. It is a 

market-driven dissemination organization positioned to respond to 

needs highlighted by federal, state, and local school improvement initiatives like NCLB and Goals 2000. Revenues generated by SERVE, 

Inc. are recycled into new R&D products and services to continuously 

better serve the educational community.

The SERVE, Inc. mission is to provide proven, cost-effective, customized products and services to enhance the growth potential of individuals 

and groups by disseminating the highest-quality products and services 

developed through R&D work performed at the SERVE Center for Continuous Improvement at UNCG and other independent sources. 

Many educational products and services have been developed through 

the conceptual stage into implementation at the regional level through 

the SERVE Center. All go through rigorous field-testing to determine 

their effectiveness in helping practitioners/teachers to help students. 

The Center sponsors programs throughout the Southeast. Through the 

UNCG Technology Transfer process, such innovations can be licensed 

for dissemination on a national basis, creating opportunities in technology transfer to commercialize proven educational products and services. 

For educational products and services to be considered for dissemination by SERVE, Inc., each must have been documented as researchbased. This means that credible studies have been performed, published, 
111

Appendix 

and critiqued by objective researchers and practitioners in the field. 

A program then earns the SERVE Seal of Assurance. A higher-rated 

SERVE Seal of Assurance is awarded when programs have been further 

scrutinized in random clinical trials that test for effectiveness. Building on theory and craft knowledge, SERVE then develops tools and 

processes designed to assist practitioners and, ultimately, to raise the 

level of student achievement in the region. Evaluation of the impact of 

these activities, including input from stakeholders, expands SERVE’s 

knowledge base and directs future research. This research-to-practiceto-evaluation cycle is critical to the rigorously applied SERVE Quality 

Assurance system.
112

Appendix 

Current national data show that by the year 

2030, 40% of all school-age children will 

be English language learners (ELL) (Thomas 

& Collier, 2002). English language learners’ 

performance is a critical concern, especially 

given the projected increase in this segment 

of the school-age population. The purpose 

of this report is to provide a synthesis of 

research studies that yield policy findings about 

instructional policies and programs for ELL 

students. This report highlights various ELL 

programs across the SERVE region and describes 

current federal and state legislative and policy 

trends as well as the status of ELL instruction in 

the Southeast.

PRELL

POLICY REPORT