about  | sitemap | contact us  
State Legislative History
Community Activism
Issue Briefs
Resources

Links

Home Page
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Issue Briefs

Many issues surround the topics of bilingual and dual language education programs and their effects on students and schools. Here are some briefs that may be useful in understanding some of the issues.

Speaking Up: Language Policy in Texas
By: Stacey Crawford

Executive Summary

Public education is a defining element of American democracy. However, this right has not always been equally administered for all students. For Latino children, the second largest share of the school-aged population, fewer resources, fewer placements in gifted and talented education programs, and limited English proficiency illustrate the inequity that still exists. Advocates for the Latino community denote these conditions as examples in which the public education system has failed Latino students.

In the state of Texas, bilingual education policies have made significant impacts on the financial, social, cultural and human capital of Latino students. However, some critics propose that bilingual education hampers the progress of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, focusing too much time on instruction in a student's primary language rather than learning English. This brief will provide a timeline of important legislation affecting English language acquisition, identify major factors impacting LEP students, and offer recommendations that target the needs of bilingual education today.

Background

Over the last decade there has been a 55 percent increase in the number of school-age children who speak languages other than English at home. The segment of this group aged 5-17 that speaks English "very well" rose by 73 percent and those who speak with some difficulty showed a smaller increase of 25 percent. These numbers ring true in Texas as well where 32 percent of the population is Hispanic, ranking third behind New Mexico (42.1 percent) and California (32.4 percent).

Numbers alone, however, do not fully illustrate the magnitude of this issue. Bilingual education is rooted in debates over teaching methods based on assimilation or pluralist models, and it heralds both advocates and opponents from a multitude of organizations. In 1968, the federal government recognized the needs of students with limited English speaking ability through the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. Acknowledging the changing needs of English language learners, Congress has reauthorized the act, with amendments that have expanded the program to more children and altered the role of state and local government. Similar legislation in Texas also illustrates the evolution of the state's role concerning Spanish dominant students.

Today, the presence of a teacher shortage and the enactment of theNo Child Left Behind Act of 2001 are both shaping the provision of bilingual education.

Teacher Shortage

The American Association of Employment in Education has found a "considerable shortage" in bilingual education teachers (4.48 on a 5-point scale), not only in states that have historically large numbers of immigrants but more critically in states that previously were less likely to have large immigrant populations. Texas is no stranger to this shortage and consistently reports over a 40 percent deficiency in fully certified bilingual or ESL teachers. Achievement gaps between LEP students and their counterparts will not be closed if the public school system cannot provide them with qualified instructors.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

The enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has significant implications for English language learners (ELLs) across the nation. The following provisions produce notable changes in the structure of federal support for bilingual education: (1) the act places less emphasis on the use of bilingual education techniques in English language acquisition; (2) stresses the use of "scientifically based" instruction and teacher training practices; (3) limits the amount of federal dollars that may be used for professional development, resources and support services; and (4) removes a competitive grant process from local districts and places federal support in the hands of state government.

Recommendations

The following recommendations offer strategies for combating the many issues that affect Spanish dominant students today and focus on accessing funding streams already in place. More importantly, they give value to those assets that the Hispanic community has to offer.

  1. Target "non-traditional" applicants as a resource for the teacher shortage
  2. Increase the number of bilingual education professional development hours
  3. Access "non-traditional" federal dollars to supplement bilingual education funding

Conclusion

There are no easy answers when it comes to bilingual education. Nonetheless, it is critical that policymakers, academics and community members identify and address the important issues in providing the best education for ELLs. Quality education can serve as the link to economic mobility within the Latino community, and more importantly, it can develop and preserve the value of this community's human, social and cultural capital.

Background

Submersion, English as a Second Language (ESL), Structured Immersion, Transitional or Maintenance Bilingual Education - the variations in English acquisition programs are as numerous and diverse as the students who are subject to them. This policy brief will refer to three of the most widely used programs: bilingual education, English as a second language (ESL) and structured English immersion (SEI). Bilingual education refers to a linguistic program that promotes bilingualism through a curriculum encouraging proficiency in both languages. Some bilingual education programs bring together language majority and ELLS students for instruction so that both groups may achieve bilingualism and biliteracy. In ESL programs, students spend the majority of the day learning English but also receive instruction for other subjects in English, using second language methods. Finally, structured English immersion, more commonly referred to as English-only instruction, teaches ELLs all subjects in English with little use of the student's primary language. SEI programs are structured to last one year and then move students into mainstream classes.

A Growing Landscape

The 2000 U.S. Census has produced statistics on changes in the population that have notable implications for bilingual education. To begin, the Hispanic population in the United States reached 35.3 million in 2000, growing over 50 percent from the 1990 census. The number of language-minority residents also increased from 32 to 47 million Americans who speak a language other than English in their homes. However, this figure does not imply that another language is spoken at the exclusion of English. Spanish speakers accounted for approximately six of 10 minority language speakers, increasing faster than all other groups. The last decade also showed an increase in the number of school-age children who speak languages other than English at home by 55 percent. The segment of this group aged 5-17 that speaks English "very well" rose by 73 percent and those who speak with some difficulty showed a smaller increase of 25 percent. It is important to note that these figures rely on respondents' self-assessment on language usage and proficiency. These numbers ring true in Texas as well where 32 percent of the population is Hispanic, ranking third behind New Mexico (42.1 percent) and California (32.4 percent).
For the 2001-2002 school year, the Texas Education Agency identified over 600, 000 LEP students in the state system (see figure 1). These numbers reflect a concentrated use of bilingual education in elementary grades where provision of bilingual education is mandated when 20 or more students in the same grade level are identified as LEP. ESL is the program in place for middle and high-school grades and may substitute bilingual education in lower grades if there are too few students for such a program.

     Figure 1: LEP Enrollment for Fall 2001-2002 in Texas Schools
Programs Early Education-6th grade 7th -12th grade Total
LEPS Identified 477,179 124,612 601,791
LEPS in Bilingual Education 303,701 375 304,076
LEPS in ESL 134,031 102,656 236,687
LEPS in Special Education 38,085 22,858 60,943
Parent Denials 28,659 13,456 42,115
     Source: Texas Education Agency, PEIMS Enrollment Data

Numbers alone, however, do not fully illustrate the magnitude of this issue. Bilingual education is rooted in debates over teaching techniques based on assimilation or pluralist theories, and heralds both advocates and opponents from national organizations and local grassroots movements. Furthermore, the history of bilingual education reveals a legacy of segregation, discrimination and inequality.

Framing the Issue

In 1968, the federal government recognized the needs of students with limited English speaking ability through the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. Acknowledging the changing needs of ELLs, Congress has reauthorized the act with amendments that expand the program to more children and alter the role of state and local government. These reauthorizations convey the divergent theories concerning the financial support and design of bilingual education. Similar legislation in Texas also illustrates the state's role in educating Spanish dominant students.

The 1968 Act, enacted as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was initially perceived as a solution for the numerous civil rights violations at the time. In Texas, for instance, teachers implemented numerous English-only rules in which many Mexican American students were required to pay a fine of one penny for every Spanish word spoken or made to write "I must not speak Spanish" on the class blackboard. Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas introduced the bill, specifically addressing the needs of Spanish-speaking students. Its enactment, however, created potential desegregation violations when programs separated students into special classes and also conflicted with the English-only laws of some states. At this time, Title VII had few specific guidelines, provided $7.5 million in competitive grants for programs, only targeted low-income families, and allowed for voluntary participation.

The Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974 and the case of Lau v. Nichols pushed Congress to amend the 1968 Act in 1974. The Equal Educational Opportunity Act specifically noted that language barriers prevented equal opportunities and required instructional programs to remedy this situation regardless of federal or state funding. The Lau v. Nichols case was a class-action suit of Chinese students who where denied equal education in San Fancisco, California. In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that having access to the same facilities, textbooks, teachers and curricula do not constitute equal education when a student does not understand English. As a result, Congress amended the Title VII to (1) define bilingual education programs in which ESL alone is considered insufficient; (2) specify program goals; (3) create regional support centers; and (4) promote capacity-building efforts. Later Amendments in 1978, 1984 and 1988 broadened the definition of eligible ELLs, increased funding, gave more control to local school districts in teaching methods through competitive grants, and placed a greater emphasis on training teachers to work with ELLs. Recent provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 also greatly impact the delivery of bilingual education and will be addressed later in the brief.

Similar efforts in Texas have shaped the development of bilingual education in the state. State laws dating back to 1918 mandated English-only teaching requirements had placed significant restraints on Mexican American students in Texas schools. However, on June 3, 1973, Governor Dolph Briscoe signed the Bilingual Education and Training Act into law, five years after the federal recognition of bilingual education. Prior to the 1973 legislation, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), in a collaborative effort with the American G.I. Forum, played a significant role in creating community-based programs to improve the education of Mexican-American children in Texas. Many of their efforts emphasized the teaching of basic English vocabulary to preschool children so that they could have a greater chance of success upon entering the state school system. Known as escuelitas, these early education programs filled a need that the state had failed to address. By the late 1950's, the state picked up the program and provided funding for a pre-school summer language program serving over 20,000 students. In 1981, LULAC and the G.I. Forum filed suit against the state public school system. The case, United States v. Texas, affirmed "pervasive, intentional discrimination throughout most of this century" against Mexican-American students. As a result, the bilingual and ESL programs in the state expanded and received more funding.

Despite federal and state legislation, mixed emotions concerning the provision of bilingual education persists. Proponents of a pluralist model view bilingual programs as a social issue between students, the community, schools and ethnic leaders. This approach places a high value on the provision of a student's native language and culture and recognizes the need for parents to feel comfortable enough with the program to warrant an active role in its progression. Pedagogy is based on building literacy and comprehension in the student's primary language to facilitate not only a more rapid but also more successful transition to English. Often times, bilingual education structured on a pluralist model also creates classrooms that combine language minority and majority students so that both may achieve bilingualism.

However, assimilation models take an opposite approach. Programs of this nature seek little input from the community; significantly limit the use of native languages; operate on a constricted timetable, ranging from a one to three year maximum; and only include English language learners. Antibilingual proponents support the use of an assimilation model and have been successful in passing legislation in California, Arizona and most recently, Massachusetts that terminates the use of bilingual education. One of the main arguments of this group is that schools have failed to bring ELLs to English proficiency even after five years of instruction. However, only 7 percent of Texas ELLs who entered bilingual education at kindergarten remained in bilingual classes until after fifth grade. It is important to note that older students considered "still" in ESL or bilingual education classes are oftentimes immigrants.

Furthermore, data emerging from California, four years after the elimination of bilingual education, raises doubt concerning the efficacy of English-only programs. There has not been any significant increase in the number of ELLs who are designated fluent English proficient (FEP), and approximately 151, 836 students have parents who are choosing to use the law's waiver process to enroll their children in bilingual instruction (see figure 2).

     Figure 2. California LEP Students Redesignated as Fluent in English, 1993-2002
School year LEPs Redesignated FEP Redesignation rate* LEPs not Redesignated
2001-02 42,115 7.8% 1,393,849
2001-01 134,125 9.1% 1,346,402
1999-00 112,214 7.8% 1,330,478
1998-99 106,288 7.6% 1,299,878
1997-98 96,545 7.0% 1,284,848
1996-97 89,144 6.7% 1,234,623
1995-96 81,733 6.5% 1,181,249
     Source: English Learners in California: Online:
http://www.ourworld.compuserve.com/hompages/JWCRAWFORD/census02.htm

* Redesignation rates are calculated by dividing the number of LEP students who are reassessed as FEP each year by the total LEP enrollment in the previous year.

Ultimately, research in favor of either the pluralist or assimilation model has produced divergent conclusions that support their respective approaches. Inconsistency in research methodology and findings will create even more debate concerning bilingual education as a result of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) provisions that require curriculum that is "scientifically-based." This brief will cover resulting implications in greater detail under the NCLB discussion.

Analysis

Political movements today are further compounding the obstacles that Spanish dominant students in Texas must face. The presence of a teacher shortage and the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 are all redefining how bilingual education is provided. The discourse surrounding both of these issues, however, often leaves out the needs of Spanish dominant students.

Teacher Quality and Quantity

The American Association of Employment in Education has found a "considerable shortage" in bilingual education teachers (4.48 on a 5-point scale), not only in states that have historically large numbers of immigrants but more critically in states that previously were less likely to have large immigrant populations. In the Urban Teacher Collaborative survey of 2000, 72.5 percent of large city school districts and colleges of education reported an immediate shortage of bilingual education teachers and 67.5 percent reported a shortage of ESL instructors. More importantly, the greatest deficiencies in bilingual education teachers occur at the elementary level. Another element of the shortage is the lack of minority teachers for minority students. In 1992, more than one half of ELLs were Hispanic, yet 93 percent of their instructors were non-Hispanic whites. This figure does not seem to be on the rise considering that the number of Hispanic students majoring in education is declining faster than the overall decline in education majors.

Currently, Texas has a significant shortage of certified teachers with one-quarter of its estimated 39,000 new teachers for the 2001-2002 school year not fully certified. Of those shortages, studies show that the most difficult areas to fill are secondary bilingual education and English as a Second Language and secondary foreign language. ESL positions have been especially difficult to fill with 26 percent of the 3, 522 anticipated positions not occupied (see figure 3). This reflects a slight decrease of 6 percent from the previous year's data for less-than fully certified teachers occupying positions in secondary bilingual/ESL classrooms. Numerous reasons have been cited for the teacher shortage, including a rise in school enrollments; changing student demographics; a high demand for minority teachers; and low salaries.

     Figure 3. Comparative Findings Between 2000-01 and 2001-02 School Year
Area 2000-01 School Year 2001-02 School Year
Elementary Bilingual/ESL 48 percent 40percent
Secondary Bilingual/ESL 41percent 35 percent
Secondary Foreign Language 36 percent 35 percent
Secondary Special Education 33 percent 21percent
*Percentage of less-than-fully certified teachers: Teacher Demand Study 2001-2002, The Institute for School-University Partnerships,? http://partnerhips.tamu.edu

The limited quantity of available teachers is not the only concern for bilingual education providers. School administrators are also met with the challenge of placing well-prepared teachers in bilingual classrooms. Nationwide, only 2.5 percent of teachers who instruct ELLs have a degree in ESL or bilingual education. In Texas alone, the Institute for School-university Partnerships (August, 2002) found that Bilingual/ESL teachers were least likely to be fully certified with 40 percent of elementary ESL teachers and 35 percent of secondary teachers having less than full certification. Moreover, the quality issue does not stop at certification. Quality is also manifested through training and professional development. Across the country, however, the Department of Education determined that "addressing the needs of LEP students" is the professional development area in which teachers are least likely to participate.

Implications of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

With the adoption of the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, the federal government ensured that children whose first language was not English had equal access to education. Since then, school districts have been eligible to apply for federal discretionary grants from the U.S. Department of Education in order to supplement bilingual education programs. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), however, significantly restructures the requirements for federal funding of bilingual education:

  • School districts must now apply to the Texas Education Agency for supplemental bilingual education funds.
  • Bilingual Education and Immigrant Education programs are now consolidated into one State formula program.
  • Funding no longer focuses only on bilingual education curriculums. Rather, English only or English immersion programs receive more consideration for grant opportunities than in previous years.
  • Federal funding requires greater accountability from States. LEP students must participate in reading and language arts assessments in English after attending school for three years in the United States.

The majority of funding for bilingual education in Texas comes from state tax dollars. In 1998, the state spent $111 million on bilingual education, and of that, the federal portion amounted to $9.5 million. However, Delia Pompa, former director of the National Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs, points out that federal dollars are vital to start-up programs in low-income school districts where seed money is not available. While federal funding is a smaller percentage of overall funding for programs in the state, Texas does make up approximately six percent of all federal funding spent on bilingual education. Opponents of bilingual education note the cost of these programs to the state. However, research shows that the cost for bilingual instruction is essentially the same as in a regular classroom with the exception of marginal expenses involved in instructional materials and placement tests. The Intercultural Development Research Association has produced the following results concerning the cost of bilingual education in Texas:

  • The cost of bilingual education is approximately 25 to 34 percent above the cost of regular classroom instruction. In 1996, Texas spent $3,510 per child for basic education and an additional $230 for each child in a bilingual program. (The additional cost was less than one percent of the State's education budget.)
  • Texas only spends one-third of what is needed for an effective bilingual program. Investing $230 in a bilingual program can successfully prevent the retention of a child which would cost the state $3,510.

Aside from affecting funding, NCLB imposes several provisions to the Bilingual Education Act that will have significant implications for the manner in which bilingual education is delivered. To begin, the term "bilingual" has been removed from most aspects of the legislation, including the title of the act itself - now titled the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. The NCLB Act also mandates assessments of English proficiency for ELLs in which states are required to set annual measurable achievement objectives for moving ELLs toward proficiency. The act also limits the amount of funding for teacher training, research and support services to 6.5 percent of federal allocations, less than half of what was appropriated last year. Throughout the act, there are several requirements that the design of instructional and professional development programs must reflect "scientifically based research." Without a specific definition, however, this phrase is open to many interpretations and is a potential catalyst for increased debate over bilingual or English-only instruction.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are centered on the issues discussed thus far. Moreover, they focus on strategies that emphasize better use of existing resources, maximizing federal funding streams, and promote advocacy within the bilingual education community. Most importantly, these recommendations promote educational opportunities that support the use of and place value in cultural assets garnered from the Hispanic community.

Recommendation 1: Look to "non-traditional" applicants as a resource for the teacher shortage.

To attract more people to the profession, Texas has no plans in the near future to allocate more funding for teacher salary or recruitment programs. Creating new programs creates additional costs to the state and institutions of higher education in a constrained economic environment. However, the use of para-professionals offers a potential resource for increasing the number of instructors for bilingual education.

Para-professionals, also referred to as para-educators, are teaching assistants who aid instructors throughout the school day for approximately four to six hours. Para-educators in bilingual classrooms are oftentimes homemakers and in many cases have had the experience of acquiring English as a second language. A study of para-educators in California notes that more than 50 percent of para-educators show interest in becoming a fully certified teacher. It is critical, therefore, that we focus on this group of individuals as a potential resource by using recruitment programs already in place. Para-educators have experience in the classroom, are committed to the community they provide support in, and are already supplementing the instruction of those teachers who have not been trained in bilingual education. Current recruitment programs focus on young, college-bound populations. Unfortunately, these groups do not represent the growing number of Hispanic school-aged children and are often being lured to higher paying professions.

Recommendation 2: Increase the number of professional development hours required for bilingual education instructors and administrators.

As noted earlier, ELLs are not only short changed by the number of instructors available, they are also subject to instructors with less training. The Texas State Board of Education can improve the quality of its bilingual education and ESL teachers, as well as a school's administration, by emphasizing participation in training that is devoted to bilingual education techniques, issues and strategies.

Allotting a significant amount of training to the specific needs of ELLs will be more effective in preparing teachers for bilingual education and ESL classrooms. The same can be said for administrators (e.g., principals, counselors, etc.) that operate in schools with a large LEP population. Such a policy calls for changes in teaching requirements but does not necessitate additional funding. Moreover, there are several opportunities already available for LEP-focused training such as several initiatives at the University of Texas at El Paso. There are also several national opportunities for bilingual professional development as well as national organizations willing to provide the technical assistance for local efforts.

Recommendation 3: Access "non-traditional" federal dollars to supplement bilingual education funding.

Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act makes several provisions that provide funding for "supplemental" services. These funds are available directly for parents to acquire mentoring and tutorial services for their children. Bilingual education/ESL administrators and teachers should promote the design of programs that will target the needs of ELLs. Title I funds can foster the development of after school programs that supplement work in the classroom by focusing on cultural assets, language skills and improved achievement. Title I funding would be in addition to state allocations and provisions from Title III that are specifically for English acquisition programs.

The federal government also offers a significant amount of funding to states for "drop-out" prevention programs. School districts serving ELLs should also encourage the design of programs that impact English language learners who experience higher rates of high school noncompletion. Both Title I and prevention dollars would supplement rather than replace bilingual education funding. The idea behind both approaches is to think broadly about accessing funds that may not be specifically designated to ELLs but that can be tailored to meet the needs of this group of students.

Recommendation 3: Access "non-traditional" federal dollars to supplement bilingual education funding.

Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act makes several provisions that provide funding for "supplemental" services. These funds are available directly for parents to acquire mentoring and tutorial services for their children. Bilingual education/ESL administrators and teachers should promote the design of programs that will target the needs of ELLs. Title I funds can foster the development of after school programs that supplement work in the classroom by focusing on cultural assets, language skills and improved achievement. Title I funding would be in addition to state allocations and provisions from Title III that are specifically for English acquisition programs.

The federal government also offers a significant amount of funding to states for "drop-out" prevention programs. School districts serving ELLs should also encourage the design of programs that impact English language learners who experience higher rates of high school noncompletion. Both Title I and prevention dollars would supplement rather than replace bilingual education funding. The idea behind both approaches is to think broadly about accessing funds that may not be specifically designated to ELLs but that can be tailored to meet the needs of this group of students.

Endnotes

National Council of La Raza. President's Corner. Online: http://nclr.policy.net/proactive/newroom/release. Accessed: November 26, 2002.
Ibid.
Program descriptions were compiled from: Stritikus, Tom. Immigrant Children and the Politics of English-Only. New York, LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2002.
James Crawford's website on language policy.Census 2000: A Guide for the Perplexed: Online: http://www.ourworld.compuserve.com/hompages/JWCRAWFORD/census02.htm. Accessed: December 11, 2002.
Texas data from Steve Murdock's presentation on "Population Change in Texas: Implications for Human and Socioeconomic Resources in the 21st Century," Dept. of Rural Sociology, Texas A&M University
Texas Education Agency. Limited English Proficiency Analysis: Fall 2001-2002 PEIMS Enrollment Data. Provided by Elaine Martinez, Bilingual Education Division. October 31, 2002.
Texas Education Code. Chapter 89 - Adaptations for Special Populations. Subchapter BB. Commissioner's Rules Concerning State Plan for Educating Limited English Proficient Students, (TEC 29.051-29.064).
Ibid.
The Handbook of Texas Online:http//www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/BB/khb2.html. Accessed: November 20, 2002.
Stwener-Manzanres, Gloria. "The Bilingual Education Act: Twenty Years Later," The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education Occasional Papers, Number 6, Fall 1988.
The Handbook of Texas Online: http//www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/BB/khb2.html. Accessed: November 20, 2002.
Ibid.
Turner, Paul R. Bilingualism in the Southwest, Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press, 1982.
Ibid.
Krashen, Stephen D. "English-only is no way to learn." Online: www.americas.org. Accessed: September 24, 2002.
James Crawford's website on language policy. English Learners in California: Online: http://www.ourworld.compuserve.com/hompages/JWCRAWFORD/census02. Accessed: December 11,2002.
Barron, V. and Menken, K. "What are the characteristics of the bilingual education and ESL teacher shortage?" National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs, August 2002.
Ibid.
Menken, Kate and Holmes, Philipe. "Ensuring English Language Learners' Success: Balancing Teacher Quantity and Quality," Framing Effective Practice: Topics and Issued in Education English Language Learners. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 2000.
Ibid.
Institute for School-University partnerships, Teacher Demand Study 2001-2002.
Barron, V. and Menken, K. "What are the characteristics of the bilingual education and ESL teacher shortage?" National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs, August 2002.
National Center for Education Statistics, 1997.
National Center for Education Statistics, 2001.
National Latino children's Insstitute, "The Benefits of Bilingual Education," El Futuro Newsletter, 1998.
Committee on Education and the Workforce, Chairman John Boehner Newsletter, October 17, 2002.
"Delay Bill Would End Federal Support of Bilingual Education," The Houston Chronicle, April 22, 1998.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Intercultural Development Research Association, Class Notes, October 1996.
Ibid.
Comprehensive Guide to the New Title III. Online: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/T7obit.htm. Accessed: December 11, 2002.
Ibid.
Genzuk, Michael, et.al. "Para-educators: A Source for Remedying the Shortage of Teachers for Limited English Proficiency Students," The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, vol. 14, pp. 211-222, Winter 1994. Ibid.

Questions? Alma Perez asperez@mail.utexas.edu, Stacey Crawford staceycrawford@mail.utexas.edu , and Jessica Mejia jmejia@mail.utexas.edu