The theoretical framework, illustrated in Figure 2, establishes the focus of the literature review for this study, which centers on scholarly literature from the field that concerns the education of immigrant youth. The five central concepts driving this literature review are as follows: (1) the sociopolitical and demographic contexts of immigration in the U.S.; (2) an analysis of federal and California state language policy over the past fifty years; (3) mitigating factors in the education of immigrant youth; (4) guiding theories in education of culturally and linguistically diverse students (5) existing program models for linguistically diverse students. The manner in which sociopolitical contexts, language policy, students’ extenuating circumstances, and guiding theories in the education of immigrant youth drive the creation of specialized programs is further addressed and analyzed in this section, as program options are commonly influenced by both the political landscape and student need.
Figure 2: Theoretical Framework Guiding the Study of Newcomer Immigrant Youth
The literature review begins by addressing the dramatic rise in immigration to the United States in recent years, and how these demographic changes have created the need for specialized programs that address the unique linguistic and academic needs of school- aged immigrant youth. Significant portions of school-age immigrant youth enter the system with specific academic needs, such as varying past educational experiences and differing academic skills and English language acquisition levels. This section expands
on the need to consider such factors in the education of secondary-level immigrant youth, in addition to the entering age of these youth and the many primary language
backgrounds present in our nation’s school-age immigrant population.
The sociopolitical tensions faced by non-English and limited English speaking students, particularly in an era in which the English-only movement is garnering mass support, is brought forth within this section to illustrate the difficulties faced by many newcomer youth. The English-only movement, which has arisen over the past three decades, is analyzed from a historical perspective, closely examining its effects on the education of immigrant youth. Language policy, dating back to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution passed in 1869, is reviewed and assessed, both at the federal and the California state level. The relevant pieces of legislation, in particular the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, Lau v. Nichols, Castañeda v. Pickard, California Propositions 63, 187, and 227, and the federal mandate No Child Left Behind, are discussed, giving particular consideration to their influences on the education of immigrant youth in California.
In addition to considering the language policies governing the education of
English learners both at the federal and at the state level, school personnel must recognize the varying academic backgrounds and personal circumstances with which the students enter U.S. schools. Immigrant youth arrive at schools in the United States from a variety of socioeconomic, language proficiency, prior schooling, and life experience
backgrounds (Short & Boyson, 2004). Some newcomers arrive at their secondary schools with an adequate English language proficiency level to be effectively mainstreamed into English-only classes upon arrival, while the majority of immigrant youth students enter
U.S. schools as non-English or limited English proficient (Short & Boyson, 2004). Some students have experienced parallel schooling experiences in their home countries, while others have experienced interruptions in their formal schooling for a variety of reasons. Due to such interruptions, secondary-level students are at times placed in lower grade- level classes, creating the reality for such students of being “over-age” in their particular grade level (Custodio, 2011). Finally, teachers and schools often struggle with multiple unfamiliar languages depending on their students’ home countries, a situation that can be confusing and overwhelming for site personnel. This chapter will review such mitigating factors in the education of secondary-level immigrant youth.
This literature review examines the education of immigrant youth by analyzing specific academic and linguistic theories in education. Krashen’s (1992) theory of language acquisition is outlined within this literature review, as this is a theory of
particular importance in the academic field concerning the education of English language learners. Krashen’s (1992) theory of language acquisition is discussed in terms of its application to the instruction of secondary-level immigrant youth, describing the
connection between the theory and essential classroom practices. Cummins’ (2009) work concerning pedagogical orientations within a transformative multiliteracy framework is brought forth to evaluate the manner in which English learners, specifically newcomer youth, are instructed within the varying program options. Both Gay’s (2010) and Ladson- Billing’s (1994) concepts of culturally relevant teaching practices are illustrated in this section, analyzing these practices as they pertain to the instruction of newcomer immigrant youth in the classroom setting. Finally, this literature review will introduce and discuss the notion of academic self-concept, looking closely at both the connection
between students’ academic self-concept levels and their achievement in school and the correlation between academic self-concept and students’ English language acquisition.
Lastly, as a result of the political environment in which immigrant youth are being educated, the distinctive linguistic and academic needs of newcomer immigrant youth, and the guiding theories in the field of English learner and immigrant education, various program options have been created to educate such students. This literature review introduces early bilingual education program models and further discusses current traditional and specialized program placements options for newcomer students. More traditional placement such as bilingual, English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, and sheltered content, are compared to an alternative program option, herein referred to as a newcomer program, which has emerged in great numbers over the past three decades (Short & Boyson, 2004). The manner in which newcomer programs are established is brought forth, looking closely at both the organizational and structural components, as well as the community and parent outreach pieces common to the majority of these programs. The use of these programs to assist students in becoming familiar with the schooling practices in the United States is additionally addressed within this literature review.
The Sociopolitical and Demographic Contexts of Immigration
Immigrant families comprise a significant segment of the United States population, in fact, as of 2010 immigrants account for 12.9% of U.S. residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012), “the highest percentage in [over] 70 years” (Garcia, 2005, p.10). After a mid-century decline in the number and percentage of foreign-born individuals
residing in the United States, the sustained rapid growth and high levels of immigration have led to the foreign-born population more than quadrupling in the past 40 years from less than 10 million in the 1970s to 40 million in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The rapid increase in the number of immigrants relocating to the United States can likely be traced to the tolerant provisions of the 1965 Immigration Act, which abolishedprior national-origin quotas, in addition to the formerly sizeable American economy (Portes &Rumbaut, 2006). The percentage of foreign-born residents of the United States is rapidly climbing towards its former high point, which occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century when immigrants accounted for approximately 14.7 percent of the American population (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). The steady increase of foreign-born people entering the United States indicates this segment of the population will continue to grow in the future (Fix & Passel, 2003).
As the foreign-born population grows in the U.S., the Limited English Proficient (LEP) populace is concurrently increasing at a markedly high rate. Short and Boyson affirm that English language learners are the fastest growing segment of the preK-12 student population, in that “from 1998-1999 to 2008-2009, the English language learner preK-12 population grew 51%, while total preK-12 enrollment, which includes English language learners grew only 7.2%” (2012, p. 1). The population of Limited English Proficient persons has increased most rapidly in the six largest immigrant receiving states, California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey, in that as of 2010, 65% of all foreign-born residents reside in such states (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Schools in other states have also seen a dramatic increase in non-English speaking and LEP students in the past decade, and, according to a study recently conducted by the
Urban institute, “one child in five attending U.S. schools now lives at a home where English is not the primary language” (Custodio, 2011). Despite the fact that the LEP population is growing far more quickly in secondary school than in elementary school (Capps et. al. 2005), the majority of the funding for bilingual resources and language acquisition had been directed to the elementary level (Boyson & Short, 2003; Capps et. al. 2005), leaving many secondary schools with inadequate funding to support this growing student population.
Finally, though not universal, many immigrant families face economic difficulties upon entry to the United States, in that many have emigrated from poor, developing countries. Camarota reports the poverty rate for immigrants to be 50 percent higher than that of natives, with immigrants and their U.S. – born children (under age 21) making up 22 percent of all persons living in poverty (2001). Fix and Passel stipulate that while one in five total children in the United States are foreign-born or children of immigrants, one in four of the low-income (under 200% of poverty) children in this country are either first- or second-generation immigrant youth (2003). Additionally, at the secondary schooling level, children of immigrants have seen a consistent increase in the rate of persons living within an economically disadvantaged income level, from 34% in 1980 to 47% in 2000 (Capps et. al., 2005). In analyzing such income levels of all LEP students, as of 2000, 60% of secondary-level LEP children lived in economically disadvantaged financial situations, suggesting a high correlation between limited English proficiency and poverty (Capps et. al., 2005).
The poverty faced by many foreign-born persons can be difficult to overcome, as much of the population does not possess the credentialing necessary to achieve upward
mobilization in the U.S. In his study on immigration and schools, Camarota asserts that the percentage of immigrants without a high school diploma is 30 percent, which is more than three times the rate for natives (2001). Capps et. al. concur with Camarota when they maintain that in 2000, 35% of secondary-level children of immigrants had parents
without a high school diploma. In considering parents’ education levels, Capps et. al. further contend that in 2000, 48% of the total LEP elementary school student population and 35% of all LEP secondary-level students had parents who not completed high school, as compared to 11% and 9% respectively of English proficient children. Parents’
education levels are of particular importance, in that children from families with less formal education tend to achieve at lower levels than children from families that are more highly educated (Garcia, 2005). These statistics further serve as a strong rationale for the creation and implementation of supportive programs designed to specifically target the needs of immigrant youth. The next section will give a succinct overview of the
trajectory language policy as it has been passed and implemented both nationally and at the California state level.
A Brief History of Language Policy in the United States
Language policy in the United States, in particular bilingual educational policy, has seen more permissive periods, from the establishment of the country through the late 1800’s and again during the 1950’s through the 1970’s, and more restrictive periods, from the 1900’s to the 1940’s, and later from the 1980’s until present times (Baker, 2011; Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004; Crawford, 1999). During the permissive periods, the focus has been on quality educational policy, the goal being to educate students to their highest
potential possible with only a piece of that education centering on the acquisition of English (Brisk, 2005; Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004). In a quality education model, students are taught concepts through their native languages while they acquire English, and, in addition, students’ home cultures and value systems are utilized in their instruction. Conversely, during the restrictive periods of language policy, the United States has pushed for a more compensatory educational policy, policy that promotes pedagogical practices that solely focus on the acquisition of English and the path to achieve English proficiency (Brisk, 2005; Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004). In a compensatory model, English is viewed as the fundamental mode through which students are to be educated in their varying academic settings (Brisk, 2005; Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004). These shifts in language policy often follow the changing viewpoints of the political parties in power, as well as the changing perspectives of the people within the nation often due to changes in the economy. These shifts can also be tied to the periods of nativism or, alternately, the periods of cultural acceptance that have encapsulated the country since its inception. The following sections will describe some of the key pieces of language policy that have been passed into law, and their effects on the education of immigrant youth in this nation.
Early Language Education Policy
In the early days, groups from various European nations established schools that worked to preserve their various heritages and maintain their mother tongues as cultural preservation was one of the reasons, along with the original impetus of religious freedom, that brought the Pilgrims to America (Crawford, 1999). As early as 1694, German
German, which prevailed until the early twentieth century (Crawford, 1999). By the mid 1800’s, both public and private German-English schools were operating in such major cities as Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and St. Louis (Crawford, 1999). In 1840, in the state of Ohio Germans-Americans even “persuaded the Ohio legislature to pass a law requiring school boards to teach German whenever
‘seventy-five freeholders’ demanded it in writing” (Tyack, 1974). The resulting schools were some of the first official bilingual schools in the nation, instructing students in the primary grades in both English and German during the literacy portion of their day and in German for their arithmetic, geography, and other subjects; moving to more English instruction as the kids progressed through their years of schooling (Crawford, 1999; Tyack, 1974). In addition, “in 1853 German children residing in districts where there were no special provisions for language instruction were permitted to transfer to German schools” (Tyack, 1974, p. 106), further demonstrating the importance placed on bilingual instruction.
The language policy seen in Ohio was adopted in Louisiana in 1847, though French was the prevailing language rather than German, and in 1848 the Territory of New Mexico authorized Spanish-English bilingual education (Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004; Crawford, 1999). This period of American educational history was one in which the use of multiple languages in school and society was viewed as a means of uniting a nation of diverse language backgrounds and to ensure that all were able to understand the
information necessary to validate the political system of the new nation (Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004; Crawford, 1999). This period of permissive language policy lasted until the late nineteenth century, when a resurgence of nativism sparked by such groups as the
American Protective Association marked the point of decline for bilingual education (Baker, 2011; Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004; Crawford, 1999).
14th Amendment of the United States Constitution
On July 7, 1868, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted, creating improved conditions for many within the nation through three large- scale clauses: the Citizenship Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause created a broader definition of citizenship and overruled the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision of 1857, which stated that people of African descent could not be citizens within the United States. The Due Process Clause prohibited the government, either at the state or the federal level, from denying citizens life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. The Equal Protection Clause provided all citizens of the nation equal protection under the law, and has been of great importance within educational policy as it was the basis by which schools were desegregated under the landmark Supreme Court decision of 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. As Alberto Ochoa states in his critique of early language policy, “the 14th Amendment (1868) provides four directives: (1) protects the privileges and immunities of all citizens; (2) provides equal protection under the law; (3) gives Congress the power to enforce by legislation; and (4) establishes the principles of equal opportunity” (1995, p. 232).
In considering the implications of the 14th Amendment on language policy, Ochoa asserts “the concept of equal educational opportunity for linguistically diverse persons has evolved from a series of judicial, legislative, and administrative rulings that can be traced back to the U.S Constitution” (1995, p. 231), specifically the 14th Amendment.
After its passage, the nation’s courts struggled to define the parameters of the Equal Protection Clause, which ultimately resulted in the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision of 1896. Plessy v. Ferguson “advanced the concept of equal opportunity as meaning ‘separate but equal’” (Ochoa, 1995, p. 232), insofar as the Supreme Court interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to mean that equality must be enforced in terms of races, yet they believed it did not mean that distinctions based on color needed to be abolished or they needed to enforce social equality (Ochoa, 1995). It was not until 1954 and the Brown v. Board of Education decision that the courts determined that according to the 14th Amendment, “separate but equal” was in fact unconstitutional according to the Equal Protection Clause, and therefore all students, regardless of ethnicity, must have equal access to a high-quality education. These decisions have played a large role in language policy, as well as policy that affects the education of immigrant youth, as these policies have assured students the opportunity to receive a high-caliber education
regardless of ethnicity, and they have laid the groundwork for policies such as the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 to be passed into law.
Bilingual Education Act of 1968
In 1967, Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas introduced an initiative that would become the first piece of federal legislation to directly address the needs of Limited English Proficient students. On January 2, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the initiative, entitled the Bilingual Education Act, into law making it Title VII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This action came just a few years after the signing of the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it demonstrated a
commitment on the part of the federal government to promote students’ home languages as a means of educating limited English proficient youth as they were working to acquire English language and literacy skills. In describing the genesis and key components of the law, language policy writer James Crawford states, “the new Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorized resources to support educational programs, to train teachers and aides, to develop and disseminate instructional materials, and to encourage parent involvement” (1999, p. 40). In its infancy, the act specifically targeted poor students who were, according to the law, “educationally disadvantaged because of their language” (Crawford, 1999, p. 40), making the focus of the new law compensatory rather than quality in nature (Brisk, 2005; Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004).
This Bilingual Education Act did not require schools and districts to implement bilingual programs, but rather provided funding for school districts enrolling large numbers of language minority students (García & Kleifgen, 2010). Within two years of its ratification, 21 states enacted bilingual programs, but rather than honoring the original intent of Title VII, most states created transitional bilingual programs, their sole aim being the rapid acquisition of English (Baker, 2011; Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004). The act did not specify the type of bilingual program required or for how long or in what capacity it would be implemented in the school districts, and therefore, due to its ambiguous nature,