Adult immigrant language education in California: policy, politics & the role of practitioner research, a case in point Anne Whiteside City College of.

Adult immigrant language education in California:

policy, politics &

the role of practitioner research, a case in point

Anne WhitesideCity College of San Francisco

(San Francisco State University)[email protected]

Kings’ CollegeNovember 2, 2011

Grassroots language planning

“Language Planning from the Bottom up”Nancy Hornberger

(1996)“Indigenous Literacies in the Americas:Language Planning from the Bottom up” Contributions to the Sociology of Language, 75. Mouton de Gruyter

• Educating policymakers: representing practice issues at the policy level, advocacy

• Educating/empowering practitioners

Outline

1. General US context for immigration• Socio-economic changes & globalization

2. California: the Sociolinguistic context • Immigration to California: some demographics• Reception of immigrants at 3 levels: policy, politics, communities

3. Practitioner Research: the CCSF ESL Study • Study rationale, design, data collection findings• What we learned in the process• Future directions

4. General discussion: advocacy/pragmatic issues

Part 1. US contextSocio-economic change and globalization

• Post-industrial economy: loss of manufacturing jobs

• Growth of professional, business sector/ low skilled labor/service sector

• Increased income disparity

Foreign-born in US at historic high

40,000,000 FB 12.9% of US population

Growth in immigration:1990-2000= +57.45%

2000-2010= +28.4%

Highest growth states: S. Carolina (88.4%)Tennessee (81.8%)Arkansas (78.7%)Kentucky (75.1%)

Source: 2010 American Community Survey (ACS)

Globalization & the informal economy:

To stay competitive internationally• cheap labor • reliance on undocumented immigrants

Undocumented/unauthorized immigrant pop. Pew Hispanic Center estimates

US: (in millions)• 2000: 8.4 • 2007: 12 • 2009: 11.1• (28% of foreign born)

US: major events & immigration policy

NAFTA 1993– Increased regional interdependence btw Mexico, US,

Canada,– flow of Information/human & economic capital

Sept. 11, 2001– Emphasis on security and control

INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service)

becomes

ICE (Immigration Control Enforcement)Under the Department of Homeland Security

Whole US:National origins of immigrants

2009

Part 2. CaliforniaNational origins of immigrants in California:

2009

Immigration to CAIncrease despite tighter controls

Source: MPI fact sheet

Year # of Foreign born % of population

1990 6,458,825 21.70%

2000 8,864,255 26.20%

2010 10,150,429 27.20%

California: Foreign-born &

legal status

• btw 2.5-2.7 million undocumented

• 9.3% of labor force

2007 to 2009: declined by 8%

Foreign-born in California& schooling

2008 Immigrants accounted for:

• 30.1 % of college-educated workers age 25+

• 78.8% of civilian employed workers with no high school degree

• Source MPI fact sheet

California is multilingual!

California Foreign-born & language:

Source MPI American Community Survey 2009, 1990,2000 census

Foreign born 1990 2000 2009Speak only English 12.4 10.9 9.3

Speak L2 87.6 89.1 90.7Speak English VW 31.2 31.1 32

Speak Eng. >VW 56.4 57.9 58.7

Linguistic assimilation: Alba 2005

• Bilingualism more common than in the past

• most children of immigrants speak L1

at home, particularly children of Latin American immigrants (L1 Spanish)

How immigrants are received/perceived?

Concepts from Alejandro Portes (1995)• “assimilation”/”acculturation” vs

“modes of incorporation”= processes that structure integration

3 levels of incorporation:– Policy– Mainstream society (political discourse)– Local community

• economic embeddedness, nested economies

Federal level: immigration policy

• Homeland Security & ICE: control, increase in deportation, particularly criminals

• Federal comprehensive reform continues to fail– Republicans divided: business vs “nativists”– Democrats divided: labor vs rights

Federal level: Language policy

• no explicit, formalized language policy at the federal level

• attempts to pass “English-only” federal laws have failed

• default policy: linguistic status quo– English as a symbolic “imagined community”– Monolingualism the norm– American =Monolingual speaker of English

Federal funding for ESOL

1998: Federal Adult Education & Family Literacy Act, Title II Workforce Investment Act (WIA)

WIA funds• Adult Basic Education (ABE)• English as a Second Language (ESL)• Adult Secondary Education (ASE)

Goal “to enable adults to become more employable, productive, and responsible citizens through literacy”

Language of WIA

• “increase the basic reading, writing, speaking, and math skills necessary for adults to obtain employment and self-sufficiency and to successfully advance in the workforce”

• “assist immigrants who are not proficient in English in improving their reading, writing, speaking, and math skills and acquiring an understanding of the American free enterprise system, individual freedom, and the responsibilities of citizenship.”

Mainstream society: Political frames

Liberal: “equity” “level playing field”“rights & responsibilities”

Conservative: “freedom (from government interference)” “accountability” “security”

Attitudes related to economic changes

2000-2005 economic boom• low-wage immigrant workers, in particular

Mexican/Central American, contribute to construction and service sectors

immigrants=good

2007-2011 bust• high unemployment rates immigrant competition

immigrants=bad

Mainstream discourses of immigration:“Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe

free”

Worthy: hardworking “up by your own bootstraps” American Dream

Unworthy: “illegal aliens” don’t pay taxes freeloaders

Education policyBush-era legacies

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 2001 Title III Goal= “equity”• Funds limited-English proficient (LEP) Student Program • “ensure that all …attain English proficiency, develop high levels of

academic attainment in English, and meet the same challenging state academic standards as all other students”

Title III =“accountability”• Move through the sequence one year per level.

General• Emphasis on empirical research to justify spending

– “Science-based”, “evidence-based” i.e. quantitative

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE)

Accountability:

National Reporting SystemDefinition of “success”

Outcome measures • Gain/Enter /Retain Employment• Obtain a Secondary Credential or GED• Enter Postsecondary Education

Stae level: California language policy:

1986 Constitutional amendment: English the Official language of the government

Ballot initiatives:

1994 Proposition 187 SOS prohibits undocumented immigrants from using health, education and other social services won but found unconstitutional in federal court

1998 Proposition 227 “English for the Children” requires all public schools to conduct instruction in English, that ELLs be taught “overwhelmingly in English”

California Dream Act

(Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors)

Passed Oct. 2011

California students who are undocumented immigrants will qualify for state-funded financial aid for college“equity”

California: Funding for Adult education

Adult ed (Title 5)• based on average daily attendance (a.d.a.)

ESOL• State formula driven by # of LEP adults with

less than HS education• 47% of LEP adults had HS or more

Underweighted for those who need basic skills

California initiatives:Career & Technical education (CTE)

Liberal agenda: the EDGE campaign

“California’s Future Workforce—Who Will Staff Our Economy”

• “Increasingly global markets and international competition, rapid technological advancement and an aging workforce confront this state with a critical challenge. If we do not meet it…theconsequences will be borne by all of the state’s residents”—

• “CTE including a focus on adults is a criticalpart of the response to globalization”

Local level: “ethnic enclave” communities spaces where immigrants may have little economic capital but lots of social capital

“Embeddedness”• Social capital:

– Networks provide jobs, housing, protection– layered, embedded identities – “co-ethnic” ties between immigrants (Smith

2006)

• Symbolic capital: L1– ethnic businesses

Data from my dissertation:

Whiteside (2006) “We are the Explorers: Yucatec Maya-speaking transnational migrants negotiating multilingual California”

Increase in workplace/community multilingualism:

Site A: Mongolian, Czech, Chinese, Tagalog, Spanish, Maya

Site B: Greek, British English, Spanish, Site C: Chinese, Malay, Singlish (Singaporean English)

Spanish MayaSite D: Italian, Arabic, Spanish, MayaSite E: Wolof, French, Spanish, Maya

• use of lingua franca English

• linguistic “crossing”: Don Francisco & the Vietnamese merchant

Translocal speech communities

• phone cards, skype, extended Maya-Spanish daily communication with home, participation at parties

• watch home videos, apartments with 18 people

• read Diario de Yucatan online to find out about Yucatecans in North Bay Area

Time-scales & immigrant jobs

Cuisine Owner Staff

Mexican chain Anglo Latino/Maya

Japanese/French Mexican

Turkish Arabic Arabic/ Latino

Middle Eastern ?Czech, UK, Arabic, Japanese, Maya

Middle Eastern ?  

Italian/Greek Greek Russian, Greek, UK, Maya

JS: changed restaurant jobs 6 times in 2 years

In practice…

Normalized: hiring domestic, day labor, agricultural, janitorial, construction, and contractors

Two-tiered civil rights: Documented vs undocumented immigrants

• Right to own, but not drive cars

• Right to protection of police, tenant/labor laws, but afraid to report abuse

• Right to assemble, but worry about arrest and deportation

Linguistic effects of embeddedness

• value of L1

• linguistic and cultural “crossing” , genres, styles

• competence in lingua franca varieties

• truncated repertoires, checkered competencies” (Blommaert 2010)

Where does Standard English fit in this picture?

Modes of incorporation: Summary

Policy themes: punitive/control & equity• “English only” as a security, policing linguistic boundaries• “equity” ignores the starting point• “accountability” but measures based on what?

Macro, mainstream social themes: ambivalent• changes with economic outlook• benefits of cheap labor/threat of competition

Local themes: security/ social obligations tied to L1 • nested economic ties• value of L1 and Culture1• nested affiliations/ crossings

Part 3. Practitioner research the California Community College context

• 110 Colleges• 2.9 million Ss

– “providing workforce training, basic skills education and preparing students for transfer to 4-year institutions”

Incoming Ss and basic skills– 75% unprepared for college English– 90% unprepared for college math

Source: CDE ESL Basic Skills report 2010

Practitioner research the 2010 CCSF ESL Study

Context: City College of San Francisco– 110,000 Ss

ESL department– 23,000 Ss

• credit division: tuition– 3,000 Ss

• non-credit division: open enrollment, free• levels literacy, 1-9

– 20,000 Ss

Political context for ESL study

Issue: equity

• Ss taking “too long” to get through basic skills classes, low completion rates

CCSF Board member• Pressure to get more ESL Ss into CTECBOs• document needs of ESL Ss

>Funding from CCSF Chancellor’s Office for ESL study

Context for CCSF ESL Study

The problem : Accountability

1. ARC = Accountability Reporting for the California Community Colleges• AB 1417 Focus on Results

Career Development and College Preparation (CDCP) Progress and Achievement rate=• # of CDPC Ss who

– transitioned to credit– transferred to a 4-year institution – received a noncredit certificate of completion or competency.

CDCP rate CCSF• 6.3% of the 2004-05 cohort• 7.1% in 2006-07.

Prior CCSF study/report 1998-2007 Spurling, Seymour & Chisman 2008

Findings• 80% of non-credit ESL students started at levels 1-4,

more than 50% in Level 1 or Literacy

• only 9% of these advanced to “Intermediate” levels or above (5-9)

Conclusion • lack of advancement to higher levels represents a

failure of the ESL program to provide students with “means to succeed”

The elephant in the room

Undocumented Ss• needed for ADA• “Don’t ask don’t tell” about legal statusBUT• must pay prohibitive out-of-state tuition for credit classes ($108 vs $669 per 3 unit class)• Obstacles for taking CTE classes: ESL level,

out of state status

ESL Study: Purpose

• Document Ss characteristics associated with movement through ESL sequence

• Understand why so few students continue beyond beginning level classes (1-4) to intermediate and advanced levels (5-9)

Study design

Research questions:

• Do non-credit ESL levels 5-9 have proportionately more students with secondary education prior to coming to the US than levels 1-4?

• Which other factors might affect whether students with less

formal schooling participate in intermediate and advanced classes?

• What are some reasons ESL students give for dropping out after level 4, and what motivated them to return?

Quantitative pieceCapture Ss characteristics, one “day in the life”

• Survey, 13 questions

• Classes randomly sampled (day only for sampling reasons)

• 16 classes, 2 per level (1,3,5,8)

• Four campuses, 2 to reflect distribution of linguistic diversity of whole college, 2 to represent 2 dominant language groups

• Surveys translated into 7 languages for levels 1 and 3.

• 650 respondents

Findings: education in L1

• Increasing proportion of students with secondary & post-secondary schooling with each level

• level 1, a majority of students students > 3 years HS

• level 8, few Ss > 3 yrs HS

Chart 1. Survey data (N=650 days students only)

Level 1 Level 3 Level 5 Level 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

Educational Attainment by ESL Level: Survey

PrimarySome SecondarySecondaryUndergradPostgrad

Percent

CASAS* Test data: more dramatic

N=1630 day + eve SsLevel 1• 33% of Ss only primary schooling• 60+% less than 10th grade

level 5• 70% 10th grade and above

Level 8• 80% secondary+• almost 50% post-secondary

*(Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems)

Chart 2. CASAS data (N=1,630 day and evening students)

Level 1 Level 3 Level 5 Level 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

Educational Attainment by ESL Level: CASAS

Primary Some Secondary

Secondary Undergrad

Postgrad

Percent

ESL Study Findings: education in L1

Having more years of schooling prior to arrival in the US appears to have a significant impact on reaching level 8, but not level 5.

• multivariate regression analysis shows a significant correlation between prior schooling and being in level 8.

• strong correlation with years in the U.S. and English education prior to arrival.

• no significant difference between patterns of daily use of English of low-educated and high educated Ss

Educational attainment in L1 and placement in advanced English

Table 1: Logit regression for likelihood of being in ESL 8

* significant at the .05 level ** significant at the .01 level *** significant at the .001 level.

VariablesCoefficient (std. error) P>z

Female-.14 (.17) 0.42

Age -.009 (.006) 0.14

Years of schooling .06 (.02) 0.01**

Multilingualism .34 (.18) 0.06

Years in U.S. .04(.01) 0.00***

Years of English prior to emigration

.11 (.02) 0.00***

N291  

Findings summary

• Ss with more years formal schooling more likely to have formal language instruction

• Ss at advanced levels had a median of 4-6 years of prior language study

Prior language instruction

Level 1 Level 3 Level 5 Level 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3.43.8

4.4

6

Years of 2nd language instruction in home country

Informal exposure to English

• students with less formal education have a higher median of years in the US than students with three plus years of secondary school

• informal exposure to English may help build oral proficiency and compensate for weaker academic skills

Years since arrival in US

  Level 5 Level 8

8- yrs schooling 13 9.5

9+ yrs schooling 5 7

Difference: +8 years +2.5 years

Students with less and more schooling

Qualitative data collection

• Interviewed 43 Ss over a week

• 3 of 4 campuses, levels 1,3,5,8

• Subjects identified by teachers as few or many yrs formal schooling; if unknown, Ss either struggling or thriving

• in English Spanish or Cantonese

Qualitative study findings

1.“Years of schooling” not equivalent: • 4 - 11 hour days, rural and urban, etc.

Qualitative findings

Reasons for dropping out:• Interference from work, marriage, birth of a child, illness

– “I didn’t study consecutively, I had to leave for work, back and forth, it never ends. For about 8 semesters I have come, but it was always interrupted.”

• Other priorities– “They feel that they speak English now. But they don’t want to continue, and

they say, “Oh I learned my basic English, now I understand basic English and I can…, they feel “Oh I speak English.”

Reasons for returning

– "because I understand my English is small”

Learning trajectories

S1: 24 year-old Mexican man (12 years of schooling)

2007 2008 2009 2010__/\___________/\___________/\________________/\__arrived ESL 1 dropped returned ESL 3 Reason for dropping: had two jobsReason for returning: quit second job.Need for English: “For a better job and to open doors”

Learning trajectories

S2: 49 year-old Vietnamese man (11 years of schooling)

1987 ?

2010_/\_ _________________/\___________________/\___arrived, ESL literacy A ESL 3 ESL 5

Reason for dropping: workNeed for English: “for me to go doctor anywhere. I don’t need my kids support.”

Learning trajectories

S3: 30 year-old Mexican woman (6 years of schooling)1999 2008 2009 2010__/\______________________/\________/\________/\_____arrived ESL 4 dropped ESL 5

Need for English: uses English and Spanish at work, uses what she’s learning in her daily life, but rarely speaks at home

Learning trajectories

S4: 50 year-old Salvadorian man(6 years of schooling)

1981 1984 ? ? ?2010__/_____/_______/______________/______________/__________/__arrived ESLs 1-4 dropped out studied for GED in Spanish, passed ESL 8

Reasons for dropping: to study for GEDNeed for English: offered a job as a dispatcher and needed more English. Doesn’t want to take credit classes doesn't want credit, too much commitment.

ESL Study implications

• midrange of education levels in intermediate and advanced ESL classes tends to be relatively high,

• students with less than 9th grade education may experience particular difficulties as they progress through the ESL sequence

• Interrupted learning normal for non-academic reasons

• extra academic support, curricula for non-academic learners at low levels

• flexible programs, insure that students are not penalized for interrupted study

• opportunities to review when Ss re-enter.

Study Aftermath

• caught in the middle, local politics

• report dropped

• Interest in another study recommending ESL be moved from CCC to adult schools

Future directions

Applied for a grant to develop program to support less academic Ss that includesFor teachers: • Curriculum design based on feedback from Ss on challenges• Workshops for teaching language awareness without

grammar, building L2 literaciesFor Ss• A “language acquisition specialist” counsellor to work on

study skills, motivation to continue• Tech tutoring• Mp3s for use at home

Future directions

Open discursive spaces for• language ecology• “language as resource” vs “language as system”• measuring changes in literacy practices vs. changes in

proficiency (Reder LSAL)• commitment to non-academic learners • use new science-based research paradigms

Complexity/Dynamic systems theories (Larsen-Freeman et al)