It's All Greek to Me Paper

It’s All Greek To Me!

Amye Aggen

Gina Green

Nonie Hrabik

Katie Law

Research Seminar, EDU 496

Dr. Merryellen Schulz

Spring 2004

I. Introduction

II. Review of Literature

III. Definitions

IV. Purpose of Study

V. Hypotheses

VI. Methodology

VII. Limitations and Assumptions

VIII. Analysis of Data

IX. Conclusion

X. Recommendations

XI. Works Cited

XII. Presentation

I. Introduction

Bilingual Education is on the rise in schools today. Many students come to our schools knowing very little of the English language. English Language Learners, who come from homes where a language other than English is spoken, are one of the fastest – growing student populations in U.S. schools (Slavin & Cheung 2004).

The demographics of the U.S. are changing dramatically. This means that classroom across the country are also changing. For example, in 1982, only 1 of 10 children in the U.S. schools were Hispanic, that is, a member of a family from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Columbia, Venezuela, or another Central or South American country (Bahamonde, 1999). Bahamonde found that by the year 2020, this ratio will grow to approximately one in four, primarily because of immigration (1999).

II. Review of Literature

Overall, it appears that unless public schools include programs designed to appropriately address the second – language-learning needs of Hispanic and other language-minority students, a significant number students may continue to struggle throughout their academic years or leave school altogether (Bahamonde, 1999).

Dropout

Data suggests that non-native English speakers experience considerable difficulty succeeding in school (Bahamonde, 1999). Hispanic students have the highest overall high school dropout rate, approximately 30%, of any other ethnic group in the United States (Bahamonde, 1999). Bahamonde also found that approximately 46% of foreign-born Hispanics drop out of high school (1999). The thoughts behind this state that the students didn’t learn the foundation of the English language and therefore didn’t have the ability to communicate effectively.

Dropouts come from all socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, although minority students from low SES families appear to be particularly at risk (Rumberger, 1987; Wehlage et al., 1989).

In the article Era of Prosperity Largely Skips Latino Teens, the authors talk about the increasing gap between Latino youth and the rest of the youth in the United States. The white and black youth of America have enjoyed the strong economy and better education in the recent past. They have been able to occupy their free time with tame actives such as music lessons and team or individual sports (Davis-Packard 2000). Latino youth on the other hand seem to be profiting less from the economic prosperity.

Most disturbing of all, the high school dropout rates for Spanish speakers have not improved in the past quarter century (US department of Education, 1998). Students who enter school with Limited English Proficiency are among the most likely of all students to be at risk for school failure (August & Hakuta, 1997).

One in three Hispanic females dropout of high school, a figure twice as high as the national dropout rate of sixteen percent (National Center for Education Statistics, 1980). The basic reasons Hispanic girls to dropout are because they are pregnant or they are going to get married (Montecel, 2001). When Hispanic girls go to school they are enrolled into home economic and clerical courses (Montecel, 2001). They are being channeled into options that have little career or income potential (Montecel, 2001).

The main reasons boys drop out of school is that they have school problems such as poor grades or truancy, and they feel that working for wages is more important than attending school (Montecel, 2001). They drop out not because English is not their first language, but because Limited English Proficient students are not being serve appropriately by schools (Maroney, 1998).

From underage drinking to sex to carrying knives, Latino teens have been showing an increase in risky behavior during the past decade. A 1997 study by the Urban Institute showed that nearly twice as many ninth and tenth grade Hispanic students were engaging in five or more risky activities as in 1991(Davis-Packard 2000). “If a 15 year old student arrives in the US with no English skills, it is highly unlikely that they are going to be able to learn English and keep up with all the rest of the material” says Carola Suarez-Orozco, co-director of the Harvard Immigration Project in Cambridge, Mass (Davis-Packard 2000).

The National Coalition of Hispanic Health and Human Services Organizations run a Strengthening Family Curriculum Program that works with community-based organizations around the US to educate Hispanic teens about HIV (Davis-Packard 2000). The Latin American Youth Center in Washington pays Hispanic teens to attend and help run a six-week sex-education program (Davis-Packard 2000). “Theses are long-term commitments to working with youth. This is not an ad campaign,” says Ms. Kaplan, executive director of the center (Davis-Packard 2000). This article states that 30 percent of the Hispanic population had less that a ninth-grade education, while only 5 percent of the whites and 9 percent of African-Americans were in the same situation (Davis-Packard 2000).

Poverty also seems to be an indicator of teens participating in risky behaviors. “When there is a control for the socio-economic factors in statistical surveys, what you find is that the differences [among ethnic groups’ behaviors] disappear,” says Richard Jessor, professor of psychology at the University of Colorado at Boulder (Davis-Packard 2000). According to the US government, more than one third of all Hispanic families have incomes below the poverty line and poverty plays a direct role in encouraging risky behavior (Davis-Packard 2000).

Some historians caution against lumping Hispanics together in one giant category. Such grouping is irrespective of economics, how long a family has been in the US, or their country of origin. “It’s a lot of people, from a lot of different countries,” says Joel Wolfe, a historian at Rice University in Houston. In time, Latino youths will likely surmount many of the challenges facing them, as have other immigrant groups, from the Italians to the Irish. “One of the great myths is that certain model minorities didn’t go through this,” says Wolf. “But historical research shows they did.” (Davis-Packard 2000). Those who did learn English well enough and soon enough proceeded with their schooling; those who were not so adept at language acquisitions dropped out of school and went to work in factories or on farms (Porter, 2000).

YEAR ROUND EDUCATION

Student Achievement, Attendance, and Costs of Year-Round School

Waterman & Watkins (1999) suggest there are three reasons for implementing year-round education, “(1) to house students, (2) to improve student achievement, and (3) to save money” (p. 2). Student achievement in year-round schools, according to existing evidence, is either equal to or superior to traditional calendar student achievement (McMillen, 2001). Merino (1983) found no differences in achievement between students on a year-round calendar compared to a traditional calendar (McMillen, 2001). Worthern and Zsiray (1994) reevaluated the effectiveness of year-round education on the basis of several studies that focused on achievement, cost, satisfaction, and other outcomes. They concluded that

“(a) achievement in year-round schools is equal to or greater than achievement in traditional schools, (b) teachers and students in year-round schools have more positive attitudes, (c) most parents are satisfied with a year-round program if it is well implemented, and (d) single-track programs cost as much or more than traditional school programs, whereas multi-track programs can result in significant cost savings if the programs are carried out well” (McMillen, 2001, p. 3).

Kneese (1996) also conducted a similar review of fifteen studies that focused specifically on “achievement in traditional calendar and year-round schools.” She concluded that

“In Kneese’s (2000) study, she found that year-round students outperformed traditional students in 67.8% of performance studies, based on thirty studies comparing the performance of year-round school students with traditional students” (Morris, 2002, p. 9).

There have also been studies that have found no significant achievement differences (Should School is…2003). Jill Parker, marketing director of Epley & Associates and vice president of Time to Learn, states, “It has been proven that there is no significant difference in student achievement. Test scores are fiat” (Powell, 1995, p. 2). Campell (1994) found no educational achievement differences, and Gandara and Fish (1994) also found no differences in math and reading achievement, except at one year-round school (cited in Waterman & Watkins, 1999, p. 2).

The goal of year-round schooling is to improve education (World News Tonight, 1998). Parents and teachers have argued that the year-round calendar improves the educational process, but poses learning challenges when other students are out of school (Strader, 2004). Students need consistent attention to make and sustain steady progress, therefore, long summer vacations can be educationally devastating (Dossett, Munoz, 2000). Theolanda Harewood, principal of Horace Mann Elementary, states that “with year-round schooling you have a more continuous program, and with shorter breaks kids retain more and there is less review time needed” (Strader, 2004). A long summer break can mean that children forget much of what they learned the previous school year (Inger, 1994, Should School Be…, 2003):

“Every year, teachers have to go over the previous year’s material to keep the class up to speed. It leaves some students who are already are at risk behind the rest of the class. Students need some sort of academic activity over the summer months besides sitting around the house watching television or playing video games,” (Year-Round Schools…2000 p.7).

This can be a disadvantage for non-English speaking students and learning disabled students because it takes them longer to retain information (Inger, 1994, Piper, 1994).

Who does Year-Round School Affect?

The results of national surveys of parents who have children who attend year-round school have shown that a majority of parents support year-round education (Piper, 1994). Parents perceive that schools with year-round calendars have higher attendance, better discipline, and are safer (Shield and Oberg, 2000, cited in Morris, 2002 p.5).

Many parents felt that the shorter, more frequent breaks allowed for children to remain focused and interested in school (Inger, 1994). As a result, parental attitudes became progressively more positive with the idea of year-round education as the programs continued (Inger, 1994). There are many parents who believe kids learn more when they go to class year-round and do find the schedule more convenient (Elliot, 2004). When asked about the impact of the calendar, parents mentioned the change in vacation time and after-school routine, while other parents became more active in the schools (Morris, 1994).

Conversely, many parents are against year-round schooling. They complain that summer vacations are the only chances families get to spend time together and year-round schools cost more to operate (Debate: Year-Round…2002). Another article “Is Year-Round School a Good Idea,” brings up the problem of families with multiple children if everyone is on a different schedule, there wouldn’t be a family vacation at all (1998).

It is often the case that single parents who have children in different schools find it hard to adjust their schedules to fit the differing children’s schedules (Piper, 1994). Another issue is the multiple vacation schedules are often inconvenient for families (Curry, Washington, & Zykowski, 1997, cited in Hood & Freeman, 2000). Many families complain it is hard to schedule vacations when children are on different schedules; as a result, their family schedules became chaotic without the result of higher test scores for their children (Jennings & Nissen, 1998, Rasberry, 1994).

According to Lacey, “There is nothing to determine that year-round schools have helped and most parents would rather be back on a traditional schedule” (Interview, November, 1991, cited in Rasberry, 1994). A positive to year-round schooling is for parents who cannot afford childcare during the summer months or before and after school, are provided with opportunities to have their children participate in supervised activities in neighboring schools, rather than be at home unsupervised (Sheane, 1994). According to Payne, “The paramount problem is that year-round schools have the potential to break a family apart” (Rasberry, 1994).

Although parents voice concerns over year-round school, the article “Year Round Schooling Rejected,” reports that administrators have heard an overwhelming response from parents and staff members that say they like it too (1996). Fox also points out that families have said they enjoyed having a chance to take a family vacation to see the leaves in the fall and many enjoy going to Disneyland in October (Harp, 1996). Even if schools were successful in correcting the flows of year-round scheduling, schools are still battling poor home situations, parents who weren’t successful in schools, and those who don’t have a history of supporting schools (Grossman, 1998).

BILINGUAL EDUCATION FOR HISPANIC STUDENTS

A good bilingual education program enhances the learning of English and subject matter (Maroney, 1998). People need to be educated on what bilingual education is and what it is not. When people have the knowledge of what something is and what the benefits are then they are going to be more supportive of it. We need to train and prepare our teachers, so we can give Non-English speaking students the best education they deserve.

Two-thirds of the Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in the United States public schools are Spanish speakers, the group most involved in native language instruction programs (Porter, 2000). There are about 3.5 million LEP students in the United States out of 41.6 million students in the United States public schools (National Clearing, 1982).

Our vision of excellence means educating all children globally widening their access to the world so they can function knowledgeably and comfortably in a world that is interdependent, interconnected, and international (No Matter, 2000).

Bilingual education teaches English to Non-English speaking students and gives them a chance to practice it while they also learn subjects like math and science (Maroney, 1998). The purpose of bilingual education is to promote literacy and success in school for students who first language is not English (Maroney, 1998). Bilingual education was designed to overcome children’s language deficiency and to assimilate them quickly into the mainstream (Crawford, 1991).

For immigrant students, being bilingual means having the best of both worlds: their home culture and language, and American culture and the English language (Rovira, 1998). Unfortunately, people believe that children pick up a new language without any help (No Matter, 2000). Children are left to sink or swim, to make progress, unassisted, in learning the common language of the school and the community (Cardinale, 1999; Carnoy, 1999; Stein, 1999). Some Americans think that it is so easy to learn a new language. Students can do subjects in their native tongue and English will come along later (Goode, 2001).

Programs

Characteristics of an effective program includes: supportive whole school contexts, high expectations for language minority students as evidenced by active learning environments that are academically challenging, intensive staff development programs designed to assist all teachers in providing effective instruction to language minority students, and expert instructional leaders and teachers (Turner, 2002).

A program should provide an additive bilingual environment where all students share the opportunity to learn a second language while continuing to develop their native language proficiency. Classrooms should include a balance of students from non-English and English backgrounds who participate in instructional activities together.

Transitional Bilingual Education is an instructional program using two languages: English and the native language of LEP students (Turner, 2002). English usage increases as progress is made (Turner, 2002). Transitional Bilingual Education programs (TBE) vary in the amount of native language instruction provided and the duration of the program (Turner, 2002).

TBE programs provide students with the primary language instruction necessary for access to academic content allowing them to progress through school at a rate commensurate with native English speaking peers (Turner, 2002).

Most TBE programs are for Spanish speaking students (Turner, 2002). TBE does not continue after LEP students master English well enough to enter regular classes (Turner, 2002).

Since the child’s home language and culture is validated in school, students in TBE programs have improved attitudes about learning and school (Ramirez, 1991). In turn, parents are able to be more involved and supportive of their child’s academic learning (Ramirez, 1991). TBE has been criticized by some educators who see it as being overly concerned with quickly developing the English language skills of students at the expense of their learning needs or their own language development (Cardenas, 1992).

Two-way bilingual education (also known as bilingual immersion, two-way immersion, developmental bilingual and dual language programs) has taken root in many schools across the United States as an alternative to TBE programs (Two-way Bilingual, 1994).

Two-way bilingual programs emphasize language, academic, and social development and affective goals (Two-way Bilingual, 1994). Two-way curriculum is content based and focuses on the development of strong academic achievement in both languages (Two-way Bilingual, 1994). Teachers need to use techniques that make instruction more comprehensible, including experiential or hands-on activities (Two-way Bilingual, 1994).

Two-way programs aim to teach both native speakers of Spanish and native speakers of English, have them attend the same classes, and have academic subjects in both languages (Two-way Bilingual, 1994). The students initially receive ninety percent of instruction in Spanish and ten percent in English, with the amount of English increases with each grade (Two-way Bilingual, 1994).

Two-Way Programs also known as dual language programs are becoming an increasingly attractive option for schools and districts that are looking for ways to strengthen and develop the language resources of all of their students.

A dual language (DL) program integrates instruction for native English speakers and native speakers of another language. The objective is to promote high academic achievement, first and second language development, and cross-cultural understanding for all students. One of the most relevant characteristics of the DL program include having balanced student populations, with approximately 50% native English speakers and 50% native speakers of the non-English language. Teaching takes place in both languages, with at least 50% of each language being used. This type of instruction allows students to be first language models as well as second language learners.

DL programs provide both sets of students with ample exposure to two languages, allowing them to progress academically in both languages and gain an appreciation of another culture. Native language support is one component of a DL program that provides books, audio/video, and other materials in native languages.

The goals of the DL programs work toward multiple goals: the opportunity to develop and learn through their native language as well as through the English language, an additive bilingual environment that supports development of both languages, and the enhancement of student self-esteem and cross-cultural understanding.

Bilingual Teachers

Bilingual teaching is the most challenging job in any country (Benson, 2004). Bilingual teachers must bridge the linguistic and cultural gap between home and school, become respected members of community, and manage any opposition to education use of a mother tongue (Benson, 2004).

Bilingual teachers find that merely by speaking a language that a student and their parents understand, a closer and more understanding relationship will develop (Benson, 2004). This leads to a greater likelihood that the both home and school will support the children’s learning- a widely cited factor in successful bilingual programs (Cummins, 2000; Dutcher, 1995).

Some educators see bilingual education simply as a means to allow students to acquire English language skills without falling behind in other subjects (Scassa, 1996). People tend to unfortunately see LEP students as an issue that should be dealt with only by bilingual teachers, when in reality it’s an issue that needs to be dealt with by everybody both on the school site and in the district (Carlander, 1999). It’s not a bilingual teacher issue, its a school-wide and district-wide concern; it is a concern that is not going to go away (Carlander, 1999).

Pros and Cons

Bilingual supporters say bilingual education is best accomplished by teaching in the native language and gradually introducing more English as students gain literacy in their first language (Walters, 1998). Students will gain an understanding and respect for another culture other than their own.

Several authors argue that bilingual education has become a scapegoat for problems facing Hispanic students, including the dropout problem (Casanova, 1991; Krashen, 1999; Crawford, 1999; Cummins, 2000; Leistyna, 20002). The government and taxpayers are spending billions of dollars to provide these bilingual programs for LEP students and, unfortunately, many believe it is a waste of good money (Amselle, 1996; Learning in Two, 2001). The federal, state, and local governments are spending anywhere from five billion dollars to twelve billion dollars on their native language programs (Amselle, 1996).

Some English Only advocates say it’s still a bad idea for the country because bilingualism threatens to sap our national identity and divides us along ethnic lines. They fear that any government languages “sends the wrong message” to immigrants, encouraging them to believe they can be part of the USA without learning English or conforming to “American” ways.

Improving Bilingual Education

Bilingual education has done well, but it can do much better. Bilingual students have been left out of state assessments that were administered routinely to all other students (Cardinale, 1999; Carnoy, 1999; Stein, 1999); therefore, there has not been proof of higher academic achievement or higher self-esteem among students in bilingual schools (Gersten, Keating & Brengelman, 1995; Gersten, Baker, & Keating, 1998; Rothfarb, Ariza, & Urrutia, 1987).

Good bilingual programs have brought students to the 50th percentile on standardized tests of English reading by grade five (Burnham-Massey & Pina, 1990), but with a good supply of books in both first and second languages, students can go far beyond the 50th percentile.

III. Definitions

ESL: English as a Second Language, the way teachers teach English Language Learners.

ELL: English Language Learner, A student whose primary language is not English.

LEP: Limited English Proficient Student, a learner whose has some English, but is not proficient in the use of either written or the oral language.

Bilingual Education: Education in an English-language school system in which minority students with little fluency in English are taught in their native language. Teaches English to Non-English speaking student.

IV. Purpose of Study

Our purpose of our research study is to be able

to recognize the best program for the increasing enrollment

of English Language Learner students in Nebraska today.

V. Hypotheses

Derived from our literature review, a Dual Language Program

best supports ELL students rather than a Transitional

Program.

VI. Methods

We did a Quantitative study with a Qualitative element. We

did informal interviews with teachers from different

districts. We collected data from several Nebraska

Educational Websites.

VII. Assumptions and Limitations

· We assumed that the information we received from

websites was correct and current.

· We also assumed that teachers would answer honestly

during their informal interviews.

· A limitation was lack of time we had to do the

research study.

· A limitation was the availability of programs. Out of

the six schools we researched, there were only two

programs that were used between them.

· A limitation was the availability of data. We could

not find data like test scores and statistics that had

to do with a particular bilingual program.

VIII. Analysis of Data

This graph shows that even though Spanish is the majority spoken foreign language it is not the only language spoken in ESL programs. Some of the other languages included are: Arabic, Russian, Korean, and Ukrainian just to name a few.

This graph shows the comparison of English Language Learners and overall Nebraska Public Schools Enrollment. While the numbers are relatively small, English Language Learners enrollment has increased over 1,000% since the 1993-1994 school year.

We chose reading test scores in Nebraska to show the effectiveness of Transitional and Dual Language Programs in the six schools we researched. The three blue bars show scores where they use a Transitional Program and the three yellow bars show scores where they use a Dual Language Program. In comparing the two programs, Transitional is clearly the more effective program when supporting students in reading.

We chose reading test scores in Nebraska to show the effectiveness of Transitional and Dual Language Programs in the six schools we researched. The two blue bars show scores where they use a Transitional Program with the exception of one school having no test scores available. The three yellow bars show scores where they use a Dual Language Program. In comparing the two programs, Transitional has a slight advantage when supporting students in reading.

Informal Interviews

Besides collecting data from Nebraska Educational Websites, we also did informal interviews with teachers from different districts.

1. What program do you use and why?

The three schools that used Dual Language Programs responded with all positive remarks towards the program that they use. Here are three quotes used: “All students gain an appreciation for each other’s culture.” “It is routine in most other countries.” “Students do not lose their native language throughout their academic career.”

The three schools that used Transitional Programs responded with positive remarks also toward the program that they use. Here are two quotes used: “This is the most efficient program available at this time.” “Students are able to mainstream into regular classrooms faster.”

IX. Conclusions

According to our research study, our conclusion was that the data we collected didn’t support our hypothesis showing that DL programs best supports English Language Learners. In our literature review, Glen found that 90% of students in ESL programs who received instruction in their native language would have a much high chance of succeeding in school. Transitional programs proved to be the more efficient program available in Nebraska.

X. Recommendations

We recommend that schools consider implementing Transitional Programs into their school systems for their English Language Learners. We also recommend that further research to be done to explore reasons for the differences in academic scores between the two programs. For example, we would want to the teachers’ experience, teachers’ training, ethnic population, and school demographics

XI. WORKS CITED

Amselle, Jorge (1996). Failure of Bilingual Education. Policy Digest. Retrieved October 27, 2004, from http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/edu/pdedu/pdedu29.htm

Benson, Carol (2004). Do We Expect Too Much of Bilingual Teachers? Bilingual Teaching in Developing Countries. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, Vol. 7 Issue 2/3.

Cardinale, Kimberly, Carnoy, Martin, Stein, Sandra. (1999). Bilingual Education for Limited English Proficiency students local interest and resource availability as determinants of pedagogical practice. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p37.

Davis-Packard, Kent 2000. Era of Prosperity Largely Skips Latino Teens. Christian Science Monitor August 8, 2000, Vol. 92 Issue 180, page 3 Retrieved October 18, 2004 from MAS Ultra-School Edition Data Base.

Debate: Year-Round School—School Summer Vacation be Stopped? (2002). Scholastic Action, 25 (14), 4. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from eLibrary online database (Item 01633570).

Dossett, D., Munoz, M. (2000). Year-Round Education in a Reform Environment: The Impact on Student Achievement and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from ERIC online database (Item 464424).

Elliott, S. (2004). Year-Round Schools Please Parents. Dayton Daily News. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from eLibrary online database.

Freeman, D., Hood, S. (2000). Contrasting Experiences of White Students and Students of Color in a Year-Rounds High School. The Journal of Negro Education, 69, 349. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from eLibrary online database (Item 00222984).

Goode, Stephen (2001, October, 9). Porter Challenges Bilingual Education. Insight on the News, Vol. 17 Issue 34.

Grossman, K. (1998). Schools find Learning is all in the Timing. Chrisitian Science

Monitor, 90 (130), B6. Retrieved October 28, 2004, from EBSCOhost online database (08827729).

Harp, L. (1996). Year-Round Schooling Rejected. Teacher Magazine, 7 (5), 10. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from EBSCOhost online database (10466193).

Inger, M. (1994). Year-Round Education: A Strategy for Overcrowded Schools. Digest #103. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from ERIC online database (088908049).

Jennings, P., Nissen, B. (1998, September 2). A Closer Look. World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from eLibrary online database).

Krashen, Stephen (1999). Bilingual Education: Arguments For and Arguments Against. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics. Retrieved November 5, 2004, from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/Krashen3.htm

Learning in Two Languages (2001). Scholastic Action, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p42.

Maroney, Oanh, H. (1998). Bilingual Education. IDRA Newsletter. Retrieved November 2, 2004, from http://www.idra.org/Newslttr/1998/Jan/Oanh.htm

McMillen, B. (2001). A Statewide Evaluation of Academic Achievement in Year Round Schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 95 (2), 67. Retrieved October 28, 2004, from eLibrary online database (00220671).

Montecel, Maria (2001). Successful Bilingual Education Programs: Criteria for Exemplary Practices in Bilingual Education. IDRA Newsletter. Retrieved November 5, 2004, from http://www.idra.org/Newslttr/2001/Aug/Cuca.htm.

Morris, R. (2002). A Case Study on the Perspectives of an Optional K-5 Year-Round/ Multi-Age Program in Virginia. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from ERIC online database (479350).

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (1982). Childrens English and Services Study. Publish by InterAmerica Research Associates, Inc.

No Matter How You Say it, Bilingual Education is for Everyone (2000). Black Issues In Higher Education, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p 34

Piper, P. (1994). Year-Round Schools: The Star of the Sea Model. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from ERIC online database (370231).

Powell, T. (1995). IAAPA Panel: Year-Round Schools Threaten Amusement Industry’s Biz. Amusement Business, 107 (49), 2. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from EBSCOhost online database (Item 9512181019).

Rasberry, Q. (1994, March 11-13). Year-Round Schools May Not Be the Answer. Paper presented at the Conference for Private Child Care Centers and Preschools. Abstract retrieved September 28, 2004, from ERIC online database (Item 369548).

Rovira, Lourdes (1998). Lets Not Say Adios to Bilingual Education. U.S. Catholic, Vol. 63 Issue 11.

Scassa, Teresa (1996). Language, Culture, and the Courts: Bilingual Education in the United States. Canadian Review of American Studies, Vol. 26 Issue 1.

Sheane, Kim. (1994). Year-Round Education: Breaking the Bonds of Tradition. 40. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from ERIC online database (Item 375518).

Should School be Year-Round? (2003). Junior Scholastic, 106 (1), 5. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from ERIC online database.

Strader S. (2004). Getting Ready for School; Year-Round Students to Head Back. Dayton Daily News. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from eLibrary online database.

Turner, Marcia (2002). Building Bridges to English through Quality Transitional Bilingual Education Programs. CABE News. Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://www.bilingualeducation.org/2000_2_20_01.htm.

Two-Way Bilingual Education Programs in Practice: A National and Local Perspective (1994). ERIC Educational Reports. Retrieved Oct 28, 2004, from http://www.findarticles.com

Walters, Laurel, Shaper. (1998). The Bilingual Education Debate-A long-term view may be necessary to recognize benefits of bilingual programs. Harvard Education Letter Research Online. Retrieved October 20, 2004 from http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/1998mj/bilingual.shtml

Waterman, K., Watkins, M. (1999). The Effect of Year-Round Schooling on Administrators. Education, 119. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from eLibrary online database (Item 00131172).

Year-Round Schools can Stimulate Learning. (2000). USA Today Magazine, 129(2663), 7. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from EBSCOhost online database (01617389).

XII. Presentation

Table of Contents