Reflection #4

The best practice that I believe serve ELL students best was the two-way bilingual program. I noted in my discussion that I have only experienced an ESL pullout program at the one and only school I have worked at. Although I believe that a dual language bilingual program is effective because it uses both languages for instruction, it can only be successful if there is a need for it at a school. I think that TEA should make this program more easily accessible for ELL students. Exiting an ESL program seems to be easier than being admitted. I have had to fight to keep one of my students in the ESL program even though technically he would have been exited due to TAKS writing score. Although he had passed, I did not feel as though he would be as successful in the classroom without ESL services. According to the TEA website, a district with an enrollment of 20 or more LEP students in the same grade level must offer a bilingual program. The magic number, 20 in this case, is enough for one classroom. But what happens if there are 18 or 19 students? Just because they are short one or two students means they cannot have a bilingual program. One would think that in the state of Texas where we have an increasing number of ELL students there would be a large number dual language bilingual programs, but this is not the case.

I found it very interesting that there were only seven districts in the state of Texas with dual language programs as of May 2009. I was able to experience one of the districts, Bryan ISD, while I was an undergrad at A&M in College Station. One of my ESL courses required us to log hours watching either an ESL pullout program or a bilingual program. I was placed in a bilingual classroom for two hours a week. It was interesting to watch the teacher use both English and Spanish in her instruction. I felt as though I learned more by observing this teacher than I had in many of my college courses. With Texas having such a high population of ELL students, I was surprised that there were only seven districts listed on the TEA website as having these programs. In general, the districts that did have them were located on the border (El Paso or Houston), but I know even in the Dallas area that I have had an increased number of ELL students in my classroom since my first year.

The change that I would like to see TEA make in their approach with ELL students deals with educators. I believe that TEA should encourage, or possibly even mandate, general education classroom teachers to be more knowledgeable of ESL practices and methods. As an undergraduate, I felt that we were constantly taking classes that addressed ELL students (and at the time, I was thoroughly annoyed). However, with the growing population of ELL students in Texas public schools, it is important that teachers are equipped with the training of how to effectively teach ELL students because they will inevitably have them in their classrooms. I took the ESL certification test because I believed it would make me more marketable as a teacher; however, I did not think it would ever be necessary for me to teach ESL. I think that TEA should increase the requirements for teachers in order to aid ELL students. More required observation time, more interaction with ELL students, and more courses offered from colleges would be just a few ways that they could do this. In addition, according to the TEA website, in order for a permanent substitute to teach LEP students, they must have a Texas teaching certificate along with a bilingual or ESL supplementary certificates. I was pleasantly surprised to discover this. I know sometimes teachers struggle to find good substitutes who can serve their children the same as they do. In my school district the past couple of years, we have been moving toward only hiring substitute teachers who have their teaching certificate. I think this is one step in guaranteeing that students are given the best education possible. ELL students are no exception. We should do everything we can to provide an effective education for them, including providing programs that meet their individual needs.

Reflection #3

Title I was originally a component of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was enacted in 1965. It was an effort by President Johnson against the War on Poverty. Recently, the No Child Left Behind, or NCLB, legislation reauthorized Title I. Some components of Title I include adequate yearly progress, or AYP, experimentally driven teaching practices, more adaptable control of spending, extended parental choice, and highly qualified teachers. Title I funding can be used for different programs, but these programs do have certain restrictions they must meet certain standards.

Title I supplies grants to economically and educationally disadvantaged students. Under Title I, schools with greater than 40% of socioeconomically disadvantaged students qualify for receiving these funds to support programs that all students can participate in. A school-wide program is one that is built on reform strategies, not simply services that are added on, and it allows for flexibility in spending Title I along with other national funds. A school-wide program must include the following components according to Title I legislation: comprehensive needs assessment, school-wide reform strategies, highly qualified staff, professional development, parental involvement, transition from early childhood programs, teacher decisions, and valuable additional assistance. An example of an effective school-wide program might be one that focuses on the application of academics to real world professions such as Arts, agriculture and industry, and business organizations. Under the ARRA legislation, more than 60% of Title I schools conduct school-wide programs.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA. The purpose for this $787 billion bill was to stimulate the economy to create and save jobs. Under this legislation, 28 different agencies, including the Department of Education, were given specific allocations of the funding in which they had to design specific plans for using their Recovery funds. According to the act’s website, Recovery.gov, the Department of Education has paid out in funding $63,649,010,574, falling second only to the Department of Health and Human Services. Under ARRA, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, of SFSF, program is a one-time endowment of $53.6 billion. As of August 2010, almost three billion dollars have been given to the state of Texas. There are several different ways these funds are divided, including Work Study Funds, IDEA Grants, and Education Technology Grants. ARRA supplies $10 billion additionally to Title I funds to state and local education agencies. Approximately one billion dollars have been given to Texas as of August 2010. When I was researching the ARRA bill, I am always interested in how much the school district, Richardson ISD, receives. According to the website, for the fiscal year of 2010, it was planned that RISD would receive $6,581,115 Title I funds. Although I do not teach at a Title I school, as a district, we serve a very diverse population of students.

Title I primary purpose is to assist students who are both economically and educationally disadvantaged. Research has shown that in areas with high levels of poverty, all students’ performances can be negatively affected. In order to improve students’ academic success, there are many steps administrators can take to appropriately use Title I funding. First, schools must decipher the areas of need at a campus level. This can be done district-wide as well, however, schools must assess their needs individually and develop a plan to meet the needs of their specific students. Secondly, all of the legislation requires that Title I schools have “highly qualified teachers.” Teaching at a Title I school does require additional time and effort from the teachers. I have always wanted to teach at a Title I school since I have only taught at a school where most of my students are, in my opinion, entitled and unaware of hardships. As a new administrator, I think it would be difficult to hand-select a highly qualified staff. However, administrators can provide the encouragement and support that teachers need to become highly qualified by creating a positive environment, offering staff development and improvement options, and making personal connections with each staff member. Administrators and school personnel must be interested in students’ successes both in school as well as their extracurricular activities. Especially for students who live in poverty, building personal relationships with every student can make all the difference. Teachers and administrators must be involved in not only school, but community activities as well. Additionally, continuous monitoring and evaluation of programs is necessary. We are constantly looking for ways to improve. In order to this, we must be open and willing to new ideas and changes, if necessary.

Title I funding has successfully aided many school in providing resources, support, and programs that would otherwise not exist. In Texas, we must reach out to youth who are at-risk to create a life-long love of education. Teachers and administrators have the responsibility of providing an effective, engaging, and relevant curriculum for all students.