Examination of the Florida ESL Handbook
The purpose of this post is to examine and discuss various policies, practices, procedures, and structures as they exist in the field of English language learner (ELL) education in the state of Florida. This paper will examine the contours of Florida’s ELL education policies by surveying Florida’s approach to critical areas. Additionally, this work aims to compare Florida’s ELL policies and procedures with federal policy and with those set forth by TESOL International Association, an authoritative body in ELL program standards and education. In accordance with the terminology used in Florida’s ELL Handbook (2013-2014), this work utilizes the terms ‘ELL’ and ‘limited English proficient’ (LEP) interchangeably to refer to students working towards the acquisition of proficiency in English.
Florida’s Legislative Works
The 2013-2014 Florida ELL Database and Program Handbook (hereafter referred to as ELL Handbook) is Florida’s authoritative work outlining the state’s mandates for P-12 ELL/LEP education. Florida’s ELL Handbook (2013-2014) provides information about the state’s processes, procedures, and policies related to registering, educating, and assessing English language learners. The Florida Consent Decree (1990; 2003) is a body of legislation supporting Florida’s ELL Handbook. The Consent Decree, signed in August of 1990 by a judge from the United States District Court (Southern District of Florida), is an agreement between the Florida Board of Education and eight civil rights and educational advocacy groups; the document sanctions the provision of services for students whose primary language is not English.
Examining the Contours of Florida’s ELL Education Policies
Labeling
Myriad terms have been used to define and identify students seeking to acquire English speaking, listening, and written communication skills: English language learner (ELL), limited English proficient (LEP), (speakers of other languages) SOL, potentially English proficient (PEP), primary home language speakers other than English (PHLOTE), English as a second language (ESL) student, and bilingual children, just to name a few. Although, the most frequently utilized term in most court decisions and federal and state education-related verbiage is ‘LEP’.
Florida’s ELL Handbook (2013-2014) refers to these students as both ‘English language learners’ and ‘limited English proficient’, while Florida’s Consent Decree (1990; 2003) consistently refers to this population as ‘LEP’ students throughout. This discrepancy is likely a result of the dated nature of Florida’s Consent Decree and the more recent edition of the ELL Handbook (2013-2014), which appears to reflect developments in the field of ESL education and evolution in the field’s terminology. The term limited English proficient has significantly waned in popularity because of its tendency to emphasize what the student lacks.
Conversely, the ‘English language learner’ label appears vague and too unspecific. The challenge to find an appropriate term for this unique group of learners is seemingly impossible; although, many scholars opt to utilize the terms LEP and ELL interchangeably to refer to this group.
Identification of ELLs/LEPs
Florida’s Consent Decree (1990; 2003) establishes that LEP students shall be classified as the following:
a. individuals who were not born in the United States and whose native language is a language other than English; or
b. individuals who come from home environments where a language other than English is spoken in the home; or
c. individuals who are American Indian or Alaskan natives and who come from environments where a language other than English has had a significant impact on their level of English language proficiency; and
d. individuals who, by reason thereof, have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or listening to the English language to deny such individuals the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English
(p. 5-6).
Florida’s ELL Handbook (2013-2014) bears similar verbiage in its definition of ‘English language learner’. Thus, Florida’s classification of ELL/LEP students encompasses immigrants as well as students whose primary language is not English for various reasons. However, it is important to consider the implications of such labels as they are applied to speakers of other languages. Defining LEP students as “individuals who come from home environments where a language other than English is spoken in the home” may prove to be problematic because “limited English proficiency” connotes a deficiency in either the written, oral, or aural aspects of English communication. Students who speak a language other than English in the home may be qualified bilinguals, and may not actually possess deficiencies in either language. Moreover, TESOL (2010) contains no verbiage establishing the grounds for classification of ELLs, LEPs, or ESOL candidates.
Further, students whose home language surveys (HLSs) contain all negative responses and students whose HLSs contain an affirmative response but score well on the resulting LEP assessment instruments are similarly coded (ELL Handbook, 2013-2014). It must also be noted that pre-kindergarten (PK) students are “not initially tested for English language proficiency, nor is an ELL Format submitted for PK ELLs (ELL Handbook, 2013, p. 10). Nonetheless, the state is required to provide PK students at all levels of English proficiency with age and level-appropriate material.
Accountability Measures
Until a critical policy change in 2014, Florida’s ELLs were required to undergo standardized testing and have their scores factored in the school’s overall testing data merely one year after being introduced to American classrooms. In 2014, Florida’s request to allow ELLs two years to matriculate in American schools before factoring their standardized test scores was approved. This provision permits ELLs additional time to become acclimated to the new sociocultural and institutional environments.
Florida’s request for this provision was a part of a waiver exempting the state from various terms set forth in the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Much controversy was sparked around Florida’s request for this policy change because, according to federal policy, all students’ data must be equally accounted for when states measure student progress via standardized testing procedures. The approval of Florida’s request is quite significant because the allowance marks the first and only time that the U.S. Department of Education has allowed a state to modify these particular accountability measures.
States across the U.S. began to implement structured English immersion programs as a part of the fallout from California’s Proposition 227, which aimed to teach students English in one school year or less. However, this proves to be an unrealistic objective as research suggests that five to seven years of instruction are needed before ELLs with no English skills can acquire proficiency in English. This modification in Florida’s accountability policy is a critical shift away from the one-year language acquisition expectation that served as the underlying premise for structured immersion programs.
Perspectives on L1 and C1
Generally, Florida’s statues and policies promote students’ use of native language (L1) and expression of their native cultural identities (C1). In accordance with the recommendations set forth by TESOL (2010), Florida’s Consent Decree (1990; 2003) encourages ELLs’ use and expansion of their L1 conversational and literacy skills. Similarly, the state of Florida advocates for ELLs’ expression of their native identities in and outside of the classroom, and ELL instructors are encouraged to serve as advocates for ELLs’ expression of their native identities (Florida Consent Decree, 1990; 2003). This measure helps to bolster students’ self-esteem and promote a healthy self-image, which ultimately leads to increased instances of student achievement (TESOL, 2010).
Equal Access and Mainstream Classrooms
The 1982 Supreme Court Case Plyer v. Doe established that immigrant students must be allotted free, equal, and unobstructed access to educational services. This case also established that it is unlawful to question students about their parents’ immigration or legal statuses and unlawful to report students to Immigration or Naturalization Services. Florida’s Consent Decree (1990; 2003) mandates that Florida comply with the terms outlined in this Supreme Court decision. As set forth in Florida’s Consent Decree (2013-2014), districts must provide ELLs with educational services that support their academic achievement.
Florida’s provisions consist of several areas of classification, and students are placed according to their LEP assessment scores and individual needs. A student’s classification and the availability of services in a given district generally determine the type of class in which an ELL is placed, and while they are not always readily available because of limited funding or qualified teachers, Florida’s ELL instructional models include sheltered, mainstream/inclusion, maintenance and/or developmental bilingual education, and dual language (two-way developmental bilingual education) (ELL Handbook, 2013-2014). Florida’s varied approach to the introduction of ELL students to mainstream classrooms is instructive, as the effort to rush this process is not supported by any pedagogically sound reasoning. This assertion is reflected in Florida’s flexible, gradual, assessment-based approach.
Parents of ELLs
Florida’s ELL legislation advocates heavily for parent involvement (Florida Consent Decree, 1990; 2003) as ELLs’ parent involvement is one of the primary factors contributing to student success (TESOL, 2010). Parents of ELL students may elect not to allow their children to participate in ELL or ESL program; however, districts are still responsible for ensuring that a student not participating in ELL programs has tools for academic success made readily available to him or her (Florida Consent Decree, 1990; 2003). According to Florida mandates, districts must make every effort to ensure that communications and correspondences from schools and districts to students’ homes are provided in parents’ primary languages (Florida Consent Decree, 1990; 2003). In addition, the Consent Decree establishes that parent leadership councils will be established in each district and that no LEP district plan will be submitted to the state without consulting with this council comprised of the parents of LEP students.
Conclusion
As of 2015, Florida has the third largest ELL/LEP population in the United States, and due to its sheer numbers and the necessity for concentrated efforts in this area, the state has emerged as one of the front-runners in ELL/LEP education. Florida’s successful attempt to modify its accountability provisions is one example of its leadership in the ELL arena. After conducting this perfunctory survey of some of the critical areas in Florida’s ELL education policies, one may conclude that the state is, in fact, making concerted efforts to comply with the ever-growing body of research supporting effective structures and procedures in ELL education. While it is essential to remain ever-mindful of discrepancies and disconnects between policy, theory, and practice, Florida’s ELL Handbook (2013-2014) and Consent Decree (1990; 2003) are, in many ways, consistent with TESOL (2010) standards and are reflective of some of the field’s best practices.
References
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services, Inc.
Florida Consent Decree, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) et al. v. State Board of Education Consent Decree, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, August 14, 1990; 2003.
English Language Learner (ELLs) Database and Program Handbook: English for Speakers of Other Languages (2013-2014). Florida Office of Education Information and Accountability Services (EIAS) and the Bureau of Student Achievement through Language Acquisition (SALA).
Mitchell, C. (2015, January). Fla. wins flexibility in accountability for English-learners. Education Week, 34 (15). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/01/05/fla-wins-flexibility-in-accountability-for-english-learners.html
TESOL International Association. (2010). Standards for the Recognition of Initial TESOL Program in P-12 ESL Teacher Education.
