An Asset-Based Approach to Latino Education in the United States: Understanding Gaps and Advances 9781138683501, 9781315544465

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgments
1 Introduction
2 The Education Circumstances of Latinos in the United States
3 Latinos and the Early Years: Early Development and Learning Critical for Positive Outcomes
4 Teaching and Learning From a Cultural and Linguistic Asset Base
5 Federal and State Policy: The Dos and Don’ts
6 The Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances: Gaps and Advances
7 Future Educational Circumstances of the Latino Students: We Know So Much More
References
Index

Citation preview

An Asset-Based Approach to Latino Education in the United States

Challenging perspectives that often characterize Latinos as “at risk,” this book takes an “asset” approach, highlighting the favorable linguistic, cognitive, education, and cultural assets Latino children bring to educational settings. An Asset-Based Approach to Latino Education in the United States addresses the increasingly important challenge and opportunity of educating the linguistic and cultural diversity of the growing population of Latino students. The book confronts the educational debate regarding effective instructional practices for Latinos, bilingual education, immigration and assimilation. Eugene E. García, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Education, Arizona State University, USA. Mehmet “Dali” Ӧztürk, Ph.D., is an education research professional living in California,USA.

Routledge Research in Educational Equality and Diversity

Books in the series include: Faces of Discrimination in Higher Education in India Quota Policy, Social Justice and the Dalits Samson K. Ovichegan Inequality, Power and School Success Case Studies on Racial Disparity and Opportunity in Education Gilberto Q. Conchas and Michael A. Gottfried with Briana M. Hinga Youth & Inequality in Education Global Actions in Youth Work Dana Fusco and Michael Heathfield Social Justice and Transformative Learning Culture and Identity in the United States and South Africa Edited by Saundra M. Tomlinson-Clarke and Darren L. Clarke Race and Colorism in Education Edited by Carla R. Monroe Facilitating Educational Success for Migrant Farmworker Students in the U.S. Edited by Patricia A. Pérez and Maria Estela Zarate The Media War on Black Male Youth in Urban Education Darius Prier Educational Policy Goes to School Case Studies on the Limitations and Possibilities of Educational Innovation Edited by Gilberto Conchas and Michael Gottfried An Asset-Based Approach to Latino Education in the United States Understanding Gaps and Advances Eugene E. García and Mehmet “Dali” Öztürk

An Asset-Based Approach to Latino Education in the United States Understanding Gaps and Advances Eugene E. García and Mehmet “Dali” Öztürk

First published 2018 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Taylor & Francis The right of Eugene E. García and Mehmet “Dali” Öztürk to be identified as editor of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-68350-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-54446-5 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

Acknowledgments 1 Introduction 2

The Education Circumstances of Latinos in the United States

vi 1 15

3 Latinos and the Early Years: Early Development and Learning Critical for Positive Outcomes

35

4 Teaching and Learning From a Cultural and Linguistic Asset Base

50

5

68

Federal and State Policy: The Dos and Don’ts

6 The Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances: Gaps and Advances 7 Future Educational Circumstances of the Latino Students: We Know So Much More

83

118

References136 Index154

Acknowledgments

A volume like this one would not exist without the opportunity we as authors have had to investigate the circumstances of Latino children and their families, teachers and schools by our respective institutions. To them we owe a great debt of gratitude. To our readers, we remind them that this contribution does not take the place of real experience, but our hope is that the findings presented throughout this volume help to enhance that experience. We do owe a great deal to other professionals that served as a basis for what is in this volume, and to the countless teachers, administrators and research colleagues that assisted and supported our research and practice. To our families, we are grateful for their unconditional love, patience, support and understanding when we were not able to spend more time with them because we were working on this book. And last but not least, to our spouses Erminda García and Kathryn Öztürk, who remain steadfast, supporting us through all of our ambitious research endeavors. Perhaps our purpose and motivation to work together is best expressed by Rumi (n.d., p. 111): “There is giving, and there is knowingness. Some have generosity and compassion but no true knowledge. Some have knowledge but no self-sacrifice. When both are present, that person is blessed and prosperous.” We feel privileged to have the opportunity to drop this volume in the ocean of knowledge.

1 Introduction

It is the intent of this volume to integrate the most private as well as the most public accounts which directly inform the effective educational treatment of Latino children and student populations in this country. The thesis is straightforward: The implications of “acting” on the conceptual and specific understandings of individual and cultural integrity have led to and can lead to future responsive educational practices of significance to all students but of particular importance to Latinos. At a minimum, the book gives voice to an important perspective that must be considered in our private and public discourse related to linguistic and cultural diversity with a special focus on the Latino population of the United States. The volume addresses increasingly important challenges and opportunities confronted by U.S. schools: Educating to high standards the linguistic and cultural diversity of today’s and tomorrow’s school-age population, particularly the growing population of Latino students. Unfortunately, our schools have not had success in meeting this challenge, with persistent achievement gaps documented at every level of formal education, while at the same time the absolute and relative number of Latino students has grown significantly. In California, for example, more than 40% of the school-age population is Latino and more than 50% is “minority” (Bataalova & Zong, 2016). However, research, practice and policy have not been dormant in addressing the persistent educational gaps. Significant advances have been demonstrated in eliminating and reducing these gaps at every level of the education spectrum: preschool, early elementary grades, middle school, high school and postsecondary. The volume proposes to illuminate these gaps and advances in ways that allow a better understanding of the educational challenges and opportunities. At the core of this volume is the notion that this country’s diversity is a resource, not a problem but a strength, not a weakness but an asset and not a liability or threat to our “Americanness.” It argues that two presuppositions make up the future of the successful education of Latinos and our country’s future as a diverse nation: To honor diversity is to honor the social complexity in which we live—to give the individual a sense of integrity and where he/she has developed as an individual the same integrity.

2 Introduction To unify is absolutely necessary, but to insist upon it without embracing diversity is to destroy that which will allow us to unite—individual and cultural dignity. The debate regarding the future of Latinos, particularly around issues of education, has centered on the issues related to sustaining Latino “roots” and how these strategies enhance and give “wings” to opportunities for educational, social and economic success (García & García, 2012). These debates have alerted us to the presence of as much difference within as between diverse population groups. Heterogeneity within groups is as important as heterogeneity between groups. Moreover, documenting differences that do exist between groups without understanding why such differences exist can lead to unwarranted stereotypes and mitigate the opportunities to conceive and implement new ways in which old ills can be effectively addressed. In summary, this new perspective concludes that similarities and differences within and between diverse student populations are important. It is the understanding of these processes that will lead us to more productive educational environments in contexts in which diversity is the norm not the exception. Given the characteristics of the social context in which Latinos develop and learn, they are characterized as more vulnerable by summing the number of “risk factors” associated with these children and students. However, it is important to critically examine these forms of analysis—including within-group variation as a unit of analysis—and what they mean to the well-being of children and their families. Contrary to the traditional perspective that often characterizes Latino children from minority groups as “at risk,” such children can present a number of favorable cultural and linguistic circumstances. Latino children from immigrant families in low socioeconomic circumstances have lower infant mortality rates and fewer physical and mental health problems compared with native-born children. Studies have also found that Latino students live in families with a strong work ethic and in homes where there is a third or more adults in addition to father and mother than in nonimmigrant homes. Furthermore, although Latino/Latina parents, on average, do not have high levels of formal education attainment, they express interest in enrolling their children in early education programs and supporting them through postsecondary schooling. In short, these children bring a set of welcomed assets to the education settings. They are more likely to live in two-parent families that have strong family support systems that include extended family members, demonstrate better early health practices and outcomes than similar socioeconomic peers, hold very positive attitudes toward the role of education in advancing their lives and, most significantly, are willing to work hard in and out of educational environments to advance their learning opportunities. This population is not “turned off” by formal learning opportunities and challenges that may be related in making those opportunities accessible to their young children. This “asset” approach will be important in understanding the challenges posed by the “at-risk” approach in this volume (Zentella, 2005; García & Marcos, 2015; García, 2017).

Introduction  3 It is also important to indicate what this volume will not do. It will not address all the ways in which Latinos or any other ethnic groups are characterized by a set of attributes. It will avoid the more typical discussion of how “Latinos” or “African Americans” are similar to or different from “Anglo Americans,” “Asian Americans” and so forth. Instead, it will concentrate on how primary social, cultural and psychological processes produce differences of relevance to effective education within and between these groups. Implicit in this understanding is that effective educational environments are not the same for all students. Very directly, we provide the latest information regarding the present circumstances of Latino children, students and their families drawing on present demographic indicators to more fully explore their circumstances in the United States. This information sets the stage for understanding why a discussion of education, Latinos and diversity is important at this time. Following examination of present circumstances, we address the linguistic and cultural attributes of this population. The concept of culture as either group focused or individual focused is explored. This foundation is critical in understanding present American society and the meaning of diversity. Not all Latinos are alike—then how are they similar, and how are they different from themselves and others? Our attention then shifts the emphasis from the general to the specific. It is the qualitative and quantitative story of teachers, classrooms, schools and communities that have recognized the significance of who they are and are making educational success a reality for Latinos—honoring their roots and providing the wings. This is the heart of the book. It details numerous individuals, classrooms, schools and programs that support the main thesis of the book. In short, we begin to offer the real-world evidence that Latino students can succeed and succeed at the highest level if given the right set of opportunities and support needed. However, a “text” as described regarding the efforts of this volume without “context” for that “text” is unwise. That is why we begin by forwarding a rationale and a set of guidelines for a new conceptual framework built upon the notion that our future, particularly our successful educational future, depends on our new understanding that in a diverse cultural context, respect for the uniqueness of the individual is not enough. Instead, what must be added is respect for and integrity of the cultural environment in which the individual develops and resides.

A New Conceptual Framework Theory, empirical research, along with policy and practice related to development and learning for Latinos in the United States, has focused cross-culturally on children and students, ignoring for the most part the complexities of the circumstances in which they live. Moreover, too often, the focus is primarily, but not exclusively, on the net and gross failings of this population, often identified as risk factors—their poverty, immigration status, education achievement gaps (Gandara & Contreras, 2009). In this opening chapter, we will put forward a more comprehensive conceptual framework that will assist the field in addressing the needs of Latino learners in various heterogeneous learning contexts and therefore

4 Introduction important to the growing number of Latino children in U.S. educational venues. The conceptual framework identifies an important constellation of elements that must be considered in providing educational practice that enables this population of children and students to attain educational success. This conceptual framework is based on both the most recent theoretical and empirical information related to the development and learning of this population. In doing so, the framework should serve as a more comprehensive way of thinking about what it takes to ensure the positive educational outcomes, with a particular concern for addressing the existing achievement gap. It is common for young children and young adults around the world to be placed in circumstances in which they confront learning in formal educational settings in a culture and language that may not be their own and in which they are acquiring more than one language in the home and formal education settings (United Nations, 2010 Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017). In the United States, this population of children and students from Latino backgrounds includes both long-term native populations and recent immigrants to the country (Hernandez, Denton, & McCartney, 2011) and has received significant research, policy and practice attention at various levels of schooling (Baker, Basaraba, & Polanco, 2016; U.S. Department of Education, 2010; Gandara & Hopkins, 2010; Portes, Salas, BaquedanoLopez, & Mellom, 2014). The U.S. Department of Education has endorsed the use of “Latino” and “Latina” as terms that acknowledge the linguistic and cultural assets of U.S. children and students who are identified in conjunction with provision related to the examination of civil rights in various educational and noneducational settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). The term is derived from other terms identifying individuals of Hispanic descent, a self-identifying term used in the U.S. Census since the 1970s as well as those individuals who self-identify as directly from descendants of countries of origin including Mexico, Central American countries and South American countries. They are identified in the education research literature as Hispanics, Chicanos, Central Americans, South Americans and/or with direct country of origin indicators (Mexican Americans, Nicaraguan Americans, El Salvadorian Americans, etc.). Although Latinos are quite heterogeneous (García & García, 2012), they have common linguistic and cultural traits that distinguish them from other U.S. ethnic groups. Demographic trends indicate that Latinos are rapidly becoming the majority population of children and are distributed across urban, suburban and rural living circumstances, and, by 2020, they are projected to become 50% of the population of children under 5 (Fry, 2006). The representation of Latinos in U.S. schools has its highest concentration in early education. The Latino share of students from prekindergarten to grade 5 rose from 4.7 to 7.4% from 1980 to 2012, and young Latinos (ages 0–8 years) have been the fastest growing student population in the country over the past few decades in major part due to new immigration into the U.S. over the last two decades (Hernandez et al., 2011). Collectively, new destination sites increased their share of the U.S. immigrant population from 18.2% in 2000 to 20.8% in 2010, with medium-sized metropolitan areas and small metro

Introduction  5 and nonmetro areas gaining as the traditional urban gateways lost immigration population, although the allure of these new destinations weakened in the late 2000s as a result of the U.S. economic recession (Ellis, Wright, & Townley, 2014). They speculate that increasing hostile environments for immigrants and their Latino children and locally based anti-immigration initiatives in some of these new destinations may have had effects on the propensity of immigrants to locate there (Ayon, 2015). Schools remain the forefront of immigrant youth’s integration into U.S. society, and some are clearly more prepared to assist the educational success of Latinos than others. Griffith (2008), who studied immigrant new destination sites in the U.S. South and Midwest, found that many of the work sites, such as food industry workplaces, found themselves forced to accommodate the new immigrants by learning some of their language, encouraging immigrants to learn English or hiring or promoting bilingual staff to work in personnel offices and in other settings. The majority of immigrants studied by Griffith (2008) reported that communities in the Midwest were doing a good job at the elementary level, while those in southern communities had less favorable perceptions of the elementary schools. Currently, in our U.S. schools, Latino students lag behind their monolingual same-age/grade peers at all proficiency levels of reading and mathematics (at least a half of a standard deviation) at the beginning and throughout K–12 schooling (see Chapter 2 of this volume). However, the academic performance patterns of Latino students as a whole cannot be adequately understood without considering their social and economic characteristics in comparison with native English speakers, in addition to the institutional history of U.S. schools (Portes et al., 2014; Velez-Ibanez, 2017). While a great deal of socioeconomic variation exists among Latinos, they are more likely than native English-speaking children, on average, to live in poverty and to have parents with limited formal education (Hernandez et al., 2011). In addition, Latino students are more likely to be an ethnic/racial minority (Hernandez et al, 2011). Each of these factors—low income, low parent education and ethnic/racial minority status—decreases group achievement averages across academic areas, leading to the relatively low performance of Latino students (García & García, 2012). Thus, rather than pointing to one or two student background factors that account for the low achievement of Latino students, it should be understood that educational risk, in general, is attributable to a myriad of interrelated out-of-school factors, including parent education levels, family income, parent English language proficiency, mother’s marital status at the time of birth and single- versus dual-parent homes. While the education of these children and students in the United States is a continuous story of inequities and unrealized potentials (Gandara & Contreras, 2009), it need not be in the future. For the population of Latino children and students who are in bilingual developmental and learning circumstances, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that these children and students can attain proficiency in more than one language without difficulty (Bialystok, 2010; New America, 2015) and that instructional arrangements and strategies targeting these children specifically can produce positive developmental and learning outcomes (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary,

6 Introduction Saunders, & Christian, 2006; Calderon, 2010; California Department of Education, 2010; Wright, 2015). However, misunderstandings and stereotypes about this population and its subgroups abound, partly because the processes by which development and learning occur for children acquiring two or more languages are quite complex and because a single frame of reference is used to judge their development. Linguistic properties between language systems and related processing influence one another in the diverse social and learning environments, including urban and suburban contexts, in which these children live, and these must be taken into account when designing research on these learners, interpreting the results of research and making professional decisions about them. Currently, theoretical and empirical research work that has critiqued much of the research in this arena contributed toward a more complex understanding regarding development of Latinos (Hammer, Hoff, Uchikoshi, Gallanders, & Castro, 2014). For instance, these reviews showed attention to differences between the Latino and non-Latino populations but little attention to the heterogeneity within the Latino population, and very few studies offered normative research on Latinos’ trajectories across various developmental domains. In addition, the existing literature, though limited, has primarily focused on institutional learning and developmental contexts. Further, the bulk of this scholarship, not surprisingly, foregrounds attention to linguistic factors, while other developmental and contextual influences too often tend to be considered only as “noise” (García & Markos, 2015). Current research in the United States also lacks attention to federal, state, and program level policies that are part of the sociopolitical and historical contexts affecting Latinos’ experiences in educational settings. Finally, the absence of shared and clear concepts and definitions and the use of methods not specific to the Latino population make it difficult to interpret and explain findings both within and across studies and educational interventions. In light of this state of affairs, a better understanding of the Latino development, learning and teaching must be grounded in a conceptual framework that recognizes development and learning as interdependent with and situated in cultural practices and specific institutions. At the same time, it is cognizant of individual child/student attributes, including a new understanding of biological and neurological factors. The framework acknowledges the ideal and material dimensions of culture (Cole, 1996;) and views culture as patterned, dynamic, historically grounded and instrumental (Artiles, 2011). This means culture affords and constrains human behavior, including language. It also means language and human development are cultural phenomena constituted by the interlocking of individual, interpersonal and institutional dimensions (Rogoff, 2003). There is a recognition that the individual acts to engage and develop culture in everyday activities within ecological niches in which the individual and her/his language plays a key role (García, 2017). This is an important departure from traditional child development frameworks that transcend the exclusive analytic approach and focuses primarily on individual traits and factors focused primarily on language and literacy. The framework acknowledges that language must be examined and understood in the context of

Introduction  7 everyday practices in which interpersonal/sociocultural processes play a significant mediating role. Moreover, just as individuals use their developing skills and capacities in the contexts of interpersonal processes, we recognize that individuals participate in social practices that are always located in institutional milieus. This institutional layer is constituted by rules, expectations and roles that can be invisible to observers if this layer is not accounted for. For instance, vocabulary expectations and participation in adult language practices are shaped in part by institutional assumptions and historical expectations in the communities in which individuals participate. The framework is concerned with patterns of development over time, but these developmental trajectories (or pathways) also must document and account for variability within patterns. That is, the framework is mindful of patterned changes throughout the lifespan, as well as heterogeneity within and across developmental patterns. In addition, the child’s and student’s participation in everyday activities is a central analytic focus of this framework that calls for situated analyses of language development. The framework is also mindful of the role of biological and neurological factors linked to development, learning and language development (Goldman & Pellegrino, 2015). The general plasticity of the brain through critical periods of language development and related epistemological effects specific to the Latino experiences is an important set of emerging empirical relationships that informs this conceptual framework. For example, a group of bilingual Latinos between the ages of 6 and 10 were asked to listen to speech sounds in English while being scanned with functional magnetic resonance imaging (Hernandez, 2007). Between the ages of 8 and 10, Latino’s developing two languages showed a very different pattern of activity. Increased brain activity was also seen in the superior temporal gyrus. However, additional areas of brain activity involved in motor planning (inferior frontal gyrus), executive function (middle frontal gyrus) and attention (superior and inferior parietal cortices) were also observed.

What Is the Constellation of Elements of the Framework? The framework builds on the shoulders of significant contributions by the National Research Council regarding issues of development and learning and Latinos (August & Hakuta, 1997; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Bowerman, Donovan, & Burns, 2000; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Snow & Hamel, 2008; Allen & Kelly, 2015). The framework is founded on sociocultural and historical perspectives (Rogoff, 2003; Cole & Packer, 2016). As such, it emphasizes that an individual’s development cannot be understood isolated from the social, cultural and historical contexts in which it occurs. The framework moves educational interventions away from assumptions and expectations about developmental competencies rooted only in monolingual, cognitive perspectives and mainstream cultural practices. Most importantly, it challenges the notion that differences in development (between Latinos and their monolingual peers) equate to deficiencies (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Zentella, 2005). The framework includes a constellation of interrelated elements that may facilitate or impede

8 Introduction Latinos’ optimal development and learning across society, community and family contexts; individual child characteristics; and early care, early learning and the K–12 educational experiences. It recognizes as important Latinos’ development and learning in the family, care and education institutions, community, social and individual psychological and neurological circumstances. Family Circumstances Like for all children, the family serves as the most salient and enduring context in which Latinos learn and develop. Understanding the demographic profile is an initial step in understanding what Latino families “look like” but is not enough for uncovering the rich processes that both characterize and distinguish the context of Latino families. Processes related to culture-specific parenting goals, practices and beliefs and home language and literacy practices related to bilingualism serve as key aspects of the family that are unique to Latinos. While family demographics, such as socioeconomic status (SES), are often relied on to discuss family level influences on development, overreliance on demographic characteristics may be insufficient for describing how family features influence development. One example is how Latinos are more likely to live in homes with grandparents, other relatives or nonrelatives than are their monolingual English-speaking peers. While such living environments may initially be viewed as overcrowded (and a detriment to development), upon further investigation, the more people living in the home may be found to provide Latinos with additional learning opportunities for enriched language and other cultural experiences (Zamora, 2015). As reported by Takanishi and LeMenestrel (2017) during meetings with parents of students in bilingual programs, the recurrent highly emotional theme present in those discussions was the fear that the home language of the family would be lost to the children when they confronted formal education supplied only in English, minimizing critical supportive interaction possible between students and limited-English-speaking family members. Therefore, beyond family demographics, other features of the family context should be considered, including culturespecific parenting practices, beliefs and goals, as well as the language and literacy practices promoted in the home in both the heritage language and English. Formal Care and Education Circumstances A premise of this conceptual framework is that developmental and learning capacities are the result of the interaction between what children and students bring into the development and learning situation and what is being offered to them in that setting. Moreover, it is acknowledged that formal “schooling” is critical for academic achievement and the general well-being of Latinos. However, in formal care and educations settings, it is important to understand what is being offered to Latinos, how it interacts with characteristics of the child (e.g., level of firstlanguage or L1 and second-language or L2 language abilities, social-emotional

Introduction  9 strengths, background knowledge, etc.) and how these learning opportunities are related to developmental capacities and future academic achievement. For those Latinos participating in early childhood preK education, that participation has been associated with improved school readiness, particularly in the academic areas of language, literacy and mathematics (Karoly & Gonzalez, 2011). The features of successful academic programs serving Latinos from preK to grade 12 highlight the need for well-qualified Latino teachers, extensive professional development, support for teachers and adequate teacher–child ratios, as well as instructionally focused features, such as responsive and enriched language interactions, individualized adult–child conversations that promote language and positive relationships, opportunities for children to learn and practice new vocabulary and complex literacy and frequent assessment and parent engagement (August, McCardle, & Shanahan, 2014). It is critical to note that the specific needs of students vary as a result of ethnic origin and cultural attributes associated with ethnicity and individual learning capacities. Asian students, for example, vary in their academic success in English based on family and community structures that are available to support students—not all “Asians” generate positive academic achievement profiles (Asian American Legal Defense Fund, 2008). And students with special needs require special instructional attention but do not seem to be placed at any risk by exposure to multiple languages (Artiles, 2011). The language-of-instruction issue has been the most intensely debated aspect of the education policy and practice for Latinos in K–12 settings for decades and is often politically charged (Gandara & Hopkins, 2010). In general, educators and researchers agree that to succeed in U.S. schools and participate in civic life in the U.S., all children need to develop strong English proficiency and literacy skills. The debate surrounds the question of how to best support the acquisition of English and whether it should come at the expense of continued attention to the development and maintenance of the child’s home language (L1). Questions about the ongoing role of L1 as English skills deepen, the social and cultural costs of losing proficiency in the home language, the role of education programs in systematically supporting L1 and community values that may promote English-only approaches have not been resolved. Further, there are still many practical questions around the best methods to promote English language development while continuing to support multiple home languages in English-dominant settings. Some researchers have found that enrollment in high-quality prekindergarten programs helps boost the English language scores of Latino/Latina students (Hammer, Hoff, Uchikoshi, Gallanders & Castro, 2014). These studies have shown that when preschool programs systematically expose Latinos to English within the context of a high-quality program, their English proficiency scores at kindergarten entry improve. Furthermore, there is a convergence of evidence that supporting the student’s home language while adding English promotes higher levels of achievement in English (Castro, Páez, Dickinson, & Frede, 2011; LindholmLeary, 2015). At best, instruction that systematically includes L1 contributes to growth in both English and home language skills; at worst, there is no difference

10 Introduction in English language skills but an advantage in home language growth Barnett, Yarosz, Thomas, Jung, & Blanco, 2006 Farver, Lonigan, & Eppe, 2009). Effective curricula and instructional practices appear to be effective for both monolingual English speakers and Latinos (Slavin & Cheung, 2005), and other studies have documented the value of well-known elements of effective teaching on the learning experiences of Latinos. In relation to reading comprehension, an area in which Latinos have been shown to struggle, explaining vocabulary words and using them in different contexts (Collins, 2010 and strengthening oral language skills (Lesaux & Geva, 2006 have proven helpful. Moreover, knowledge of academic language, narrative skills, listening comprehension and the understanding of complex grammatical structures are all important to English reading achievement (Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017). Professional organizations have concluded that to be effective educators of Latinos, teachers need to be knowledgeable in five major content areas: (1) understanding the structural aspects of language development (e.g., syntax, phonology) and the development of both the first and the second language; (2) understanding the role of culture and its linkage to language development; (3) acquiring knowledge and developing skills about effective instructional practices to promote development and learning in Latinos; (4) understanding the role of assessment and how to implement appropriate assessment strategies with Latinos; and (5) understanding the teacher’s role as a professional in the education of Latinos (NAEYC, 1996). Last, strong school–family partnerships have been a hallmark of high-quality early education for decades. The empirical research base for parent education, family visitation, parent conferences and home–school communication interventions with Latino populations is “minimal, but promising” (Mathematica Policy Research, 2010, p. 22). Researchers have found that sending literacy materials home in the family’s primary language and sharing with parents strategies to conduct literacy activities can increase the frequency of home literacy activities and promote literacy skill development (in Hancock, 2002; Zamora, 2015). Establishing partnerships with families implies engaging in a dialogue through which teachers learn about families’ childrearing beliefs and practices, as well as their expectations for their children’s development and learning (Delgado-Gaitan, 2004). Community and Societal Circumstances In relation to the societal context, features of the community in which Latinos live are more immediate to Latinos’ daily experiences. For example, one community feature highlighted in the conceptual model is the presence and value of different languages in a community as observed in spaces in which the people who live in that community come together and interact. It is within these spaces that Latinos and their families have more or fewer opportunities to hear different languages, to interact with speakers of different languages, to observe everyday and academic uses of language and literacy and to value their heritage languages

Introduction  11 and bilingualism. Opportunities for diverse and frequent linguistic interactions increase the likelihood that Latinos will become bilingual; in contrast, limited opportunities to use a language within their community can hinder a Latino’s development in that language. Along with language use, values related to bilingualism and multiculturalism and feelings of acceptance are features of development included in the community context. The development and learning of language for Latinos must include attention to social and educational policies and the immigration and integration history of Latinos’ families. Social policies, such as anti-immigrant policies that may disrupt family unification, can have detrimental effects on Latino development and can negatively shape the way young children form their own psychological and social identities (Bean, Brown, & Bachmeier, 2015). In academic learning settings, evidence related to classroom practices indicates that immigrant and refugee Latino children may have their learning experiences narrowed due to teacher negative perceptions regarding their capacities to learn in English—a direct form of discrimination other children do not experience (Migration Policy Institute, 2015). Also within the society context, whether the Latino is a child of an immigrant or native-born parent and the extent to which the Latino’s family has integrated into mainstream society are all associated with Latinos’ development and learning. For native Latino children, the development of the heritage language is key for participation in their own community and in development of their identity— a critical element considered important by the family—while English development assists in broader capacities to enhance their academic learning (McCarty & Nichols, 2014). Latinos, Bilingualism and the Brain. The foregoing discussion has made a clear case for understanding the linguistic, social and cultural circumstances of significance for Latinos. Yet recent evidence indicates that these circumstances are influencing the specific development of neural connectivity, plasticity and cognitive control in the brain. The learning of two languages does not occur within an entirely static neurological system. The brain is affected by a person’s environment at the same time that the brain constrains the information that is taken in by a particular individual. This “dance” between the brain and the environment leads to the need to develop more dynamic models of development. Recent theoretical work by Hernandez and colleagues (Hernandez, 2006 has proposed a more dynamic model of bilingualism with relevance for Latinos. These newer models build on general connectionist (i.e., neural network) models of language development as well as older work with models of bilingual aphasia. These seminal studies identified three separate factors that contribute to the brain bases of bilingualism: age of acquisition, language proficiency and cognitive control. Whereas each of these factors has been considered independently, few have considered how these three factors might interact in time. For example, research has considered that cognitive control plays a role, with less proficient bilinguals showing more activity in brain areas devoted to cognitive control (Abutalebi, 2013). These results suggest older bilingual children need the support of additional brain areas in order to perceive second-language sounds. Furthermore, there is an interaction

12 Introduction among age, proficiency and control. Increased brain activity was also seen in the superior temporal gyrus. This acknowledged link between brain development and bilingual Latinos has only just begun to surface but is beginning to expose attributes of factors at both the social level (i.e., socioeconomic status) as well as genotypic and phenotypic variation in language ability (Abutalebi et al., 2011).

What Are the Implications of This Framework? We have drawn from extant and emerging developmental frameworks related to Latinos to formulate a conceptual framework to motivate and inform research, policy and practice for Latinos in the present circumstances in the United States. The conceptual framework recognizes that family, community and national life are increasingly characterized by linguistic and cultural diversity as global forces shaping the world we live in. Such diversity brings with it challenges and opportunities. Challenges come from understanding the complex interrelationships of diverse languages, cultures and sociocultural practices in concert with individual psychological, neurological and biological mechanisms that act interchangeably to influence the development of Latinos and from how best to act on this complexity to the benefit of these children and students. At present, a deep understanding of this complexity is obscured by frameworks that focus on development from simplistic monolingual perspectives. At the same time, linguistic and cultural diversity afford opportunities for individual Latinos, their families, their communities and indeed the nation as we all live in an increasingly globalized world. Language, culture, and their accompanying values are acquired in home and community environments. Children come to early care and early learning environments with some knowledge about what language is, how it works and what it is used for. Children learn higher-level cognitive and communicative skills as they engage in socially meaningful activities. Furthermore, children’s development and learning are best understood as the interaction of linguistic, sociocultural and cognitive knowledge and experiences. Current approaches to research, policy and practice on Latinos tend to adopt a monolingual approach, providing a very limited understanding of these learners (Figure1.1). A more appropriate approach, then, is one that recognizes that development and learning are embedded in environments that are often unique to Latinos and that these sources of mutually constituting features are taken into account in the conceptualization, design, implementation, analysis and interpretation of their early care and formal education, preK–12 (Figure 1.2). In summary, this conceptual framework asserts that:

• the development and learning of multiple languages in diverse cultural set•

tings for Latinos are critically important in understanding the development, learning and well-being of Latinos; dual language learning is an inherently socially embedded process, intersecting with neurological and biological determinants of development and learning and of particular importance in understanding U.S. Latino populations;

Figure 1.1 A More Comprehensive Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Education of Latinos in the U.S.

Figure 1.2  Implication of the Conceptual Framework

14 Introduction

• the learning and development of Latinos in diverse circumstances have no

•

• •

• •

inherent negative social, linguistic, cognitive or educational consequences and, to the contrary, may generate advantages in specific social, linguistic, cognitive and academic domains; understanding development and learning of Latinos requires understanding the array of activities that are practiced by children in and outside of formal care and learning venues in families, communities and societies in which they reside; ways in which children participate in day-to-day activities should inform the design and implementation of early care and formal learning opportunities/ environments, preK–12; educational institutions and their policies and practices play a critical role in development and learning of Latinos with an emerging consensus that effectiveness and outcomes can be significantly advanced from present circumstances of academic underachievement; at present, federal, state and local educational policies are not in sync with the theoretical, research and practice knowledge base related to educational success for Latinos; linguistic and cultural diversity can afford opportunities for individual Latinos, their families, their communities and indeed the nation as we all engage in an increasingly globalized world.

This conceptual framework and implications of that framework are offered here as a more integrative, comprehensive and functional approach to advancing the circumstances of Latinos in the United States, setting the approach that we will examine more comprehensively in this volume.

2 The Education Circumstances of Latinos in the United States

It is imperative to gain an in-depth understanding of the historical educational progress made—in both K–12 and postsecondary levels—by the Latino student population, which continues to grow at a faster pace than any other major ethnic/ racial group in the United States. It is also critical to carefully examine the challenging achievement gaps and the unintended consequences of existing education policies and practices, which may pose a threat to achieving educational equity and equality, which have been a crucial American endeavor for decades. Particular attention must be given to the institutional diversity of U.S. colleges and universities, which operate within multiple sectors and types including two-year and four-year, public and private (nonprofit and for-profit). In short, we attempt to address the following questions: What educational progress has been made at the early learning, preK and K–12 levels? In what areas has there been improvement, and in what areas will the achievement gap likely persist? What educational progress has been made at the postsecondary level? What are the trends that may be considered positive/desirable?

The Six Ps: A Framework for Understanding Educational Success In order to better understand the condition of education for any particular group or segment in the U.S. population, which may include individuals with various demographic and background characteristics, one must pay attention to key educational life events and indicators. We call them the Six Ps of success, a data framework aligned with the conceptual framework that is presented in Chapter 1 of this volume. Their intent is to provide a better understanding of the complexity and relationships of critical factors that lead to success in education. Educational success of an individual depends on a number of circumstances, opportunities and life events that may often follow a cyclical pattern or digress suddenly from one course of action or event and turn to another. Similar to the geometric properties

16  Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos of a hexagon, a six-sided polygon, the effects of these circumstances, opportunities and life events may be critical in shaping one’s educational success. The Six Ps of educational success is as follows (Figure 2.1): 1. Population—includes all peoples and communities a person may belong to. Sense of being part of a supporting community is vital to one’s well-being. 2. Parents—Parents and relatives include all individuals within a person’s immediate and extended family (Latino culture strongly embraces family values, ties and relationships.) 3. Preparation—includes all efforts and acts that help achieve the status of being ready for the next level within an individual’s educational continuum. 4. Participation—includes all efforts, acts and processes that provide one with opportunities and access that allow a person, a group of people or community to be inclusively part of an education system that may be comprised of various levels, parts and stages. 5. Persistence—includes all efforts and acts that ensure continued enrollment, which is an essential step towards achieving students’ desired educational goals and objectives. 6. Progress—includes all efforts, acts and accomplishments that help people toward achieving their desired or ultimate goals, objectives, outputs or outcomes with in the education continuum that is provided for them. It is true that a number of reliable educational/outcome indicators exist for all levels of education in the U.S. However, we believe that focusing on The Six Ps of success provides a critical understanding for progress made in education. It helps

Figure 2.1  The Six Ps: A Framework for Understanding Educational Success

Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos  17 us answer the questions of where we were, where we are and where we will be with educational progress of America’s diverse student population.

Latinos: A Particular U.S. Population As the demographics of the U.S. have been changing rapidly, its ethnoracial and ethnolinguistic composition has become more diverse than the country has previously experienced. There are more than 54 million Latinos living in the United States, comprising 17.1% of the entire U.S. population. In other words, 1 in 6 people who live in the U.S. is a Latino (Table 2.1). California is the home of around 15 million Latinos, representing around 1 in 4 Latinos in the United States. Texas is the state with the second-largest Latino population in the country. More than 10 million (10.4m) Latinos live in Texas. Around 1 in 2 Latinos (46%) lives in either California or Texas. Florida (4.7m), New York (3.6m), Illinois (2.1m) and Arizona (2m) also include large numbers of Latinos. Latinos make up half of the population in New Mexico. Around 1 person in 2 (47.7%) in New Mexico is a Latino. Vermont is the state with the smallest population of Latinos (less than 10,000). It is the case that many American (immigrant or native-born) students enter the U.S. education system with a number of assets and/or risk factors that are associated with their educational success. Traditionally, an individual’s socioeconomic status has been either a source of privilege/asset or a risk factor. Efforts to mitigate risk factors related to SES include focus on educational attainment and income levels of parents or their households. Occupational status of parents also receives considerable attention. However, it is also important to pay attention to other Table 2.1  U.S. Population by Race/Ethnicity 5-Year Estimates, 2011–2015 Total population Latino (of any race) White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or more races

Estimate

Percent

316,515,021

 

54,232,205 197,258,278 38,785,726

17.10% 62.30% 12.30%

2,078,613

0.70%

16,054,074 499,531

5.10% 0.20%

638,429 6,968,165

0.20% 2.20%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2015), 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk; U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). 2011–2015 American community survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved June 27, 2017, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk.

18  Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos

Figure 2.2  Equitable Access to Capital/Resources

critical factors such as access to financial, social, cultural and human capital or resources by individuals, families, groups or communities. More fair and equitable access to resources/capital may reduce risk factors that have been hurting people from at-risk, underprivileged and disadvantaged backgrounds (Figure 2.2). It would be appropriate to state that among all these factors that are likely to have significant influence on student achievement, level of poverty gets the most attention from researchers, educators, policy makers and practitioners. Lack of access to an equitable income level, which can be broadly grouped under financial capital, is more likely to create disadvantageous circumstances for students of low-income families or those living below poverty level. For example, in 2015, 1 in 10 American families (11.3%) lived in poverty. Families with school-age children (17 years and younger) had higher poverty rates (26.9%). In other words, 1 in 4 U.S. families with school-age children had an income level that is below poverty level. In addition, U.S. family households with low levels of educational attainment also had higher rates of living below poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). Households with less than a high school graduate level of educational attainment had the highest below-poverty ratio (29.1%), followed by high school graduate (includes equivalency) level (14.5%). Even though households with some college/associate’s degree education level had a lower poverty ratio (10.9%) than households with less education, their ratio was much higher than households with a bachelor’s degree or higher (3.1%). It should be noted that college education can be effective in fighting poverty. Furthermore, in 2015, in American families, there were 14.6 million related children under age 18 living in poverty. Only 1 in 10 of them were living in households with married couples, while 43.3% were living in households with female

Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos  19 Table 2.2 Number and Percentage of Related Children Under Age 18 Living in Poverty, by Family Structure, Race and Ethnicity 2015  Year and race/ ethnicity

2015 Total White Black Latino Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/ Alaska Native Some other race Two or more races

 

Percent

Number

Total, all families

Marriedcouple household

Female householder, no spouse present

Male householder, no spouse present

  14,652 4,505 3,534 5,357 385 27 168

  20.3 12.2 36.2 30.2 11.4 22.0 32.3

  10.0 6.2 13.2 19.8 8.6 17.5 15.5

  43.3 34.2 49.7 48.9 29.9 36.7 49.2

  26.9 19.4 38.5 31.7 20.2 20.6 42.3

40 637

17.7 19.4

7.1 7.4

36.9 40.9

25.5 24.5

Source: Adapted from National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Table 102.60. Number and percentage of related children under age 18 living in poverty, by family structure, race/ethnicity, and selected racial/ethnic subgroups: 2010 and 2015. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved 07/01/2017 from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/ tables/dt16_102.60.asp Numbers are in thousands

heads (no spouse present). While 34.2% of children under age 18 living in poverty belong to White female householders, 1 in 2 impoverished Latino children belonged to female householders (48.8%). This ratio for Black children was 49.7% (Table 2.2).

Demographic Circumstances of Young Latino Children Between 1960 and 2010, the number of Latinos in the United States grew fivefold— from 7 million to 37 million people. By 2050, Latinos are projected to number about 100 million and constitute about one-quarter of the nation’s population (García & García, 2012). The rapid growth of the Latino population is a product of several factors, including a high, sustained level of immigration; a large number of young adults who are in their family-formation years; and a relatively high total fertility rate among Latino women (mainly among those who are immigrants). Consistent with these factors, the Latino share of the nation’s youngest children is considerably larger than their share of the population as a whole. For example, an analysis commissioned by the National Task Force for the Early Education of Hispanics of the demographics of children in the 0–8 age group in 2005 found that, among the

20  Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos 33.4 million children in the United States in that age segment, 6.8 million were Latino—20% of the total. Moreover, the Latino share of this age group is projected to reach 26% as early as 2030 (Hernandez, 2006). Consistent with that projection, 26% of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2012 had Latino mothers, up from 21% in 2000 (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2015). A large majority of the Latino population is of Mexican heritage. Yet Latinos also are quite diverse in terms of national origin. Among the Latino children in the 0–8 age group in 2000, about 68% were Mexican American, 9% Puerto Rican, 7% Central American, 6% South American, 3% Cuban and 3% Dominican. In recent years, Latino births in the United States have continued to be generally consistent with this pattern (National Task Force for the Early Education of Hispanics, 2007; Guzman, Hickman, Turner, & Gennetian, 2016). Owing to the high level of Latino immigration over the past 40 years, a majority of Latino children are either immigrants or from families in which one or both parents are immigrants. The 0–8 population in 2010 found that 64% (4.4 million) of the Latinos were either immigrants themselves (first-generation Americans) or the children of immigrants (second-generation Americans). Only 36% (2.4 million) were children with two U.S.-born parents (third-generation Americans). Nevertheless, this pattern varied considerably among Latino national origin groups. The split for Mexican Americans was 66% first or second generation and 34% third generation, while the split was 91% and 9% for South Americans. Although it might be assumed that the majority of children in immigrant families are themselves immigrants, this is not the case, especially for the youngest children. Currently, among all immigrant families, regardless of their race or ethnicity, about 9 in 10 young children were born in the United States (Migration Policy Institute, 2015). Latinos follow this pattern closely. About 88% of the 4.4 million first- and second-generation Latino children in the 0–8 age group in 2000 were U.S. born (Migration Policy Institute, 2015). Historically, Latinos have been concentrated in a few states, and that is still the case. But Latinos currently have a rapidly increasing presence across the country. In 2000, about four-fifths of young Latino children lived in just nine states— California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Arizona, New Jersey, Colorado and New Mexico, with half living in just two states—California and Texas. Yet in that year, at least 1 in 8 of the children in the 0–8 age group in 24 states was Latino. In 2004, babies born to Latino mothers accounted for at least 10% of the births in 27 states and the District of Columbia. Some of the most rapid growth is taking place in states in the South and Southeast. For example, in both Georgia and North Carolina, the share of babies born to Latino mothers grew from 2% in 1990 to 14% in 2004. In Virginia, it grew from 3% to 11% and in Arkansas from 1% to 9% (National Task Force for the Early Education of Hispanics, 2007; García & García, 2012) Parent Education Levels A study commissioned by the President’s Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics (Hernandez & García, 2012), summarized here, reports that relative to non-Latino Whites, young Latino children are much more likely to have

Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos  21 parents who have not graduated from high school and much less likely to have parents who have a bachelor’s degree or more. For example, in the 0–8 age group in 2000, almost 46% of the Latino children had mothers who had not graduated from high school, while this was the case for only 9% of the Whites. Twenty percent of the Latinos had mothers who had not gone beyond the eighth grade compared to only 1% of the White children. At the same time, less than 10% of the Latino children had a mother with a bachelor’s degree or more, while 30% of the Whites had a mother who was a college graduate. These differences were even larger for Latino youngsters in immigrant families. About 54% of these children had a mother who had not completed high school; 29% had a mother who had not gone beyond the eighth grade; and 9% had a mother who had no more than a fourth-grade education. Regarding higher education, only 8% of Latino children in immigrant families had a mother with at least a bachelor’s degree. Not all Latino national origin segments had weak maternal educational attainment profiles. Among Cubans and South Americans, the children in both immigrant and nonimmigrant families had parent education profiles that were generally similar to those of Whites. However, together, Cubans and South Americans constituted only about 8% of the 6.8 million Latinos in the 0–8 age group in 2000. In contrast, among young Mexican Americans, the parent education profile in immigrant families was much weaker than the profile for Latinos as a whole. Only 4% of the Mexican-American children in immigrant families had a mother with a bachelor’s degree or more, while 64% had a mother who had not completed high school. In fact, 36% of these youngsters had a mother who had not gone beyond the eighth grade, and 11% had a mother who had not gone beyond the fourth grade. These parent education patterns meant that Latinos were a very large share of the nation’s young children from families in which parents had little formal education. Among the 33.4 million children in the United States in the 0–8 age group in 2000, about 6.1 million (18%) had a mother who had not completed high school and about 1.8 million (6%) had a mother who had not gone beyond the eighth grade. Latino youngsters accounted for 49% of those with a mother who had not completed high school and 74% of those with a mother who had not gone beyond the eighth grade. By themselves, Latino immigrants accounted for 39% of the children with mothers who had not completed high school and 69% of those with mothers with an eighth-grade education or less. Child Poverty Consistent with the large differences in parent education, a much larger percentage of young Latino children live in families that have incomes that fall below the federal poverty line. Among children in the 0–8 age segment in 2000, about 26% of the Latinos were below the poverty line, compared to only 9% for Whites. The gaps also were very large for children in low-income families (with low income defined as below twice the official poverty line). About 58% of young Latino children were from low-income families, while this was the case for 27% of Whites (Hernandez  & García, 2012). Poverty and low-income rates were significantly

22  Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos higher for young Latino children from immigrant families than for Latinos with native-born parents—63% versus 48%. Among Latino national origin groups, young Mexican-American children with immigrant parents had the highest percentage of low-income families, 69%. These high poverty and low income rates are not primarily a function of high unemployment rates—about 93% of the young Latino children in 2000 had fathers who were employed full or part time. Rather, they are mainly due to low wage rates and relatively high levels of part-time employment, which are consistent with the low average educational attainment levels of the Latino fathers and mothers (Lopez & Velasco, 2011). Dual Language Learners Because a large majority of young Latino children have immigrant parents, a majority of these youngsters also have home environments in which Spanish is the primary or exclusive language. The task force’s analysis of The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) data found that 56% of the Latino infants had a mother who was born outside the United States. Consistent with this pattern, 19% of the Latino parents said that only Spanish was spoken in their homes, while 35% described the language environment of their home as being mainly Spanish with some English spoken. About 21% said that only English was spoken in their home, and 22% reported that mainly English was spoken with some Spanish. The tendency for Spanish to be the exclusive or primary language of the home was even greater for Latino families in poverty. About 28% reported that only Spanish was spoken, while 15% said that only English was used (National Task Force for the Early Education of Hispanics, 2007).

Latino Early Educational Performance Patterns Consistent with the parent education, family income, single-parent family and home language patterns discussed in the previous section, Latino students have had much lower levels of academic achievement than non-Latino Whites (and Asian Americans) at least since national achievement data first became available by race/ethnicity in the mid-1960s (Gandara & Hopkins, 2010). Importantly, there is extensive evidence that these differences in achievement, whether measured by standardized tests or school grades, have their foundations in the infant/toddler and preschooler period. On measures of reading readiness, math concepts and general knowledge, Latino youngsters are already behind their White peers when they start kindergarten. By the end of the primary grades, the achievement gaps are essentially fully formed, including in reading and mathematics, both of which are central to academic progress in most areas of the school curriculum in the late elementary grades and at the secondary level. These differences in academic achievement are most pronounced at low and high achievement levels. As students move into the upper elementary school grades, Latinos are heavily overrepresented among low-achieving students and markedly underrepresented among high achievers. Consequently, viewed from

Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos  23 the perspective of educational futures, Latinos are overrepresented among students with such low achievement that they are at risk of eventually not graduating from high school, and they also are underrepresented among those who are on course to emerge from high school academically well prepared to attend college—and are severely underrepresented among those on course to be very well prepared to attend highly selective institutions. Owing to these overall patterns and to the diversity of the Latino population, an analysis of K–5 reading and mathematics achievement, using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) is summarized here. The objective of this endeavor is to get a much more detailed picture than has been available to date of how Latino academic achievement compares to the achievement of non-Latino Whites in the early years of school. In making these comparisons, we examined the achievement patterns of Latinos on an overall basis and for a number of subpopulations, including: (1) several Latino national origin segments, such as Mexican Americans and Central Americans; (2) first-, second-, and third-generation Mexican Americans; and (3) low-, middle-, and high-SES Latinos. The White students in the study were limited to those who were third-generation Americans, because they represent the “baseline” group within the White population. Among Latino national origin groups, Mexican Americans and Central Americans lagged behind Whites to about the same extent as Latinos overall. The strongest-performing Latinos at the start of kindergarten were children of South American origin, followed closely by Cuban and Puerto Rican youngsters. As will be recalled, South Americans and Cubans have parent education levels that are generally similar to those of Whites, while the other Latino groups have much lower parent education levels (see Table 2.3). Table  2.4 presents reading skill data for the end of fifth grade that also excludes the 30% of Latinos who began kindergarten with little or no knowledge of English. At the end of fifth grade, Latinos overall and Mexican Americans and Central Americans had considerably smaller percentages of students demonstrating mastery of the more advanced reading skills than third-generation White students. Table 2.3  Percent Scoring at Levels 1, 2, 3 & 4 in Reading at Start of Kindergarten Group

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Whites—3rd Generation All Latino Mexican Cuban Puerto Rican Central American South American

73 54 51 67 62 52 60

34 20 19 25 26 18 26

20 10 10 12 14 11 15

4 2 2 2 2 1 5

Source: Reardon, S.F., and Galindo, C. (2006). Patterns of Latino Students’ Math and English Literacy Test Scores. Report to the National Task Force for the Early Childhood Education of Hispanics.

24  Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos However, the reading skill patterns for South Americans were virtually identical to those of Whites. Those of Cubans and Puerto Ricans were close to the White pattern as well. Although the achievement gaps between Latinos and Whites are heavily related to the much lower socioeconomic (SES) circumstances of Latinos than Whites, this is only part of the story. Extensive research going back to the late 1960s has found that Latinos achieve at somewhat lower levels than Whites (and Asian Americans) in all or most social class segments across the K–12 years. Moreover, the within-class gaps have often been found to be larger at high SES levels than at low SES levels. (African Americans also lag behind Whites and Asian Americans within most social class segments.) The data in Table 2.5 shows that within-class

Table 2.4  Percent Scoring at Levels 6, 7, 8 & 9 in Reading at End of Fifth Grade Group

Level 6

Level 7

Level 8

Level 9

Whites—3rd Generation All Latino Mexican Cuban Puerto Rican Central American South American

91 86 86 92 92 90 91

79 69 67 80 78 76 79

52 41 40 48 48 43 51

10 5 5 5 6 3 11

Source: Reardon, S.F., and Galindo, C. (2006). Patterns of Latino Students’ Math and English Literacy Test Scores. Report to the National Task Force for the Early Childhood Education of Hispanics

Table 2.5 Percent Scoring at Levels 1, 2, 3 & 4 in Reading at the Start of Kindergarten, by SES Quintile, for Latinos and Whites SES Quintile

Group

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

First (Low)   Second   Third   Fourth   Fifth (High)  

Latino White Latino White Latino White Latino White Latino White

37 48 54 60 54 69 72 80 73 86

8 13 17 20 20 29 33 38 41 50

3 5 8 10 11 16 17 21 25 33

0 0 1 1 3 3 2 3 5 8

Source: Reardon, S.F., and Galindo, C. (2006). Patterns of Latino Students’ Math and English Literacy Test Scores. Report to the National Task Force for the Early Childhood Education of Hispanics

Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos  25 Table 2.6 Percent Scoring at Levels 6, 7, 8 & 9 in Reading at End of Fifth Grade, by SES Quintile, for Latinos and Whites SES Quintile Group

Level 6

Level 7

Level 8

Level 9

First (Low)   Second   Third   Fourth   Fifth (High)  

77 73 89 86 86 91 92 94 95 96

51 51 74 68 66 77 81 86 87 91

29 30 44 40 38 48 51 55 59 64

1 3 6 4 2 7 9 9 13 20

Latino White Latino White Latino White Latino White Latino White

Source: Reardon, S.F., and Galindo, C. (2006). Patterns of Latino Students’ Math and English Literacy Test Scores. Report to the National Task Force for the Early Childhood Education of Hispanics.

gaps existed between Latinos and Whites in all five social class segments at the start of kindergarten. Yet the data in Table 2.6 shows a mixed picture at the end of the fifth grade. Latinos continued to lag behind Whites somewhat in the top three SES quintiles. However, the Whites and Latinos in the first SES quintile looked very similar in their reading skill patterns at the end of the fifth grade, while in the second quintile, Latinos had a slight edge. That is to say, low-SES Latino children who started kindergarten with reasonable oral skills in English ended the fifth grade with about the same English reading skill levels as their low-SES White counterparts, at least as measured by the instruments used in the ECLS-K. The caveat is that 30% of the Latino students were excluded from the fifthgrade data in this analysis owing to their limited English skills at the start of kindergarten. Had their fifth-grade scores been included, Latinos would have undoubtedly trailed Whites considerably in the lowest two SES quintiles for two reasons. First, most of the 30% were Latino children from families in the lowest two SES quintiles. Second, the reading scores of the 30% were far below those of Whites at the end of the fifth grade—more than a full standard deviation in statistical terms. The implications of this are that, for Latinos as a whole, meaningful within-class gaps with Whites would be predicted at all SES levels when students reach the secondary level.

K–12 Key Trends in Overall Latino Student Performance Educators, policy makers, researchers, administrators and others with an interest in improving the quality of education in the United States pay close attention to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP, as the country’s largest assessment of academic achievement of U.S. elementary and

26  Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos secondary students in various subjects, is administered by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). It provides disaggregated data by student background/demographics including race and ethnicity and an opportunity to compare U.S. subpopulation performance/progress data over multiple years. While some researchers who recently conducted an analysis of NAEP data for fourth and eighth graders report improvements and progress for Latinos in math and reading science, we wanted to focus on exploring progress made by an important age group, the U.S. 17-year-olds who are usually expected to be part of the immediate college applicant pool or the pipeline. NAEP 2015 science assessment results for students in fourth and eighth grade indicate that Black and Latino students made greater progress and gains than White students, “causing the achievement gap to narrow in comparison to 2009.” No significant improvements were observed at grade 12 levels (NCES, 2017d, p. 1). Carnoy and García (2017) conducted a comprehensive analysis of individual student microdata from NAEP to estimate the math and reading performance of students in fourth and eighth grade and reported improvements for Black and Latino students who made progress in closing achievement gaps with Whites. Our analysis and examining of the disaggregated main NAEP data on 17-yearolds (average scale scores) for long-term trends in reading and math by race/ ethnicity for multiple-year administrations (2012, 2008, 2004, and 1994) revealed that there were no statistically significant reductions in reading or mathematics achievement gaps between White and Latino students. Furthermore, for the same NAEP administration years, the Latino 17-year-old students’ average scale scores in both reading and math were significantly lower than White and Asian 17-year-olds’ scores. However, their performance/scores in math (for 2012, 2008, and 2004) were statistically significantly higher than Black 17-year-old students’ scores (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2017a, 2017d). By conducting a comprehensive review and using data from the NAEP, Carnoy and García (2017) studied racial and ethnic differences in mathematics and reading test scores at U.S. schools. Their study identified five key trends in U.S. student performance: 1. Blacks and Hispanics made progress in closing achievement gaps with Whites. 2. Asian students are making further advanced progress compared to Whites in both math and reading achievement. 3. Hispanic ELL and Asian ELL students’ performance continue to remain below that of White students in mathematics and reading achievement. 4. Level of poverty continues to have a negative effect and influence on the math and reading achievement of students from all racial/ethnic groups. 5. Racially/ethnically segregated schools continue to have a negative effect and influence on the achievement of Black and Hispanic students Carnoy and García, 2017).

Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos  27 The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality’s (2017) annual Poverty and Inequality Report, which specifically examines racial and ethnic gaps in poverty and inequality in the United States, focuses on describing the size of those gaps in several key domains including education. In this report, Reardon and Fahle (2017) share results of their research on best evidence of historical trends in racial and ethnic academic achievement gaps. Their findings indicate that between 1990 and 2015, White–Black and White–Latino student achievement gaps have declined by 15 to 25%. In addition, high school graduation rates improved, and White–Black and White–Latino student graduation rate gaps have narrowed. However, the achievement gaps are still very large, and disparities in family resources (socioeconomic background) and residential segregation may be among causes of racial and ethnic disparities in education (Reardon & Fahle, 2017). We are alarmed by the report’s predictive statement about when these gaps will be eliminated: “Even if these gaps continue to narrow at the same rate as they have for the last two decades, it will be more than 50 years before they are eliminated” (Reardon & Fahle, 2017, p. 21). However, we found the results promising, because the narrowing of White–Black and White–Latino student achievement gaps constitute notable progress. We firmly believe that continuing improvement efforts that utilize assetbased strategies and approaches make a difference and contribute to the success of Latino students.

U.S. Latinos and International Student Assessments The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an international assessment that primarily measures 15-year-old students’ science, reading and mathematics literacy. It is administered triennially in the United States by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). In addition, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) coordinates it internationally. In their 2015 publication titled “Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science, Reading, and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context,” Kastberg, Chan, and Murray (2016, pp. 13–15) provide an excellent summary of their review of PISA 2015 results. The U.S. average score for 15-year-olds in science literacy was 496, which was close to the OECD average of 493. Nine percent of students scored at proficiency levels 5 and above, similar to the OECD average (8%). The U.S. student performance in reading literacy was lower than the averages in 14 education systems, higher than in 42, and similar to the OECD average. Ten percent earned scores at proficiency levels 5 and above in 2015. The U.S. average score for 15-year-olds in mathematics literacy was lower than in more than half of the other education systems (36 of 69) as well as the OECD average, higher than in 28 education systems. Six percent of U.S. students scored at proficiency levels 5 and above, which was lower than the percentages in 36 education systems and the OECD average.

28  Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos Looking across student performance in all these subject areas, U.S. 15-year-olds performed lower than their peers in 11 participating countries. The U.S. student performance in science and reading literacy did not significantly change over the years. However, the U.S. average score in mathematics literacy in 2015 was 12 score points lower than the average score in 2012 and 18 score points lower than the average in 2009 (Kastberg, Chan, & Murray, 2016, pp. 13–15). The PISA results can be disaggregated by demographic characteristics of test takers or participants, including racial and ethnic backgrounds. They can provide a global perspective as well as a benchmark for educational competencies of U.S. students who may be expected to compete with their global peers. The 2015 administration of PISA conveniently provides disaggregated data by race and ethnicity and an opportunity to compare U.S. subpopulation performance data to both U.S. and OECD average scores (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2017b). Disaggregated data for prior years are also available. However, it requires analysis of data and the multiple reports that are generated using the PISA International Data Explorer, which includes data tables, charts, results of statistical tests such as significance testing, gap analysis and regression. Although it may be helpful and appropriate to compare U.S. Latino students’ achievement levels to those of their peers in the United States, one must exercise caution when comparing them to students from other developed and or developing nations of the world due to varying socioeconomic, cultural, ethnoracial and family structures that exist in these countries. In 2015, the Latino student average scores/performance for 15-year-olds in reading literacy (478), mathematics literacy (446) and science literacy (470) were significantly lower than both the U.S. and OECD averages (at the .05 level of statistical significance). In addition, their scores were lower than those of White and Asian students but higher than those of Black student scores in these three subject areas. Our analysis and examining disaggregated PISA data by race and ethnicity for prior years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017c) revealed that there were significant reductions in reading literacy, mathematics literacy and science literacy achievement gaps between White and Latino students. In 2012, the Latino student average score/performance in reading literacy (478) was significantly lower than that for White and Asian students but significantly higher than that for Black and Other student groups. [Asian: Diff = -72.7 (9.3); White: Diff = -41.6 (6.1); Black: Diff = 34.9 (9.4); Other: Diff = 39.8 (10.5) P-values = between 0 and 0.0002]. Moreover, the gaps in averages between Latino and White students were significantly lower than averages of 2000, 2003 and 2009. This indicates a reduction in reading literacy achievement gap between White and Latino students. In addition, the Latino student average score/performance in mathematics literacy in 2012 (455) was significantly lower than that of White and Asian students but significantly higher than that of Black and multiracial student groups. [Asian: Diff = -94.3 (10.2); White: Diff = -50.7 (6.1); Black: Diff = 34.2 (7.8); Multiracial: Diff = -36.9 (8.8) P-value = 0]. Moreover, the gaps in averages between Latino and White students were significantly lower than averages of 2003. This indicates a reduction in the mathematics literacy achievement gap between White and Latino students. Furthermore, in 2012, the Latino student average score/performance in science literacy (462) was significantly lower than that of

Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos  29 White, Asian and multiracial students but significantly higher than Black students. [Asian: Diff = -84 (9.8); White: Diff = -65.7 (6); Black: Diff = 23.3 (8.3); Multiracial: Diff = -49.2 (9.1) P-values = between 0 and 0.0049]. Moreover, the gaps in averages between Latino and White students were significantly lower than averages of 2006. This indicates a reduction in the science literacy achievement gap between White and Latino students. In addition to reading literacy, mathematics literacy and science literacy tests, in 2012, PISA was administered in another area, problem solving. The results and Latino student performance were similar to their performance in science literacy. For example, the Latino student average score/performance in problem solving (486) was significantly lower than that of White, Asian and multiracial students but significantly higher than Black students. [Asian: Diff = -78.5 (12.3); White: Diff  =  -46.8 (7.1); Black: Diff  =  49.1 (9.1); Multiracial: Diff  =  -37 (10.4) Pvalues = between 0 and 0.0004]. (See Table 2.7.)

Table 2.7 PISA Averages for Reading, Math, Science, Problem Solving, Age 15 Years by Race/Ethnicity  

White

Reading  2015 526  2012 519  2009 525  2003 525  2000 538 Mathematics  2015 499  2012 506  2009 515  2006 502  2003 512 Science  2015 531  2012 528  2009 532  2006 523 Problem Solving  2012 532

Black

Latino

Asian

Other

More than one race/ multiracial

443 443 441 430 445

478 478 466 453 449

527 550 541 513 546

n/a 438 462 456 455

498 517 502 515  

419 421 423 404 417

446 455 453 436 443

498 549 524 494 506

n/a 436 460 446 446

475 492 487 482 502

433 439 435 409

471 462 464 439

525 546 536 499

n/a 439 465 453

503 511 503 501

436

486

564

468

523

Source: Adapted from National Center for Education Statistics. (2017b). Averages for reading, math, science, problem solving, age 15 years by Race/ethnicity (U.S. only) [RACE03], year and jurisdiction: 2015, 2012, 2009, 2006, 2003, and 2000. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved 01/17/2017 from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/idepisa

30  Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos In summary (Table 2.7), while the achievement gap between White and Latino 15-year-olds’ average PISA scores/performance continued to exist, there were statistically significant reductions in reading literacy, mathematics literacy and science literacy achievement gaps between White and Latino students (2012 and prior years). (See Kastenberg, Chan, and Murray [2016] for a more detailed analysis.)

High School Completion, Readiness and College Enrollment In their report titled “Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 2013,” McFarland, Stark, and Cui (2016) examined high school dropout and completion rate trends by student demographics including race and ethnicity. Their analysis indicates that between 1973 and 2013, while high school completion rates for 18- to 24-year-old White, Black and Latino students all showed an upward trend, White and Black student performances were consistently higher than Latino students’ completion rates. Although the White–Latino gap in high school completion rates showed no clear trend between 1973 and 2000, it decreased from 27.7 percentage points in 2000 to 9.3 percentage points in 2013 (McFarland, Stark, and Cui, 2016, p. 32). This indicates progress/improvement of high school completion rates for Latino students. In collaboration with Excelencia in Education, ACT, an independent nonprofit entity that provides assessment services for education and workforce development, in 2016 published “The Condition of College and Career Readiness 2015, Hispanic Students.” The report offers “a national snapshot of academic performance among Hispanic students in the high school graduating class of 2015 who took the ACT test” (ACT, 2016, p. 3). Latino students made progress in college preparation; however, their performance remains lower than that of other groups. For example, examining percentage of 2015 ACT–tested high school graduates meeting ACT college readiness benchmarks by subject revealed that Latino student ratios were below those of White students in all subject areas including English, math, reading and science (Figure 2.3). The largest gap was observed in English (28 percentage points), followed by ratios in reading and science (25 percentage points) for both areas. The gap in math was 23 points (ACT, 2016, p. 9). Although rooted in the accountability arena, studies and efforts to effectively prepare college- and career-ready students have been increasing and receiving attention by researchers, evaluators, policy makers, educators, administrators and practitioners. Darling-Hammond, Wilhoit, and Pittenger (2014) offer a new conception of accountability for preparing college- and career-ready students. They believe “developing assessments that are more focused on 21st century learning skills and used in ways that support improvement in teaching and learning” (p. 31) can help with these efforts. They further emphasize the importance of context: “True accountability should allow schools to be both responsible for high-quality professional practice and responsive to students’ needs within the context of their families and communities” (Darling-Hammond, Wilhoit, & Pittenger, 2014, p. 31).

Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos  31 80

75

70 60 50

47

40 30

56

52 29

31

Math

Reading

48

23

20 10 0 English

Lano

Science

White

Figure 2.3 Percent of 2015 ACT–tested High School Graduates Meeting ACT College Readiness Benchmarks by Subject, 2015 (National)

A National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report (Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017), which was specifically designed to collect and document the evidence-based best practices for English learner students in U.S. schools, brings attention to “the stakes for high school ELs are particularly critical with respect to their postsecondary education and career opportunities” (p. 285). The authors warn us that research on effective approaches for newcomer students and long-term English learner students is limited. They further explain that English learners (including long-term) are “frequently placed in intervention/ remedial-level classes that have neither been designed for ELs nor shown to be effective, which precludes them from access to classes that would prepare them for college or careers” (Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017, p. 285). With regard to enrollments at the postsecondary level, the picture for Latinos is mixed but much more positive than previously reported (Gandara & Contreras, 2009). As Table 2.8 indicates, Latinos make up a larger proportionate share of the two-year college enrollments but lag behind in enrollments at four-year colleges, graduate schools and vocational schools. For those students not enrolled, no significant difference is noted for those employed or unemployed. However, it is important to note that the enrollment of at least one family member in the postsecondary domain for families with children 5 to 24 years of age is actually higher for Latinos than for all families at every economic level (less than $20,000 to more than $75,000) of household income (Table 2.9). Chapter 6 of this volume provides a more extensive discussion of these findings.

Proportion

Latino 270 4.97%

11.29%

 

3.10%

824

Part time  

613

 

8.64%

2,297

Full time  

Two-year college

21.69%

1,178

 

27.84%

7,405

Full time  

3.48%

189

 

2.67%

709

Part time  

Four-year college

Enrolled in college or vocational school

2.45%

133

 

4.00%

1,065

Graduate school    

0.72%

39

 

0.89%

236

Vocational school    

40.60%

2,205

 

39.79%

10,585

   

Employed

Not enrolled

14.82%

805

 

13.08%

3,478

   

Not employed

Note: Numbers in thousands. Civilian noninstitutionalized population.

Source: Adapted from U.S. Census Bureau (2015). Table 7: Enrollment Status of High School Graduates 15 to 24 Years Old, by Type of School, Attendance Status, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin. Current Population Survey, October 2015. Retrieved 06/27/2017 from https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/ school-enrollment/2015/2015.

 

Both sexes

Proportion

 

  All Races

5,431

   

 

Both sexes

 

26,599

 

Total

Selected Characte-ristics

Table 2.8  Enrollment Status of High School Graduates 15 to 24 Years Old, by Type of School, Attendance Status: October 2015

 

All families Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $74,999 $75,000 and over Not reported   All Hispanic families Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $74,999 $75,000 and over Not reported 32,539 3,894 12,183 9,529 6,933   7,091 1,256 3,210 1,033 1,592

None enrolled in college 39.4% 50.9% 40.1% 38.4% 35.1%   53.7% 59.5% 54.3% 49.5% 51.3%

None enrolled in college (%)

College enrollment status

 

5,645 375 1,872 2,115 1,283   1,146 129 559 213 245

One enrolled in college 6.8% 4.9% 6.2% 8.5% 6.5%   8.7% 6.1% 9.5% 10.2% 7.9%

One enrolled in college (%) 805 28 201 385 192   173 14 86 34 40

Two or more enrolled in college

1.0% 0.4% 0.7% 1.5% 1.0%   1.3% 0.7% 1.5% 1.6% 1.3%

Two or more enrolled in college (%)

Note: Numbers in thousands. Civilian noninstitutionalized population.

Source: Adapted from U.S. Census Bureau (2015). Table 8. Enrollment Status for Families with Children 5 to 24 Years Old, by Control of School, Race, Type of Family, and Family Income: October 2015. Retrieved 06/27/2017 from https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/school-enrollment/2015/2015-cps/ tab08.xls

Total

82,679 7,650 30,414 24,839 19,775   13,206 2,110 5,907 2,087 3,101

 

 

Selected Characteristics

Table 2.9 Enrollment Status for Families with Children 5 to 24 Years Old, by Control of School, Race, Type of Family, and Family Income: October 2015

34  Education Circumstances of U.S. Latinos

Summary The educational circumstances of Latinos in the United States present us with a portrait of important advances and remaining challenges and related opportunities. Clearly, starting early to address the school readiness of our youngest Latinos has made strides in the understanding of its importance for this growing demographic. Chapter 3 of this volume expands on the realized significance of preK engagement for Latino children and families. Educational achievement gaps continue to be persistent in K–12, particularly for Latinos who move into the formal education process absent of English proficiency but with high levels of Spanish proficiency. Chapter 4 more directly addresses efforts to address these achievement gaps. At the secondary and postsecondary levels, important advances and opportunities to address some persistent gaps are beginning to generate higher high school graduation rates and postsecondary enrollments. Chapter 6 will more fully address these complex but encouraging educational indices.

3 Latinos and the Early Years Early Development and Learning Critical for Positive Outcomes

The proportion of U.S. children from birth to age 5 who are identified as Latinos and are enrolled in early childhood education (ECE) programs is greater than the percentage of children identified as non-Latino in kindergarten and is growing across the nation (National Institute for Early Education Research, 2013). While more than 30% of children enrolled in the federal Head Start/Early Head Start programs have been identified as Latinos (Administration for Children and Families, 2015), just 9% of all children in U.S. K–12 public schools were Latinos in the 2011–2012 school year (National Institute for Early Education Research, 2014). In addition, the Office of Head Start has estimated that 75% of all Head Start classes contain children who speak a language other than English in the home, with some 80% of these children identified as Latino (Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 2013). Consequently, most if not all ECE teachers and staff will work with Latinos and most likely Latino dual language learners (DLLs) during their careers. (DLLs are defined here as those children exposed to two or more languages during the important early period related to language and literacy development, ages birth to 8 years of age.) They will require an understanding of the elements and strategies of effective practices that promote healthy development, learning and achievement for these children. Latino children live in families with important strengths (Zentella, 2005; García & García, 2012). They are about as likely as other children to live in two-parent families and to have fathers and mothers who are working to support the family (worked in the last year), and many live in families who are putting down deep roots in their local communities by purchasing their homes (National Research Council, 2015). These positive developmental circumstances are often ignored in the face of Latino children’s challenges to their future success. More than one-third have parents who have not graduated from high school, more than one-third have family incomes below the federal poverty threshold, and 6 in 10 live in low-income families with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty threshold (Passel & Cohen, 2016). Recognizing these challenges without recognizing the assets is a mistake that we often make at all levels of interventions related to facing those challenges (García, 2017). U.S. policy makers at all levels of government generally agree that investments in children’s early learning and healthy development promote equity and reduce costs to society in the long run (Barnett, 2011). The delivery of early childhood

36  Latinos and the Early Years education (ECE) services and programs is quite complex. Compared with K–12, the delivery of ECE to young children is significantly dispersed across multiple agencies and their respective funding streams, which include individual pay for service and a potpourri of federal, state, local school district, charter school and community agency programming. Some 50 federally funded programs that directly provide early learning programs or financial support children aged birth through 5 and some 850,000 eligible families receive subsidies for child care through the Child Care Development Fund. According to National Institute for Early Education Research (2015), 40 states and more than a dozen cities directly fund programs to Latino young children that vary widely across states in their eligibility criteria, delivery mechanisms, funding sources, and learning standards. Children whose parents have completed fewer years of school tend, on average to obtain lower paying jobs when they reach adulthood. High-quality early care and prekindergarten programs are a highly cost-effective investment for improving the over developmental and learning well-being of children and hence for fostering their economic productivity when they reach adulthood. Gains generated in these early interventions are sustained if high-quality prekindergarten is linked with the elementary grades through an integrated preK–3 approach with a common structure and coherent set of academic and social goals spanning prekindergarten to third grade (Takanishi, 2016). As Chapter 2 fully elaborates the educational circumstance of Latinos, it is important to reiterate here that Latino children are not reading proficiently by third grade. The National Assessment of Education Progress found in 2014 that more than 4 of every 5 Latino children (81%) were not reading proficiently by fourth grade. Moreover, Latino children are substantially less likely to be enrolled in prekindergarten than other groups of children, and most of their lower enrollment level is accounted for by high poverty rates, limited parental education and other factors that affect the affordability and accessibility of prekindergarten programs (Migration Policy Institute, 2016). This chapter reviews relevant research on guiding principles, programs, practices and strategies that promote positive developmental and educational outcomes for Latinos in early developmental and early learning settings. The chapter reviews relevant research on features of high-quality developmental interventions for infants and toddlers generally and early learning interventions to arrive at findings and conclusions about effective practices for the youngest and growing Latino population.

Developmental Characteristics From Birth to Age 5 The years from birth through age 5 are critical for building the foundational knowledge and language skills required for future success in school and life. It is clear that early experiences shape development in a dynamic process that is interactive and cumulative (National Research Council, 2015). Decades of research have shown that high-quality ECE can improve school readiness scores and promote overall development for children living in poverty (Camilli, Vargas,

Latinos and the Early Years  37 Ryan, & Barnett, 2010; Burchinal, Magnason, Powell, & Soliday Hong, 2015; Yoshikawa et al., 2013). Recent data suggest that ECE services provided early (by 2 years of age) and continuously are particularly effective in giving DLLs added language advantages at kindergarten entry (Yazejian, Bryant, Feel, & Burchinal, 2015). If the benefits of ECE programs in improving school readiness, school achievement and lifelong learning are to be achieved and sustained, the specific developmental characteristics of DLLs need to be understood and integrated into the learning environments and educational practices of these programs. Many of the developmental characteristics of children ages birth to 3 and 3 to 5 are distinct from those of other age groups, and the policies, standards, licensing requirements and practices of ECE systems vary across these two age groups. Birth to Age 3: Infant and Toddler Development, Care and Education The experiential influences on infants and toddlers in domains of neurological development as well as socioemotional development have come into play over the last decade. Infants are no longer perceived as nonresponsive entities traveling along biological preprogrammed “road maps” of development. Instead, they are now perceived as the product of the epigenetic nature of development in which their specific neurological, biological and cognitive development are determined by important interactions with their environment. Moreover, as Lally and White-Tennant (2004) conclude, all infants and toddlers need a “social womb,” a safe, healthy, engaging, and secure environment where they can develop social attachments and physical and intellectual abilities, as well as build positive selfidentities and trust of others. Others have further concluded that long-term school success must begin with effective care and education in infancy (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000): Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development identifies social-emotional strengths developed during the first 3  years as critical to all future learning. During the period when infants and toddlers are highly dependent on adults, the quality of their care and development/learning opportunities will literally shape the neurocognitive architecture of their brains (National Research Council, 2015). Across most theories of early development, social interactions and relationships are viewed as the foundation for language, cognitive and socioemotional development (Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Vygotsky, 1978; Rogoff, 2003). Young children’s relationships with their family members and primary caregivers significantly influence cognitive, linguistic, emotional, social and moral development (Taknishi & LeMenstrel). The development of young children’s families’ culture also plays a significant role in adult–child interactions. The intimate work of raising very young children is greatly influenced by a family’s culture. Many aspects of infant/toddler care and adult interactions vary significantly among different cultures. Examples of practices closely tied to a family’s culture include

38  Latinos and the Early Years

• • • • •

feeding and nutrition, sleep patterns and arrangements, positioning and physical closeness of the infant or toddler, who uses language and when and how, and the role of extended family networks in raising the child (Lynch & Hanson, 2011).

Latino Family and Culture Although Latino children often start school under disadvantaged academic characteristics and circumstances (Galindo & Reardon, 2006), the literature has shown that Latino families possess positive attributes that are likely to work as safeguards against these risk factors. For example, a foundational attribute in Latino families is familism. Familism expresses important values such as family identification, obligation and support (Velez-Ibañez, 2017). Valenzuela and Dornbusch (1994) used survey data from 3,158 (2,666 Anglo and 492 Mexicanorigin) high school students to investigate the impact of familism. Behavioral, attitudinal and structural dimensions of familism were related to student’s academic outcomes. For Mexican-American groups, familism was statistically linked to academic gains. Another important attribute is the high percentage of intact families within the Latino community. Specifically, Mexican immigrant families have the highest percentage of intact families when compared to all immigrant families and all U.S.–native families (Pew Research Center, 2014). Children who grow up in stable, two-parent households when compared to children who lack these attributes achieve higher levels of education, earn higher incomes, enjoy higher occupational status and report fewer symptoms of depression, even after controlling for parental income and education (Amato, 2005). Specifically, for MexicanAmerican families, it has been suggested that the high rate of intact marriages helps contribute to Mexican-American children’s high levels of socioemotional and psychological well-being (Crasnoe, 2006) How researchers and practitioners think about the socialization of MexicanAmerican children continues to be shaped by notions of cultural models or core norms advanced by parents within the Latino community (García & Gonzalez, 2006). While illuminating the strengths and coherent scripts found within many families, these models fail to explain variation in children’s socialization found among diverse Latino families, often corresponding to generation, acculturation and class position. The life-history of the individual is first and foremost an accommodation to the patterns and standards traditionally handed down in his/her community. From the moment of birth, the customs shape experience and behavior. It is important to emphasize that these “customs” involve everyday activities, from sleeping conventions with young children to how dinners are socially organized. Such activities host “cultural messages” that signal what is normatively expected for one to be a proper member of the family or group (Velez-Ibanez,

Latinos and the Early Years  39 2017). Conceptually then, this understanding allows us to focus on how social environments shape individual social as well as cognitive processes. The accumulation of studies across varying groups has yielded evidence on how parents’ economic activities and material contexts may condition socialization practices. Latino youngsters raised in agricultural communities, for example, were often socialized to be obedient and place paramount importance on the family’s well-being (Rodriguez, 2009). This led to particular comparative generalizations of how children are raised, for instance, into the dichotomous characterization of individualistic versus collective forms (Greenfield, Keller, Fuligni, & Maynard, 2003). Others have contrasted the parental beliefs of different ethnic or linguistic groups regarding the underlying nature of young children, such as Whiting and Edwards’s (1991) distinction between the belief that a child’s destiny is predetermined versus the middle-class American community they studied, where the “infant was a bundle of potentialities” to be advanced through home practices. More complex portrayals of child socialization appeared in the 1980s as research approaches with Mexican-American and other Latino families developed. An elaborate social architecture was revealed that stressed particular values or cultural models—from the heritage culture—which seemed to distinguish these families still moving from a comparative, between-ethnic group perspective. A growing number of social scientists have noted that the differences between the socialization goals of ethnic-minority parents and those of the majority White parents are rooted in their distinct cultural norms. García (2001) identifies “values” that have been considered distinctly Latino that include familismo, personalismo, marianismo and machismo. Other anthropologists, cultural psychologists and sociologists illuminated related themes underlying how children are raised in Latino families, including the importance of bien educado (Reese, Balzano, Gallimore, & Goldenberg, 1995), respeto (Halgunseth, Ispa, & Duane, 2006; and confianza (Rodriguez-Brown, 2009). Holloway and Fuller (1997) showed how the emphasis placed on family or kin networks by employed Latina mothers, mediated by familiarity and trust, often led them to select home-based child care. Mireles, Bridges, Fuller, Livas, and Mangual (2007) highlight the utility of mapping the daily routines and activities in which young Latino children are engaged. Working from detailed notes on each activity and the people involved yielded valid data that could be reliably coded and analyzed with multiple methods. The incidence of activities recorded in these chronological field notes was closely associated with a second method, recording spot observations. At one level, the profiles they report are rather unremarkable: mothers and their young children spend major portions of time playing, preparing meals and eating. Mothers urge their children to treat visitors politely. Yet the norms and thematic emphases of socialization goals and practices—so salient in the earlier research on scripts or models specific to Latino groups— came to light in many activities. Household responsibilities and routines made up just 8% of all activities but revealed socialization practices stemming from the heritage culture held by these Mexican-American mothers. Children were often reminded to always greet adults and visitors with appropriate offers and gestures

40  Latinos and the Early Years of respect. These instances represent elements of learning how to become bien educado, to demonstrate the proper, respectful way of being with guests. Several children were required to clear their dishes following a meal or fetch various utensils and objects when their mother directed them to do so. But such activities appear to reflect a commitment to familism and respect for the household’s interests, as enforced by the mother.

What Works?—Building on the Assets Specific features of positive adult–child interactions that have been linked to cognitive and language development in infants and toddlers include adult responsiveness to infant cues, sensitivity, positive affect, empathy, warmth, joint attention, verbalization and adult–child synchrony (Halle, Hair, Wandner, McNamara, & Chien, 2012). In addition, the construct of joint attention has been positively associated with language development as well as social-emotional and some aspects of cognitive development (Sandhofer & Uchikoshi, 2013). These terms have been operationalized in slightly different ways across measures of infant-toddler and adult interaction scales, but the basic constructs generally agree. Responsiveness and sensitivity, for example, typically include both physical and verbal responsiveness to the child’s cues (Atkins-Burnett et al., 2015). Such “contingent responsiveness” requires that early care providers be emotionally and physically available and able to read the child’s signals of interest, enjoyment or distress. Adult warmth can be communicated through smiling, praise, facial expressions and tone of voice. In addition to positive, trusting and nurturing relationships, certain parent and caregiver behaviors have been shown to foster positive developmental trajectories of significance to the formal learning environment, such as an interest in books and print; enjoyment of being read to; puzzles; numeracy-related games; oral language abilities, including vocabulary size and narrative skills; listening comprehension; differentiating between pictures and print; and book handling. Strong empirical evidence shows that these emergent skills are developmental precursors to future reading and writing and numeracy abilities (Hammer, Davison, Lawrence, & Miccio, 2009). For Latino children, the language and numeracy skills that infants and toddlers develop before they are able to retell a story or identify letters of the alphabet predict more advanced oral language abilities during the preschool years and are important for kindergarten readiness and later reading comprehension (García & García, 2012). Another important feature of early learning programs is the relationship between the professionals and parents and family members. Family engagement with programs has been linked to multiple important child outcomes across all groups of families and ages of children (Jeynes, 2012). Positive, mutually respectful relationships between early care professionals and parents promote open and ongoing communication about the child’s experiences and progress, as well as any potential concerns (Zero To Three, 2014). By coordinating their approaches

Latinos and the Early Years  41 and sharing information, ECE staff and parents can create a more consistent and predictable environment that promotes healthy development. Considerable evidence reveals that while school–family partnerships are important for improved outcomes for all children (National Research Council, 2016), families of Latino children often have lower levels of school engagement and face unique barriers to making these connections with formal early learning settings. Unfortunately, studies have found that infant-toddler care for Latinos tends to be of lower quality than care provided during the preschool years (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, 2005). Since the earliest years are so important for language and social-emotional development, and the impacts on children’s cognitive, language and social development tend to be stronger for younger children, these findings have important implications for program improvement (Burchinal et al., 2015). Promising Programs for Latino Families Parent involvement in children’s development and learning has been documented as important in the academic well-being of children by the academic literature (National Research Council, 2016). In a study using the ECLS-K data, Qiuyun (2006) studied the effects of parent involvement of language-minority parents, including Latinos, in their children’s academic outcomes (reading, math and science) and social-emotional outcomes in the years of kindergarten through the third grade in a four-year longitudinal study. The independent variables were home/center involvement (ethnic/racial heritage is discussed, family religion is discussed, participates in cultural events and degree expectations for their children) and facilitators of involvement. Facilitators of involvement included whether the schools made information available to parents regarding how to better know and teach their children at home, information about community services and whether volunteering opportunities were made available to parents. The descriptive findings suggested that children with less parent involvement through the years lagged behind their peers at the beginning of kindergarten and continued to lag behind by the end of third grade. Zamora (2015) provides qualitative evidence of the high expectations and support of Latino parents for their young children, particularly those in immigrant Mexican families. This qualitative study investigated the at-home educational efforts of six immigrant families as they prepare their children for school in the United States. The participants’ at-home educational activities were provided by the Mexican immigrant families using photographs of activities that they judged as skills that developed the child’s ability to engage with other children, teachers and the curriculum on their first day at school. Photovoice methodology was used in order to provide the Mexican immigrants’ voice. The families opened their lives to the researcher and provided an insight through their photographs of incidents at home that represented their efforts to assist the learning of their children. Pictures were considered more revealing than interviews or surveys conducted

42  Latinos and the Early Years with parents and their efforts related to enhancing development and learning at home (García & Zamora, 2015). The families were recruited from a large urban city in the Southwest with a large immigrant population. They were recruited from medical centers, social support centers, churches with immigrant communities and schools that had Mexican immigrant children in attendance. The schools and churches provided the greatest source of participants. The educational level of the parents varied from more than 15 years to 3 years of schooling in Mexico. The children in the study were citizens of the United States, were from two to four years of age and had not yet attended school in the United States. The 25 photographs selected to identify the six educational themes that were highlighted throughout the study are demonstrative of what the families in the study were doing to prepare their children for their first day of school. Mexican immigrant parents have high expectations for their children and are willing to sacrifice for the children’s education. They devoted significant time to learning-related activities with their children, directly supported their children during those activities and provided pictorial evidence of their supporting children in literacy domains of letter recognition, alphabet and phonetic representations, reading—in most cases in Spanish and English. Parents and family members were also pictured when providing support in counting, comparing and contrasting size and volume and other numeracy-related skills. Moreover, parents made very clear that early schooling was very important to the overall well-being of their children, and as other researchers have reported, schooling was an important aspect of their optimism for the children’s future success Zamora (2015). These specific findings related to the growing population of Latino and Mexican-American children suggest revisiting the importance of early learning opportunities and issues related to parental and family engagement in those opportunities (DeNicicolo, Gonzalez, Morales, & Romani, 2015). Family Engagement Programs in Early Education Of all the definitions of family engagement, the one provided by the Harvard Family Research Project and in particular by Weis and Toolis (2010) is the most comprehensive. In their perspective, family engagement is considered a shared responsibility in which schools and other community agencies and organizations are committed to reaching out to engage the families in meaningful ways and in which families are committed to actively supporting their children’s learning and development. Moreover, family engagement is continuous across a child’s life and entails enduring commitment but changing parent roles as children mature into young adulthood. Last, family engagement cuts across and reinforces learning in the multiple settings in which children learn—at home, in prekindergarten programs, in schools, in faith-based institutions and in the community (García & García, 2012). The federal government has supported the critical role of families in children learning through a number of policies and programs. However, federal policy lacks a common definition and has created a field that is dominated by random

Latinos and the Early Years  43 acts of family engagement rather than a coherent strategy. Research in parental engagement in their children’s education indicates that it produces positive results within the educational community and the children’s learning (Rodriguez-Brown, 2009). Additionally, the large increase of immigrant children in the United States places significant demands on schools (Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017). Zamora (2015) indicates that the benefits of Latino parent engagement with schools come in a variety of areas: Student—improvement of grades, attendance, attitude and behavior, homework completion, ability to self-regulate, social skills and state test results Family—self-efficacy and empowerment School—communication, collaboration, ability to solve problems and staff morale However, there are several barriers that make this engagement problematic and have to be overcome in a respectful, participatory manner that allows families to have input to what is done at school (Fruger, 2006). First are families’ cultural understanding of U.S. education and expectations, language and culture of families, families’ work schedules, families’ education levels, understanding of English and negative attitudes toward and understanding of the parents’ culture by school personnel. Leaders in the field such as Joyce Epstein, Anne Henderson and Karen Mapp have reported that parental involvement is more important to school success than is a parent’s education or income level and that students whose parents are involved in their education tend to do better in school, stay in school longer and have fewer disciplinary problems (Greaves, 2009). Throughout the United States, schools are faced with a large number of immigrant families of which the majority is Latino, mainly Mexican, and at times these families are treated as lower-class citizens, directly by specific anti-immigration policies and more often indirectly by the disadvantageous anti-immigrant climate that resides inside and outside educational venues (Adair, 2015). The following programs have been found to have a positive effect specifically for Latino immigrant parents and family engagement, and in turn this participation has been found to positively affect their children’s education: Home Visiting, AVANCE, Abriendo Puertas, Project FLAME, PIQE and HIPPY. Each of these designed efforts make clear that they build on the positive cultural attributes that distinguish Latino families. In addition, they add important developmental, learning, partnership, advocacy and leadership skills that allow family members to assist and support their children in early care and learning environments (see García & García, 2012, for a review of these programs). An exemplar at the earliest levels of development includes Habla Conmigo! (Talk with Me!). The program teaches Latina mothers how to engage in more language interactions with their infants. The goal of the designed interventions was increasing the amount and quality of Latina parent–infant talk. Initially, a high degree of variability in the amount of talk among parents in low-income Spanish-speaking homes was identified. Infants who heard more child-directed speech developed greater efficiency

44  Latinos and the Early Years in language processing and learned new words more quickly. Results of the initial evaluation of this program have shown robust positive effects. Mothers in the Habla Conmigo! program were communicating more and using higher-quality language with their 18-month-olds, and their two-year-olds were showing significantly more advanced language skills relative to the mothers and children in the control group. By 24 months, the children of more engaged mothers were developing larger vocabularies and processing spoken language more efficiently (Marchman, Martinez, Hurtado, Gruter, & Fernald, 2017). As the preceding discussion of programs indicates, there is a recognized set of conduits for collaboration with parents and families. The recommendation of research and practice reviewed here indicates that the parents/families will need to become involved more comprehensively with the education of their children, and educators will need to provide multiple venues for engagement (Takanishi, 2016). Support for what families can do at home in support of student academic learning includes using the families’ home language, recognizing that home-language literacy also contributes to development of English literacy, and providing access to appropriate literature resources. The objective of the engagement is a collaborating partnership with the families, community and educational colleagues at every level.

Evidence of Latino Educational Progress In their analysis of the differences between Latino infants and those from other ethnic groups, using ECLS-B data, Lopez, Barrueco, and Miles (2006) found that there seem to be no significant race/ethnicity differences between infant developmental outcomes in Latino families and those from other ethnic groups. They say that rather than education, socioeconomic resources, or ethnicity, child development depends on parents’ emotional well-being, behavior and parenting skills. However, they go on to conclude that while family resources, such as income and maternal education, did not directly associate with child development, they do have a bearing on parenting behaviors. For example, the socio and educational backgrounds led to differences in mothers’ observed teaching and responsive behavior, as well as frequency of reading, song singing and storytelling. In relation to reading, several studies have found that Latino parents admit having few books and literacy materials in their homes and reading less often to their children. These factors, research shows, contribute to lower performance on cognitive, language and literacy activities (National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics, 2007). In fact, when asked to define parental involvement, Latino parents reported participating in the children’s lives more often than in their academic involvement (García & Zamora, 2015). Because there is a great deal of variation among state programs, many opportunities also have emerged to compare benefits of different amounts of preschool. For example, comparative evaluations have recently been undertaken of full- and half-day programs and one- and two-year programs. Many of these evaluations have included substantial numbers of Latino children. Thus, there now is much

Latinos and the Early Years  45 more information on “what works” for Latinos (and what “what works” means in the way of developmental benefits) in the preschool years. For example, the initial results from the current Head Start randomized trial have produced evidence that Head Start programs, overall, do contribute to improvements in the school readiness of low-SES children, including Latino youngsters (Love, Chazen-Cohen, Raikes, & Brooks-Gunn, 2013). However, the cognitive gains documented to date are generally moderate in size and concentrated in the verbal area. This is true for Latinos as well: for example, three-year-old Latinos gained in letter recognition and vocabulary. Benefits for Latino four-year-olds were very limited. While they benefited, the participating children in this evaluation were still well below national school readiness norms (Cooper & Lanza, 2014). However, a rigorous evaluation of the public-school component of Oklahoma’s state prekindergarten program (which serves four-year-olds) also has documented substantial school readiness benefits for children (Gormley, 2008). The findings from this evaluation, which looked at children in prekindergarten programs in the Tulsa public schools, are important for several reasons. First, Oklahoma is one of the few states with a universal preK program, and a larger share of four-year-olds attend either a state- or federally funded preschool in Oklahoma than in any other state. Second, the evaluation has documented benefits for children from all racial/ ethnic groups, including Latinos. Third, the evaluation has found that both poor and nonpoor children benefit from participating in the program. Fourth, substantial cognitive gains were documented on assessments of prereading, prewriting, and math reasoning skills. In “age-equivalent” terms, the participants had scores equal to those usually registered by children four to eight months older, depending on the skill area. Overall, the gains were not quite as large as those for the best model programs (Abecedarian and the Perry Preschool), but they were larger than the average gains documented in evaluations of other state programs. The authors of the evaluation of Oklahoma’s universal prekindergarten program have conjectured on why the readiness benefits of its program seem to be above average among state preK programs. One possible reason is that Oklahoma is providing a higher-quality program in several important respects. For example, the state has required that teachers in public prekindergarten programs have a bachelor’s degree and be certified in early childhood education. They also are paying their public preK teachers’ salaries that are the same as those of public school teachers in general. The authors also suggest that another reason may be that (based on their informal classroom observations) teachers in public school preK programs seem to be stressing academics. This suggestion is consistent with the fact that some of the largest gains were in such directly teachable prereading skills as letter-word recognition and spelling. Of course, that also raises the possibility that some of the gains may represent moderate acceleration of the acquisition of basic skills that would have been acquired anyway in kindergarten. At this point, the investment that Oklahoma is making in universal preK looks very promising, including for Latinos. As previously noted, a major unanswered question is whether it is beneficial to attend two years of prekindergarten rather than one year. Recently, some findings

46  Latinos and the Early Years have become available on this question from a test in New Jersey of the relative school readiness benefits for low-SES children, including low-SES Latinos, of attending a full-day prekindergarten program for either one year or two years. An analysis of the vocabulary, print awareness, and math skills of entering kindergartners who had attended one year of preK and those who had attended two years of preK found that only in the area of vocabulary did two years of preschool produce greater benefits than attending one year (Barnett, 2011). In a related vein, an analysis of ECLS-K data that included Latino children in California found that children who start attending a center-based program by age three (but after age two) gain larger reading and math readiness benefits than do children who start at age four (Loeb, Bridges, Bassok, Fuller, & Rumberger, 2005). Some Key Findings on the Benefits of Preschool/Prekindergarten Six conclusions stand out from this brief review of research findings on school readiness and academic achievement benefits of preschool for young Latinos: 1. The weight of the rapidly growing body of evaluation evidence indicates that high-quality, large-scale preK programs are producing meaningful benefits for low-, middle- and high-SES children, including Latinos. 2. The fact that benefits seem to accrue to middle- and high-SES children as well as to low-SES youngsters is potentially very important for Latinos, because they are lagging behind Whites in readiness and school achievement at all social class levels. 3. Available evidence is beginning to support the conclusion that low-SES children benefit more from attending full-day preK programs than half-day ones and from attending two-year rather than one-year programs. 4. The actual extent of the long-term benefits of prekindergarten is promising but still unclear, because the evaluations of the growing number of state prekindergarten programs have not yet produced long-term information. It will be several years before there is extensive evaluation evidence through the end of elementary school and into high school. 5. Even the most promising prekindergarten programs only partially close the differences in readiness and achievement between Latino low-SES and middle-class children (and between Latino middle-class and high-SES youngsters). 6. The best-documented achievement benefits of prekindergarten concern reducing negative outcomes, for example, reducing the percentage of children who achieve at very low levels, reducing the percentage that are retained in grade and reducing the percentage that are assigned to special education (Cooper & Lanza, 2014; García, 2015; Marietta & Marietta, 2013, Barrow & Markman-Pithers, 2016). It is significant to note that New Jersey is the first state in the nation to implement a court-mandated public preschool program. In the 1998 Abbott v. Burke

Latinos and the Early Years  47 (Abbott V) decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the state is required to offer all three- and four-year-old children in New Jersey’s lowest-income school districts—now known as the Abbott districts—a “well-planned, highquality” preschool program as a part of its constitutional obligation to provide every child with a “thorough and efficient” education under the New Jersey constitution. Abbott preschools have been housed in community agencies such as Head Start, private centers and public schools. All children living in the Abbott districts, regardless of income or parental status, are eligible to enroll in the preschool program. Abbott preschools have a variety of choices in the curriculum that may be used. Abbott preschools are encouraged to use one of the following programs: Bank Street Developmental Interaction Approach, The Creative Curriculum®, Curiosity Corner®, High/Scope Preschool Curriculum and or Tools of the Mind. Moreover, they are allowed to adapt these curriculums to the linguistic and cultural diversity that they serve. A significant number of Abbot schools utilize duallanguage programming to specifically serve the large number of Latino students and families. Moreover, parents and families are welcome in the school, and their support and assistance are sought. Typical barriers to family involvement such as transportation and language are reduced. Family workers, social workers and community–parent involvement specialists work together to assist parents in obtaining services within the school district and the community. These efforts at the ECE level have been particularly successful for Latino populations served (Espinosa, 2013; García & García, 2012). In California, the implementation of Transition Kindergarten programs follows the efforts of New Jersey. In 2012, the California state legislature approved the resources that would allow young children who missed the kindergarten age requirement (five years of age by September  30) to participate in transitional classrooms at the public school level that would assist them in school readiness. A majority of those four-year-old children eligible and participating were Latino, with a significant percentage of them DLLs. An independent evaluation of these statewide interventions has begun to demonstrate highly positive outcomes in areas of language, literacy and numeracy at the beginning of kindergarten and some continued positive effects through second grade (American Institutes for Research, 2017). This very much replicates initial finding of positive outcomes by Gormley and his colleagues in the longitudinal evaluation of preK programs in Oklahoma City (Gormley, 2008), those reported for North Carolina (Dodge, Bai, Ladd, & Muschkin, 2017) and reviews by Espinosa (2015).

Some Priorities That Emerge From the Achievement Data for Latinos New investments in high-quality prekindergarten integrated into strong preK–3 programs could yield enormous benefits not only to Latino children and their families but also much more broadly to society as a whole. Drawing on the most comprehensive and thorough evaluation of a leading preK–3 program, we estimate

48  Latinos and the Early Years the benefits that would accrue from investing in this type of program beginning at age three for Latino children who live in families with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty threshold.1 These investments would yield a return of at least $6.75 for every additional $1.00 invested in prekindergarten through third grade. The return on prekindergarten alone is at least $8.98 for every $1.00 invested, while the investment in the elementary school years through third grade yields a smaller but still substantial return of at least $3.06 for every $1.00 invested. The magnitude of investments in the Child-Parent Centers in Chicago, which provide the basis for these calculations, was $8,512 per child for the prekindergarten program and $12,719 per child for the additional early elementary school years (in 2007 dollars). If these investments had been initiated for the roughly 65% of Latino children age three with low family incomes in 2012, the total magnitude of the investment beginning with prekindergarten continuing through third grade would be $8.6 billion, which would yield across the lifetimes of these children a benefit to society with a value of $57.7 billion, or a net benefit of $49.2 billion. Extending and extrapolating these investments and benefits to future cohorts of Latino children age three with the lowest 65% of family incomes, a total investment for children entering prekindergarten at age three between 2013 and 2022 of $64.5 billion would yield a total benefit to society of $579 billion, or a net benefit of $514 billion. Over the longer term between 2013 and 2050, an investment of $335 billion would yield a total benefit to society of $3.1 trillion, or a net benefit of $2.7 trillion. The largest source of these benefits (35.4%) derives from reduced expenditures and costs associated with reduction in juvenile crime (12.4%) and adult crime (23%). The second-largest source of benefits (27.9%) derives from the economic contributions of increased earnings (21.7%) and increased payment of taxes (6.2%). Third largest is reductions in expenditures and costs associated with child abuse and neglect (20.5%). Also important are reductions in educational expenditures (13.7%) for special education (12.5%) and reduced grade retention (1.2%). If these investments were made, 7.6 million Latino children will be affected over the next 10  years, or with the projected growth in the number of Latino children, a total of 39.4 million between 2013 and 2050. Of course, these benefits will not begin accruing to society unless and until the investments are made and the necessary changes and reforms are implemented in the educational system.

Summary The data presented here make it clear that promoting greater educational progress for Latinos will require improving the school readiness and early academic achievement of Latino children from all SES levels, not just those from lowSES circumstances. Because they represent about two-thirds of young Latinos, it also is essential that significant improvements be made in the readiness and early achievement of Mexican Americans. Furthermore, since a large segment of Latino children from immigrant families are starting kindergarten with little or no knowledge of English and, subsequently, are lagging far behind Whites in the

Latinos and the Early Years  49 early years of school, it is imperative that ways be found to meet their language development needs much more effectively. These data also make it clear that the challenge can be met to some extent early by reducing the percentage of Latinos who are low academic achievers from the time they start school. There is a pressing need to promote high-quality early childhood experience for Latino children. With participation in such programs, readiness for school at kindergarten can almost be assured. In the overall understanding on the Latino achievement gap, we now realize that participation in highquality ECE can eliminate the achievement gap at kindergarten for this growing population. We have no evidence of the elimination gap at any other level (Takanishi & LeMentrel, 2017). Using the New Jersey court-mandated Abbot School efforts described earlier, it seems reasonable to consider ECE programs as a civil rights issue (Takanishi, 2016), particularly for Latinos. The historical achievement gap that characterizes Latino children and students begins early. The solution offered by recent empirical evidence suggests that not offering these children a high-quality ECE experience places them in an uneven competitive position at the beginning of their mandated K–12 schooling experience (American Institutes for Research, 2017). This argument mirrors the legal argument in Brown v. Board (1954) and Lau v. Nichols (1968) for Black students and segregation and linguistic-minority students and special services, respectively. Latino children with full access to highquality ECE services can begin kindergarten at the same academic level as their non-Latino peers: they are “ready for school.”

Note 1 Calculated by Donald J. Hernandez (Hunter College and the Graduate Center, CUNY) and Jeffrey S. Napierala (University at Albany, SUNY) from U.S. Census Bureau (2008). U.S. Population Projections. National Population.

4 Teaching and Learning From a Cultural and Linguistic Asset Base

The population of the United States is more ethnically and racially diverse than ever, a fact that is particularly evident among young and school-age children, and educational achievement gaps still define an important component of the U.S. schooling landscape. This presents today’s elementary schools—including teachers, administrators and policy makers—with an enormous challenge: promoting educational equity in the classroom and educating all students—regardless of background—to achieve high academic standards. Many students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in the U.S. have had unsuccessful schooling experiences. Their strengths and needs may not be recognized adequately in mainstream classrooms (Knight, Maherer, Carlo, & Davis, 2016; Gandara & Orefield, 2010; Rumberger & Tran, 2010; Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017). To meet these challenges, we have been building “responsive learning communities.” This new pedagogy argues for the respect and integration of students’ values, beliefs, histories and experiences and recognizes the active role that students must play in the learning process (García & Nanez, 2010; García & García, 2012; García & Markos, 2015). It is therefore a responsive pedagogy, one that encompasses practical, contextual, and empirical knowledge and a “world view” that education evolves through meaningful interactions among teachers, students and other school community members. This responsive set of strategies expands students’ knowledge beyond their own immediate experiences while using those experiences as a sound foundation for appropriating new knowledge (Bunch, Lyon, Solis, Stoddart, & Tolbert, 2016).

The Importance of Language and Culture in Learning and Teaching Successful communication with students is essential to effective teaching and learning in U.S. classrooms. A sociocultural approach is needed to best conceptualize the significance of this communicative interaction and its role in development and learning. Sociocultural theorists in general define “culture” in terms of the values and practices that are produced and reproduced through daily routines rather than a set of fixed “traits” (Rogoff, 2003). Culture is the essential mediator of thought and action that adapts with new experiences and information (Cole & Cole, 2010).

Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base  51 Children make meaning by interacting with others, mediated by “semiotics” (signs and symbols, particularly in language) and their cultural-historical significance (Cole & Engestrom, 2007). Cultural rules underlie how we communicate, question, assist and generally relate with one another. In essence, we learn through culturally mediated prompts, clues, modeling, conversation, clarification, observation, imitation, collaboration and encouragement. Meaningful contexts for learning have been notoriously inaccessible to children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, often contributing to their educational vulnerability. The monolithic culture transmitted by U.S. schools in their forms of pedagogy, curricula, instruction, classroom configuration and language dramatizes the lack of fit between these students and the school experience. The culture of U.S. schools is reflected in such practices as:

• The systematic exclusion of the histories, languages, experiences and values •

•

of students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds from classroom curricula and activities. “Tracking,” which limits access to academic courses and justifies learning environments that do not foster students’ academic development, socialization or perception of themselves as competent learners and language users. A lack of opportunities to engage in developmentally and culturally appropriate learning in ways other than by teacher-led instruction.

Although the cultural norms and language experiences that Latino students bring to the class may differ from those of the mainstream, research indicates that teachers who consider students’ home language and cultural experiences also understand important components of instruction for these students to achieve academic success. First, learning comprises community practices carried out in various cultural settings. In other words, learning is not merely a mental or cognitive exercise but a personal and social process of change (Rogoff, 2003). Cultural values and beliefs are transmitted and adapted across settings in children’s daily routines, both in and outside of school. Differences in the school and nonschool repertoires of practice that teacher and students participate in are purported to explain, at least in part, pervasive achievement differences among racial and ethnic groups (García, 2008). Yet community practices often vary more within than between racial and ethnic groups, and repertoires themselves are fluid, changing and adapting with new experiences, rather than static (Artiles & Klingner, 2006). Thus, stereotypic models conflating race or ethnicity with “culture” are problematic. The “effects” of the sociocultural interactions of student learning must be addressed contextually, as opposed to traditional, decontextualized, process-product approaches to classroom research that treat setting differences as “noise.” What is considered “culturally responsive” in one setting might not be in another (even with similar demographics). Classroom interactions should be considered nested within institutions, including characterizations of individual students’ activities, the practices

52  Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base of the classroom community and broader communities of practice. (See Chapter 1 of this volume for further elaboration.) Second, learning builds on prior cultural knowledge and experience. How we organize new knowledge is experiential and, thus, cultural. Researchers in this domain refer to the mental structure for organizing and making sense of new knowledge as “cultural models,” shaped by value and belief systems regarding the importance of some activities (e.g., playtime, domestic labor, leisurely reading, etc.) over others. Cultural models inform who participates in activities, the purpose of participation and rules of interacting across settings (Weisner, 2005). We learn through activities in informal and formal settings (García & Markos, 2015). Classrooms are considered formal settings because learning is driven by institutional values and prescribed goals. Yet many activities, and a great deal of learning, take place outside of school. Classroom interactions that connect with the daily lives of Latino students’—and their associated “funds of knowledge” (Velez-Ibanez, 2017)—are purported to strengthen their academic performance (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). Classroom interactions that draw on the daily experiences and knowledge base (i.e., cultural models) of children can bolster, in theory, not only student understanding of but also their interest in, appreciation for and personal application with academic content. These have been termed the value aspects of students’ “motivation to learn” (Calderon, 2010; García, Johnson, & Seltzer, 2016; Zentella, 2005). These formulations of learning in a cultural context suggests that Latino students fail to see the inherent value of school learning because of content disconnects between school and nonschool settings. Disconnects in the forms of interaction—setting differences in how knowledge and skills are presented, organized, socialized and communicated across settings (Artiles, 2003)—exacerbate the problem. Thus scholars argue that Latino underperformance is due to a double disadvantage: (a) White, non-Hispanic and middle- to upper-middle-class children are more likely to have exposure to and practice with school-related knowledge and skills outside of school, and (b) they are more likely than Latino students to experience home–school continuities in the cultural ways we think, feel, act, and interact (Gee, 2004). A growing body of research suggests that generic-instructional aspects of classroom interactions bolster the academic performance of many types of students and of Latino students in particular (García & García, 2012). This includes the quality of affective (e.g., praise, warmth, sensitivity), organizational (e.g., classroom management, productivity) and instructional (feedback, scaffolding, analytic questioning, language modeling) interactions (Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017). Culturally Responsive Teaching Education scholars and advocates have argued for decades that “culturally responsive”—or “culturally sustaining” (Baker, Basaraba, & Polanco, 2016; García, 2001 Ladson Billings, 1995)—classrooms bridge differences between school

Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base  53 and nonschool interactions. Teachers who demonstrate care and respect for Latino students and their language, experiences, families and communities characterize culturally responsive classrooms (Valdes, 1996). Culturally responsive educators often work with a social justice focus (Gandara, Moran, & García, 2004) and may also connect their work to broader school reform efforts. Educators cite affective, sociopolitical and instructional rationales for connecting classroom activities with Latino students’ out-of-school lives (Kirp, 2013). Culturally responsive pedagogy is conceived of as more than “just good teaching” (Ladson-Billings, 1995; García & García, 2012), yet distinctions between universal and culturally specific dimensions of classroom quality remained blurred (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000). Culturally responsive classroom practices address explicit and implicit efforts to connect students with content objectives; yet there is virtually no evidence demonstrating how culturally responsive teaching enriches “relevant learning” for Latino students at scale. Educators often concede the problem that curricular content and forms of social interaction in classroom settings favor White and middle- to upper-middle-class children over underperforming Racial and Ethnic Minority (REM) students, yet they remain unsure of how exactly to change their teaching and relationships with students to make classrooms more equitable. Generic-Instructional and Culturally Specific Dimensions of Classroom Interactions It is important to disentangle the culturally specific from the universal (or generic-instructional) nature of classroom interactions. We identify three complementary heuristics (Figure 4.1) to clarify distinctions and relationships between culturally specific and generic-instructional dimensions of classroom interactions. “Generic” dimensions address instructional interactions considered important for all students to learn school content. “Culturally specific” dimensions are those that matter differentially for children to learn school content due to underlying values and associated meaning they derive from these interactions. When teachers treat students’ cultural and linguistic knowledge as a resource rather than as a deficit, students are more able to access the school curriculum (Cummins, 2000; Valenzuela, 1990). The more comprehensive the use of their home languages, the greater the potential will be for students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds to be academically successful (García, 2005; Kirp, 2013). To provide effective instruction for students from diverse backgrounds, teachers can use students’ home languages as appropriate to enhance their comprehension of instruction and encourage students to use their home languages for effective communication (Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017). To establish an instructional environment that builds on students’ resources and strengths in classroom instruction, teachers need to incorporate students’ cultural experiences at home and in the community, use cultural artifacts and community resources, use culturally relevant examples and analogies drawn from students’ lives and

54  Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base consider instructional topics from the perspectives of multiple cultures. In essence, learning is enhanced when it occurs in contexts that are culturally, linguistically and cognitively meaningful and relevant to the students. It is through their first languages and home cultures that students create frameworks for new understandings (Espinosa, 2013 Lindholm-Leary, 2015) Cultural Relevance Cultural relevance addresses how classroom interactions explore and value students’ out-of-school interests, beliefs, knowledge and experiences in order to make personal connections with classroom content (Jensen, 2013). Students possess knowledge, engage in practices and see themselves in ways that are relevant to academic learning objectives, but often this is not acknowledged in classrooms, particularly when children and teachers do not share common cultural histories (Fasheh, 1990; Valdes, 1996). Student knowledge includes content knowledge (i.e., preexisting understanding of academic content) as well as experiential knowledge (i.e., understanding gleaned from daily experiences). Whereas learning involves transfer from previous experience, some teachers build on students’ “repertoires of practice” (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003) more than others. We characterize classroom interactions as relatively stronger or weaker in terms of their connectedness with students’ out-of-school lives. Teachers must know something about the identities, routines, out-of-school activities and the social roles of their students and their students’ family members in order to make meaningful applications in the classroom that might contribute to “relevant learning.” Highly self-regulated students can make connections on their own, but most require extensive modeling from teachers (García, Arias, Murri, & Serna, 2010). When personal histories of teachers and students differ greatly, teachers’ understanding of their students’ out-of-school lives must be purposefully pursued in order to make meaningful applications. These practices not only allow students to identify with course material by acknowledging and valuing their informal knowledge and experiences; they can also address misconceptions that hinder students’ content understanding. The impact of addressing misconceptions has been documented in particular for the teaching of mathematics and science concepts (Sinatra & Chinn, 2011). An additional dimension of cultural relevance is difference appreciation—the extent to which teachers and peers value and address the diverse identities, experiences, knowledge, beliefs and interests of students in the classroom (Jensen, 2013)). Well-connected classrooms on this dimension frequently discuss the outof-school hobbies, activities, social roles, responsibilities, traditions and peer and family relationships of children. Even when they do not share students’ cultural heritage, teachers in well-connected classrooms disclose personal information to model sharing. This way, members of the classroom learn more about each other, thereby developing “cultural competence.” Children become more aware of the diversity of their classmates and appreciate rather than overlook, dismiss or look down on differences. The teacher in a well-connected classroom is careful to

Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base  55 clarify that student differences are valued and appreciated, not somehow “superior” or “deficient.” Students are curious about one another’s differences, and they respect them. They are comfortable sharing about themselves. In their recent book, Valdés, Capitelli and Alvarez (2011) describe a five-year study of an after-school, volunteer-based program (called One-on-One English) designed to improve English proficiency of K–3 Latino immigrant children in a small California school district. Gathering assessments on students’ oral language (receptive and expressive language, sound blending, and listening comprehension), videotaped interactions and field notes, the One-on-One collaborative team sought to improve students’ oral English by analyzing relationships between theories of second-language acquisition (SLA) and SLA pedagogy. Using iterative cycles to plan, analyze, implement, and alter the intervention, authors were able to demonstrate growth on multiple dimensions of oral English for a small group of children over time. Volunteer training, material use and the design of learning activities and interactions in the programs (i.e., inputs) were adjusted as student performance and observation data (i.e., outputs) were analyzed. Among other findings (i.e., principles of SLA teaching) was that English proficiency of young Latino children grew more quickly when social interactions of volunteers provided children with plentiful opportunities to “develop interpersonal, interpretive, and presentational communicative competencies” (p. 192), illustrating the sociocultural importance of “active agency” to oral language learning in this setting. Greater language growth was attributed to social interactions that provided children with opportunities for rapid turn taking and spontaneous commenting on topics of interest, even when this entailed “departing from the focus of the interaction planned by the volunteer” (p. 95). Whereas Valdés and colleagues did not study sociocultural interactions in classrooms as we have suggested here, they demonstrate the power of (a) close collaborations with practitioners to address a specific problem of practice; (b) incorporating iterative implementation cycles of the intervention based on mixedmethods analysis of various data types; (c) unpacking the relationship between “local” (i.e., agency) and “global” (i.e., oral language instruction) dimensions of social interactions; and) d) teaching principles and refined theoretical advances that result from ongoing intervention, data analysis and revision. They also illustrate that time allotted to design projects should be consistent with the scope of the problem and intervention dose. In their case, English oral language learning of young Latino ELLs in an after-school program merited a five-year study.

Ensuring the Academic Success of Latino DLLs/ELLs Language is a both a window and mirror to the mind and the heart of culture. To whom we communicate, when we do so and in what manner we do so in conjunction with the reaction of that communication creates the critical circumstances and related contexts of development and learning and helps us to define ourselves and others who are similar and/or different than us. Therefore, language cannot be separated from culture.

56  Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base Latino instructional practice for DLL/ELL children and students should recognize key cultural elements of familial and community culture of the child and student and incorporate teaching and learning opportunities that build a stronger early foundation for multilingualism and later academic achievement. (ELL students are defined here as those children formally identified in the U.S. K–12 schooling process as having a primary language at home other than English.) First and foremost, Latino DLLs profit greatly from high-quality early childhood programs for three- and four-year-old children in order to improve school readiness that does exactly that (García & García, 2012). At a national level, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2016 (ESSA) now recognizes the importance of high-quality early childhood education in preparing to succeed in school by writing Preschool Development Grants, making the once discretionary grant program a permanent fixture. Through a competitive grant process, the Preschool Development Grants provide funding to states to promote coordination and collaboration between existing early childhood programs and systems to improve the access to and quality of programs. Latino children and families can have access to opportunities in their communities that were not available previously. ESSA also provides states the use of Title I funds and encourages planning for transition from preK programs to elementary schools. ESSA also includes language explicitly stating that Title II dollars (funds to prepare, train and recruit high-quality educators) can be used for early educators. Because Head Start has been a model for early childhood education by serving the needs of immigrant populations and linguistic minorities, ESSA provides an opportunity to strengthen and expand this program’s goals (Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017). In November of 2016, California voters helped overturn the state’s Englishonly law and ushered in the promise of bringing multilingual education programs back to their 1.4 million dual DLLs/ELLs. California’s resuscitation of multilingual instruction provides yet another marker of the growing national trend toward dual-language program expansion. And while the push for dual immersion has largely been driven by researchers, advocates and education policy wonks, a new study suggests that there is hardly a consensus on the most effective instructional model for DLLs/ELs (Figueroa, Murphy, Torff, & Session, 2016). But what do the educators responsible for leading DLLs’ instruction believe? The study asked teachers to rate their support for five predominant instructional models for DLL/ ELL students. These five models are: 1. ESL self-contained: students are provided with intensive English-language instruction and academic instruction outside of the general education classroom with an English as a second language (ESL) teacher. These models are often used for students who enter school with relatively low levels of English and/or to group together students with different home languages. 2. ESL pull-out: students remain in the mainstream classroom for academic content instruction but are pulled out into small groups for dedicated Englishlanguage instruction with an ESL teacher.

Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base  57 3. ESL push-in: students receive targeted English-language development from an ESL teacher who pushes into the mainstream classroom. That means DLLs are able to stay in their classroom all day and not run the risk of missing content area instruction. 4. Bilingual education: students receive core academic instruction in their home language, with English instruction gradually increased over time. The goal of these programs is to transition students into English-only classrooms. 5. Dual language: students receive academic content instruction in both their home language and English. This model integrates DLL and non-DLL students with the goal of helping them develop bilingualism, biliteracy and increased cultural competence. A total of 366 teachers and administrators across five schools in a large northeastern city responded to the survey. Importantly, participants were asked to determine which instructional model was most effective for different populations of DLL students: (1) students with high levels of literacy in both English and their home language; (2) students with high literacy in their home language but low levels in English; (3) students with low literacy in their home language but high literacy in English; and (4) students with low levels of literacy in both their home language and English. These distinctions are important given the heterogeneity of the DLL student population. DLLs represent a broad spectrum of linguistic and academic skills and require differentiated services. The findings provide an important set of perspectives from those individuals “on the ground.” ESL push-in and ESL pull-out were the least popular instructional models for DLLs of all levels of proficiency in their home languages or English. A majority of respondents rated dual-language models as effective for DLLs/ELLs with strong literacy skills in English regardless of their level of proficiency in their home language. However, the finding was strongest for DLLs/ ELLs with high levels of proficiency in English and their home language. Teachers may believe that strong proficiency in English and the home language provides students with an advantage in dual immersion programs that share core academic content instruction between both languages Teachers significantly preferred bilingual education for DLLs/ELLs with strong literacy skills in their home language and low levels of English proficiency. Teachers concur with the overall scientific evidence that strong home-language skills are an “asset” in settings where the home language is used as an instructional vehicle for teaching content in core academic subject (Lindholm-Leary, 2015). It is heartening to know that teachers of Latino DLL/ELLs believe that Spanish can be a gateway to access rigorous academic content and support the transition to English.

Latino DLLs The prekindergarten years are a sensitive period for language development. If young children lack sufficient opportunities to acquire language, persistent,

58  Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base lifelong language deficits may result (Kuhl et al., 2005). This is also a time of rapid social-emotional and cognitive growth. During these years, children move from using simple sentences to communicate basic ideas and needs to having extended and detailed conversations with many back-and-forth exchanges about experiences, ideas and feelings (Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Berk, & Singer, 2009. A common theme across multiple studies is the role of individual factors in predicting second-language outcomes. Individual differences, including the child’s L1, cognitive abilities, previous learning experiences, cultural background and prior knowledge, can play an important role in the process of learning a second language. Thus, it may prove beneficial for preschool programs to collect information about DLLs’ backgrounds, including their family, culture, early exposure to language(s), prior knowledge and skills in each language. Knowledge about these individual factors provides important background information about each child’s developmental context and how to design specific instructional activities that are responsive to their unique learning needs. Research with both monolingual and DLL populations has found that vocabulary is one of the best predictors of reading comprehension, that vocabulary is more than just learning words, and that it is learned in multiple contexts both at home and at school (Weisberg, Zosh, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2013). The differences in vocabulary learning between DLLs and their monolingual counterparts usually does not indicate language delays or potential learning problems but is a typical feature of early dual-language learning. Conboy (2013, p. 19) clearly makes this point: [B]ilingual lexical learning leads to initially smaller vocabularies in each separate language than for monolingual learners of those same languages, and total vocabulary sizes (the sum of what children know in both their languages) in bilingual toddlers are similar to those of monolingual toddlers. Given that vocabulary size is a key goal in preschool and important to future reading comprehension, it is critical for ECE teachers to understand this difference between DLL and monolingual preschoolers. To determine a preschool DLL’s vocabulary size, one must assess the words a child knows in both languages. If a DLL preschooler does not know the English word for window, for example, the child may understand the concept of a window but know a different word, such as ventana. Oral language skills (e.g., vocabulary, listening comprehension), grammatical knowledge and narrative production have garnered particular attention from both educators and researchers attempting to meet the learning needs of DLLs. Research with young Spanish-speaking DLLs from low socioeconomic backgrounds has found that they may be at risk for delays in their early literacy development because of their weaker oral language abilities. Moreover, given the importance of oral language abilities for future reading skills and the fact that DLLs often do not receive adequate support for advanced levels of oral language development (Takanishi & LeMenstrel, 2017) DLLs have varying amounts of exposure and

Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base  59 environmental support for each of their languages, and their proficiency in both their L1 and English varies accordingly. A preschool DLL may be fluent in both languages, proficient in the L1 but know very little English, have some English conversational language abilities but little English academic language skill, or have minimal proficiency in both languages (Place  & Hoff, 2011). Recently, several studies have shown that lower levels of English proficiency at kindergarten entry are related to later school and specifically English reading difficulties (Galindo, 2010; Halle et al., 2012). And in a secondary analysis of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K) dataset, Halle et al. (2012) found that when DLLs became more proficient in English during the preschool years, they had better overall achievement in math, science and reading that lasted through eighth grade. These studies underscore the importance of systematic exposure to English during the preschool years to the future school performance of DLLs. Recent research on the amount of time it takes for DLLs to become reclassified as fully proficient in English in school (see Chapter 6) also has found that early proficiency in both L1 and English at kindergarten entry is critical to the process of becoming academically proficient in a second language. The following are recommendations to incorporate native-language instruction and sustain it within ECE instructional settings as addressed in the planning of Minnesota’s efforts to address early childhood education for DLLs in light of the new ESSA related efforts in that state (McKnight Foundation, 2016): Include ECE providers in K–12 professional development: prepare this particular workforce to effectively support DLLs and explore strategies to increase collaboration among schools because establishing a well-trained workforce in ECE contributes to peer professional development and strong instruction overall. The ECE workforce is critical to developing stronger programs. However, the workforce tends to be less educated and specially trained compared to providers of higher levels of education. Most of the ECE workforce is White and only speaks English, especially among well-paid and qualified ECE workers. In recent years, the number of immigrant workers entering the ECE field has increased dramatically, rising from 9% in 1990 to 18% in 2013. ECE workers who have language skills other than English and who look like their students are better able to respond to the unique linguistic needs of DLLs. Minnesota should take advantage of the opportunity of Title II and Title V funds to professionally develop its teaching workforce. Including preK teachers alongside K–12 teachers in EL best practices will strengthen current efforts in college and career readiness alignment. A focus on literacy education at this level integrates both English-language and native-language proficiency. It is important to recognize that strict certification and licensure requirements keep people of color, who would otherwise provide high-quality programs, out. Early learning candidates may have to complete 8 to 15 or more credits at $500 to over $1,000 per credit, plus college/university student fees. In addition to monetary costs,

60  Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base candidates must spend at least three to four months in a program that takes them away from providing care. Many DLL communities rely on community-based early childcare and early learning. Programs tend to grow organically, from a neighbor’s living room into something more formal and organized. If professional development funding is reserved for traditional district-based ECE programs, many high-quality programs are unable to participate. Opening the opportunity for community-based programs to participate in professional development workshops and sessions focused on ECE and DLLs can standardize the level of programming available and utilized. Support effective language instruction that maximizes the use of and supports the development of the native language across ECE: invest to expand DLL access to early childhood education programs and differentiate programs to meet the diverse needs of DLLs, particularly dual-language programming. It is important to fully develop a DLL with proper instruction in both languages. Similar to the “native language” recommendations, students learn best when they can develop their native language. Minnesota has already developed various dualimmersion programs. DLLs should continue to access these programs as well. It is also essential that community-based providers have access to funding and understand the process to begin a program. Properly identify DLLs: similar to the “standardize entry/exit criteria” recommendations for EL students, DLLs must be accurately classified for ECE programs. Include flexibility in reclassification, such as mid-year assessments. For ECE programs to be successful and meaningful, DLLs must be properly classified and reclassified. Assessment of DLLs must be aligned with curriculum and must meet requirements for reliability and validity. They should not be high stakes in nature and not utilized for accountability purposes.(Flores, 2016). In line with ESSA requirements, assessment for identification of DLLs must include a home-language questionnaire in conjunction with a student measure of language proficiency. Assessments utilized to reclassify DLLs must include both a language assessment and an academic performance assessment. Leaning on teacher judgment, assessing a DLL does not need to occur only once a year. If the teacher sees exceptional progress, the DLL may be assessed mid-year and reclassified if necessary. Engage families early: create welcome centers, hire liaisons and build partnerships to increase family engagement in schools. Regarding family engagement, parents of DLLs may be newer to a district or school. Establishing welcome centers, hiring a team of liaisons and building partnerships can ease the transition and better integrate both the child and the family. Informing families about ECE programs and their benefits helps to ease skepticism. By involving families earlier, they may better understand how the U.S. school system operates and can better advocate for their children in the K–12 system, such as testing and EL programs. Communications regarding educational issues must be provided in the family’s home language and be culturally responsive. Additionally, engaging with community-based programs is necessary to ensure future students and families are included in the school community. Culturally responsive family engagement is already an indicator by stating “providing

Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base  61 information in parents’ primary languages.” Although one indicator refers to “language-rich” instruction, it could be interpreted as being only English, so therefore native language instruction must be added. Minnesota’s efforts to address the significance of addressing the early learning opportunities for DLLs is a model of building for DLLs linguistic and cultural assets as they move to enhance the development and learning for this growing population. This is very much in contrast to the policy and practice reality in other states (Gandara & Orfield, 2010a). It is summarized here to provide a guide for others who are working at the state and local level in designing and implementing comprehensive interventions in early learning for Latino DLLs.

Critical Elements of Practice in Educating Latino ELLs in the Early Grades The elementary school years are a critical time for beginning to acquire the skills in reading and mathematics that provide the foundation for more advanced learning in academic disciplines required in middle and high schools. It is an equally critical time to sustain the natural curiosity and eagerness to learn that young children bring to the early grades (García, 2005). For Latino English learners, these grades also represent a time of adapting, many for the first time, to new cultural demands of the schools. They will be learning the skills and content knowledge expected of all students, but they will be doing so in a new language and also in ways that differ from those in their homes and cultures. Educators expect that children’s caregivers at home have prepared them for the elementary school. The checklists used to assess children’s readiness for kindergarten indicate what is deemed appropriate and necessary for children to be “ready for school.” Unfortunately, these assessments are typically administered in English, and cultural relevance is not considered (Flores, 2016;García & García, 2012). While there may be some generics in content and practices in socialization, there are substantial differences across groups as to scheduling and expectations of skills children need to learn in the early years of life. Thus, children are likely to enter school with skills and resources that may differ from those included in evaluations related to their preparedness for schooling. Too often neglected are the varied assets that children bring to the schooling process. As they enter elementary schools, children of Mexican immigrants in a nationally representative sample were rated as highly socially competent and mentally healthy (Crosnoe, 2006). They are resilient, adaptive to change based on family migration and come from families with strong beliefs in the value of educational success. They are collaborative and oriented to learning in peer-group settings. Considering these assets rather than the deficits of ELs can lead to more effective outcomes (Council of Great City Schools, 2013). This section draws on research reported by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017). The report concentrated on research between 1998 and 2016 that focuses on effective and promising approaches for educating ELs in grades K–5 with the majority of students in this

62  Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base research on Latino ELLs. Seven practices or guidelines were identified (they are summarized in what follows): Provide Explicit Instruction in Literacy Components A review of effective literacy instruction for ELs indicated the general pattern found with English-proficient students seems to hold for ELs. Explicit classroom instruction focused on developing key aspects of literacy—phonemic awareness, phonics, oral reading fluency and reading vocabulary—provides clear learning benefits for elementary school–aged ELs. More recent studies show similar findings. However, because ELs are developing language proficiency while they are acquiring content area knowledge in a second language, research indicates there are important considerations to keep in mind regarding instruction. Develop Academic Language During Content Area Instruction From several empirical studies, instructional strategies that developed academic language in the context of teaching content were highly successful. All the studies combined multifaceted instructional approaches that included professional development for teachers with enhanced instructional routines that concurrently focused on teaching content and the academic language associated with it. Provide Visual and Verbal Supports to Make Core Content Comprehensible A critical practice linked to positive outcomes in developing content area knowledge in ELLs is using methods that helped make core content in English comprehensible. One set of methods includes the strategic use of instructional tools such as short videos, visuals and graphic organizers. Other ways to make core content comprehensible are through verbal interactions that clarify content, such as defining words in context; asking right-there questions, coaching and whole-class, small-group and partner discussion. Encourage Peer-Assisted Learning Opportunities Instructional environments that have been effective in developing Latino ELL literacy implemented peer-assisted learning in pairs or cooperative groups of four to six students. A feature of all these environments is that they enabled students to talk about course content in pairs or small groups. Speaking was an important feature that seemed to generate feedback, force more complex language processing and challenge students to practice academic engagement at higher levels. Capitalize on Student’s Home Language, Knowledge and Cultural Assets In studies of schooling, socioeconomic variables such as race/ethnic group, immigration status, parental educational level, parental employment status and income,

Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base  63 family composition and marital status of parents are considered if not examined. Cultural factors, while mentioned, are seldom examined. And yet in schools that serve as diverse a student population as those in the United States, a sociocultural perspective on teaching and learning is arguably a necessity if the goal is to interpret the frequently tenuous relationship between instructional practices and learning outcomes. An analysis of the effectiveness of instructional practices requires, in addition to evidence of learning outcomes, an examination of how children respond to those practices. Screen for Language and Literacy Challenges and Monitor Progress As ELLs move through the schooling enterprise, key components of that school should include screening specifically for reading problems, collecting progress monitoring information more than three times a year and use of data from screening and progress monitoring assessments to make decisions about the instructional support. It is important that performance benchmarks use the same standards for ELLs and English-proficient students in the early grades but make adjustments in instruction when ELL progress is not sufficient. ELL development of English academic proficiency can vary for many reasons, and therefore teachers should utilize formative data to guide instruction. Students’ writing samples are excellent sources for formative assessment because they shed light on language challenges that are common to all children, as well as on challenges and opportunities related to primary-language influence on English. Provide Small-Group Academic Support The use of small-group academic support for ELLs struggling with pre-reading and reading skills, as well as in other areas of literacy and language development, is recognized as highly beneficial for ELLs and Latino ELLs in particular. Providing small-group instructional opportunities should be consistent and implemented for at least 30 minutes in small homogeneous groups. In addition, it is important to provide training and ongoing support for teachers, interventionists and other school personnel on how to deliver small-group instruction effectively. In summary, new emerging evidence lays the foundation for better addressing the academic achievement opportunities and outcomes for Latino DLLs/ ELLs as they participate in the schooling process (García, Johnson, & Seltzer, 2016; Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017). For too long, educators have struggled with planning and implementing. At the instructional level, the science of what makes a difference for Latino students, in the many culturally and linguistic shapes and forms that significantly define them, has advanced much further in the last decade. There seems little reason for us not to be optimistic about the future of Latino students and how instructional efforts can make meaningful change for their long history of underachievement. We turn now to the key individual that can make that instructional science a reality in the classroom: the teacher.

64  Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base

Effective Teachers for Latino Students Overall, the demography of the U.S. teaching workforce is rather homogenous, and students attending schools are growing in their diversity—culturally, racially and linguistically—which places stresses on the education workforce at every level (Allen & Kelly, 2015). Current teachers and prospective teachers tend to teach children much like themselves and, as a result, growing racial differences between teachers and students continue, and diversity is viewed as an obstacle to overcome (García & García, 2012). Rather than teaching students in the way they were prepared, these teachers often revert to the same traditional ways they were taught as students themselves. Effective teachers are the key to meeting the needs of the diverse learners and critical in preparing these learners for the 21st century. Teacher preparation programs can help prepare prospective teachers to teach these learners successfully. Through her research and analysis of these programs, Darling-Hammond (2010) summarized common features of exemplary teacher education programs. Four of the seven common features connect specifically to the preparation of teachers working with linguistically and culturally diverse students:

• A common, clear vision of good teaching permeating all coursework and clinical experiences.

• Curriculum is grounded in knowledge of child and adolescent development, • •

learning, social contexts and subject matter pedagogy, taught in the context of practice. Extended clinical experiences are carefully developed to support the ideas and practices presented in simultaneous, closely interwoven coursework. Explicit strategies help students confront their own deep-seated beliefs and assumptions about learning and students and learn about the experiences of people different from themselves.

The conceptualization on culturally responsive pedagogy can be divided into two broad themes: beliefs and values of teachers and characteristics of culturally responsive teaching practices. Three predominant experts in the field that address beliefs and values of teachers include Ladson-Billings, Villegas and Lucas, and Gay. Based on her work with African-American students, Ladson-Billings (1995) states that teachers must “develop a broader sociopolitical consciousness that allows them to critique the cultural norms, values, mores, and institutions that produce and maintain social inequities” (p. 162). Through their review of the research and work with teachers in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms, in order to become culturally responsive teachers, Villegas and Lucas (2002) propose that teachers must develop a “sociocultural consciousness,” recognizing that each individual’s “perspective reflects his or her location in the social order” (p. 42). Villegas and Lucas state that the task of teacher educators is to help prospective teachers move toward a greater consciousness that includes understanding themselves as individuals (race, class, ethnicity, gender) and developing an understanding of the distribution of power in society that causes inequities and oppression.

Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base  65 In her review of the research and her work with national projects, Gay (2000 defines culturally responsive teaching as Using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively. It is based on the assumption that when academic knowledge and skills are situated within the lived experiences and frames of reference of students, they are more personally meaningful, have higher interest appeal, and are learned more easily and thoroughly. (Gay, 2000, p. 106) Culturally responsive teaching practices must be grounded in an understanding of students’ cultural backgrounds. These understanding are transformed into common characteristics of culturally responsive teaching practices that include building on what students already know, understanding how students construct knowledge, demonstrating a sociocultural consciousness, knowing and understanding about the lives of their students and affirming the views of their students. These practices cannot be conducted in isolation but rather must be supported and situated within specific learning communities. We have summarized in Table 4.1 a set of teacher characteristics that are drawn from a number of empirical evaluations of teacher effectiveness, teacher development and classroom observations (García, 2005; García, Arias, Murri, & Serna, 2010). This summary suggests that effective teachers for Latino students care, organize, implement evidence-based instruction and monitor all students regularly. We have attempted to point to attributes in each of these domains that “define” and help develop and support teachers of Latino students as they strive toward and arrive at academic success for the students they serve (Table 4.1). As García (2016) elaborates in his comprehensive assessment of the significance of administrative leadership at local school sites, such leadership can make a critical difference, ensuring that teachers are supported on an ongoing basis to achieve maximum effectiveness.

Summary and Final Thoughts We have argued for the translation of the present science of development and learning to improve the ways teachers interact with Latino students so as to enhance their academic experiences in preK–12 classrooms. We offered a framework of cultural specific dimensions based on interdisciplinary and sociocultural studies to move this work forward. Studies can certainly use subsets of this framework to design, test and replicate culturally responsive interactions for specific aims and settings. These efforts should be mindful of institutional processes (e.g., school segregation) and systemic inequalities that constrain opportunities for classrooms to improve Latino performance (Gandara & Orfield, 2010a; Portes, Salas, Baquedano-Lopez, & Mellom, 2014). We will never address the academic success of Latino students without understanding how to bridge cultural distance between school and non-school settings

Table 4.1  Characteristics of Effective Teachers for Latino Students An effective teacher cares by:

An effective teacher An effective An effective teacher organizes by: teacher implements monitors by: instruction by:

establishing routines for all daily tasks and orchestrating them efficiently and consistently with smooth transitions. •  Daily schedule using classroom creating a respectful space efficiently classroom environso that students are ment in which all able to easily idenstudents are treated tify where materials equally and encourand learning conaged to succeed. texts are located. • Cooperative • Labeled areas structures that are flexible based on student needs interacting with implementing rules students in a way that of behavior fairly shows you value what and consistently while using proacthey have to say. • Conversation table tive discipline. • Students and teacher identify rules and consequences demonstrating a dedi- clearly articulatcation to teaching and ing high expectaowning responsibility tions for student for student outcomes. responsibility and accountability • Implementing and • Total response evaluating new insignals structional strategies creating a supportive classroom climate that demonstrates interest and concern for students’ lives outside of home. •  Family journals

reflecting on how to improve learning while setting high expectations for self and students. • Professional portfolios • Student collections

planning and developing lesson objectives, questions and activities that reflect a range of cognitive skills. • Content and language objectives

employing a variety of instructional strategies while attending to lesson pace and student engagement. • Informal assessments giving clear examples and offering guided practice while holding high expectations for all students. • Lesson template

relating homework to current content and discussing grades and homework when appropriate. •  Logo homework

asking students to demonstrate understanding of meaning rather than memorization. • Literacy as a priority in all content areas

giving clear, specific and timely feedback to avoid misconceptions that may occur. • Note-taking that targets specific students or areas

identifying questions in advance that reflect the type of content being taught. • Wait time is planned and differentiated answering clarifying questions while attending to lesson pace. • Student engagement checklist

using a variety of grouping strategies that meet student needs. • Lesson template

aligning questions and assessments to lesson objectives. •  Lesson template

monitoring student progress with a clear understanding of student abilities, needs and achievement. • Data collection that includes reflections and dialogue

Teaching and Learning From an Asset Base  67 and implementing that understanding for Latino students at every level of the formal schooling enterprise at every level and for every learning domain. The growth of the Latino student population in the United States coupled with pervasive performance gaps and expanding student competencies requires new bridging of conceptual frameworks, policies and practices. We have attempted here to shed light on these advances in knowledge and practice that have demonstrated their positive influence on Latino educational outcomes.

5 Federal and State Policy The Dos and Don’ts

Latino, ELL-related Education Policy Circumstances and Instruction in the United States The Latino school-age population is highly diverse linguistically and culturally but makes ups some 75% of the nation’s preK–12 student population (see Chapter 2 of this volume for details.). For Latino ELLs, participation in formal educational settings has not only drawn the attention of educational practitioners and policy makers. Significant federal and state policies that address participation in targeted educational programing along with funding, standards, language and academic assessments and related accountability domains have been an attribute of and have directly influenced Latino ELLs’ educational experiences for decades in the United States (Gandara, Moran, & García, 2004; Powers, 2014). These policies and practices have ranged from characterizing the non-English language of ELLs as a problem/barrier or as a resource to equal educational opportunity (Ruiz, 1995). Internationally and among Native Americans in the United States, policies related to ELL education have included the construct that the nonmajority languages of ELLs are an individual right to be considered in educational programs (McCarty & Nichols, 2014). Policies and their related practices have been central to the education of ELLs in the United States at the federal, state and local levels and have received critical attention by the federal and state courts (Borman, Wiley, García, & Danzig, 2014). For example, federal legislation in the most significant K–12 education domain, the Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA) of 1968, also known as No Child Left Behind from 2002–2015 and most recently reauthorized in 2015 as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), has specifically addressed ELL education with particular attention to the United States Supreme Court adjudications related to this student population (Pompa & Park, 2016). The New America Foundation published a comprehensive examination of language education policy across the United States, with a focus on reclassification standards. Williams remarks on the wide variability of reclassification policies across states, a chaos that “translates into widespread confusion about how [English Language Learners] experience public education” (Williams, 2014, p. 2) If reclassification policies are arbitrary and not supported by empirical research, as voiced by Williams, and the original English-language instruction is flawed, English

Federal and State Policy  69 language learners could face enormous obstacles under English-only regular classroom instruction. Federal policies affecting ELLs come directly out of the Civil Rights era and the War on Poverty that were priorities of the Johnson administration. Using Richard Ruiz’s framework (Ruiz, 1995), the policies addressed language either as a “problem” to be corrected to provide equal opportunity or as a “right” to access English (i.e., bilingual education). Only rarely are statements that refer to bilingualism as an asset found, even in the nonbinding “Whereas . . .” portions of the legislation or in court rulings that might reflect Ruiz’s perspective of language as a resource. These historical origins of ELL policies are important to appreciate when we consider the narrow focus of the policies around children’s access to English and to grade-level content instruction. It is equally important to consider the shifts in federal education policy toward systemic changes and standards (Cohen, 1995). The release of the Nation at Risk report in 1983 triggered a series of events that led to the “Standards-Based Reform” movement (Cohen, 1995). When Bill Clinton became president, the first education law he signed was the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, which established state standards, and ESEA, named the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, followed suit by authorizing programs around the standards. Because the federal government is not supposed to dictate the content of instruction by states and districts, each state was free to develop its own standards, but the rhetoric was to move away from accountability for spending to accountability for demonstrated results. No Child Left Behind of 2001 added strong accountability provisions for students attaining standards and for reducing gaps between subgroups of students, including ELLs. Title I of the bill accomplished its goal of making schools, local districts and states accountable for the performance of ELLs, with corrective actions required of systems failing to do so. The newly authorized ESSA, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, continues accountability aspects with regard to DLLs but places the major responsibility for identification, assessment, program characteristics and accountability on individual state processes, procedures and metrics (McHugh & Pompa, 2016). The federal law remains heavy on accountability but does not provide requirements for states to develop and implement systems of support to ensure improved academic achievement for DLLs. The language-of-instruction issue has been the most intensely debated aspect of the education policy and practice for ELLs in K–12 settings for decades and is often politically charged (Gandara & Hopkins, 2010). In general, educators and researchers agree that to succeed in U.S. schools and participate in civic life in the United States, all children need to develop strong English proficiency and literacy skills. The debate surrounds the question of how to best support the acquisition of English and whether it should come at the expense of continued attention to the development and maintenance of the child’s home language (L1). Questions about the ongoing role of L1 as English skills deepen, the social and cultural costs of losing proficiency in the home language, the role of education programs in systematically supporting L1 and community values that may promote English-only

70  Federal and State Policy approaches have not been resolved. Further, there are still many practical questions around the best methods to promote English language development while continuing to support multiple home languages in English-dominant settings. It hardly needs to be said that there is no one best way to educate Latino ELLs effectively. What becomes clear is that consideration of the instructional practices in programs for Latino ELLs is that what happens in schools is often dictated by practical realities and politics as much as determined by policies, goals and pedagogy. Educators are well aware of their obligations to serve the complex needs of these students, which require resources and solutions that are not always readily available. Why Arizona as a Case Study for Latinos and ELLs? Arizona Demographics Arizona, a Southwestern border state with Mexico, has a long and rich yet troubled history with that country (Acuña, 1998; Weber, 2003). Thus, the present relationship between Arizona and Mexican Americans is complex and full of tension manifested over time. Currently, there are approximately 6.3 million residents in Arizona, 30% identifying as Latino. Of this population, overwhelmingly 38% subsist under poverty, and of Latinos in education, 60% qualify for the Free and/ or Reduced Lunch Program (FRLP), 6–15% of which are ELLs (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). This demographic shift is not only an Arizona phenomenon; nationally, Latinos are the fastest growing majority-minority group. Thus Arizona and many Southwestern states are seen as operating in a White/Brown paradigm similarly to other Southwestern states and similarly to the White/Black paradigm in many Southern states (Aleman & Aleman, 2010). Historically, there have always been waves of anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States, usually in times of war and/or economic uncertainty (Mayda, 2006). However, the current demographic shifts have, at least to some degree, reignited a new wave of anti-immigrant sentiment politics due to fear that Caucasian, AngloProtestant culture and the English language are increasingly the minority within United States borders (Goldstein & Peters, 2014). Anti-immigrant sentiment intensified during the period of the Great Recession in 2008–2013 due to significant unemployment and housing foreclosures even though the economic crisis disproportionately negatively impacted working-class Latinos. Anti-immigrant sentiment during this time intersected with other social constructs such as ethnicity, language, class and immigrant status. Moreover, there has been a substantial and important body of demographic, educational gap assessments and scholarly work conducted related to the Flores case related to instructional programming and segregation (Arias & Faltis, 2012; Gandara & Hopkins, 2010; García, Lawton, & Diniz de Figueiredo, 2011; Powers, 2014). The case study of Arizona here in conjunction with its policies related specifically to Latino ELLs is instructive, with many lessons learned that have salient implications to the research community and policy makers.

Federal and State Policy  71 WHO ARE THE STUDENTS?

Arizona has historically had a strong demographic presence of Latino, mostly Mexican-origin populations with significant Spanish-language attributes prior to statehood and after statehood (Velez-Ibanez, 2017). Currently, the majority of the youngest population, 0–6 years of age, is Latino (Figure 5.1) These children are already in early care and early education circumstances in the state and headed toward the elementary and secondary public school system. Already in the K–12 schools, enrollments of Latinos students is significant and outnumber White, Black and Native Americans (Figure 5.2), and the trends in enrollment indicate the number of Latino students grow even in light of Mexican immigration reduction in the last five years (Pew, 2014). The future of Arizona student enrollment, considering the information provided in Figure 5.1, projects that the number and percentage of Latinos in Arizona school will continue to increase (Figure 5.2).

Latino Achievement in Arizona Schools In Arizona, significant gaps are evident in Latino achievement/attainment, including state indices on state-level accountability measures in NAEP math proficiency (Figure 5.3), NAEP reading proficiency (Figure 5.3) and ACT performance (Figure 5.5). It is not out of order to conclude that a Latino student in the state is less likely to secure similar opportunities for education success compared to non-Latino White populations, at least as assessed DEMOGRAPHICS: 546,609 NUMBER OF KIDS UNDER 6 IN ARIZONA Ethnic breakdown of kids under 6 5%

6% Hispanic or Latino

4%

White, not Hispanic 45%

40%

Black or African American, not Hispanic American Indian, not Hispanic Other (including children of two or more races), not Hispanic

Figure 5.1  Arizona Demographics Source: Adapted from First Things First 2016 Annual Report, https://www.firstthingsfirst.org/ Publications/FY2016_Annual_Report.pdf

72  Federal and State Policy

Enrollments Latino White Black American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian Two or More Races (non-Hispanic) Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander Enrollments

3,697

50

Two or More Races (nonHispanic) 30,337

100 Asian 31,693

150

200

250

American Indian/ Alaskan Native 52,317

300

350

400

450

500

Black

White

Latino

59,136

443,385

504,137

Thousands

Figure 5.2  Arizona K–12 Enrollments by Race and Ethnicity Related Trends Source: Arizona Department of Education, October 1st Enrollment, http://www.azed.gov/researchevaluation/arizona-enrollment-figures/

MATH

READING 70%

70% 56%

60%

60%

51%

50%

50%

40%

40%

30%

32% 25%

23%

19%

16%

20%

27%

30% 15%

20%

47%

44%

20%

18%

19%

11%

15%

10%

10%

0%

0% Grade 4

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 8

Latino

White

Latino

White

Black

Asian

Black

Asian

American Indian

American Indian

Figure 5.3  NAEP Proficiency Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/dataset.aspx

by local, state and federal indicators of education success. These data speak for themselves. It is important to note that the educational achievement of the “majority” population continues to show a pattern of significant underachievement on measures provided by the nation’s acdemic report card (NAEP). But, the NAEP math and reading dataprovided in Figure 5.3 indicate a serious gap in proficiency levels for Latinos as well as other non-White groups included in this analyses of achievement. All students in the state are underachiving. However, minority sutdent are underachiving the most. This assessment of underachievement for Latinos in Arizona can be coupled with other measure of education attainment. In areas related to high school

Federal and State Policy  73

Figure 5.4  High School Graduation Source: Arizona Department of Education, Cohort 2015 Four-Year Grad Rate Data, http://www.azed. gov/research-evaluation/graduation-rates/

78 72 66 60 54 48 42 36 30 24 18 12 6 0

Latino

77

White

58

56

49

37 22

English

Math

23 16

Reading

Science

Figure 5.5  ACT Test Readiness Benchmarks Source: Adapted from ACT, Inc. The Condition of College and Career Readiness 2015, Arizona. (p. 7), http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/2015_CCRR_Arizona.pdf

graduation and ACT assessment of literacy and numeracy, gaps are striking (Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5). In short, in a state where Latinos are proportionately the largest group of preK– 12 children/students and the largest ethnic group numerically in Arizona schools, numbering over half a million students, the story of underachievement remains unresolved. We turn now to extrapolating some of the policy and practice reasons that help us to understand this educational disparity.

Latino ELLs and Arizona Policy In 2013, Arizona had approximately 145,000 English language learners, constituting about 13% of Arizona’s K–12 population. In the last 20 years, Arizona has

74  Federal and State Policy been the object of intense attention and study regarding English language learning practice and policy. Arizona ELL controversy began in 1992 when a group of Nogales parents sued the state of Arizona for inadequate ELL funding, a case that would eventually rise to the level of the Supreme Court in 2009 as Horne v. Arizona. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of Arizona but remanded the case to a U.S. district court for further consideration of possible violations of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. Several current English-language-instruction paradigms could be impacted by the district courts future decisions, such as the segregation of non-English speakers and sequential instruction, that is students learn English and then learn core academic contents (Rios-Aguilar & Gándara, 2012). The Flores case has been primarily examined through a theoretical perspective through the conceptual lenses of language and segregation policy (Powers, 2014), hegemony (Rios-Aguilar & Gandara, 2012), Latin@ critical race theory (e.g., Jimenez-Silva, Gomez, & Cisneros, 2014) and racist nativism (e.g., JimenezCastellanos, Cisneros, & Gomez, 2013). Each theoretical lens additively scrutinized and attempted to explore the lived experience of ELLs primarily through one or two social constructs (i.e., race, language). In this chapter, we build on the conceptual framework offered in Chapter 1, a working conceptual framework that merges intersectionality of language, class and ethnicity and policy analysis as an analytical tool to understand the nuanced, multilayered, compounded educational inequality encountered by low-income, Latino Spanish-speaking students in Arizona K–12 public schools as a function of intersecting educational policies. We attempt to provide a holistic and comprehensive framing through the sub context of Flores and its iterations as a case study. Most of the previous research related to the Flores case examines the policy and/or instructional context focusing on one specific policy (i.e., segregation, home language survey, teacher preparation). We move away by examining the multi-faceted aspect of this seminal litigation. Currently there exist two edited books (Arias & Faltis, 2012; Gandara & Hopkins, 2010) published on this topic and a couple of reports (Jimenez-Castellanos, Combs, Martinez, & Gomez, 2013) that have provided valuable timelines and analysis of the litigated and legislative events. As a whole, the Flores literature implicitly suggests the changes that have occurred are to the detriment of ELLs educational potentiality and have minimized the opportunities present for ELLs. Yet we further argue that only through a holistic examination of these overlapping discriminatory policies can we truly comprehend the multifaceted nature of the policy impact experienced by ELLs. Finally, we provide a conceptual framework that counters the Arizona model. The conceptual framework is grounded in culture, language and learning that we believe provide a pathway to interrupt inequality by acknowledging the intersectional social constructs of an ELL. Again, while language is an important social construct that uniquely distinguishes ELLs from other students, we must be wary not to frame it as the only salient dimension. English language learners have the same dimensions that other students have such as gender, religion and sexual orientation, among others. Another distinctive dimension for some ELLs is immigration status in particular if they are refugees and if they are undocumented. It is worthwhile reiterating that

Federal and State Policy  75 the majority of ELLs are native U.S. born, contrary to many people’s beliefs that ELLs are primarily recent immigrants. It is crucial to be aware of the intragroup complexity and diversity of ELLs while effectively engaging the contextual diversity of this group within the Southwestern states including Arizona. In Arizona, ELLs are predominately marginalized, low-income, Spanish-speaking communities of Mexican origin and, as demonstrated in an earlier section, born in the United States. This is not to suggest that ELLs in Arizona form a homogenous and static group. Thus intersectionality’s utility allows us to untangle and legitimize the singularity of each social construct while recognizing the cumulative impact of discrimination. In schooling, segregation is one of the most disturbing effects of discrimination, both across schools and within schools. Orfield and Lee (2005) highlight a triple segregation, referring to schools as isolated by race, class and language through majority-minority enrollment. Although mostly framed as a Latino issue, the primary driver for triple segregation is language not race or class, since without the social construct of language, it would be deemed double segregation by race and class. Finally, Gandara and Orfield (2012b) note that the triple segregation of Arizona’s English learners exists by ethnicity, language and poverty, which cumulatively affects students negatively. Overall, the policy of Arizona that has created linguistic segregation at the classroom level intensifies all the negative impacts of school segregation. For this reason, it is important to organize instruction design in ways that mitigate the multiple forms of segregation experienced by students within this subgroup. We believe that one of the most important factors to understanding the inequality experienced by ELLs in Arizona is “politics, politics, politics.” Therefore, it is important to situate this case within a sociohistorical and sociopolitical context, since much of what happens in education policy, and particularly in Arizona, was and is predicated and heavily influenced by politics. Politics and Power (Re)Frame Flores Case The attorneys for the Flores case had a tough political decision to make regarding the official litigation filing. If they filed with the more Democrat-friendly U.S. District Court, they risked a loss due to the U.S. Supreme Court Rodriguez v. San Antonio decision. This case ultimately ruled education was a state and not a federal matter with regard to funding. If they filed with the less friendly State of Arizona Court, they risked proceeding in front of the Arizona governor’s (a Republican at the time) elected justices, knowing that in several states, when standing before state justices, final determinations were often favorable. Ultimately, they decided to file the case with the U.S. District Court, avoiding the Republican governor’s appointed judges. No significant changes occurred during the time following the primary filing, 1992–1999. However, Arizona was on the cusp of a fundamental shift in ELL politics by 2000. In January 2000, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, noting that inadequate state funding resulted in program deficiencies for ELLs. The

76  Federal and State Policy court found the state’s ELL appropriation was “arbitrary and capricious.” Furthermore, as Jimenez-Castellanos et al. (2013) stated in August 2000, the thenSuperintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan entered into a consent decree with the plaintiffs that resolved the lawsuit’s allegations. The 2000 Flores v. Arizona consent decree mandate focused on ensuring ELLs learned English through English language development but also stipulated that content subject matter should be comprehensible and appropriate, using acceptable strategies for teaching ELL students. Furthermore, the consent decree specifically referenced bilingual education as an acceptable instructional program model for instruction. This decision came on the heels of the anti–bilingual education proposition, Prop. 203, known as “English for the Children.” During this same period, Arizona’s residential and cultural landscape looked much different, with Caucasians 65% making up the majority of the state while Latinos made up only 25% of the total population. Arizona voters passed Proposition 203, changing the language policy of the state to a restrictive language model mandating ELLs be taught in English only, requiring an intensive one-year Structured English Immersion (SEI) program of instruction. This forced schools to comply with a mandate that viewed the native language, Spanish, of Mexican ELL students as a negative trait instead of a resource (Ruiz, 1995). Moreover, local school and district flexibility and choice regarding the type of program model(s) offered to ELLs was eliminated, and SEI was the required instructional method for ELLs in school districts and charter schools across the state. Previously, Arizona schools were allowed to select from a variety of acceptable program models, including English as a second language and transitional bilingual programs or dual-language education, to develop English proficiency and academic achievement for their English learners. The irony of Prop. 203 is that it reduced choice and local control, two principles that Arizona Republicans usually staunchly support, but not when it came to educating “Latino immigrant ” children. As a follow-up to Prop 203, the Arizona Legislature passed HB1064 in 2006, which among other things created a task force charged with designing a researchbased English instruction program that included at least four hours per day of English development (Arizona Revised Statute §§ 15–756.01). Informed and guided by Proposition 203, the bill required that the task force limit the available models of language acquisition to only those that helped develop English proficiency in one year. The ultimate recommendation of the task force was a form of structured English immersion (SEI) resulting in segregation of students for four of the estimated six and a half hours per day of instruction and limited access to compressive curriculum (Gandara & Orfield, 2012b). HB1064 and the resulting task force recommendation have received widespread criticism from within Arizona and across the nation. The bill itself has been strongly criticized by the scholarly and educational communities for its emphasis on the most “cost-efficient” method of English instruction rather than the most effective (Gándara & Orfield, 2010b). Many academic studies argue that English proficiency can take language learners between four and five years to achieve, making HB1064’s expectation of proficiency in one year seem largely unrealistic (Gándara & Orfield, 2010a). A survey by Rios-Aguilar, González-Canche and Moll of 880 English-language teachers in

Federal and State Policy  77 Arizona found that a large majority of teachers, 78%, believed it would take three or more years for ELLs to achieve English proficiency (Rios-Aguilar, GonzálezCanche, & Moll, 2010b). The most opposed feature of the task force’s ultimate recommendation has been its segregation of ELLs from their peers. In fact, Arizona State University researchers Jimenez-Castellanos et al. (2013) conclude that, in the final Flores v. Arizona hearings, plaintiffs argued that the SEI block not only failed to constitute appropriate funding for ELLs but also created a “segregation of ELLs from their English-speaking peers,” constituting a “withholding of content [that] violated the students’ civil rights.” The Arizona Office of the Auditor General issued a report in 2011 discussing the implementation and effectiveness of the task force recommendation. Their primary two conclusions were that by 2010, “almost two-thirds of schools had not fully implemented” the mandated SEI models, and though proficiency rates had increased since SEI adoption, the impact of the recent changes could not be reliably known. To externally gauge the efficacy and impact of the new SEI instruction, as well as to understand the implications and rhetoric surrounding Arizona ELL policy, the UCLA Civil Rights Project conducted an extensive series of Arizona education studies in 2010 called the Arizona Education Equity Project. Many of the studies already cited within this chapter are from that series. Many if not most of the papers in the series present pessimistic findings about the state’s ELL practices. García et al. (2011) concluded Arizona was by proxy stimulating larger achievement gaps, due in part to its restrictive language policy. In related research on the Arizona policy context, Arizona teachers strongly believe in their ELL students’ ability to succeed. In fact, 85% of teachers voiced their opinions that separation from English-speaking peers would harm ELLs’ learning and English development (Rios-Aguilar, González-Canche, & Moll, 2010a). Lillie, Markos, Arias, and Wiley (2012) would add to this context, highlighting the potential divide that would occur with regard to limited curriculum access, and felt the Arizona SEI model would stigmatize this group of students Jimenez-Castellanos et al. (2013, p. 3) conclude, “the empirical evidence supports the argument that funding and instructional practices implemented post Flores v. Arizona continues to be inadequate as it does not appear to be improving the academic attainment for Arizona’s ELLs.” Arizona’s English-only instruction policy, initiated through Prop. 203 in 2000, is a detriment to teaching as well, ultimately limiting the available EL strategies available for front-line teachers to support L2 acquisition. Hopkins (2012) denotes the availability of English as a second language and the subsequent teacher endorsements to that regard as something that has affective positive change in the learning and teaching of an ELL student. In mid-2009, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of Arizona remanding the case to a U.S. district court for further consideration of possible violations to the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. Currently, several Englishlanguage instruction paradigms could be impacted by the district court’s future decisions, such as the segregation of non-English speakers and sequential instruction (i.e., students learning English and core academic contents; RiosAguilar & Gándara, 2012).

78  Federal and State Policy The New America Foundation published a comprehensive examination of language education policy across the United States, with a focus on reclassification standards. Williams (2014, p. 2) remarks on the wide variability of reclassification policies across states, a chaos that “translates into widespread confusion about how [English Language Learners] experience public education.” If reclassification policies are arbitrary and not supported by empirical research, as voiced by Williams, and the original English language instruction is flawed, ELLs could face enormous obstacles under English-only regular classroom instruction. Federal civil rights evaluations and their definition of these student populations and the assessments utilized to reclassify students were found to be discriminatory and in need of corrective action. In the Flores case, courts have determined that the required implementation of the Arizona instructional model for ELLs is in need of assessment for positive outcomes. Overwhelmingly, academic research has indicated that Arizona has flawed if not unjust English language learning policies. The foregoing research is comprehensive in its analysis of how current English language learners are addressed and supported in Arizona. The state’s one-year (possible extension to two years) proficiency expectation prompts the question: Is Arizona’s ELL policy the model for other states to emulate? As federal policy considerations for ELLs shift to the states’ provision in ESSA, we suggest the Arizona is exactly what states should avoid as they address the education challenges related to Latino ELLs.

Cumulative Impact of Discriminatory Educational Policies Over the next decade and a half, English-only language policy helped frame various bills passed by the Arizona legislature designed to address ELL instructional needs and funding. This English “only” climate disregards and is in contrast with Arizona’s deep history with the Spanish language. Historically, for more than a hundred years, Spanish was the first and predominant language of communication in domains of religion, schooling and politics in the area that now is the state of Arizona (Velez-Ibanez, 2017). This utilization of Spanish in these domains significantly continues in Arizona communities. Even though English has had prestige in the state and Spanish was perceived as a “foreign” language, the evidence suggests that Prop. 203 set in motion a series of legislative attempts to address broadly issues of language and culture aimed directly at Latinos. Although Prop. 203 was the first formal political element aimed at Latinos, anti-immigrant and anti–ethnic studies legislation soon followed (Gandara & Orfield, 2010a). Of educational significance is legislative action taken specifically against Latinos. In 2010, the Arizona legislature passed H.B. 2281, codified at Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 15–111 and 15–112. The statute prohibits Arizona school districts and charter schools from offering any courses that: “1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government”; “2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people”; “3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group”; or “4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals” (A.R.S. § 15–112(A)). Under this statute, if the state board of education

Federal and State Policy  79 or the superintendent of public instruction determined that a program offered by a school district is in violation of the statute, the district has 60 days to come into compliance by eliminating the program. If it does not, the board or superintendent may direct the Department of Education to withhold 10% of the district’s state funding. Immediately after passage of this statute, the superintendent of public instruction issued a finding that courses offered by Tucson Unified School District No. 1 (“TUSD”) violated A.R.S. § 15–112(A). The courses at issue were taught as part of TUSD’s Mexican-American Studies (MAS) program. In 2011, a new superintendent issued a second finding that TUSD was in violation of the statute. He ordered TUSD to bring the MAS program into compliance. TUSD appealed the finding to a state administrative tribunal, which ruled in favor of the superintendent. However, a set of TUSD acting as plaintiffs filed a stop action in opposition to the statute soon after the statute was passed and before any superintendent had issued findings against TUSD. Plaintiffs were MAS teachers, the director of the MAS program and TUSD students who intended to take MAS classes. They initially asserted equal protection, free speech and due process vagueness claims and later added claims for violation of their rights to freedom of association and substantive due process. Defendants were the superintendent of public instruction, the Arizona State Board of Education, and members of the board. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion with respect to Section (3) of A.R.S. § 15–112(A), concluding that Section (3) is overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. It denied the motion with respect to all other claims, concluding that Sections (1), (2) and (4) of A.R.S. § 15–112 were neither overbroad nor vague. The Court granted defendants’ motion with respect to all of plaintiffs’ free speech challenges except for the overbreadth challenge to A.R.S. § 15–112(A)(3). Finding that the issues material to plaintiffs’ equal protection and substantive due process claims had been fully ventilated, the Court sua sponte granted summary judgment for defendants on those claims as well. Both parties cross-appealed, and the adjudication continued as a case related directly to students who intended to enroll in MAS courses (Arce as plaintiff) and the new Arizona state superintendent of public instruction (Douglas as defendant). In Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. It affirmed this Court’s award of summary judgment to plaintiffs on § 15–112(A)(3) and awarded summary judgment to defendants on the overbreadth and vagueness challenges. It reversed the award of summary judgment to defendants on the equal protection and First Amendment “viewpoint discrimination” claims. As to equal protection, the Ninth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs had submitted sufficient evidence to raise a dispute of fact as to whether the MAS program was terminated due to racial animus. Accordingly, it reversed the award of judgment and “remanded that claim for trial.” As to viewpoint of discrimination, the Ninth reversed the award of judgment on that claim and remanded “for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”

80  Federal and State Policy In sum, the Ninth Circuit held in Arce that plaintiffs had raised a material dispute of fact as to whether defendants terminated the MAS program for racist purposes in addition to affirming First Amendment violations related to the elimination of MAS. None of defendants’ arguments to the contrary were considered persuasive. The adjudication of the MAS elimination in relation to a state statue and administrative action continues. Arizona remains alone in fostering and implementing legislative and administrative punitive action related to ethnic studies effort in the public education sector, specifically aimed at Latinos.

If Not Arizona, Then Who? In 2014, the Minnesota state legislature passed the nation’s most comprehensive legislation related to ELLs [H. F. 2397, Learning for English Academic Proficiency and Success (LEAPS) Act]. The legal effort aimed to ensure English academic proficiency for these students as well as remove the academic achievement gap related to grade-level content knowledge and also provide support for multilingual language skills development. Like other legislative action at the federal and state levels, English and academic content knowledge were significantly addressed as goals. However, what distinguishes this legislative effort from others is the significant attention to multilingualism. This departure from the usual attention to English academic development and content knowledge development recognized for the first time in legislative action at the national and local levels the importance of students learning more than one language. It sent an new policy signal that bilingualism was not a problem for students but was an asset for all students, particularly for ELLs. The new legislation recognized that the more than 67,000 ELL students (a 300% increase over the last 20 years) in the state required specific education attention at the policy and practice levels. The majority of these students are Latino (over 70%), although more than 20 languages are reported spoken by preschool- and K– 12-age students. The Minnesota Department of Education reported at the time that almost half of students identified as ELL do not graduate from high school—that compares to a general high school completion rate of close to 90% for non–ELL students Williams, 2014). This type of achievement gap is also apparent at every grade level addressed by the state’s student accountability measures (McKnight Foundation, 2014). Very directly, the law addresses ELLs’ native language as an asset to be more than recognized—respected, supported and promoted though the following policies:

• Requiring language and reading assessment in the predominant language of • •

the student wherever assessment is reliable and valid. The collection and reporting of information of ELLs’ native language as part of any school’s publically available performance reports. Like some 20 other states, establishing bilingual and multilingual seals for high school graduates’ proficiency in more than one language. In addition, provision in the legislation identified specific priority efforts by training and

Federal and State Policy  81 credentialing entities related to producing and verifying the competence of teachers and administrators that can serve to meet the goals put forward by the legislation. The new law specifically directs districts and charters to provide the type of staff and curricular support to teachers and classrooms that assist in supporting native language development, with a focus on literacy. The Minnesota Department of Education is directed to develop monitoring and accountability procedures related to these support mechanisms at the district and school levels (Williams, 2014). In groundbreaking policy, the legislation requires all teachers credentialed in Minnesota to be prepared in both English development and content instruction for ELLs but also prepared to support ELL students’ native language in the instruction of academic content. This is in line with recent evidence that indicates, particularly for Latino students, support and use of Spanish during the instruction of English academic content can be highly successful in achieving content knowledge goals and reducing achievement gaps (Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017). We address this Minnesota state-level policy contribution here to contrast it with the case study of Arizona’s policy related to ELLs and influence in the education of a large number of Latino ELLs in each state. Treating ELL native language as an asset is the important shift reflected in the Minnesota legislation. However, the legislation also considers other positive steps that Arizona and other states should seriously consider:

• Consider the importance of teacher and administrator licensing requirements • • • •

that include competencies for all educational professional relate native language support along with English academic proficiency. Clearly define for districts and charters the achievement goals related to ELLs, based on standards that are specifically relevant to these students, (WIDA standards as an example) Developed implementation toolkits that support school-level personnel, especially teachers, in addressing the support of native language in English academic instruction endeavors. Identify clearly the types of staff development and support that are needed for classroom teachers to support teaching and learning for ELLs. Inform and support professional and community groups to become advocates for ELL populations (Williams 2014).

There is evolving evidence that policy and practice interventions at the school district level aimed at Latinos can be successful. The four-year evaluation of California’s Sanger Unified School District’s effort to turn its failing schools around reveals what it took to transform this Central California high-poverty, mostly Latino district, one of California’s 98 lowest-performing districts in 2004, to one of its most improved districts by school year 2011–2012 (Takanishi and LeMenstrel, 2017). The second example from which there is much to learn is David Kirp’s (2013) case study of how schools in Union City, New Jersey, responded to being an extremely low-performing school district on the brink of state takeover to one

82  Federal and State Policy that appears to be well on its way to turning itself into a model for change. Kirp’s case study focusing on an elementary and a high school offers a detailed look at the myriad sociocultural factors involved in educating students from diverse linguistic backgrounds, most Latino, and the understanding of how such factors can influence both learning and teaching behaviors, which he documented during a school year spent embedded in schools and classrooms in the district. Other local-level policy efforts are noteworthy. Montgomery County Public Schools, a school district significantly populated by Latino and Latino ELL students, provided a handful of immersion programs in various languages, primarily serving native speakers of English. By contrast, the district has significantly increased the number of two-way immersion programs that enroll equal numbers of native English speakers and native speakers of the partner language (Spanish or Chinese). This increase follows an adoption of a districtwide policy embracing multilingualism opportunities for its entire student population at every level of education offered by the district. The new policy is based on an analysis of offering bilingual opportunities commissioned by the Board of Education: Potential Pathways to Equitable Foreign Language Immersion and Dual Language Education in Montgomery County Public Schools (Marrietta & Brookover, 2016). The recommendations were drawn from case studies of dual-immersion program expansion in Portland Public Schools (OR) and Unified School District U-46 Elgin (IL). Both districts are models for how to ensure program expansion is equitable and well planned.

Summary and Conclusion This chapter enunciates the extreme level of inequality that exists in Arizona for Latinos and, in particular, Latino ELLs. Unfortunately, the litigated and policy processes limiting both the potentiality of this subdomain of students and the opportunities presented to them educationally, stunting their social and economic well-being and creating inequality, are not limited to Arizona (Gandara & Orfield, 2012b). What is expressly clear about the Arizona approach is that it is predicated on anti-immigrant nativist conservative politics leading to policy and practice absent of a strong theoretical and empirical research base. (Faltis & Arias, 2012; Powers & Williams, 2013; Castellanos & García, 2017). This has become a fartoo-common theme in Arizona education. It does not serve Latinos well, nor does it seem to serve the state when so many of its students continue to underperform educationally. The policy has related negative implications for economic, social and democratic participation by Latinos. These types of policies have thus limited the actuality of achievement for a growing Latino subpopulation soon to emerge as the state’s majority student population. We hope this chapter makes it clear to any other states and localities considering adopting the Arizona model to consider the results of doing so. In addition, we encourage examination of exemplars like those in Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and California for asset-oriented policies leading to program and practice alternatives of direct benefit to Latinos while offering important advantageous educational opportunities for non-Latinos—win-win propositions.

6 The Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances Gaps and Advances

Higher education is a key and advanced stage within the education continuum that is provided for a population, which includes all peoples and communities a person may belong to. Being part of a supporting community, which has equitable access to high-level educational capital as well as other capital/resources such as financial, social, cultural, occupational and human capital, is also vital to one’s well-being. It is imperative to gain an in-depth understanding of the historical educational progress made in postsecondary education level by the Latino student population, which continues to grow at a faster pace than any other major ethnic/ racial group in the United States. It is also critical to carefully examine the challenging achievement gaps and the unintended consequences of existing education policies and practices, which may pose a threat to achieving educational equity and equality, which have been crucial American endeavors for decades. Particular attention must be given to the institutional diversity of U.S. colleges and universities, which operate within multiple sectors and types, including two-year and four-year, public and private (nonprofit and for-profit). In short, with guidance from the Six Ps (population, parents, preparation, participation, persistence and progress), our framework for understanding educational success of Latino students, we attempt to address the following question: What educational progress for Latinos has been made at the postsecondary level?

• What are the trends that may be considered positive/desirable? • In what areas will the achievement gap likely persist? • What programs, strategies and practices do work for Latinos in higher education?

After examining the U.S. Latino population’s postsecondary education circumstances including gaps and advances at a national level, we attempt to pay special attention to the linguistically and ethnically diverse state of California, which is the home of around 15 million Latinos, representing around 1 in 4 Latinos in the United States. In addition, more than one in three Californians is Latino. The size of California’s public universities and colleges makes it the largest higher education system in the country. Reflective of its diverse population, California’s college

84  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances students come from different demographic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and they bring different educational experiences that lead to different levels and types of achievements and outcomes within both their education continuum and their individual lives. We also pay particular attention to California’s 114 community colleges, which is the largest higher education system in the country, as it serves 1 in every 5 community college students in the United States and 3 out of every 10 Californians (ages 18–24). About a million of these students are from a Latino background that makes up the largest ethnic/racial group (42.7%) followed by Whites (27.3%) in California’s community college system (see Table 6.3 and California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2017b). Finding programs and strategies that work for underserved, disadvantaged and underrepresented college students including Latinos can be challenging. Fortunately, it is possible and can be done. System-level policy-development and reform efforts, selective award programs, well-designed studies and evaluations can provide evidence or guidance and clues that lead to evidence. We attempt to provide such examples.

Latinos and School Enrollment/Attendance Examination of historic and recent enrollment trends in postsecondary education can help us better understand the magnitude of educational opportunities and access that allow Latino students to be inclusively part of the U.S. higher education system at various levels, parts and stages. Our analysis of the U.S. families with children 5 to 24 years old (by race/ethnicity and family income) enrollment status data from U.S. Census Bureau (2015) revealed that in 2015, there were 82,679,000 families who had children within that age range and that Latino families (13,206,000) made up 15.9% of that population. In other words, one in six U.S. families with children 5 to 24 years old was Latino. There were more than 1.14 million Latino families who had one collegeage person in the family enrolled in college. The proportion of Latino families with one person enrolled in college (8.7%) was higher than the proportion of all U.S. families with one person enrolled in college (6.8%). In addition, their ratio was also higher at all income levels reported (less than $20,000 to $75,000 and over). It is interesting to note that the largest difference in their respective ratios was at the $20,000 to $74,999 income level. Latino families’ ratio (9.50%) was 3.3 percentage points higher than all U.S. families’ ratio (6.20%). Another useful indicator of postsecondary education access and enrollment is immediate college enrollment rate, which captures the percentage of high school completers (GED included) who enroll in two- or four-year universities and colleges in the fall immediately after completing their high school education. It is important to note that over a 15-year period, the immediate college enrollment rate for Latino high school completers increased from 53% in 1990 to 67% in 2015, a 14-percentage-point increase, while all U.S. ethnic/racial groups experienced a 9-percentage-point increase from 60% in 1990 to 69% in 2015 (Musu-Gillette et al., 2017).

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  85 Our recalculation and analysis of National Center for Education Statistics (2016c) data on 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions (by level of institution and race/ethnicity of student from 1970 through 2015) revealed that the percentage of students from all backgrounds who enrolled in college/university increased 1.6 percentage points from 38.9% in 2005 to 40.5% in 2015. While the proportion of students who enrolled in two-year institutions increased slightly from 9.6% in 2005 to 10.6% in 2015, about a 1-percentagepoint increase, the percentage of enrollment in four-year institutions remained mainly unchanged (29.2% and 29.9% respectively). It is important to note that the share of 18- to 24-year-old Latinos enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions experienced an 11.8-percentage-point increase from 24.8% in 2005 to 36.6% in 2015, while the proportion of White students showed a 1-percentagepoint decrease from 42.8% to 41.8%. During the same time period, Asian student enrollment proportion increased from 61% to 62.6%, an increase of 1.6 percentage points. Over a 10-year period, while the 18- to 24-year-old Latinos continued to be underrepresented in college enrollment, there were improvements in the proportion of their enrollments in degree-granting postsecondary institutions. It is important to examine fall enrollments. Our recalculation and analysis of National Center for Education Statistics (2016d) data on fall enrollments in degree-granting postsecondary institutions (by level of enrollment/attendance and race/ethnicity from 1976 through 2015) revealed that the number of college enrollments for U.S. citizens and residents increased 14.2% from 17,487,000 in 2005 to 19,977,000 in 2015. While the number of college enrollments for Whites decreased from 11,495,000 in 2005 to 10,937,000 in 2015, a 4.9% decrease, the number of Latino student enrollments significantly increased (74.9%) from 1,882,000 to 3,292,000, resulting in an additional 1,410,000 Latino student enrollments. In 2005, 68% of college enrollments were White students, while Latino students only made up 11.1% of the total enrollments. Ten years later, these proportions and representations changed noticeably. The proportion of Whites decreased to 57.8%, a significant decrease of 10.2 percentage points, while the share of Latino student enrollments reached 17.3%, a noticeable increase of 6.2 percentage points. Overall, Latinos continued to be underrepresented in college enrollment. However, based on fall enrollments, they made progress, and there were significant improvements both in the number and the proportion of their enrollments in degree-granting postsecondary institutions.

Projections Population and enrollment projections are regularly used for policy making and educational planning, which serves as a useful tool and process for improving education and human capital of a society or community. Educators, researchers, policy makers and others in the education sector must have a deep understanding of what is required for effective planning in postsecondary education. This includes but is not limited to knowledge and understanding of changing demographic characteristics of the U.S. population, which is comprised of diverse

86  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances communities, people and individuals who are in need of education and training. As U.S. demographics as well as student backgrounds are inevitably changing, it is critical for us to know and understand who our students are and where they come from. Will they come from traditional sources and locations such as communities, cultural and linguistic groups and geographies? Our recalculation and analysis of National Center for Education Statistics (2016a) projections of education statistics to 2024 data on fall enrollment of U.S. residents in degree-granting postsecondary institutions (by race/ethnicity from 1976 through 2024) revealed that the number of college enrollments for U.S. residents is projected to increase 12.9% from 19,535,000 in 2013 to 22,064,000 in 2024. While the number of college enrollments for Whites is projected to increase from 11,591,000 in 2013 to 12,346,000 in 2024, a 6.5% increase, the number of Latino student enrollments will significantly increase (24.6%) from 3,091,000 in 2013to 3,851,000 in 2024, resulting in an additional 760,000 Latino student enrollments. In 2013, 59.3% of college enrollments were White students, while Latino students only made up 15.8% of the total enrollments. In 2024, these proportions and representations are projected to change noticeably. The proportion of Whites will decrease to 56%, a decrease of 3.3 percentage points, while the share of Latino student enrollments will reach 17.5%, an increase of 1.7 percentage points. Overall, Latinos will continue to be underrepresented in college enrollment. However, based on enrollment projections, they will continue to make progress, and there will be improvements both in the number and the proportion of their enrollments in degree-granting postsecondary institutions.

Persistence and Retention: Understanding Progress of First-year Students Persistence and retention rates for first-year students are important indicators of progress and success in postsecondary education. These two indicators or terms are often confused or used interchangeably by higher education professionals. However, it is important to understand the differences between these indicators/ metrics. As used by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (2017a), retention is defined as continued enrollment in the fall semesters of a student’s first and second years within the same postsecondary education institution. If a student enrolls in any college or university that is different from his/her school of initial enrollment, it may be defined as persistence. Nationally, in fall 2016, three out of four students (73.4%) who started their postsecondary education in fall 2015 returned to a college (any institution) and persisted, while about two in three students (61.1%) remained and retained at their initial school. A closer look at the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s (2017b) national data tables on first-year persistence and retention rates by race/ethnicity revealed that among all institutional types Asian students had the highest one-year retention rates,

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  87 ranging from 58.2% (two-year public institutions) to 82.5% (four-year public institutions). Asian students also had the highest persistence rates, ranging from 74.1% (two-year public institutions) to 91.3% (four-year public institutions). It is interesting to observe that Latino students’ retention rates at two-year public institutions were higher than those of White students (55.1% and 50.2%, respectively.) This may mean that Latino students are more likely to stay longer at their current institutions than are White students, who may be transferring out to other institutions or achieving their educational goals faster than Latinos. Latino students were retained (75%) and persisted (80.5%) at the highest rates at fouryear private institutions and the lowest rates (55.1% and 64.9% respectively) at two-year public institutions. All ethnic/racial groups maintained higher retention and persistence rates at both four-year public and private institutions than at twoyear public institutions. It is also important to note that all groups except for Asian students persisted and retained at higher rates at four-year private institutions than four-year public institutions. In addition to the data published by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics collects data and produces reports on student persistence in postsecondary education. The most recent report, entitled Persistence and Attainment of 2011–12 First-Time Postsecondary Students After 3 Years, publishes helpful findings from data collected from the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) longitudinal study (Ifill et al., 2016). The persistence data is conveniently disaggregated by student demographics, which allows for more meaningful analysis to understand the persistence status of major ethnic/racial groups in the United States. We analyzed the National Center for Education Statistics (2016b) data on the percentage distribution of 2011–12 first-time postsecondary students’ threeyear attainment and persistence status at any institution by selected enrollment and student characteristics from 2012–14. Our analysis revealed that Asian students persisted and enrolled at the highest rates at four-year institutions (54.7%). Compared to White (43.5%), Black (30.2%) and Asian (54.7%) students, Latino students persisted/enrolled at the lowest rate (26.4%) at four-year institutions. Moreover, Latinos persisted and enrolled at the highest rates at less than four-year institutions (21.3%), while about one in three of them did not enroll at any college or university.

Latinos and Postsecondary Education Outcomes Top Latino Undergraduate Enrollment Our analysis and ranking of enrollment data (fall 2015) in degree-granting (associate’s or higher) postsecondary institutions by race/ethnicity of student and state (Table 6.1) revealed that more than 3.2 million Latino undergraduates made up 17.3% of total U.S. undergraduate enrollment (19,977,270). Two in three Latino students were enrolled in degree-granting (associate’s or higher) institutions in California, Texas, Florida, New York and Arizona. California ranked number

88  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances Table 6.1  Top Latino Undergraduate Enrollment by State: 2015  

Total

Latino

% Latino

Rank by enrollment size

Rank by enrollment proportion (%)

United States California Texas Florida New York Arizona Illinois New Jersey New Mexico Colorado Massachusetts Nevada

19,977,270 2,688,355 1,570,614 1,083,262 1,285,420 649,732 802,243 423,779 138,189 348,098 510,396 116,097

3,292,156 1,024,193 556,024 271,177 217,309 142,033 136,203 85,502 63,880 54,346 54,080 28,005

17.3 40.2 37.1 26.1 18.4 22.6 17.9 21.2 47.6 16.1 11.9 24.6

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 19

2 3 4 8 6 9 7 1 10 15 5

Source: Authors’ analysis and ranking of data from National Center for Education Statistics (2016e, Table 306.60). Fall enrollment in degree-granting (associate’s or higher) postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity of student and state or jurisdiction: 2015. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved 07/02/2017 from https://nces.ed.gov/ programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_306.60.asp Puerto Rico enrolled 233,080 Latinos in 2015.

one by enrollment size (1,024,193), followed by Texas (556,024). Florida ranked number three (271,177) in Latino undergrad enrollment. New Mexico ranked number one by enrollment proportion (47.6%), followed by California (40.2%). Texas ranked number three (37.1%) in Latino undergrad enrollment. It is also interesting to note that Nevada ranked number five (24.6%). Latinos and Certificates Below Associate’s Degrees Our recalculation and analysis of National Center for Education Statistics (2016f) data on certificates below the associate’s degree level conferred by postsecondary institutions (by race/ethnicity from 1998–99 through 2014–15) revealed that the number of certificates conferred to U.S. citizens and nonresident aliens increased 74% from 552,503 in 2000–01 to 961,167 in 2014–15. While the number of certificates conferred to Whites increased from 333,478 in 2000–01 to 512,017 in 2014–15, a 53.5% increase, the number of certificates conferred to Latino students significantly increased (139.5%) from 78,528 to 188,090, resulting in an additional 109,562 certificates to Latinos. In 2000–01, 61.1% of certificates were conferred to White students, while Latino students only made up 14.4% of the total number of certificates conferred. Fifteen years later, these proportions

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  89 and representations changed noticeably. The proportion of Whites decreased to 53.8%, a significant decrease of 7.3 percentage points, while the share of Latino students reached 19.8%, a noticeable increase of 5.4 percentage points. Overall, Latinos continued to be underrepresented in number of degrees conferred to U.S. citizens. However, they made good progress, and there were significant improvements both in the number and the proportion of certificates conferred to them. Latinos and Associate’s Degrees Associate’s degrees are the lowest level of postsecondary education outcomes. Our recalculation and analysis of National Center for Education Statistics (2016g, 2016h) data on associate’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions (by race/ethnicity years 2000–01 and 2014–15) revealed that the number of associate’s degrees conferred to U.S. citizens and nonresident aliens increased 75.2% from 578,865 in 2000–01 to 1,013,971 in 2014–15. While the number of associate’s degrees conferred to Whites increased from 411,075 in 2000–01 to 590,390 in 2014–15, a 43.6% increase, the number of degrees conferred to Latino students significantly increased (215.1%) from 57,288 to 180,515, resulting in an additional 123,227 degrees to Latinos. In 2000–01, 72.5% of associate’s degrees were conferred to White students, while Latino students only made up 10.1% of the total number of degrees conferred. Fifteen years later, these proportions and representations changed noticeably. The proportion of Whites decreased to 59.3%, a significant decrease of 13.2 percentage points, while the share of Latino students reached 18.1%, a noticeable increase of 8 percentage points. The top three fields in which Latinos earned associate’s degrees in 2014–15 were liberal arts and sciences, general studies and humanities (39.43%); health professions and related programs (13.86%); and business (11.75%). In addition, the field of homeland security, law enforcement and firefighting (5.84%) was among their top choices. Overall, Latinos continued to be underrepresented in number of associate’s degrees conferred to U.S. citizens. However, they made great progress, and there were significant improvements both in the number and the proportion of degrees conferred to them. Latinos and Bachelor’s Degrees While the Latinos continue to be underrepresented among bachelor’s degree recipients from U.S. colleges and universities, there have been some large increases in the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to Latinos. Furthermore, noticeable progress has been made in the ratio of Latinos enrolling in college and receiving bachelor’s degrees. However, it is important to understand type and quality of higher education institutions Latino students are enrolling in and attending. Our recalculation and analysis of National Center for Education Statistics (2016i) data on bachelor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions (by race/ethnicity of student, years 1976–77 through 2014–15) revealed that since the beginning of this century, the number of bachelor’s degrees conferred by

90  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances both public and private postsecondary American institutions to U.S. citizens and nonresident aliens has been increasing. The number increased from 1,244,171 in 2000–01 to 1,894,934 in 2014–15. An additional 650,763 degrees were conferred, an increase of 52.3%. During this time period, although the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to Whites increased by 30.5%, percentage distribution of degrees conferred to them dramatically decreased from 77% to 66.5%, a reduction of 10.5 percentage points. All U.S. racial/ethnic groups as well as nonresident aliens (foreign nationals) observed increases in the number of bachelor’s degrees conferred. However, Latinos experienced the most significant change. The number increased 180% from 77,745 in 2000–01 to 217,718 in 2014–15, resulting in 139,973 additional Latino degree recipients. As a result, the proportion of Latinos receiving degrees grew from 6.5% to 12%, a 5.5-percentage-point increase. Broadly speaking, their share changed from 1 in 15 awardees to slightly more than 1 in 10 awardees. In addition, of the additional 650,763 degrees that were conferred since 2000, about 1 in 5 of those degrees were awarded to Latinos. The second-largest increase was shown by nonresident aliens (89.8%). Latinos and Master’s Degrees Our recalculation and analysis of National Center for Education Statistics (2016j, 1997) data on master’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions (by race/ ethnicity and field of study, years 1994–95 through 2014–15) revealed that while Latinos continue to be underrepresented among master’s degree recipients from U.S. colleges and universities, there has been some noticeable progress in the ratio of Latinos receiving master’s degrees. The number of master’s degrees in all fields conferred in 2015 by both public and private U.S. institutions was 758,708, which is a 47.66% increase compared to1995 numbers (397,052). The proportion of White students receiving master’s degrees significantly decreased to 57% in 2015 from 74% in 1995, while the ratio for Latinos increased to 7.73% from 3.25% respectively. Top three fields that Latinos achieved highest representation in 2015 were foreign languages, literatures and linguistics (16.38%); ethnic, cultural, gender, and group studies (12.94%); and public administration and social services (12.18%). It is also important to observe that the Latino student representation among the recipients of master’s degrees in education (4.00% in 1995) and psychology (4.16% in 1995) fields noticeably increased to 9.38% and 10.94%, respectively, in 2016. In addition, the ratio of master’s degrees in all fields earned by temporary visa–holding foreign nationals or nonresident aliens increased from 12.3% in 1995 to 15.43% in 2015. It is important to note that this ratio has been much higher in traditionally competitive fields including computer and information sciences (55.13%); engineering (51.38%); mathematics and statistics (48.49%); and, surprisingly, legal professions and studies (57.53%). For Latino students, the most competitive/challenging field in 2015 was computer and information sciences

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  91 (3.46%), followed by mathematics and statistics (3.72%) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016j, 1997). Latinos and Doctoral Degrees The doctorate is a highest academic degree awarded by universities. Our recalculation and analysis of National Center for Education Statistics (2016k, 1996) data on statistical profiles of persons receiving doctor’s degrees (by field of study and selected characteristics, years 1993–94 and 2013–14) revealed that while Latinos continue to be underrepresented among doctoral recipients from U.S. colleges and universities, there has been some progress in the ratio of Latinos receiving doctorates. Based on U.S. citizens and permanent residents, the number of doctoral degrees in all fields conferred in 2014 by both public and private U.S. institutions was 54,070, which is a 32% increase compared to 1994 numbers (41,011). The proportion of White students receiving doctoral degrees decreased to 73% in 2014 from 80.4% in 1994, while the ratio for Latinos increased to 6.5% from 3.4%. For Latino students, the rate for humanities (7.2%) was highest, which is a noticeable increase compared to the ratio of 4.4% in 1994. Math was the lowest (4.1%) in 2014, which doubled the 1994 rate of 2%. In addition, the ratio of doctoral degrees in all fields earned by temporary visa–holding foreign nationals has increased from 22.9% in 1994 to 29.3% in 2014. It is important to note that this ratio has been much higher in math and engineering fields, which was 39.1% and 45.6% in 1994, respectively. In 2014, the ratio for engineering reached to 51.6%, and the ratio for math increased to 43.6% (National Center for Education Statistics (2016k, 1996). Although there has been an increase in the number of Latinos earning doctoral degrees from U.S. institutions, it is true that access to some specialty fields such as science, math, engineering and health has become increasingly competitive. It is an inevitable reality that Latino students must be able to compete with both their domestic competitors who are U.S. permanent residents and citizens (mainly Whites, Asians and other groups) and temporary visa–holding foreign nationals who are usually recruited from a diverse global talent pool that is often highly competitive in science, technology, engineering and math fields as well as others. For example, in 2014, one in two (51.6%) doctoral recipients in engineering from U.S. institutions was a non– U.S. person with a temporary visa. This observation should remind us of the magnitude of the competition in these fields Latino students face in doctoral programs, and it should not be interpreted as undermining value, importance and immeasurable contributions of international students who represent our diverse globe. We recommend that Latino students seek and take advantage of programs that are specifically designed to recruit minorities or people of color, as these programs usually embed strong support systems and resources that can maximize their doctoral experiences. Finding culturally competent mentors who are willing to work with and provide guidance to Latino students in doctoral programs may prove to be an effective strategy for achieving a successful educational goal or outcome.

92  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances Latinos and Postdoctoral Studies and Training Opportunities Many would agree that the highest level of degree a person can achieve within the education continuum in the United States is earning a doctoral degree. However, postdoctoral appointments and experiences have also been considered as important opportunities to acquire additional professional skills and receive scholarly training or mentoring. We believe that Latino postdoctoral experience has been an understudied field, and it can benefit from getting attention of policy makers, researchers, faculty, administrators and other interested education professionals. In many fields, especially in science, engineering and health, postdoctoral experiences have become a competitive necessity for career advancement and professional development. It is also possible to find many who would think that postdocs can easily become a part of a broader academic system that exploits highly educated, trained and skilled professionals by accepting poor work conditions such as low salaries with no benefits. Whether postdoctoral experiences are good or bad for career advancement and professional development, it is important to gain a better understanding of postdoc opportunities available for Latino students and their representation. According to data collected by the 2015 Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (GSS), which was cosponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF) and by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the total number of postdoctoral appointees (postdocs) in science, engineering and health in all U.S. academic institutions was 63,861 in 2015, which has not shown any significant increase (0.4%) since 2010 (63,439; National Science Foundation, 2016). Our further analysis of this data revealed that the U.S. citizens and permanent residents made up only 45% of all postdoctoral appointees in 2015. A majority of postdocs (55%) in U.S. institutions were temporary visa holders. This was a 2.5-percentage-point increase compared to the rate of 2010, which was 52.5%. Among the U.S. citizens and permanent residents, the share of Latino postdoctoral appointees increased from 4.2% (n = 1,276) in 2010 to 5.3% (n = 1,526) in 2015. Whites followed by Asians maintained the highest share of postdoctoral appointees in 2015 (60% and 17.8%, respectively). As one in two postdoctoral appointments in U.S. is held by foreign nationals, Latinos are expected to compete with a highly skilled global talent pool in addition to their domestic competitors. It is appropriate to state that while Latinos are making progress, they continue to be underrepresented among the U.S. citizens and permanent residents who are postdoctoral appointees in U.S. colleges, universities and other educational professional institutions. In addition, if Latinos choose to pursue a career path that benefits from a postdoc experience, they should not hesitate to seek postdoctoral fellowships and programs that are specifically designed to recruit minorities and people of color, as these programs usually embed strong support systems and resources that can maximize the postdoctoral experience. There exist many online resources and web portals such as MinorityPostdoc.org that can help identify appropriate postdoc opportunities for minorities. Many public and private universities and nonprofits launched such initiatives to recruit people from diverse backgrounds. Some examples include University of California President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship, Harvard University Postdoctoral Fellowships, Columbia

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  93 University Teachers College Minority Postdoctoral Fellowship, Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Diversity Fellowship and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Hanna H. Gray Fellows Program. Having acquired postdoctoral experiences (primary author at Harvard University and the second author at the University of California at Berkeley) during our academic careers, we believe that appropriate postdoctoral appointments can lead to competitive advantage and contribute to one’s professional development and career advancement.

U.S. Latino and White Student Postsecondary Degree Attainment/Award Proportions Having examined multiple datasets on postsecondary degree and certificate attainment/award outcomes including postdoctoral appointments, studies and training opportunities, it is important to note that Latinos continue to be underrepresented in these areas when compared to White and other students. Figure 6.1 90.0 80.0 73.0

70.0 66.5

67.5

59.3

60.0

60.0

53.8 Award Proporon (%)

50.0 40.0 White

Lano

Linear (White)

Linear (Lano)

30.0 20.0

19.8

18.1 12.0

10.0

9.2

6.5

5.3

5

6

0.0 0

1

2

3

4

7

(10.0) Degree Level: 1. Below Associate’s 2. Associate’s 3. Bachelor’s 4. Master’s 5. Doctoral 6. Postdoctoral

Figure 6.1 U.S. Latino and White Student Postsecondary Degree Attainment/Award Proportions (2014–15)

94  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances illustrates the disproportionate distribution of the postsecondary certificates and degrees (including postdoctoral) awarded to Whites and Latinos in the United States. The proportion of White students earning degrees grows by degree level. The Latino students experience the opposite achievement level. Their share shrinks by level of degrees and certificates awarded to them. For example, while the proportion of White students grew from 53.8% earning certificates to 73% receiving doctoral degrees, the share of Latino students shrank from 19.8% receiving certificates to only 6.5% earning doctorates. This pattern is consistent with the educational attainment levels of Latinos: the higher the selectivity of the institutions they attend, the lower the representation of Latinos and related educational outcomes. However, it does not change the fact that over the years, the number and proportion/share of Latinos earning certificates, degrees (associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral) and gaining postdoctoral experiences has increased. This progress may constitute an improved representation of Latinos in postsecondary degree/certificate attainment.

Postsecondary Education in California: A Specific Case Study California is a linguistically and ethnically diverse state. Among its population of 5 years and older, there are 15.7 million people who speak a language other than English at home (44%). The great majority of this other language speaking population are speakers of Spanish (66%). More than one in four Californians speak Spanish (29%; U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). Latinos and Whites are the largest ethnic/racial groups in California, with almost equal shares of its population of 38.4 million people, (38.40% and 38.70%, respectively), followed by Asians (13.50%). In other words, more than one in three Californians is Latino (Table 6.2). An estimated 82% of Californians are high school graduate or higher, while 31% hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. Educational attainment level of Latinos includes 60.50% high school graduate or higher and only 11.40% bachelor’s degree or higher. These rates are much higher for California’s White population, 94.3% high school or higher and 41% bachelor’s degree and higher (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). California’s public higher education system, defined by the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, includes three segments: 1. University of California (UC)—highly selective institution with 10 universities/campuses; primarily focuses on academic research; 2. California State University (CSU)—somewhat selective university system with 23 campuses; primarily focuses on teaching and instruction; 3. and California Community Colleges (CCC)—nonselective/open-access system with 114 colleges; provides education and training including certificates, associate degrees and transfers to four-year institutions.

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  95 Table 6.2  Share of Latino population in California and U.S. California Population by Race/Ethnicity Total population Hispanic or Latino (of any race) White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Some other race Two or more races

Estimate

U.S. Percent

Estimate

Percent

38,421,464 14,750,686

  38.40%

316,515,021 54,232,205

17.10%

14,879,258 2,160,795

38.70% 5.60%

197,258,278 38,785,726

62.30% 12.30%

142,191

0.40%

2,078,613

0.70%

5,192,548 139,009

13.50% 0.40%

16,054,074 499,531

5.10% 0.20%

84,477 1,072,500

0.20% 2.80%

638,429 6,968,165

0.20% 2.20%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2017). 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Retrieved 06/27/2017 from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts. xhtml?src=bkmk

The size of California’s public universities and colleges makes it the largest higher education system in the country. In addition to public postsecondary institutions, California’s higher education system includes “more than 150 private nonprofit colleges and about 200 for-profit institutions” (Public Policy Institute of California, April 2016, p. 2.) The Campaign for College Opportunity provides a great overview of trends and issues in higher education in California. It also offers solutions that can improve college access and student success. In its report, Higher Education in California (July 2016), the Campaign recommends that statewide goals with benchmarks for college-going and completion should be set. It also emphasizes that college data on these college-going and access metrics need to be disaggregated by race and ethnicity. In addition, it also recommends that California should strongly coordinate between its community colleges and other two-year institutions and four-year colleges and universities so that early college preparation, basic skills education and transfer efforts can be effective (Campaign for College Opportunity, July 2016). California Community Colleges and Latinos It is true that students from different demographic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds have different educational experiences that lead to different levels and types of achievements and outcomes within both their education continuum and

96  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances their individual lives. Depending on what groups they belong to, some students will achieve success at the highest level, while others will experience most undesirable outcomes. As educators, policy makers, researchers and leaders, it is critical that we know and understand who our students are and where they come from, especially when their backgrounds, including racial and ethnic composition, are changing inevitably. Reflective of its diverse population, California’s college students come from different demographic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and they bring different educational experiences that lead to different levels and types of achievements and outcomes within both their education continuum and their individual lives. Based on the 2015–16 academic year data (Table 6.3), there were more than 2.3 million (duplicated) students attending the 114 California Community Colleges, which is the largest higher education system. In terms of number of students, it serves one in every five community college students in the United States and 3 out of every 10 Californians (ages 18–24; California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2017b). California’s community colleges offer education and training opportunities in many critical areas such as workforce training, basic skills, certificates, degrees and transfer to universities or other four-year colleges that help students achieve educational and career-related success. About a million of these students are from a Latino background that makes up the largest ethnic/racial group (42.7%),

Table 6.3 California Community Colleges Student Enrollment Status: 2005–2006 and 2015–2016  

Annual 2005–2006

Annual 2015–2016

10-Year

 

Student Count

Student Count

% Change

Student Count (%)

State of California 2,549,099 100.00% Total African-American 195,066 7.65% American Indian/ 21,989 0.86% Alaskan Native Asian 311,888 12.24% Filipino 88,416 3.47% Latino 727,424 28.54% Multiethnicity   0.00% Pacific Islander 17,614 0.69% Unknown 265,715 10.42% White Non-Hispanic 920,987 36.13%

Student Count (%)

2,355,909 100.00%

−7.58%

150,451 10,438

6.39% 0.44%

−22.87% −52.53%

271,223 65,691 1,005,772 87,619 10,183 110,880 643,652

11.51% 2.79% 42.69% 3.72% 0.43% 4.71% 27.32%

−13.04% −25.70% 38.26%   −42.19% −58.27% −30.11%

Source: Adapted from California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2017e). Data Mart Student Enrollment Status Summary Report: 2005–2006 and 2015–2016. Retrieved from http:// datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Student_Term_Annual_Count.aspx Report Run Date 6/28/2017

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  97 followed by Whites (27.3%) in California’s community college system. Over the last 10 years, the share of Latino students attending community colleges in California has increased significantly from 727,424 (28.54%) in 2005–2006 to 1,005,772 (42.69%) in 2015–16, experiencing a 38.26% increase. While there was a 7.58% overall decrease in enrollment for all groups, the change in White student numbers was noticeable. It decreased from 920,987 to 643,652, a 30.11% decrease (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2017e). Similar to enrollment trends in many colleges in the country, there are more female students (53%) than males (45.5%) and more “mature” students (74%— 20 or more years old) than younger students (26%—less than 20 years old). In other words, three in four California community college students is 20 years or older (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2017b). In addition, a significant proportion (42.4%) of these students are first-generation college students. It is also interesting to note that in fall 2016, there were 9,849 students who were classified as refugee/asylee. Among this student population, the proportion of White refugees was the highest (50.51%), followed by Asian (21.40%) and Latino (11.66%). Also, Latino students made up 44.77% of California community college students who possess U.S. citizenship or permanent legal residency (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2017d). California Community Colleges’ Student Retention and Success Rates Course success rates, the ratio of successful grade marks to all grade marks of all credit enrollments and retention rates (completion of courses without dropping out or withdrawing) for California community college students provide insights for progress made for achieving their educational goals. Our analysis of data from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2017f) Data Mart Course Retention and Success Rates Report revealed that both course success and retention rates for all ethnic/racial student groups increased from 82.18% for retention and 66.21% for success in fall 2006 to 87.27% and 71.57% in fall 2016, respectively. Latino student retention rate increased from 80.91% in fall 2006 to 86.28%, a 5.37-percentage-point increase, while White student retention rates increased 4.72 points from 84.12% to 88.84%. Latino student course success rates increased from 61.39% in fall 2006 to 67.70% in fall 2016, a 6.31-percentage-point increase, while White student success rates increased 6.52 points from 70.78% to 77.30%. Over the past 10 years, while improvements in Latino course retention and success rates were observed, it did not result in significant gap reduction between Latinos and Whites. California community colleges serve special student populations with special programs and initiatives. These populations include but are not limited to disabled students, foster youth, first-generation college students, veterans, low-income students, incarcerated persons and special admits. Our analysis of course retention and success rates data from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2017c) Data Mart Special Population

98  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances Group Credit Course Retention/Success Rate Summary Report indicated that in fall 2016, students in almost all of these special programs maintained either at the level of state average or higher course retention and success rates. Students in the Middle College High School Program (MCHS) had the highest retention (96.80%) and course success (88.41%) rates, followed by Career Advancement Academy (CAA; 93.92% and 84.98%), Special Admit (93.23% and 81.75%), Puente (89.45% and 74.71%) and EOPS—Extended Opportunity Programs & Services (88.91% and 73.42%). These rates were higher than the state averages for retention (87.27%) and success (71.57%). It is also interesting to note that Program for Incarcerated Students (88.82% and 81.29%) and students from the MESA—Mathematics, Engineering, and Science Achievement—program (87.86% and 76.25%) performed as well as or better than the state averages of all students in the California community college system. It is important to note that a critical mass of Latino community college students in California are served by these special programs and initiatives. Therefore, any support for and improvement efforts by these programs will help Latino students and other underserved groups succeed in achieving their educational goals. Community College Student Transfer Outcomes California community colleges students transfer to different types of four-year colleges and universities, including in-state private (ISP) and out-of-state (OOS) baccalaureate granting institutions, University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU). Our analysis of data on California community college transfers to in-state private (ISP) and out-of-state (OOS) baccalaureate-granting institutions for 2015–2016 (see Table 6.4) revealed that more than 26,000 students transferred to these institutions in 2016. While one in three (9,238; 34.98%) students transferred to in-state institutions, two in three students (17,175; 65.02%) transferred to four-year colleges and universities that are based/located outside of California. In order to determine top 10 in-state private and out-of-state destinations for California community college transfer students, these institutions were ranked by their size/number of transfers. Our ranking of top 10 in-state private transfers indicated that a noticeable number of California community college students were transferring to private colleges and universities in California, which included for-profits and institutions with online programs. National University ranked number one by number (volume) and percentage of students transferred (836, 9%), followed by Ashford University (747, 8%). University of Southern California (USC) ranked number three (532, 6%). It is interesting to observe that the number of community college student transfers to USC, a highly selective private research university with a considerable cost of attendance, was especially noticeable. According to a Los Angeles Times article (Xia, 2017), which covered community college transfers to USC, transfer students are provided with financial aid and support services and other resources needed for their success at USC, as it costs (estimated) $72,273 to attend for an

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  99 Table 6.4 Transfer to In-State Private (ISP) and Out-of-State (OOS) Baccalaureate Granting Institutions: 2015–2016 Number

Percent

Rank

26,413 9,238 17,175

  34.98% 65.02%

  n/a n/a

Top Ten In-State Private (ISP) National University Ashford University University of Southern California West Coast University–Los Angeles Brandman University Azusa Pacific University University of La Verne California Baptist University ITT Technical Institute–Rancho Cordova

Number    836    747    532    485    480    471    422    394    325

Percent 9.05% 8.09% 5.76% 5.25% 5.20% 5.10% 4.57% 4.26% 3.52%

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

DeVry University–California

   305

Top Ten Out-of-State (OOS) University of Phoenix–Arizona Thunderbird School of Global Management Western Governors University Grand Canyon University Southern New Hampshire University American Public University System Brigham Young University–Idaho University of Maryland–University College The University of Texas at Arlington Columbia Southern University

Number   1,437   1,108    890    886    521    451    301    272    257    250

State of California Total In-State Private (ISP) Total Out-of-State (OOS) Total

3.30% Percent 8.37% 6.45% 5.18% 5.16% 3.03% 2.63% 1.75% 1.58% 1.50% 1.46%

10 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Source: Authors’ analysis and ranking of data from California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2017h). DataMart Transfer Volume to In-State Private (ISP) and Out-of-State (OOS) Baccalaureate Granting Institutions Report. Retrieved 07/02/2017 from http://datamart.cccco.edu/ Outcomes/Student_Transfer_Volume.aspx

academic year. For example, the university spent more than $42 million providing grants to transfer students from community colleges. As Dowd et al. (2006) remind us, “highly selective institutions and community colleges have the potential to dramatically increase the number of low-SES transfer students by encouraging talented community college students to apply, raising awareness of financial aid, and working to diminish cultural barriers” (p. 3). We believe financial aid is key for low-income student success and that USC’s efforts in supporting low-income community college transfer students, including students of Latino background, and their continued success are noteworthy.

100  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances Our ranking of top 10 out-of-state transfers indicated that a noticeable number of California community college students (17,175) were transferring to both public and private colleges and universities outside of California that included for-profits and institutions with online programs. University of Phoenix–Arizona ranked number one by number (volume) and percentage of students transferred (1,437; 8%), followed by Thunderbird School of Global Management (1,108; 6%). Western Governors University ranked number three (890; 5%), followed by Grand Canyon University (886, 5%). It is interesting to observe that a significant number of community college students who transferred to the top fourout-of-state institutions chose colleges or universities with online programs. In addition, three in four of these institutions are based or located in the state of Arizona (Western Governors University is based in Utah). Thunderbird School of Global Management is currently listed as a “unit” of the Arizona State University’s Knowledge Enterprise. It is also interesting to note that Grand Canyon University, as a private/for-profit “Christian research university,” is a unique type of “primarily nonresidential” higher education institution. Transfers to University of California (UC) Our analysis of data from University of California’s (2017) Transfer Dashboard revealed that the proportion of Latino students from California community colleges who transferred to University of California (UC) increased from 15.27% in fall 2006 to 23.65% in fall 2016, an 8.38-percentage-point increase, while the proportion of Whites decreased from 38.99% to 28.89%, a 10.10-percentage-point decrease (see Figure 6.2).

50.00% 2006

40.00%

2016

% Change

30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% -10.00%

Other/ Unknown

Int'l

White

Asian/Pac. Islander

American Indian

African American

Lano

2006

9.24%

6.28%

38.99%

26.41%

0.77%

3.04%

15.27%

2016

2.78%

13.10%

28.89%

26.44%

0.68%

4.46%

23.65%

% Change

-6.46%

6.82%

-10.10%

0.03%

-0.09%

1.42%

8.38%

Figure 6.2  University of California Community College Transfers Fall Enrollees (%)

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  101 The number of Latino California community college students who transferred to a UC campus increased from 1,823 in fall 2006 to 4,218 in fall 2016, a 131% increase, while the number of Whites increased from 4,656 to 5,153, an 11% increase. Latinos, with an additional 2,395 transfers to UC, experienced the largest increase in transfer numbers in fall 2016 when compared to all other ethnic/ racial groups. Although Asians experienced an additional 1,562 UC transfers in fall 2016, over the past 10 years, their proportion/share of UC transfers remained unchanged at around 26%. During the same time period, the proportion/share of African-American UC transfers increased from 3.04% to 4.46%, about a 1percentage-point increase (University of California, 2017). Overall, the number and proportion/share of Latino California community college students who transferred to a UC campus increased over the past 10 years. However, they still remain underrepresented in UC transfers, as they make up 42.69% of California community college student enrollments in 2015–2016 academic year. Transfers to California State University (CSU) Our recalculation and analysis of disaggregated transfer data from California State University (CSU) Analytic Studies (2017) revealed that the proportion of Latino students from California community colleges who transferred to California State University increased from 23.4% in 2006–07 to 37.4% in 2015–16, a 14-percentage-point increase, while the proportion of Whites decreased from 37.3% to 26.6%, a 10.6-percentage-point decrease. The number of Latino California community college students who transferred to a CSU campus increased from 12,700 in 2006–07 to 21,756 in 2015–16, a 71% increase, while the number of Whites decreased from 20,231 to 15,476, a 24% decrease. Latinos, with an additional 9,056 transfers to CSU, experienced the largest increase in transfer numbers in 2015–16 when compared to all other ethnic/racial groups. Although Asians experienced an additional 141 CSU transfers in 2015–16, over the past 10 years, their proportion/ share of CSU transfers slightly decreased from 16% to 15.2% (0.8%). During the same time period, the proportion/share of African-American CSU transfers decreased from 5.4% to 4.2%, about a 1-percentage-point decrease (Table 6.5) Overall, the number and proportion/share of Latino California community college students who transferred to a CSU campus increased over the past 10 years. However, they still remain underrepresented in CSU as well as UC transfers, as they make up 42.69% of California community college student enrollments in the 2015–2016 academic year. California Community Colleges Student Transfer (Velocity Cohort) Our recalculation and analysis of disaggregated cohort-based transfer velocity data from California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office’s (2017g) Data Mart Transfer Velocity Report revealed that California community college student transfer rates decreased from 40.02% in the 1999–2000 cohort to 38.24% in the 2009–2010 cohort. It should be noted that the initial cohort of first-time

Latino

Nonresident Alien

0 2,631 2,631 n/a 0.0% 4.5% 4.5%

0.6% 0.2% −0.4%

Two or More Races

350 138 −212 −61%

Pacific Islander

12.4% 6.1% −6.3%

6,728 3,534 −3,194 −47%

Unknown

37.3% 26.6% −10.6%

20,231 15,476 −4,755 −24%

White, NonLatino

100.0% 100.0% n/a

54,273 58,106 3,833 7%

Grand Total

Source: Authors’ recalculation and analysis of data from California State University (CSU) Analytic Studies (2017). California Community College Transfers by Concentration, Ethnicity, Gender, and Campus of Origin. Retrieved 07/02/2017 from http://asd.calstate.edu/ccct/2015-2016/index.asp

2,926 452 8,709 12,700 2,177 2,452 159 8,850 21,756 3,110 −474 −293 141 9,056 933 −16% −65% 2% 71% 43% Proportion of Community College Transfers to CSU 5.4% 0.8% 16.0% 23.4% 4.0% 4.2% 0.3% 15.2% 37.4% 5.4% −1.2% −0.6% −0.8% 14.0% 1.3%

Asian American

Number of Community College Transfers to CSU

American Indian

2006–07 2015–16 Change % Change   2006–07 2015–16 % Change

African American

 

 

Table 6.5 Number and Proportion of Community College Transfers to California State University (CSU) by Race/Ethnicity, Select Years: 2006–07 and 2015–16

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  103 students is evaluated six years after initial enrollment in order to determine their transfer outcome/status. While the number of Latino California community college students who transferred to a four-year degree-granting university or college increased from 10,655 in the 1999–2000 cohort to 13,789 in the 2009–2010 cohort, a 29.41% increase, the number of Whites decreased from 25,365 to 17,691, a 30.25% decrease. Latino community college student transfer rates increased from 29.87% in the 1999–2000 cohort to 30.16% in the 2009–2010 cohort, resulting in a trivial or minor increase. However, transfer rates for Whites increased from 40.81% to 41.72%, about a percentage point increase. Overall, the number of Latino California community college students who transferred to a four-year degree-granting institution increased over the past 10 years. However, their transfer rates remained unchanged at around 30% and lowest compared to all other ethnic and racial groups in California. In addition, they still remain underrepresented in all transfers, as they make up 42.69% of California community college student enrollments in the 2015–2016 academic year. Having examined multiple community college transfer–related outcomes, it is important to note that the number and proportion/share of Latino California community college students who transferred to a CSU campus is greater than those that transfer to UC. This may constitute an improved representation of Latinos in transfer to CSU. However, it does not change the fact that Latinos continue to be underrepresented in transfers to UC campuses, which are considered among the nation’s best and most highly selective institutions. This pattern is consistent with the educational attainment levels of Latinos: the higher the selectivity of the institutions they attend, the lower the representation of Latinos and related educational outcomes. Preparation and Remedial Outcomes A closer look at the number and proportion of students who are prepared for California community colleges indicates that a significant number of students who arrive at community colleges are unprepared for college-level work, which can be defined as a student’s lowest course attempted in math and/or English being remedial level (See Table 6.6). Three in four students (75.74%) in the 2010–11 cohort (five-year model) were identified as unprepared for college in the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office 2017 Statewide Student Success Scorecard. This ratio consistently remained unchanged since 2006. The number of unprepared students increased from 132,988 in 2006–07 to 149,758 in 2010–11. It is important to note that one in two students who was unprepared in the 2010–11 cohort was Latino, and their level of unpreparedness (84%) was higher than all students in the cohort. Our recalculation and analysis of transfer-level achievement data from California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2017k) Student Success Score Card revealed that the percentage of first-time students in 2010–11 and 2014–15 who complete six units and attempt any math or English in their first year who complete a transfer-level course in math or English in their first year showed statewide

104  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances Table 6.6 Number and Proportion of Students Who Are Prepared for California Community Colleges    

2006–2007 Cohort Size

Cohort Rate

Unprepared for 132,988 73.69% College College Prepared  

47,470 26.31%

2007–2008 Cohort Cohort Size Rate 146,567 49,684

2008–2009 Cohort Cohort Size Rate

2009–2010 Cohort Size

Cohort Rate

2010–2011 Cohort Cohort Size Rate

74.68% 159,323

75.29% 153,886

75.38% 149,758

75.74%

25.32%

24.71%

24.62%

24.26%

52,286

50,265

47,962

180,458 100.00% 196,251 100.00% 211,609 100.00% 204,151 100.00% 197,720 100.00%

Source: Adapted from California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2017i). 2017 Statewide Student Success Scorecard. Retrieved 07/06/2017 from http://scorecard.cccco.edu/scorecardrates. aspx?CollegeID=000#home COLLEGE PREPARED: Student’s lowest course attempted in math and/or English was college level UNPREPARED FOR COLLEGE: Student’s lowest course attempted in math and/or English was remedial level

increases. Four-year changes and increases for English and math were 7.8% and 2.40%, respectively. The proportion of Latino students completing transfer level English in their first-year increased from 23.9% in 2010–11 to 32.0% in 2014–15, an 8.1-percentage-point increase. Their achievement level in math also increased from 8.9% to 11.0%, a 2.1-percentage-point increase. In 2014–15, Latino student achievement in math (11%) was lower than that of Asians (41.1%) and Whites (20.8%) and higher than that of African-American (7.9%) students. Although Latino students made progress in achieving transfer-level English and math requirements, their performance remained low compared to other major ethnic/racial groups. California Community College Student Remedial/ESL Completion Rates Based on our analysis of data from California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2017j) 2017 Statewide Student Success Scorecard remedial/ESL completion rates (see Figure 6.3), only one in three (33.1%) Latino students who enroll at a California community college completes their math requirements within six years, compared to 38.7% of White students. While 45.1% of Latinos complete their English requirements, one in two White students (50.4%) complete their English requirements. Latino student English as second language (ESL) completion rate (21.7%) is noticeably lower than the completion rate of White students (32.5%). The largest achievement gap was observed in White and Latino (ESL) completion rates, a 10.8-percentage-point difference. Remedial and ESL completion rates for Latino community college students increased/improved from 27.4% (math), 38.9% (English) and 16.6% (ESL) in the 2006–07 cohort to 33.1%, 45.1%, and 21.7%, respectively, in the 2010–11 cohort.

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  105 60.0

50.4

Remedial/ESL Compleon Rate (%)

50.0

45.1 38.7

40.0

33.1

32.5

30.0

21.7 21.7

20.0

White

Lano

10.0

0.0

0

1

2

3

4

Remedial Area: 1. English 2. Math 3. ESL Figure 6.3  California Community College Student Remedial/ESL Completion Rates (Cohort 2010–11)

Finding Programs and Strategies That Work Finding programs and strategies that work for underserved, disadvantaged and underrepresented college students including Latinos can be challenging. However, it is possible and can be done with a positive attitude and dynamic frame of mind that avoids desperation, skepticism and negativity. It requires time, patience, a critical eye and understanding for credible evidence that may include rigorous and timely research, studies, assessments and evaluations. Policy makers, funders, researchers, teachers, administrators and others need to be aware that evidence-based decision-making cannot be made without credible, rigorous evidence, which may appear in different forms such as proven, promising and emerging. A comprehensive review of evaluations of programs and strategies that are designed to improve undergraduate academic outcomes for underrepresented minority students may well be the most preferred and effective method of gathering evidence on what works.

106  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances However, it is critical to be aware of the fact that rigorous evaluations for these types of programs can be scarce. Due to limited resources, most programs do not allocate sufficient funds or resources for program assessment or evaluation, but resources tend to be invested directly in the students being served. This reality poses a challenge and results in under-production of evidence needed for identifying useful or best strategies and practices that may be considered proven or promising. While proven or promising programs are highly desired for building and scaling up best practices, emerging practices, programs and strategies that may potentially be effective should not be immediately dismissed without a careful consideration. As many educational innovations may take long time to achieve a status of proven or promising practice, efforts to find evidence to identify which existing strategies, models and programs are most effective must be on an ongoing basis. The evidence we seek can be found in different types such as qualitative and quantitative, shapes and forms, sources, clearinghouses and other places. Furthermore, system level policy-development and reform efforts, selective award programs, well-designed studies and evaluations can provide evidence or guidance and clues that lead to evidence. We attempt to provide such examples. Efforts to Improve Preparation and Readiness It is a known fact that a critical mass of students, specifically those from underserved/underprivileged communities and backgrounds, including Latinos, have been arriving colleges and universities underprepared or at an undesirable level of “readiness.” This situation contributes to causes and reasons students leave or drop out of college. The cost of dropping out of college and remedial education can be estimated in billions of dollars economically. However, the personal and social cost of it may be immeasurable, but it can be described as devastating and depressing for many reasons. We highly value all acts and efforts at all levels that contribute to finding solutions to this issue, as Latinos are impacted by many levels, circumstances, events and opportunities that lead to student success, which includes achieving the status of being ready for the next level within an individual’s educational continuum. It is possible to find a number of initiatives, projects or programs that are designed to help students who are considered remedial or underprepared for completing college-level coursework, which is crucial for their college completion and educational success. However, historically it has been challenging to find evidence to identify which of these existing strategies and programs are most effective and scalable. Some initiatives and efforts get more attention than others. As an update to a 2012 report on reforming remediation in postsecondary education, in 2015, a group of national education and student success advocacy organizations published and recommended six design principles to significantly increase the number of students completing college and to close attainment gaps for historically underserved populations. These organizations included Achieving the Dream (ATD), American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin, Complete College

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  107 America (CCA), Education Commission of the States (ECS) and Jobs for the Future (JFF). In their joint report (ATD, AACC, CCA, ECS, & JFF, 2015), Core Principles for Transforming Remediation within a Comprehensive Student Success Strategy, they bring greater attention to scaling practices that can provide all students (including underserved) with the guidance, support and skills they need to be successful. The first design principle is based on the notion that “students are far more likely to succeed in postsecondary education if they have a purpose in mind” (p. 4). It calls for an early determination of an academic direction that is expected to help students “better understand the purpose of the courses they are taking, leading to increased student motivation and persistence” (p. 4). The second principle pertains to a “default approach of placing students directly into credit-bearing courses or course sequences with enhanced support” (p. 4). This is based on the idea that college students “do better when they are engaged in work that counts toward a degree or credential in their academic or career area of interest” (p. 4). The third design principle reminds us that many college students regardless of their preparation levels may need help and support with their college-level courses. As students may have different needs, colleges with a comprehensive intake process can help students identify their most pressing needs, which may be academic and/ or nonacademic. This principle offers two promising models: (a) one-semester co-requisite support model, which delivers academic and nonacademic support while students are learning college-level content. Examples include taking singlesemester, gateway college-level courses with mandatory tutoring and/or extended instructional time after class. (b) Structured cohort model, which requires students to take their courses with a set of peers organized as a learning community. It provides structured, integrated, both academic and nonacademic support including financial aid and advising so that they can attend college full time. The fourth principle calls for attention to educational equity and better understanding and implementing the type and level of rigorous support required for all first-year college students, especially underserved/minority students, to succeed in gateway courses. This principle offers two promising models: (a) one-year course sequence (also known as one-year co-requisite models), which provides high-needs students with robust instruction and enhanced learning support so that these students master gateway college-credit course material in one year. Students take these courses at a slower pace but with support embedded in the classroom. In addition, basic skills are integrated in this model. (b) Embedded or parallel remediation in career technical programs, which recalls the first design principle that students are far more likely to succeed if they have a purpose in mind. If they are reminded of their purpose for coming to college in the first place such as getting a certificate or degree in a career technical program, they will be more motivated. This model is expected to be helpful with students who have more significant remedial education needs. The fifth principle pertains to the required gateway courses and their content that is aligned with students’ academic program of study, especially in mathematics. For example, it brings attention to “consensus among the professional

108  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances associations of mathematicians that intermediate algebra and college algebra should not be the default requirement for programs that do not depend on their content” (p. 6). Furthermore, this principle pays attention to policy issues that deal with transferability of credits and their applicability to students’ intended programs of study. Finally, the sixth design principle emphasizes the importance of monitoring and tracking of student performance and progress, which may allow provision of early intervention before problems emerge. Ongoing assessment of student progress through data analytics is important, and institutional research is essential (ATD et al., 2015). In response to the Core Principles, the Community College Research Center [CCRC] (2015) developed a learning agenda to support the strengthening and implementation of the principles for transforming developmental education. The response highlights promising areas and brings attention to weaknesses and potential challenges with the implementation of the design principles. It emphasizes the strong need or quest for most effective models and strategies that help students with remedial needs to succeed. It asks important questions such as “which models are most effective, under what conditions, and for which students?” (CCRC, 2015, p. 2.) Another major reform effort that focuses on community college student success was included in a 2015 publication titled Redesigning America’s Community College: A Clearer Path to Student Success. In their book, Bailey, Jaggars, and Jenkins (2015) of the Community College Research Center at the Teachers College, Columbia University, provide an evidence-based guide for educators, policy makers, leaders and practitioners for increasing their students’ success by focusing on comprehensive reform strategies such as clearly structured programs, integrated student support services and instruction. They refer to this strategy as a “guided pathways model,” which the books blurb concisely and best describes it as “clearer, more educationally coherent programs of study that simplify students’ choices without limiting their options and that enable them to complete credentials and advance to further education and the labor market more quickly and at less cost” (Bailey, Jaggars, & Jenkins, 2015). It is important to note that they provide information and discuss the nature and the type of evidence used for their guided pathways model. They also discuss the challenges of assessing the effectiveness of comprehensive reforms. In addition, in response to an Inside Higher Ed essay titled “Reassessing a Redesign of Community Colleges” (Rose, June 23, 2016), Bailey, Jaggars, and Jenkins (July 18, 2016) reported that they are engaged in evaluations of some of the reforms in several states with a specific focus on analyzing their successes and failures. They further intend to continue to study and learn more about the ultimate effectiveness of their guided pathways model over the next several years. After a careful examination of the Core Principles, it is possible to note that some promising models that are designed to remedy college-readiness issues stemming from student underpreparedness are offered. However, CCRC’s learning agenda brings attention to the critical need for finding the most effective models that would work for the students. It is important to be aware of that efforts

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  109 to finding evidence to identify which existing strategies, models and programs are most effective and scalable must be on a continuous basis, as the amount of work in this field is constantly growing. Policy makers, researchers, teachers, administrators and others with a deep commitment to education need to be aware that evidence-based decision-making cannot be made without credible, rigorous evidence, which may appear in different forms such as proven, promising and emerging. While proven or promising programs are highly desired for building and expanding best practices, emerging practices should not be immediately dismissed without careful consideration, as many innovations may take a long time to achieve a status of proven or promising practice. Institutions That Enroll and Serve Latinos in Higher Education (Also Known as HSIs) Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) play an important role in the education of Latino students in higher education. HSIs can be defined as accredited and degree-granting U.S. colleges and universities that include both public and private institutions with 25% or more Latino undergraduate full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment. Study of HSIs in an organized manner is a growing field. Many researchers have been studying Hispanic students or conducting research at institutions that serve Latino students. However, a comprehensive research paradigm with a strong theoretical framework that specifically identifies and targets Hispanic or Latino students at HSIs has not existed until recently. In their edited book titled Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Advancing Research and Transformative Practice, Nunez, Hurtado, and Caldeano (2015a) provide an important research framework and analysis for understanding the status and role of HSIs that serve critical numbers of Latino students with varying generational and SES status (Nunez, Hurtado, and Caldeano, 2015b). It further advances our understanding and knowledge of Latino college student experiences and their outcomes by paying attention to various aspects and dimensions of HSIs, including role in transfer, institutional type and diversity, an agenda for research, student characteristics, role of faculty and leadership and mentoring. Although not comprehensive or exhaustive, we believe these all are important elements of understanding any systems of education and their products or outcomes. Since the efforts of focusing on HSIs became more visible, many in the field of higher education started to question the quality and value of HSIs. Rodriguez and Caldeano (2015) conducted a study to find out an answer to the question of “Do HSIs really underperform?” by using propensity score matching to compare outcomes of HSIs and non-HSIs. Their findings are noteworthy, as this issue will continue to be part of any discussions about the quality and effectiveness of higher education institutions in general and HSIs specifically. After acknowledging limitations with their study, Rodriguez and Caldeano (2015) found that HSIs that had comparable matches graduated their students at similar rates to their nonHSI counterparts. They further stated that their finding “goes against the notion

110  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances that HSIs underperform and underscores how simple comparisons between HSIs with non-HSIs can be crude and unreliable” (p. 211). According to a 2017 report on HSIs by Excelencia in Education (April 2017d), in 2015–16, there were 472 HSIs located in 19 states and Puerto Rico. These institutions represented 14% of all institutions of higher education and enrolled 64% of Latino undergraduates. Total FTE enrollment at these HSIs for Latino students was more than 1.2 million, which represented 46% of all undergraduate student enrollment. It is noticeable that one in three HSIs are located in California (33.68%). There were 159 California institutions, including public, private, two-year and four-year schools, designated as HSI. It is interesting to note that 92% of the students enrolled in 2015–16 at Imperial Valley College, a two-year public institution located in the southern part of California near the U.S. border to Mexico, were Latinos. Systemwide Reform and Improvement Systemwide reform and improvement efforts must take place at multiple levels including national, state, systemwide and college/campuswide. Systemwide changes can impact the outcomes of local colleges if they are done carefully and thoughtfully. In addition, these efforts require strong commitment to education of people and communities by everyone involved or having a stake in our future including but not limited to community leaders, families, parents, college presidents, administrators, researchers, faculty, staff, trustees and students. It is important for us to acknowledge that California’s higher education leaders and policy makers are committed to improving the condition of education for all. One such leader is Eloy Ortiz Oakley, the first Latino chancellor to lead California’s 114-college system, which serves more than 2.1 million students and includes a significant number of Latino students. Oakley (2017b) believes that community colleges are “the most powerful engines of social and economic progress” (p. 4) in California. Furthermore, he is committed to “improve transfer rates, to close achievement gaps among underrepresented students, to improve completion rates and to advocate for more investment in public higher education” (p. 4). The California Community Colleges Board of Governors in July 2017 advocated for an ambitious strategic plan. Its goals are aiming to improve graduation and student transfers to a University of California or California State University campus and addressing equity issues/achievement gaps. These goals are detailed in a statewide comprehensive report on California community colleges. The report, titled Vision for Success: Strengthening the California Community Colleges to Meet California’s Needs, is published by the Foundation for California Community Colleges (2017a). The report recommends several systemwide, five-year goals that need to be achieved by 2022 (pp. 15–16):

• Increase by at least 20% the number of students annually who acquire associate’s degrees, credentials or certificates.

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  111

• Increase by 35% the number of students systemwide transferring annually to a University of California or California State University campus.

• Decrease the average number of units accumulated by students earning associate’s degrees.

• Increase the percentage of exiting career technical education students who report being employed in their field of study.

• Reduce equity gaps across all of these measures through faster improvements

among traditionally underrepresented student groups, with the goal of cutting achievement gaps by 40% within 5 years and fully closing those achievement gaps for good within 10 years (Foundation for California Community Colleges, 2017a, pp. 15–16).

These are all ambitious goals that reflect educational leaders’ and policy makers’ commitment to California’s future, its well-being and student success. It is important to note that their goal of reducing achievement gaps by 40% within 5 years and eliminating those achievement gaps within 10 years is especially critical, as Latinos are most likely to benefit from implementation of this noble and ambitious goal. The Vision for Success report also presents seven commitments that California’s education leaders and policy makers must make to achieve these ambitious goals. Most importantly, Chancellor Oakley strongly endorses these seven commitments and pledges to take the actions recommended (Foundation for California Community Colleges, 2017a, p. 19): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Focus relentlessly on students’ end goals. Always design and decide with the student in mind. Pair high expectations with high support. Foster the use of data, inquiry, and evidence. Take ownership of goals and performance. Enable action and thoughtful innovation. Lead the work of partnering across systems.

Improving education in general and education of Latinos particularly will require innovative and committed leaders who can contribute to the Latino education continuum, which is an integral part of California’s and America’s education and human capital. California Guided Pathways The California Guided Pathways project was modeled from the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) Pathways Project and adapted for implementation in California (Foundation for California Community Colleges, 2017b). The AACC Pathways Project was developed by building on practical experience and emerging research and focused on “building capacity for community colleges to design and implement structured academic and career pathways at scale, for all of their students” (AACC, 2017, para. 2).

112  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances The California’s Guided Pathways project is a systemwide, integrated reform effort that pays special attention to significantly improving the number of certificates or degrees earned by students at California community colleges (Foundation for California Community Colleges, 2017c). It is important to note that the California’s Guided Pathways project also aims to close the equity gaps between students of diverse backgrounds. In addition, Guided Pathways provides California community college students with “clear, educationally coherent program maps that include specific course sequences, progress milestones, and program learning outcomes” (Foundation for California Community Colleges, 2017e, p. 1). These maps are designed to help students from the start to explore their academic and career options and to simplify students’ decision-making process when selecting a program of study and developing an educational plan, which helps them stay on track and complete their programs more efficiently. Guided pathways model is based on four essential practices (Foundation for California Community Colleges, 2017e, pp. 1–2): 1. 2. 3. 4.

Clarify paths to student end goals Help students choose and enter a pathway Help students stay on path Ensure that students are learning

In addition to its four essential practices, the pathways model offers seven essential research and experience-based capacities for motivating and supporting colleges and postsecondary institutions and systems to implement Guided Pathways effectively and at scale (Foundation for California Community Colleges, 2017e, p. 2): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Leadership skills for large-scale transformational change Engagement of college faculty and staff Institutional capacity to use data and evidence Appropriate technological tools and infrastructure Strategically targeted professional development Supportive policy conditions Continuing action research agenda

The California’s Guided Pathways project currently includes 20 California community colleges and receives support from a number of partners such as Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE), Community College Research Center (CCRC), National Center for Inquiry & Improvement (NCII), WestEd, the Aspen Institute, Achieving the Dream, Jobs for the Future and Public Agenda and funders including College Futures Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, and the Teagle Foundation (Foundation for California Community Colleges, 2017d). According to the chancellor of the California Community Colleges system, some of the California colleges/districts “have already begun to implement the

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  113 Guided Pathways philosophy to great success,” and resources are provided to all colleges that need to engage their faculty, administration, staff, students, and trustees in support of the comprehensive change efforts that are needed (Oakley, July 21, 2017a, p. 1). Excelencia in Education Excelencia in Education, a not-for-profit organization based in Washington, DC, has been a source of information and resources on the status and improvement of Latino educational achievement. It provides helpful resources for developing educational policy at the institutional, state and national levels. In addition, Excelencia advocates for and promotes evidence-based practices to improve and accelerate Latino student success in higher education (Excelencia in Education, 2017a). We believe Excelencia is a highly dedicated organization that contributes to national efforts to collect and gather evidence on programs and strategies that are designed to help Latinos as well as others in need of educational improvement. Excelencia’s most noticeable efforts in gathering evidence and data on Latino student success include two major national efforts/initiatives: 1. Examples of Excelencia: It is a national data-driven initiative to recognize programs and departments at all levels of higher education including twoyear (associate), four-year (baccalaureate) and graduate levels as well as community-based organizations with evidence of effectiveness in accelerating Latino student success. This initiative recognizes programs with promising practices at an annual celebration in Washington, DC (Excelencia in Education, 2017b). 2. Growing What Works: This initiative identifies programs with evidence of success and houses them in a searchable database, which provides a great resource for practitioners, researchers, educators, administrators, policy makers, funders and others. It is important to acknowledge that this database serves as a clearinghouse for effective programs and aims to accomplish two critical goals: “a. to affirm asset-based approaches to serving Latino and other students, and b. inform a network of action-oriented leaders engaged in accelerating Latino student success” (Excelencia in Education, 2017c, para 1).

Academy for College Excellence (ACE) Academy for College Excellence was designated as an Examples of Excelencia Finalist. We attempt to examine and review the evidence available from multiple sources, studies and evaluations in order to gain a better understanding of the programs’ contributions to Latino student success. Academy for College Excellence, formerly called Digital Bridge Academy (DBA), is an evidence-based program that employs a comprehensive student support approach that is designed to help

114  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances specific target populations. The program developed variations to serve students with differing needs and educational or career goals including college-prepared students, transitioning students, career and technical education (CTE) students and students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields (ACE, 2017). Unlike many college-based programs that are designed to help underprepared, underrepresented or underserved student populations, which include a critical mass of Latino students, the ACE program provides a noticeable amount of evidence for its effectiveness. The ACE model has been adapted at many community colleges, and several longitudinal evaluation studies with quantitative and qualitative methods have been conducted by independent researchers and evaluators (ACE, 2014), including Columbia University’s Community College Research Center (CCRC), the RTI International (RTI) and the California Research and Planning Group (RP Group). It would be appropriate to call ACE an evidencerich program or model. For example, in a 2013 study titled Integrating Student Transformation, Support and Accelerated Learning Into the Classroom: A Student Support (Re)defined Case Study of the Academy for College Excellence, RP Group researchers reviewed the results of various studies on ACE and reported that the results of these studies “combine to show considerable promise for the ACE bridge semester approach to have significant positive impact on the success of students across California’s community colleges” (Karandjeff & Cooper, 2013, p. 11). They further concluded that the ACE program or model “shows that students who arrive at college with significant barriers to their success can improve their achievement with effective, intentional support” (Karandjeff & Cooper, 2013, p. 25). In addition, by the end of 2017, the RP Group researchers plan to complete a longitudinal research study designed to better understand the long-term impacts of the ACE on students’ academic success and employment outcomes (D. Cooper, personal communication, July 17, 2017.) The report should provide further evidence on the effectiveness of the ACE model, which serves many Latino students. The California Community Colleges Exemplary Program Award The Exemplary Program Award, which is established by the Board of Governors and sponsored by the Foundation for California Community Colleges, recognizes outstanding community college programs in California. The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC), which, according to its mission statement, “serves as the official voice of the faculty of California Community Colleges in academic and professional matters” (ASCCC, 2017a, para 3), each year selects annual themes related to the “award’s traditions and statewide trends” (ASCCC, 2017b). This prestigious award competition prioritizes programs with evidenced-based practices and potential to replicate at other colleges (scalability). The overall program success is determined by detailed, substantive quantitative and qualitative evidence (ASCCC, 2017c). The award program has been around since 1991, and a number of colleges were acknowledged for their innovative successful programs and strategies. Although the award program includes winners

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  115 and honorable mentions, we attempt to provide examples of only winning programs from the most recent years. The 2016–17 Exemplary Program Award’s theme was contextualized teaching and learning. There were two recipients: 1. Reedley Middle College High School, which helps students increase their achievement levels by transitioning them from high school to college. 2. MiraCosta College HealthStart Program, which assists college students to “successfully build their skills in prerequisite courses leading to desirable careers in nursing and other health allied fields” (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, January 18, 2017a, para 3). In 2015–16, two colleges were chosen for developing programs that utilize contextualized teaching and learning strategies to further student success (ASCCC, 2017d): 1. Las Positas College Early Childhood Development—Math Learning Community, which included interdisciplinary faculty from both the college and external organizations to improve “the success of Early Childhood Development students in sequenced math courses. The groups worked together to create a math series that uses materials and assignments relevant to Early Childhood Development students” (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, January 20, 2016, para 3). 2. Pasadena City College Biology 11: General Biology hybrid course, which was redesigned by the college faculty to primarily improve student engagement in the sciences and close the achievement gap among Latino, AfricanAmerican and Native American students. The redesign of the curriculum was based on interactive and contextualized learning approaches that allowed students to engage in and solve real-world problems in groups. As a result, students were able to focus more on their reading, writing, research, teamwork, presentations, critical-thinking and problem-solving skills (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, January 20, 2016). It is important to note that the Pasadena City College reported an increase in enrollment, retention and success rates among underrepresented minority students and, most importantly, a reduction in the achievement gap as a result of the redesigned biology course. The 2014–15 Exemplary Program Award’s theme was transitions from high school to college. The Academic Senate selected only one exemplary award winner for the 2014–15 competition, described in what follows. Bakersfield College Making It Happen (MIH) Program This holistic mentoring program was designed to help first-generation and economically disadvantaged students transition from high schools located in rural areas to college. The first-time and first-generation students are assigned to

116  Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances mentors with diverse employment status, categories and types from the entire college community including faculty, classified staff, managers and administrators. A critical element or aspect of the Making It Happen (MIH) program is its innovative approach in student placement practices. The program allows students to place in the highest appropriate level possible. These efforts led to an increased number of students placed into higher-level courses and shortened basic skills pathways. In addition, Bakersfield College reports that the holistic mentoring, along with basic skills curriculum revision and appropriate placement of students, saved more than 571 semesters of student work (ASCCC, January 21, 2015). It is important to note that a considerable amount of California community college students come from high schools located in areas that are considered rural. This is especially relevant to community colleges that serve the Central Valley of California, which is the state’s heartland and agriculture hub, with relatively less educational attainment levels as compared to urban or nonrural areas. In addition, the rural–urban gap in college-going and completion continues to remain challenging at both national and state levels. As Latinos experience a respectable share of low education attainment levels in these places, any effort to improve the condition of students transitioning from high schools located in rural areas to college will be beneficial to Latino students as well as others. The RP Group Awards The Research & Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group), a professional association for researchers and planners in California, which promotes, provides and helps with “high quality research, planning, and assessments that improve evidence-based decision-making, institutional effectiveness, and success for all students” (RP Group, 2017a, para 1), offers multiple annual awards to recognize excellence in research, planning and assessment as well as dissertations and theses (RP Group, 2017b). The awards are based on a set of selective criteria including innovation, rigorous research design, evidence-based decision making and planning, diversity, meaningfulness, relevance and appropriate dissemination/communication of outcomes and results (RP Group, 2017b). In 2015, the Excellence in Regional/Statewide Research Award was given to a multicollege evaluation of the California Acceleration Project (CAP), which focused on curriculum redesign and gatekeeper course completion. The evaluation of CAP provides a good deal of evidence and data analysis for strategies and design principles used by CAP, which is part of the California Community Colleges Success Network (3CSN), and it promotes and provides support for accelerated pathways for English and math. In their comprehensive evaluation of CAP, Hayward and Willett (2014), after acknowledging that evidence on the “effectiveness of the various acceleration strategies” is still developing, focus on providing a “rigorous, multivariate evaluation of the efficacy of the curricular redesign model of acceleration as implemented among multiple California community colleges” (pp. 8–9). In summary, Hayward and Willett’s (2014) evaluation of the Acceleration Project found that the “effects of acceleration in both English

Latino Postsecondary Education Circumstances  117 and math were robust and large” (p. 50). In addition, the evaluation of the Acceleration Project’s design principles revealed that these principles, if implemented with fidelity, can “effectively support students with their affective and remediation needs” (p. 50). In the interest of Latino student improvement, it is important to note that their findings indicate that Latino students in accelerated classes benefited from the “overall improvement associated with acceleration” (Hayward & Willett, 2014, p. 44). This is particularly important, as issues and challenges with remedial courses, specifically math and algebra, are becoming a civil rights legal problem for California’s higher education. Any effort that contributes to the success of community college students, including Latinos, in remedial, basic skills or gatekeeper courses is of great importance. We believe this issue will receive attention from those who are strong advocates and supporters of equity, equality, social justice and civil rights issues. For example, Professor Christopher Edley Jr., former dean of the U.C. Berkeley School of Law and cofounder of the Harvard Civil Rights Project (with Professor Gary Orfield), published a commentary in June 2017 addressing this issue in detail (see Edley, June 5, 2017).

7 Future Educational Circumstances of the Latino Students We Know So Much More

Why a New Conceptual Framework? We are all introduced to a multitude of ways of thinking, conceptually, that expand our perspectives of “why things are the way they are” in the formal processes of schooling. These frameworks become consciously very important in making sense of old and new information and creating a context in which to act upon that information. They organize the knowledge base in ways that were intellectually helpful but most significantly organized further intellectual pursuits as everyday activity. We introduce this volume with an invitation to consider the circumstance of Latino development and learning in a new way, a new way of thinking that would more effectively lead to enhanced development and learning circumstances of Latino children and students. We are all operating on the foundations of our conceptual framework, which guides our present professional tasks of understanding the world, particularly issues of development, learning, teaching and schooling. A most relevant study for us was an empirical study (García, 2001) with Latino students in which teachers identified key aspects of the conceptual frameworks related to teaching and learning regarding how children develop and learn and their own role in such processes. These frameworks guided their approach to designing and implementing instruction. In short, their frameworks influenced how they organized their classrooms and interactions with students. And those frameworks had their origins in their own personal social, learning and teaching experiences inside and outside of school as much as the type of formal training/education they received in their pursuit of the teaching profession. In that study, teachers, by expressing their conceptual framework, realized that they were teaching material at a grade level below their students’ status. They were guided to do so because, conceptually, lowering the demands of their teaching would accommodate what they understood to be the positive aspects of instructing “at-risk” Latino students. Once understanding, conceptually, that their understandings of their students’ academic capacities were not in sync with their instruction, a new conceptual framework adjusting for this error led to more rigorous instruction and expanded academic achievement. It is important to point out that these teachers did not hold negative beliefs about their students, nor were they operating on specific theories of teaching and learning.

Future Educational Circumstances  119 Their intentions were good but guided conceptually by an erroneous understanding of their circumstances. Whether we articulate them or not, we all have those frameworks that guide us in making meaning of the world we live in and the actions we take in navigating the circumstances in which we live. That’s why conceptual frameworks are important to all of us, not just to physical, social or behavioral scientists despite their being solely linked to the use of conceptual framework in the theories that they may generate. For this reason, it is important to look more explicitly at conceptual frameworks that might help us understand the educational circumstances of Latinos. Such explanations, although not in agreement, can help us understand the present situations in which Latinos find themselves and may be useful in understanding how to rectify those circumstances that we find unacceptable. Such conceptual frameworks come in many shapes and forms. We will admit that we did not do justice to the varied positions, their intricacies or their implications. However, we have attempted to address major ways in which colleagues working to understand the education of Latinos have organized the information about their circumstances and have attempted to explain those circumstances. Such explanations of course have very direct implications on what might need to be done to enhance the educational outcomes of this student population. Of particular focus in this volume is a conceptual framework that stresses the social processes and institutions in which these students reside, their individual/ psychological attributes and their cultural roots. Social stratification frameworks, which focus on social class and particularly social organizations, result in the reproduction of inequalities, have attempted to explain why poor students continue to underachieve. Other conceptual frameworks add the ingredient of race and ethnicity to the variable of class as a way to enrich understandings of academic underachievement of selected populations, including Latinos. Other frameworks concentrate on the individual student as learner in the schooling enterprise. This more psychological approach emphasizes inherent learning capabilities with issues related to opportunities to learn. In such conceptual frameworks, Latino students are perceived more as individual learners who can be motivated to achieve under teaching and learning circumstances within the schooling experience itself. Beyond the social and psychological explanations are new frameworks that recognize the interactions of the social, psychological and cultural attributes of the Latino student. This integrated framework recognizes the contribution of various factors in its efforts to enhance both understanding the Latino educational experience and acting on those understandings so as to the educational well-being, not in a general sense but in a way that recognizes who the student is, what social structures she/he is immersed in and how schooling can be adapted to address her/his success academically, socially and economically. For education to have value, it is not enough just to know why things are the way they are; it is important to use such knowledge in a way that moves us closer to realizing our pursuit of equity and excellence. For Latinos in particular, we need not continue to puzzle over this population’s historic educational underachievement given the

120  Future Educational Circumstances conceptual understandings we now possess (Garcia-Coll, Crinic, Wasik, Jenkins, Garcia & Macadoo, 1996). The conceptual framework presented here and in Chapter 1 of this volume specifically acknowledges how socially constructed disadvantages take on special significance for schooling in the United States and that Latinos have access to a rich repertoire of social/cultural/linguistic capital that has not been recognized and has often been disparaged by education policies and practices of the learning institutions that they attend (Portes, Salas, Baquedano-Lopez, & Mellom, 2014). At one level, it means that the society as a whole must come to understand these social constructions that may lead to academic underachievement for Latino students while at the same time recognizing and acting on the positive resources they bring to that enterprise. We turn now to particular descriptions of attempts to address this duality.

The McKnight Foundation “Experiment” In 2011, the McKnight Foundation partnered with a set of districts and schools in Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota, all serving a large number of Latino students with a focus on a preK–3 literacy initiative. The funded effort was intended to dramatically increase the number of students who reach the critical milestone of third-grade reading proficiency, an indicator predictive of later academic outcomes and high school graduation. A one-year planning activity scoured the research literature to define the main ingredients of the intervention—making every effort to align policy and practice with the available science. Participating schools and districts carried out the day-to-day work of the initiative. They used grant funds to expand or refine their preK programs; hire additional staff such as program managers, literacy coaches, classroom aides and family engagement liaisons; and purchase high-quality instructional materials including those related to dual-language instruction for DLL Latino students. The experiment was evaluated independently by SRI International, with that evaluation indicating that the promise of moving literacy achievement for the students in the effort fell short of expectations. After four years of this intervention, there were limited positive student outcomes with regard to literacy achievement by third grade, including Latino students who were in the dual-language program. Why discuss this experiment here? First and foremost, it is one of a few examples of a private foundation undertaking a substantial investment in a concerted effort to address the long-term underachievement of Latino students (and other ethnically and racially diverse students) in their local communities that is very well documented (SRI, 2016). Moreover, the initiative identified the link between preK–3 as a critical component of the effort, based on a large body of literature that had identified preK participation as a critical ingredient in positively influencing Latino, DLL and ethnically and racially diverse children in preparation for kindergarten. It seemed to have aligned the type of variables that would make a difference in the literacy

Future Educational Circumstances  121 development outcome of Latinos. The intervention mirrors the conceptual framework put forward in the volume. Why did it not produce the intended results? The independent evaluation by SRI International points to lessons learned regarding this effort and poses important considerations that must be addressed if research-based interventions are designed, particularly for Latino students that link the knowledge base to practice: Chart a clear course. A more detailed theory of action that included specific inputs might have supported a more shared understanding of what stakeholders needed to do to produce the intended outcomes. Clarify roles and decision-making processes. Some confusion may have been avoided if there had been clearer guidance from the Foundation about what types of decisions should be made by districts and schools. Know your students. If Pathway leaders had recognized earlier in the planning process the high percentage of DLL students in the participating schools and the specific needs of preK children, they might have funded a second intermediary or specific professional development aimed at supporting those populations in particular. Take time to till the soil. While many of the schools and districts had a planning year, they did not understand fully what the work would look like, anticipate what potential conflicts or challenges might exist or consistently put in place the structures and supports they would need to accomplish initiative goals. Pay attention to the school’s ecosystem. Initiative leaders expected Pathway districts and schools would address conflicts that arose around policies (e.g., hiring of qualified teachers, funding and space for full-day preK, the ability to abstain from certain district initiatives or assessments and the use of professional development time) but found these issues might have benefitted from explicit discussions and agreements during the planning year. Phase in changes and coordinate supports. Given the numerous fronts on which teachers and principals were working, it might have been useful to develop a road map that laid out all of the pieces that would eventually be addressed in a manageable, sequential order. Keep curriculum and instruction central. To improve instructional quality, teachers might have benefitted from more explicit professional development on instructional strategies and teacher–child interaction in addition to training on the implementation and use of formative assessments (SRI, 2016, p. X). Interventions like these are formed on the very best information relying on the latest research, evaluation and professional expertise (García, 2008). In this particular case, conceptually, issues related to the cultural and linguistic composition of the children and students and the intervention complexity related to these circumstances were not considered. Yet important lessons can be learned when

122  Future Educational Circumstances they might not achieve their highly admirable goal of addressing underachievement in Latino students.

Transitional Kindergarten in California California’s Kindergarten Readiness Act of 2010 established September 1 as the new kindergarten eligibility date. The same legislation established transitional kindergarten (TK), allowing students who reach age five between September 2 and December 2 to receive an “age and developmentally appropriate” experience prior to entering kindergarten the following year. Since it has been implemented across the state, TK has been shown to significantly improve kindergarten readiness for California’s students (American Institutes for Research, 2017). However, a particular investigation was launched to assess TK benefits for English-learner students—those eligible and participating students for TK who do not speak, read, write or understand English well as a result of English not being their home language. This population of students makes up 33% of the kindergarten population in California and represents a wide range of language groups, including Spanish, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Filipino and Arabic, with some two-thirds of these students identified as Latino (California Department of Education, 2010. The American Institutes for Research (2017) provided the results of this statewide evaluation of TK. The findings are based on direct assessments of more than 2,000 English learner students in 20 school districts across California. The evaluation used a discontinuity framework comparing outcomes for students who were born between September 1 and December 2 (and were therefore eligible for TK) to those who were born between December 2 and February 2—those who missed the cutoff for TK but who entered kindergarten at the same time as the TK students.

• TK improves mathematics knowledge and problem-solving skills for EL stu• •

dents, giving them almost a six-month advantage in problem-solving skills over EL students who did not attend TK. TK also improves literacy skills for EL students, putting them ahead of their peers who did not attend TK by more than seven months at kindergarten entry. Participating in TK gives EL students a substantial boost in their English language development, including in speaking skills, listening skills and overall language proficiency. This benefit holds true for EL students from all language groups (American Institutes for Research, 2017, p. 1).

These results, although specific to the California experience, resonate with a growing body of research and evaluation that points directly at the benefits of early learning opportunities for Latino students, including DLL Latino students. It is becoming clearer that early learning efforts can pay important educational dividends for this populations of students. Are there other critical efforts that allow Latino students to maximize their learning outcomes?

Future Educational Circumstances  123 4  Rs—Los Cuatro Rs—and a CF These summonses to change educational practices in the face of continued Latino student underachievement are not to be ignored. We have often been called upon to translate such calls in ways that might be helpful to educators and the general public at large. In so doing, we have often called upon a set of recommendations that use a particular mnemonic, “remember the five Rs. and the CF.” Educational programs, initiatives, strategies and policies that assist Latino students are respectful, responsive, responsible, resourceful, reasonable and conceptual framework viable (García & García, 2012). In short, attending to these five Rs and the CF should serve as a shorthand guide for those concerned with practical translation of today’s theory and research and their implication for the education of Latino children and their families. 1. Respect. Everyone wants respect. Parents want to be respected and want their children respected. Over and over again, it is common to hear from Latino parents and their children that in schools, they do not receive that respect. They are too often seen as the foreigner, the immigrant, the non-English speaker, the disadvantaged, someone who does not belong, who is “less than” and the schools mission is to change them so they can belong. The most detrimental lack of respect for Latino might be identified as “el pobrecito” or “el benditio” syndrome—“Oh, you poor thing—unwashed, of and in poverty, immigrant, non-English speaking; we sympathize with your circumstances and lower our expectations for what you might be able to learn.” Sympathy is not what Latino students need. This is when an educator or an educational system actually begins the slippery slope of lowering expectations and academic standards, begins to devise selection devices that separate the deserving from the nondeserving, the smart from the dumb, those with and those without a future. Latino students find themselves at the bottom end of this continuum through no fault of their own. Educational programs, teachers and administrators that serve Latinos well respect the students for what they bring—their language, culture, worldview—and do not see disadvantages that place students only at risk but, as we see in these students, resources that can be marshaled to meet learning goals, particularly high learning goals. There is an acceptance and a respect that is to be honored and displayed for all students and the families and the communities from which they come. Pobrecitos they are not. It was at a middle school in California that we first encountered this pobrecito phenomenon. The school was primarily serving Mexican-American students, many children of first-generation immigrant parents. Some teachers actually felt that these students should not be in the country and, by this logic, in this school. Since they did not speak English, were poor, were members of gangs and came from farm-worker families, the majority of educators at the school felt the most they could do for these students was provide them a basic, no-frills education. Provide enough of an education to take them out of the fields. After we performed

124  Future Educational Circumstances an analysis of the math and literacy curriculum for seventh graders, we found that teachers, over an extended period of time, had arrived at teaching fifth-grade skills to these seventh graders. This was not an instructional staff that purposely set out to downgrade instruction. They were not sinister in their goals or in their instructional behavior. When asked why they were teaching at these lower levels, the response came back, “We sympathize with their disadvantages and don’t want them to fail.” In other words, they were pobrecitos. That same staff, realizing and acting upon the need to begin respecting the language and culture of the students and raising standards and academic expectations, developed and implemented organizational and instructional changes that resulted in significant gains in academic achievement in literacy, mathematics and science (García, 2005). For Latino students in particular, too much sympathy for their circumstances can be highly detrimental, while too much respect is never handicapping. It was in San Antonio, Texas, that we encountered the program AVANCE and in Los Angeles, California that we encountered Abriendo Puertas. These programs served young Latino parents and their children from before the time of birth until the beginning of kindergarten. They delivered family support services and did so within culturally and linguistic respectful parameters, helping families adjust to immigrant circumstances through bilingual staff and programming. These efforts began with the basic premise that these families needed to be respected for all the assets they brought to the developmental processes, and those cultural, social, linguistic and cognitive assets were to be used to advance their own abilities to support and assist their children and families. And it worked, producing positive adult, child and family outcomes. AVANCE and Abriendo Puertas are now models for other immigrant family intervention programs, garnered national prizes and expanded to the national arena. (See chapter 3 of this volume for details of this and other family engagement programs that serve Latinos well.) These effective interventions began with RESPETO. 2. Responsive. It is not enough just to have respect. Educational programs and those individuals who serve in them must be directly responsive to the students and families that they serve. This requires an active assessment of the learning tools that the student brings to the schooling process coupled with the utilization of those tools that optimize student learning. It means shifting the emphasis from “needs assessments” to “asset inventories” (García & Markos, 2015). However, it is not enough just to know your students well but to take that knowledge and make it come alive in organizing and implementing teaching and learning environments for those students. Borrowing from an educational colleague: “the general can only be understood in its specifics.” That is, we can come to know our Latino students in various intellectual ways, but until we can translate that knowledge into the very specific ways in which we teach them, maximum benefits of the intellectual knowledge will go unrealized. We are now encountering in states where we have worked, specifically California and Arizona, a policy response to their predominantly Latino, Spanish-speaking

Future Educational Circumstances  125 children that bans the use of their primary language during instruction. These policies are premised on the notion that since English is the official language of the United States, these children’s primary responsibility should be to learn English and to do so by immersing them in English-only instructional environments. These policies are responsive to the will of the people of these states— since they were passed by a majority of voters in state-level referendums. But they are clearly not responsive to the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of what we know works for these students. These restrictive language policies have been shown empirically to be highly detrimental to the students in these states (Gandara & Hopkins, 2010b). Ignoring what we know conceptually and empirically works because public officials are garnering electoral advantages at the educational expense of Latino children, which is unacceptable. Quite the opposite, our first encounter with dual-language (DL) programs in the San Francisco School District exemplifies a truly responsive instruction option for these same students (see Chapter 3 of this volume for more details). While the vast majority of the district programs offer instruction in Spanish and English, there are also DL programs that target Korean, Chinese and Tagalog. These efforts have three responsive goals: to help children to learn English and find success in U.S. schools; to help these children become competent in their own language without sacrificing their own success in school; and to promote linguistic and ethnic equity among the children, encouraging children to bridge the gaps between cultures and languages. In 2008, the Utah Senate passed the International Initiatives (Senate Bill 41), creating funding for Utah schools to begin dual-language immersion programs in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese. French and German. In addition, thenGovernor Jon Huntsman Jr. initiated the Governor’s Language Summit and the Governor’s World Language Council, both with a goal to create a K–12 language roadmap for Utah. These groups aimed to address the needs for language skills in business, government and education. With a goal of enrolling 30,000 Utah students in the dual-languae initiative, the Utah Dual Language Immersion Program uses a fifty–fifty model, in which students spend half of their school day in the target language and the other half day in English. Most of the state’s programs begin in first grade, with a few starting in kindergarten. All state-sponsored schools with dual-language immersion programs are required to implement the fifty–fifty model and use two teachers, one who instructs exclusively in the target language for half of the day and a second who teaches in English for the remainder of the day. The Utah initiative also adresses teacher qualifications in important ways: 1. Teaching License: English teachers are required to have an elementary Utah teaching license. Target-language teachers (Chinese, French, Portuguese and Spanish) are required to have an elementary or secondary Utah teaching license or be accepted into the Alternative Routes to Licensure (ARL) program. 2. Endorsements: Target-language teachers (Chinese, French, Portuguese and Spanish) are required to have a world language endorsement in the immersion

126  Future Educational Circumstances language and a dual-language immersion endorsement. English teachers are strongly recommended to have an ESL endorsement in two-way duallanguage immersion programs. The two-way immersion programs serve two groups. The program serves English speakers and ELL students. A 1:1 ratio is the ideal ratio to be maintained for these two language groups, but a minimum requirement is a 2:1 ratio, or at least one-third of students native speakers of the L2. Two-way immersion programs are sometimes called two-way bilingual or dual language. From kindergarten through third grade, the target-language curriculum includes literacy study and the majority of the content subjects (math, science and social studies). The English curriculum focuses on English language arts and some collaborative reinforcement of the content. Teamwork is essential! The curriculum shifts in the fourth and fifth grades, as most conceptual instruction in math and social science is taught in English. Practical application of these subjects remains in the target language. In the sixth grade, social science shifts back to the target language and science shifts to English instruction. These curriculum changes in the upper grades purposefully allow for more instruction time in the target language, focusing on literacy study and increasing student proficiencies. Specific proficiency goals for every dual-language immersion language are set at each grade level in all areas: reading, writing, speaking and listening. The Utah Dual Language Immersion Program then offers one course in grades seven through nine. Participating students are expected to enroll in Advanced Placement language coursework and complete the AP exam in either the ninth or tenth grade. In grades 10 or 11 through 12, students will be offered upper-division university-level coursework through blending learning with six major Utah universities. A Seal of Biliteracy is a goal for these students at high school graduation. The Seal of Biliteracy is yet another responsive effort to address the English only mentality at the state level. The Seal is an award given by a school, school district or county office of education in recognition of students who have studied and attained proficiency in two or more languages by high school graduation. The Seal of Biliteracy takes the form of a gold seal that appears on the transcript or diploma of the graduating senior and is a statement of accomplishment for future employers and for college admissions. In addition to the Seal of Biliteracy that marks attainment of high-level mastery of two or more languages, schools and districts are also instituting Bilingual Pathway Awards, recognizing significant steps toward developing biliteracy along a student’s trajectory from preschool into high school. Legislation creating a California State Seal of Biliteracy was passed in 2011, and California became the first state in the nation to establish a state-level Seal of Biliteracy. State Seals have been awarded to more than 20,000 graduating seniors. A Seal of Biliteracy is granted to all students who meet the criteria for the award. For each level, criteria are set for students whose first language is English who are learning a second language and for English learners who are developing academic proficiency in their home language while mastering English. For more information on the California State Seal of Biliteracy, see www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/sealofbiliteracy.asp.

Future Educational Circumstances  127 In 2012, New York enacted legislation modeled after California’s to create a State Seal of Biliteracy. Other states are now pursuing similar policies. Seals of Biliteracy are intended for all students who master standard academic English and any other language, including American Sign Language. Assessments, including Advanced Placement tests (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) exams, are available in many languages. Some districts have developed their own assessment process for languages in which there are no existing tests and use a common rubric for scoring the tests aligned with world language standards. A linguafolio approach has been developed by the National Council of State Supervisors for Languages. Currently, schools use a combination of assessments, course requirements, student work, and performance. Currently, 25 states and Washington, DC, have approved a statewide Seal of Biliteracy. 3. Responsibility. In considering federal legislation related to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), we were continually confronted with the unequal achievement outcomes for selected students in U.S. schools (see Chapter 2 for details of these academic achievement incongruences for Latinos.) It becomes evident that nationally we do not have policy mechanisms in place for holding educational institutions accountable for these disparate educational results. Moreover, general aggregation of achievement data did not reveal how subgroups of students were actually doing. For this reason, the ESEA, known more commonly as the Every Student Succeeds Act, now requires states, school districts and schools receiving federal Title I funds to report student achievement by race, ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status, with more responsibility now directed to state level entities to address the issue of accountability. Unfortunately, local schools and states do not always adopt disaggregation practices for achievement data on the bases of historically and new relevant demographic categories. For Latinos, failures to make distinctions in this data for immigrants versus nonimmigrants, Spanish speakers versus English speakers and previous educational background makes interpreting this data confusing and unproductive. Most significantly, Latino limited-English-speaking students are often out of the bounds of accountability simply because they were not assessed at all. In this case, educational entities have no knowledge regarding the academic effects of schooling for this population. Absence of such achievement data has often been defended on the basis that it is best not to take such measures rather than do so with inappropriate (unreliable and invalid) assessments. Confused at this policy level is the failure to develop appropriate assessments as opposed to use inappropriate ones (Takanishi & LeMenestrel, 2017). These are clearly two different issues, each placing Latino students outside any system of accountability. The state of Texas has taken an important lead in resolving this set of issues. A statewide accountability system administers achievement tests to each student in its schools on a yearly basis, publishes the results of those tests by school and provides school-based rewards in the form of new resources to those schools

128  Future Educational Circumstances that make substantial progress. In addition, Latino students who are limited English proficient and have been receiving instruction in Spanish are administered academic achievement assessments in Spanish. Some have observed that the tests may still not meet high standards of content and may even be suspect due to their questionable reliability and validity. Yet we now have in one state a system that attempts to seriously address the issues of educational accountability for Latino students. This type of responsibility is still the exception not the rule. Moreover, Takanishi and LeMenestrel (2017) have documented the absence of appropriate assessment measures in early childhood for Latino DLLs. Particularly in the area of educational assessment, the responsibility related to validity and reliability must become commonplace as Latino students grow in number throughout the United States so as to inform practices that can hold education agencies responsible and accountable for the educational progress of these and all students. 4. Resourcefulness. We often are encouraged, particularly in education that less is more and that throwing money at a problem is not the solution. We learned in our own work that the key resources for Latino children are the presence of high-quality staff and teachers that serve these children and their families. These resources are sometimes hard to find, yet they are the most critical ingredient related to academic success for these children. We have also learned that taking good care of these teachers and staff members through ongoing professional development and in classroom coaching can be substantive investments in positive outcomes for children. Teachers, staff members and institutional leaders who understand the cultural and linguistic assets these children, families and communities bring to the teaching/learning enterprise are critical. The types of curriculum and assessment and the expertise of these providers are critical resources in need of attention if Latino students are to do well. Teachers with bilingual and English-development instructional skills, reduction of class size and resources (time and money) for professional development can enhance the educational responsiveness in preschools and during the early grades. After-school programs, specifically targeted in-school reading programs and community-based support programs are not free. They require public and private resourcefulness that are usually nonexistent. And it doesn’t always take a lot of resources. We are struck by the development and implementation of a K–3 program in Albuquerque, New Mexico, that addressed very directly this issue of resourcefulness in response to low achievement of Latino students. Simply, the schools redeployed a cadre of their teachers to prepare its lowest achieving students in after-school programs two days a week. These teachers worked for an hour after school on Mondays and Wednesdays to prepare half a dozen students for the lessons all their classmates would engage in the next school day. The pre-preparation ensured that these students would engage in that lesson and might even take on a leadership role with their classmates in an academic context.

Future Educational Circumstances  129 Academic achievement of these low-achieving Latino students tripled within one year. Its added costs were estimated at approximately $220/year, but its benefits as articulated by parents, students, teachers and administrations undeniably justified this added expenditure. We have summarized in Chapter 3 of this volume the significance of preK for Latinos—a resource that can make a difference for all children (Takanishi, 2016). We pay for what we receive—Latinos and the general society will need to find the resources. 5. Conceptual Framework. We all have ways in which we conceptualize ourselves in interaction with our circumstances—these are often identified as theories or beliefs. They guide our everyday activity, and often we do not realize how powerful they are. In our families, our mothers had a common and important theory: When in need, pray to the Virgin de Guadalupe. If that did not resolve the problem, pray the rosary, and do not hesitate to light a candle at the local church. Our fathers had another common theory: Work hard. If that does not resolve the problem, work harder and even harder. We realize that Latinos have a high sense of spirituality and inclination to work hard—and we wonder where that comes from. We and you as educators have conceptual frame works, theories and beliefs regarding teaching and learning specifically. Theories and beliefs are sometimes considered somewhat intractable—difficult to change—which is why we put forward the notion of a new conceptual framework, not a new theory or even a new belief system. A conceptual framework can guide our every action as we develop and implement practices that we trust will assist children to develop and learn. For many educators, children who come to them are to be served by meeting a set of agreed-upon expectations or standards. We may not always agree with those standards or we might modify some, yet how we get those children to those standards is up to us. We have to often realize that far too many individuals who serve Latino children are operating on a set of assumptions or theories that are too generic and do not take into consideration the complexities of this population—the linguistic, cultural and developmental diversity they bring. We find in the work of Ana Celia Zentella (2005) regarding literacy efforts with Latinos building on their strengths and the work of Luis Moll and his conceptualization of “Funds of Knowledge” (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005) that we all need to understand the cultural, social, linguistic and academic “funds” these students bring to the schooling enterprise. Resources in Latino children and students that go unrecognized and or misunderstood lead only to the faulty construction of developmental and learning environments that are unresponsive and potentially deleterious to those that they were specifically designed to assist. Including aspects of their language and culture as assets for instructional purposes via “translanguaging” (García, Ibarra Johnson, & Seltzer, 2016), and later as an economic advantage in a multilingual and multicultural world (Callahan & Gandara, 2014). Following from this, we suggest adopting a conceptual framework, a

130  Future Educational Circumstances new conceptual framework, with regard to Latinos: Their “raices” are a resource not a problem.

Final Thoughts on Educational Implications From the Knowledge Base and the CF In specific educational terms, allow us to introduce the foundations for this new thinking and how it is related to designing, constructing and implementing development and learning environments for Latinos. Imbedded in this new perspective for Latino students are the understandings that language, culture and their accompanying values are constructed in the home and community environments, that children come to school with some constructed knowledge about many things and that children’s development and learning are best understood as the interaction of previous and present linguistic, sociocultural and cognitive constructions. An appropriate perspective of learning for Latino students, then, is one that recognizes that learning becomes enhanced when it occurs in contexts that are socioculturally, linguistically and cognitively meaningful for the learner—they bridge previous “constructions” to present “constructions.” Such meaningful events, however, are not generally accessible to Latino children without critical adaptations to the generally observed teaching and learning environments within today’s schools. Those practices that contribute to the academic vulnerability of this student population and that tend to dramatize the lack of fit between the student and the school experiences are reflected in the monolithic culture transmitted by the schools in the forms of pedagogy, curricula, instruction, classroom configuration and language. Such practices include the systematic exclusion of the students’ histories, language, experience and values from classroom curricula and activities. They include “tracking,” which limits access to academic courses and creates learning environments that do not foster academic development and socialization and perception of self as a competent learner. They also create limited opportunities to engage in developmentally and culturally appropriate learning that are not limited to teacher-led instruction. The implication of this has profound effects for the teaching/learning enterprise related to Latino students. This new educational environment is one that redefines the classroom as a community of learners in which speakers, readers and writers come together to define and redefine the meaning of the academic experience. It presupposes the respect and integration of the students’ values, beliefs, histories and experiences and recognizes the active role that students must play in the learning process. However, these teaching and learning efforts expand students’ knowledge beyond their own immediate experiences while using those experiences as a sound foundation for appropriating new knowledge. For many Latino students, this includes the utilization of the native language and/or bilingual abilities that are a substantive part of a well-functioning social network in which knowledge is embedded.

Future Educational Circumstances  131 Furthermore, academic learning requires a redefinition of the instructor’s role. Instructors must become familiar with the cognitive, social and cultural dimensions of learning. They need to recognize the ways in which diversity of instruction, assessment and evaluation affect learning. They should become more aware of the classroom curriculum, its purpose and the degree of its implementation. The configuration of the classroom environment and the nature of interaction of students with teacher and fellow students are of significance. Further, instructors must also recognize that the acquisition of academic content also requires helping students display their knowledge in ways that suggest they are competent as learners and language users. Analysis of these dimensions will underscore the potential for equipping the classroom for the particularly sensitive task of ensuring success with Latino students. In addition, teachers must destroy preconceived myths about learning processes and the potentially underprepared student and, in particular, myths about those who come from lower socioeconomic households and/or who come from homes in which English is not the primary language. For those embracing this new idea of responsive pedagogy, new educational horizons for themselves and their students are not only possible but also inevitable. Table 7.1 summarizes these important dimensions of a responsive pedagogy within a responsive learning community.

Table 7.1 Conceptual Dimension: Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Responsive Learning Communities School-wide Practices • A vision defined by the acceptance and valuing of diversity—Americanization is NOT the goal • Professional development characterized by collaboration, flexibility and continuity with a focus on teaching, learning and student achievement • Elimination (gradual or immediate) of policies that seek to categorize diverse students thereby rendering their educational experiences as inferior or limiting for further academic learning • Reflection of and connection to surrounding community—particularly with the families of the students attending the school Teacher Practices • Bilingual/bicultural skills and awareness • High expectations of diverse students • Treatment of diversity as an asset to the classroom • Ongoing professional development on issues of cultural and linguistic diversity and practices that are most effective • Basis of curriculum development to address cultural and linguistic diversity: 1 Attention to and integration of home culture/practices 2 Focus on maximizing student interactions across categories of Spanish and English proficiency and academic performance 3 Focus on language development through meaningful interactions and communications

132  Future Educational Circumstances This recasting, theoretically, of education for Latinos lays a distinct and important shift in understanding the future education for this population of students. Schoolwide Practices • A vision defined by the acceptance and valuing of diversity—Americanization is NOT the goal • Professional development characterized by collaboration, flexibility and continuity with a focus on teaching, learning and student achievement • Elimination (gradual or immediate) of policies that seek to categorize diverse students, thereby rendering their educational experiences as inferior or limiting for further academic learning • Reflection of and connection to surrounding community—particularly with the families of the students attending the school Teacher Practices

• • • • •

Bilingual/bicultural skills and awareness High expectations of diverse students Treatment of diversity as an asset to the classroom Ongoing professional development on issues of cultural and linguistic diversity and practices that are most effective Basis of curriculum development to address cultural and linguistic diversity: 1. Attention to and integration of home culture/practices 2. Focus on maximizing student interactions across categories of Spanish and English proficiency and academic performance 3. Focus on language development through meaningful interactions and communications

Just as there are certain elements of schoolwide and classroom practices that increase the likelihood that Latino students can be academically successful, the conceptual perspective articulated here provides considerable guidance in the particular questions that can serve as a starting point for developing useful strategies for schools that serve Latinos:

• What is the school vision and mission; how are issues of language, culture • • •

and diversity addressed in these; and how are these articulated with teachers, students, district and school administrators, policy bodies and parents? How are language, culture and student diversity incorporated into the curriculum, instruction and assessment practices? What are the resources, experiences and structures that contribute to the professional development of the school community; how are these related to student achievement? How do power relationships in society and the educational and local communities get embedded in the school?

Future Educational Circumstances  133

• What are the prevailing norms and underlying beliefs that shape the roles, expec-

tations and standards? How do these change as schools create and implement new policies and practices aimed at developing responsive learning communities?

Final Thoughts on a Research Agenda Valenzuela (1999, Valencia (2009) and Gandara and Contreras (2009 have paved the way for a new research agenda that can be of extreme usefulness for understanding and acting upon the educational circumstances of Latino students. Each of these colleagues has started with a set of acknowledged presuppositions regarding their research: 1. Their “subjects” live in complex worlds. One of those is the school, and others are constituted of families, neighborhoods and other social institutions (private, governmental, religious, peer oriented, etc., etc.) 2. These same subjects are directly and indirectly influenced by their past experience in these and other organizations and the present action of various social entities. 3. Understanding the student and the social institutions and processes that influence the student requires the “tracking” of the perceptions, interactions and changes of the student and the institutions over a reasonable period. We need to follow the guidance of these researchers. This is not to say those snapshot analyses of Latino students, individually or collectively, are not worthwhile. It is to suggest that the complexity of student circumstances, coupled with their individual navigation through a diverse and multiple set of social circumstances, each changing over time, provides us with a much more in-depth, theoretical and practice-rich understanding of the student. Considering what we now know about the lives of Latino students, two issues seem paramount in a new research agenda: “what works best for whom and why” and “maintenance of effects.” Recommended as the basis of organizing future research, these two issues are addressed more specifically in the following critical questions: 1. Which education practices maximize benefits for Latino children and families with different characteristics under what types of circumstances? Why? 2. Are gains sustained for children and families after the education experience? Both questions take into account the present conditions emerging regarding educational research strategies. The focus is on producing a knowledge base that can provide a foundation for ongoing program improvement and upgrading quality within educational partners, inside and outside of schools. It is the lack of answers to the critical questions enunciated earlier that places educational services to Latino students in jeopardy of haphazard and highly politicized policy initiatives like those we have discussed for Arizona (see chapter 5). The first question acknowledges the diversity and related understanding of the required flexibility of educational interventions for Latinos. Average outcomes of

134  Future Educational Circumstances average programs, which were the aim of an earlier generation of studies, pose the risk of misleading findings and fail to provide the information needed to tailor services to identifiable subgroups of children and families. Developing strategies must respond to the differentiated information needs that must support quality improvements and achieve the hoped for societal benefits in moving toward highly specific educational reforms. Put simply, what works in El Paso may not work in Los Angeles, New York City or Miami. We are not only in need of effective or generic best practices, we need rich contextual information about the interventions and the students served by those interventions. The question “Why?” implicates the need for an intellectual/theoretical foundation for the research as that research intersects with practices in the field. We need a set of theories or constructs that help us to better understand why some interventions work and others do not for the diverse populations being served. Such theories/constructs allow us more readily to adapt new interventions that are different than those we have studied. The second question reflects issues that have come to the fore in the policy and research communities as a result of findings of socially meaningful, lasting gains for children who have participated in educational programs. For example, WongFillmore (1991) found that English-emphasis programs for Latino students generated significant intergeneration communication gaps that negatively affected children, parents and grandparents. Attention to this type of social consequence has been sorely absent. Moreover, attention directed to issues related to lasting effects should not be interpreted to imply that the bilingual education experience, by itself, would necessarily be responsible for producing long-term outcomes. On the contrary, the most plausible scenario is that the long-term outcomes are a product of the combined influences of the schooling experience, influences in the family and follow-up actions of other community agencies that serve to extend or attenuate the effects of schooling efforts. Even with these critical questions in mind and the importance of addressing them in new research with Latino students, it is important to realize that policyand practice-related research does require clarity in causal inference. In such research, it is the impact of policies and practices that is examined: Did this or that intervention work? Reforms, revisions, and add-ons to policies and practices are implemented to make a difference. While much of social science can avoid the troubled issues of the direction of causal effects, “reforms” or “ameliorative programs,” cannot. Policy and practice research, and program evaluation in particular, for Latino students has a commitment to causal inference and a need to optimize the clarity of the inference. Description is not enough.

Preparing Latinos and the United States for the Future As the United States advances its educational pursuits, it is even more important to understand the seismic changes in technology, globalization and democratization that are reflected in similar seismic changes in demography. Unfortunately, the general U.S. population is far more attuned to and comfortable with engaging in aspects of the technological, globalization and political challenges than those challenges confronting us by our demographic changes. They are almost

Future Educational Circumstances  135 characterized by a blind spot when it comes to the new demographic reality; they are “demographically challenged.” To educate our underachieving but growing population of Latino students is a “no-brainer.” Latino youth will serve as our foundation for national preeminence in the fields of high technology in a global workplace that promotes democratic principles and practices. These circumstances pose a particular challenge to educators and those among us who look to educational agencies for help in realizing the moral imperatives of equity and social justice. These agencies are being called on to develop and implement models of culturally competent practices in treating and delivering services to growing numbers of Latino students and families. This volume, with its emphasis on the early education of Latinos in the United States, has attempted to further contextualize our understanding of the education in this country through the discussion of culture. If class and race count, so does culture. We want to end on an optimistic note in presenting a future scenario for Latino students and American society in general. If these findings are valid, then one could predict that as more Latino children enter the “right” kind of early learning venues, barriers to their academic, social and economic success and mobility will fall. As ethnic majorities become more attuned to the cultural diversity around them and the resources adopted in that diversity, we can look forward to a blending of cultural distinctions with other features of our society and the formation of a more egalitarian and multicultural society. An optimal learning community for Latino student populations recognizes that academic learning has its roots in both out-of-school and in-school processes. When diversity is perceived and acted on as a resource for teaching and learning instead of a as problem, there is a focus on what students bring to the process that generates an asset-oriented approach rather than a deficit-assessment approach. Within this knowledge-driven, responsive and engaging learning environment, previous knowledge is seen as a tool for acquiring and using new knowledge. In addition, the search for general principles of learning that will work for all students must be redirected. This redirection considers a search for and documentation of particular implementations of general and nongeneral principles of teaching and learning that serves a diverse set of environments in and out of school. This mission requires an understanding of how individuals with diverse sets of experiences, packaged individually into cultures, make meaning, communicate that meaning and extend that meaning, particularly in the social contexts we call schools. Such a mission requires in-depth treatment of the processes associated with producing diversity, issues of socialization in and out of schools, coupled with a clear examination of how such understanding is actually transformed into educational practices.

References

Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. (2015, January 21). Community colleges honor innovative programs supporting student success. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from www.asccc.org/sites/default/files/Exemplary%20Award%20Press% 20Release%20Final.jaa_.pdf Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. (2017a). Mission statement of the academic senate. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from www.asccc.org/resolutions/ mission-statement-academic-senate Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. (2017b). Exemplary program award. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from www.asccc.org/events/exemplary-program-award-0 Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. (2017c). Exemplary award rubric 2016–17. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from www.asccc.org/events/ exemplary-program-award-0 Academy for College Excellence. (2014). Academy for college excellence evidence of success. Retrieved July 28, 2017, from http://academyforcollegeexcellence.org/ Academy for College Excellence. (2017). Academy for college excellence approach. Retrieved July 28, 2017, from http://academyforcollegeexcellence.org/ ACT, Inc. (2016). The condition of college and career readiness 2015, Hispanic students. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from http://equityinlearning.act.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/06/2015-hispanic.pdf Acuña, R. (1998). Occupied America. In The Latino/a condition: A critical reader. New York, NY; Harper and Rowe (p. 171). Adair, J. K. (2015). The impact of discrimination on the early schooling experiences of children from immigrant families. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Administration for Children and Families. (2014). FY 2014 preliminary data table 1— average monthly adjusted number of families and children served. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/resource/fy-2014-preliminary-data-table-1 Administration for Children and Families. (2015). Head start services. Retrieved August 31, 2015, from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/head-start Alemán, Jr, E., & Alemán, S. M. (2010). ‘Do Latin@ interests always have to “converge” with White interests?’ (Re) claiming racial realism and interest-convergence in critical race theory praxis. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(1), 1–21. Allen, L., & Kelly, B. B. (2015). Professional learning for the early care and education workforce. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Amato, P. (2005). The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social and emotional wellbeing of the next generation. The Future of Children, 15, 76–96 Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

References  137 American Association of Community Colleges. (2017). The pathways project. Retrieved July 28, 2017, www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/pathways/Pages/default. aspx American Educational Research Association. (2006). Foreign language instruction: Implementing the best teaching methods. Research Points Essential Information for Education Policy, 4(1), 1–4. American Institutes for Research. (2017). Transitional Kindergarten in California: The impact of transitional Kindergarten on English learner students. San Mateo, CA: Author. Ayon, C. (2015). Economic, social and health effects of discrimination of Latino immigrant families. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Arias, M. B., & Faltis, C. (Eds.). (2012). Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in SEI (Vol. 86). Washington, DC: Multilingual Matters. Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education’s changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 164–202. Artiles, A. J., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Forging a knowledge base on English language learners with special needs. Teachers College Record, 108, 2187–2194. Asian American Legal Defense Fund. (2008). Left in the margins: Asian Americans students and the No Child Left Behind Act. New York: Author. ATD, AACC, CCA, ECS, & JFF. (2015, November). Core principles for transforming remediation within a comprehensive student success strategy. Joint statement including ATD, AACC, CCA, ECS, and JFF. Retrieved June 21, 2017, from www.core-principles. org/uploads/2/6/4/5/26458024/core_principles_nov4.pdf Atkins-Burnett, S., Monahan, S., Tarullo, L., Xue, Y., Cavadel, E., Malone, L., & Akers, L. (2015). Measuring the Quality of Caregiver–Child Interactions for Infants and Toddlers (Q-CCIIT). OPRE Report 2015-13. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Research Council, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press. August, D., McCardle, P., & Shanahan, T. (2014). Developing literacy in English language learners: Findings from a review of the experimental research. School Psychology Review, 7, 45–59 Bailey, T., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges: A clearer path to student success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog. php?isbn=9780674368286 Bailey, T., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2016, July 18). Lessons learned about guided pathways. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 21, 2017, from www.insidehighered. com/views/2016/07/18/what-were-learning-about-challenges-implementing-guidedpathway-reforms-essay Baker, D. F., Basaraba, D. L., & Polanco, P. (2016). Connecting the present to the past: Furthering the research on bilingualism and bilingual education. Review of Education Research, 40, 821–883. Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333(6045), 975–978. Barnett, W. S., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., & Blanco, D. (2006). Two-way and monolingual English immersion in preschool education: An experimental comparison. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. Barrow, L., & Markman-Pithers, L. (2016). Supporting young English language learners in the United States. The Future of Children, 26(2), 159–118.

138 References Bataalova, J., & Zong, J. (2016). Language diversity and English proficiency in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Bean, F. D., Brown, S. K., & Bachmeier, J. (2015). Parents without papers: The progress and pitfalls of Mexican American integration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bialystok, E. (2010). Global—local and trail-making tasks by monolingual and bilingual children: Beyond inhibition. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 93–105. Borman, K. M., Wiley, T. G., García, D. R., & Danzig, A. B. (2014). Language policy, politics, and diversity in Education. Review of Education Research, 38. 17–31. Bowerman, B. T., Donovan, S. M., & Burns, M. S. (2000). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development: Vol. 6. Six theories of child development. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bunch, G. C., Lyon, E. G., Solis, J., Stoddart, S., & Tolbert, S. (2016). Secondary science teaching for English learners: Developing supportive and responsive contexts for sensemaking and language development. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Burchinal, M., Magnuson, K., Powell, D., & Soliday Hong, S. (2015). Early childcare and education. In R. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1–45). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Calderon, M. E. (2010). Teaching reading & comprehension to English learners, K–5. New York: Solution Tree. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2016, January 20). California Community Colleges Board of Governors recognizes 2015–16 exemplary program award recipients. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/ Portals/0/DocDownloads/PressReleases/JAN2016/PR-2015-16-Exemplary-ProgramAward-Recipients-FINAL-1–19–16.pdf California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017a, January  18). California Community Colleges Board of Governors recognizes 2016–17 exemplary program award recipients. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from http://californiacommunitycolleges. cccco.edu/Portals/0/DocDownloads/PressReleases/JAN2017/PR-2016-17-ExemplaryAwards-FINAL-1-17-17.html California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017b). California Community Colleges key facts. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from www.californiacommunitycolleges. cccco.edu/PolicyInAction/KeyFacts.aspx California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017c). Data mart special population group credit course retention/success rate summary report—data & format area. Retrieved June  29, 2017, from http://datamart.cccco.edu/Outcomes/Course_Ret_ Success_SP.aspx California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017d). Data mart student citizenship status summary report—data & format area. Retrieved June 29, 2017, from http:// datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Citizenship_Status_Summary.aspx California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017e). Data mart student enrollment status summary report: 2005–2006 and 2015–2016. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from http://datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Student_Term_Annual_Count.aspx Report Run Date California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017f). Data mart course retention and success rates report: 2006 and 2016. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from http://datamart. cccco.edu/Outcomes/Course_Ret_Success.aspx Report

References  139 California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017g). Data mart transfer velocity report: Cohorts 1999–2000 to 2009–2010. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from http:// datamart.cccco.edu/Outcomes/Transfer_Velocity.aspx California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017h). Data mart transfer volume to In-State Private (ISP) and Out-of-State (OOS) Baccalaureate Granting Institutions report. Retrieved July  2, 2017, from http://datamart.cccco.edu/Outcomes/Student_ Transfer_Volume.aspx California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017i). 2017 Statewide student success scorecard. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from http://scorecard.cccco.edu/scorecardrates. aspx?CollegeID=000#home California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017j). 2017 Statewide student success scorecard. Remedial/ESL completion rate. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from http:// scorecard.cccco.edu/scorecardrates.aspx?CollegeID=000#home California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2017k). Student success score card metric summary report (MIS data mart). Retrieved July 5, 2017, from http://datamart. cccco.edu/Outcomes/Student_Success_Scorecard.aspx California Department of Education. (2010). Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA: Author. California State University (CSU) Analytic Studies. (2017). California Community College transfers by concentration, ethnicity, gender, and campus of origin. Retrieved July 2, 2017, from http://asd.calstate.edu/ccct/2015-2016/index.asp Callahan, R. M., & Gandara, P. C. (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the U.S. labor market. London: Multilingual Matters. Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579–620. Campaign for College Opportunity. (2016, July). Higher education in California: An introduction to the state’s public colleges & universities. HE primer 2016. Retrieved July 2, 2017, from http://collegecampaign.org/portfolio/2016-higher-education-primer/ Carnoy, M., & García, E. (2017). Five key trends in U.S. student performance. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from www.epi.org/publication/ five-key-trends-in-u-s-student-performance-progress-by-blacks-and-hispanics-the-takeoff-of-asians-the-stall-of-non-english-speakers-the-persistence-of-socioeconomic-gapsand-the-damaging-effect/ Castro, D. C., Páez, M. M., Dickinson, D. K., & Frede, E. (2011). Promoting language and literacy in young dual language learners: Research, practice, and policy. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 15–21. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belkap Press Cole, M., & Cole, S. R. (2010). The development of children. New York: Worth. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (2007). Cultural-historical approaches to designing for development. In J. Valsiner & A. Rosa (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cole, M., & Parker, M. (2016). A bio-cultural-historical approach to the study of development. Advances in Culture and Psychology. 12, 145–168. Collins, M. F. (2010). ELL preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition from storybook reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(1), 84–97. Community College Research Center. (2015, November). A learning agenda to support the strengthening and implementation of the core principles for transforming

140 References developmental education. Retrieved June 21, 2017, from www.core-principles.org/ uploads/2/6/4/5/26458024/dev_ed_principles_learning_agenda.pdf Conboy, B. (2013). Neuroscience research: How experience with one or multiple languages affects the developing brain. In Governor’s State Advisory Council on Early Learning and Care Sacramento (Ed.), California’s best practices for young dual language learners research overview papers (pp. 1–50). Sacramento, CA: Child Development Division, California Department of Education. Cooper, B. R., & Lanza, S. T. (2014). Who benefits most from Head Start? Using latent class moderation to examine differential treatment effects. Child Development, 85(6), 2317–2338. Council of Great City Schools. (2013). Instructional materials for English language learners in urban public schools, 2012–2013. Washington, DC: Author. Crosnoe, R. (2006). Mexican roots, American schools: Helping Mexican immigrant children succeed. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college and career readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(86), 1. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2004). Involving Latino families in schools: Raising student achievement through home-school partnerships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. DeNicicolo, C. P., Gonzalez, M., Morales, S., & Romani, L. (2015). Teaching through Testimonia: Accessing community and cultural wealth in school. Journal of Latinos and Education, 14, 228–243. Dickinson, D. K., & Neuman, S. B. (2006). Handbook on early literacy (Vol. 2). New York: Guilford Press. Dodge, K. A., Bai, Y., Ladd, H. F., & Muschkin, C. G. (2017). Impact of North Carolina’s early childhood programs and policies on educational outcomes in elementary school. Child Development, 88(3), 996–1014. Dowd, A. C., Bensimon, E. M., Gabbard, G., Singleton, S., Macias, E., Dee, J., Melguizo, T., Cheslock, J., & Giles, D.(2006). Transfer access to elite colleges and universities in the United States: Threading the needle of the American dream. Retrieved July 9, 2017, from www.jkcf.org/assets/1/7/Threading_the_Needle-Executive_Summary.pdf Edley, C. (2017, June 5). Commentary: At Cal State, algebra is a civil rights issue. EdSource. Retrieved July 22, 2017, from https://edsource.org/2017/at-cal-state-algebrais-a-civil-rights-issue/582950 Ellis, M., Wright, R. and Townley, M. (2014). The great recession and the allure of new immigrant destinations in the United States. International Migration Review, 48 (1), 3–33. Espinosa, L. (2013). preK-3rd: Challenging common myths about dual-language learners: An update to the seminal 2008 report. New York: Foundation for Child Development. Espinosa, L. (2015). Getting it right for children form diverse backgrounds: Applying research to improve practice with an emphasis on dual language learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Excelencia in Education. (2017a). About Excelencia in Education. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from www.edexcelencia.org/about Excelencia in Education. (2017b). Examples of excelencia. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from www.edexcelencia.org/examples-of-excelencia

References  141 Excelencia in Education. (2017c). Growing what works. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from www.edexcelencia.org/growing-what-works Excelencia in Education. (2017d, April). Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): 2015– 16. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from www. edexcelencia.org/research/hispanic-serving-institutions-hsis-2015-16 Farver, J. M., Lonigan, C. J., & Eppe, S. (2009). Effective early literacy skill development for young Spanish-speaking English language learners: An experimental study of two methods. Child Development, 80(3), 703–719. Fasheh, M. (1990). Community education: To reclaim and transform what has been made invisible. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 19–35. Federal Interagency on Child and Family Statistics. (2015). America’s children: Key national indicators of well-being. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Figueroa, L, Murphy, P., Torff, W. E., & Session, J. (2016). Dual language learning and early education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(1), 55–69. Flores, G. S. (2016). Assessing English language learners: Theory and practice. New York: Routledge. Foundation for California Community Colleges. (2017a). Vision for success: Strengthening the California Community Colleges to meet California’s needs. Retrieved July 17, 2017, from https://foundationccc.org/Portals/0/Documents/Vision/VisionForSuccess_ web.pdf Foundation for California Community Colleges. (2017c). California guided pathways fact sheet. Retrieved July 17, 2017, http://foundationccc.org/Portals/0/Documents/ NewsRoom/FactSheets/ca-guided-pathways.pdf?ver=2017-07-10-122640-123 Foundation for California Community Colleges. (2017d). California guided pathways. Retrieved July 28, 2017, www.caguidedpathways.org/ Foundation for California Community Colleges. (2017e). What are California guided pathways? Retrieved July 28, 2017, from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5834 c1702e69cfabd9617089/t/584088d15016e1380c9b0837/1480624337586/CAPath ways+Model+Description.pdf Fruger, R. (2006, March) Secret weapon discovered: Scientist say parents partnering with teachers can change the future of education. Edutopia, 46–49. Fry, R. (2006). The changing landscape of American public education: New students, new schools. Washington, DC: The Pew Hispanic Center. Fuller, B. (2007). Standardized childhood: The political and cultural struggle over early education. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Galindo, C. (2010). English language learners’ math and reading achievement trajectories in the elementary grades. I In Garcia, E. E. & Frede, E. C. (Eds.), Young English language learners: Current research and emerging directions for practice and policy (pp. 42–58). Gandara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gandara, P., & Hopkins, M. (2010). Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. Multicultural Education Series. New York: Teachers College Press. Gandara, P., Moran, R., & García, E. E. (2004). Legacy of brown: Lau and language policy in the united states. Review of Research in Education, 28(1), 27–46. Gandara, P., & Orfield, G. (2010a). Moving from failure to a new vision of language policy. In P. Gandara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

142 References Gandara, P., & Orfield, G. (2010b). A return to the “Mexican Room”: The segregation of Arizona’s English learners. Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Gándara, P., & Orfield, G. (2012a). Segregating Arizona’s English learners: A return to the” Mexican room. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–27. Gándara, P., & Orfield, G. (2012b). Why Arizona matters: The historical, legal, and political contexts of Arizona’s instructional policies and US linguistic hegemony. Language Policy, 11(1), 7–19. Garcia, E.E. (2005). Understanding and Meeting the Challenge of Student Diversity (Third ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. García, E. E. (2001). Hispanic education in the United Status: Raices y alas. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. García, E. E. (2008). Bilingual education in the United States. In J. Altarriba & R. R. Heredia (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism principles and processes. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. García, E. E. (2015). Dual language learners. In A. Farrell, S. L. Kagan, & E. K. M. Tisdall (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of early childhood research. Washington, DC: Sage. García, E. E. (2017). A conceptual framework for the educational success of dual language learners: Reducing the achievement gap. In S. B. Warner & D. W. Gomez (Eds.), Challenges facing suburban schools (pp. 63–78). New York: Rowman and Littlefield. García, E. E., Arias, M. B., Harris Murri, N. J., & Serna, C. (2010). Developing responsive teachers: A challenge for a demographic reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 132–143. García, E. E., & Cuellar, D. (2006). Who are these linguistically and culturally diverse students? Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2220–2246. García, E. E., & Frede, E. C. (2010). Young English language learners: Current research and emerging directions for practice and policy. New York: Teachers College Press. García, E. E., & García, E. H. (2012). Understanding the language development and early education of hispanic children. New York: Teachers College Press. García, E. E., & Gonzales, D. M. (2006). preK and Latinos: The foundation for Americas’ future. Washington, DC: preK Now. García, E. E., & Náñez Sr, J. E. (2011a). Bilingualism and cognition: Informing research, pedagogy, and policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. García, E. E., & Náñez Sr, J. E. (2011b). Bilingualism and cognition: Joining cognitive psychology and education to enhance bilingual research, pedagogy and policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. García, E., Lawton, K., & Diniz de Figueiredo, E. H. (2011). The education of English language learners in Arizona: A legacy of persisting achievement gaps in a restrictive language policy climate. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Civil Rights Center García, E., & Markos, A. (2015). Early childhood education and dual language learners. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. García, E., Wiese, A-M., & Cuéllar, D. (2011) Language, public policy, and schooling. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (3rd ed., pp. 143–159). New York: Routledge. García, E.,  & Zamora, J. C. (2015). Exploring the significance of linguistic and culturally diversity: Ethnomethodology and the use of PhotoVoice. In Olivia Saracho (Ed.), Handbook of research methodologies in early childhood education: Review of research methodologies (Vol. II, pp. 268–289). Los Angeles, CA: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

References  143 García, O., Johnson, S. I., & Seltzer, K. (2016). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, PA: Carlson Publishing and Consulting. García, R. (2016). Bridging the English learner achievement gap: Leadership structures for sustainable school reform. New York: Teachers College Press. García-Coll, C. G., Crinic, K., Wasik, B. H., Jenkins, R., García, H. V., & Mcadoo, H. (1996). Child Development, 67(5), 1891–1914. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Taylor and Francis. Genessee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Sanders, B., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.). (2014) Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 113–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Goldman, S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2015). Research on learning and instruction: Implications for curriculum, instruction and assessment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 33–41. Goldstein, J. L., & Peters, M. E. (2014). Nativism or economic threat: Attitudes toward immigrants during the great recession. International Interactions, 40(3), 376–401. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices, households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gormley, W. (2008). The effects of Oklahoma’s preK program on Hispanic students. Social Science Quarterly, 89(4), 916–936. Greaves, M. C. (2009). Why parent involvement? A perspective of the Cranston Family Center. NCEA, pp. 39–45. Greenfield, P., Keller, H., Fuligni, A., & Maynard, A. (2003). Cultural pathways through universal development. Annual Review of Psychology, 14 (3), 456–475. Griffith, D. (2008). New Midwesterners, new Southerners: Immigration experiences in four rural American settings. In D. S. Massey (Ed.), New faces in new places: The changing demography of American immigration (pp. 179–210). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits and repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. Guzman, L., Hickman, S., Turner, K., & Gennetian, L. (2016). Hispanic children’s participation in early care and education. Washington, DC: National Center on Hispanic Children and Families. Hagerman, M. A. (2014). White families and race: Colour-blind and colour-conscious approaches to White racial socialization. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(14), 2598–2614. Halgunseth, L. C., Ispa, J. M., & Duane, R. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review of the literature. Child Development, 77(5), 1282–1287. Halle, T., Hair, E., Wandner, L., McNamara, M., & Chien, N. (2012). Predictors and outcomes of early versus later English language proficiency among English language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 1–20. Hammer, C. S., Davison, M. D., Lawrence, F. R., & Miccio, A. W. (2009). The effect of maternal language on bilingual children’s vocabulary and emergent literacy development during head start and kindergarten. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(2), 99–121.

144 References Hammer, C. S., Hoff, E., Uchikoshi, Y., Gallanders, C., & Castro, D. (2014). The language and literacy development of dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 715–733. Hancock, D. R. (2002). The effects of native language books on the pre-literacy skill development of language minority kindergartners. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17(1), 62–68. Hayward, C., & Willett, T. (2014). Acceleration effects of curricular redesign in the California Acceleration Project. Berkeley, CA: The Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges. Retrieved July 22, 2017, from http://cap.3csn.org/ files/2014/04/RP-Evaluation-CAP.pdf Hernandez, D. J. (2006). Young Hispanic children in the U.S.: A demographic portrait based on census 2000. Report to the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2011). Early childhood education programs: Accounting for low enrollment in newcomer and native families. In R. Alba & M. Waters (Eds.), The next generation: Immigrant youth and families in a comparative perspective (pp. 46–68). New York: New York University Press. Hernandez, D. J., & García, E. E. (2012). The state of Latino early care and education. Washington, DC: President’s Advisory Commission on the Educational Excellence of Hispanics. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Michnick Golinkoff, R., Berk, L. E., & Singer, D. G. (2009). A mandate for playful learning in preschool: Presenting the evidence. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Holloway, S., & Fuller, B. (1997). Through my own eyes: Single mothers and the cultures of poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hopkins, M. (2012). Arizona’s teacher policies and their relationship with English learner instructional practice. Language Policy, 11(1), 81–99. Ifill, N., Radford, A. W., Wu, J., Cataldi, E. F., Wilson, D., & Hill, J. (2016). Persistence and attainment of 2011–12 first-time postsecondary students after 3 years (BPS:12/14) (NCES 2016-401). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved June 16, 2017, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ Institute of Education Sciences. (2017). Averages for reading, math, science, problem solving, age 15 years by Race/ethnicity (U.S. only) [RACE03], year and jurisdiction: 2015, 2012, 2009, 2006, 2003, and 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 01/17/2017 from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/idepisa. Jensen, B. (2013). Finding synergy to improve learning opportunities for Mexican-origin children and youth. In B. Jensen and A. Sawyer (Eds.), Regarding Educación: MexicanAmerican Schooling, Immigration, and Bi-national Improvement. New York: Teachers College Press. Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742. Jiménez-Castellanos, O., Cisneros, J., & Gómez, L. (2013). Applying racist nativism theory to K–12 education policy in Arizona, 2000–2010. Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano Studies, 38(2), 175–190. Jimenez-Castellanos, O., Combs, M. C., Martinez, D., & Gomez, L. (2013). English language learners: What’s at stake for Arizona? Tempe, Arizona: Morrison Policy Institute. Jimenez-Silva, M., Gomez, L., & Cisneros, J. (2014). Examining Arizona’s policy response post Flores v. Arizona in educating K–12 English language learners. Journal of Latinos and Education, 13(3), 181–195.

References  145 Karandjeff, K., & Cooper, D. (2013). Integrating student transformation, support and accelerated learning into the classroom: A student support (re)defined case study of the Academy for College Excellence. Santa Cruz, CA: Academy for College Excellence Center. Retrieved July 28, 2017, from http://rpgroup.org/Student-Support Karoly, L. A., & Gonzalez, G. (2011). Early learning environments: Child care and preschool arrangements for children in immigrant families. Future of Children, 211, 71–101. Kastberg, D., Chan, J. Y., & Murray, G. (2016). Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in science, reading, and mathematics literacy in an international context: First look at PISA 2015 (NCES 2017-048). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch Kirp, D. L. (2013). Improbable scholars. Boston, MA: Oxford University Press. Knight, G. P., Maherer, N. E., Carlo, G., & Davis, A. N. (2016). The socialization of culturally related values and prosocial tendencies among Mexican-American adolescents. Child Development, 87(6), 1758–1771. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Journal of Educational Research, 32(3), 465–491. Lally, J. R., & White-Tennant, G. (2004). Ready for life: How early head start nurtures early learning. In J. Lombardi & M. Bogle (Eds.), Beacon of hope: The promise of early head start for America’s youngest children (pp. 77–95). Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press. Lesaux, N., & Geva, E. (2006). Synthesis: Development of literacy in language minority students. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Report of the national literacy panel on language minority youth and children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lillie, K. E., Markos, A., Arias, M. B., & Wiley, T. G. (2012). Separate and not equal: The implementation of structured English immersion in Arizona’s classrooms. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–33. Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2015). Fostering school success for English learners K–12: Language and academic development of dual language learners during the school years. Unpublished manuscript commissioned by the Committee on Fostering School Success for English Learners: Toward New Directions in Policy, Practice, and Research. Child and Adolescent Development, San Jose State University, CA. Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B., & Rumberger, R. (2005). How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers on children’s social and cognitive development. Working Paper 11812. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. López, M. H., & Barrueco, S. (2006). Latino infants and families: A national perspective of protective and risk factors for development. A report to the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Lopez, M. H., & Velasco, G. (2011). Childhood poverty among Hispanics sets record, leads nation. Washington, DC: Pew Research Hispanic Center. Love, J. M., Chazen-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2013). What makes a difference: early head start evaluation finding in developmental context. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(306), 1–161. Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (2011). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with young children and their families (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Marchman, V. A., Martínez, L. Z., Hurtado, N., Grüter, T., & Fernald, A. (2017). Caregiver talk to young Spanish–English bilinguals: Comparing direct observation and parentreport measures of dual-language exposure. Developmental Science, 20(1), 1–13.

146 References Marietta, G., & Marietta, S. (2013). preK-3rd‘s lasting architecture: Successfully serving linguistically and culturally diverse students in Union City. New York: Foundation for Child Development. Marrietta, G. and Brookover, E. (2016) Effectively Educating Pre-K-3rd English Language Learners (ELLs) in Montgomery County Public Schools. New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development. Mathematica Policy Research. (2010). Identifying enhanced instructional practices that support English language learners: Background literature review. Washington, DC: Author. Mayda, A. M. (2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(3), 510–530. McCabe, A., Tamis-Lemonde, C. S., Bornstein, M. H., Brockmeyer Cates, C., Golinkoff, R., Guerra, A. W, Hirsch-Pasek, K., Hoff, E., Kuchirko, Y., Melzi, G., Mendelson, A., Paez, M., & Song, L. (2013). Multilingual children: Beyond myths and toward best practices. Social Policy Report, 27(4), 1–29. McCarty, T. L., & Nichols, S. E. (2014). Reclaiming indigenous languages: A reconsideration of roles and responsibilities of schools. In K. M. Borman, T. G. Wiley, D. R. García, & A. B. Danzig (Eds.), Review of research in education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Gebrekristos, S., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., & Hinz, S. (2017). The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017–144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved 06/16/2017 from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144 McFarland, J., Stark, P., & Cui, J. (2016). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 2013. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch McHugh, M., & Pompa, D. (2016). Taking stock of ESSA’s potential impact on immigrant and English-learner students. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.migrationpolicy.org/events/taking-stock-essa-potential-impact-immigrantand-english-learnerstudents. McKnight Foundation. (2016). Bringing together ESSA and early childhood education in Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: Author. Migration Policy Institute. (2015). The impact of discrimination on the early schooling experiences of children of immigrant families. Washington, DC: Author. Migration Policy Institute. (2016). Dual language learners in head start: The promises and pitfalls of new reforms. Retrieved February 6, 2017, from www.migrationpolicy.org/ article/dual-language-learners-head-start-promises-and-pitfalls-new-reforms Mireles, L., Bridges, M., Fuller, B., Livas, A., & Mangual, A. (2007). Mexican mothers’ school involvement: Looking at what predictors most identify parent participation. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, Chicago. Musu-Gillette, L., de Brey, C., McFarland, J., Hussar, W., Sonnenberg, W., & Wilkinson-Flicker, S. (2017). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2017 (NCES 2017-051). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved July 19, 2017, from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Table 293. Statistical profile of persons receiving doctor’s degrees, by field of study: 1993–94. Washington, DC: Institute of

References  147 Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d96/d96t293.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Table 269: Master’s degrees conferred by institutions of higher education, by racial/ethnic group, major field of study, and sex of student: 1994–95. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d97/ d97t269.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2016a). Projections of education statistics to 2024 (NCES 2016–013). Table 19. Fall enrollment of U.S. residents in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1976 through 2024. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 2, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016013.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2016b). Table 1. All first-time postsecondary students: Attainment and persistence at any institution. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 31, 2017, from https:// nces.ed.gov/datalab/tableslibrary/viewtable.aspx?tableid=10427 National Center for Education Statistics. (2016c). Table 302.60. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level of institution and sex and race/ethnicity of student: 1970 through 2015. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_302.60.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2016d). Table 306.10. Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level of enrollment, sex, attendance status, and race/ethnicity of student: Selected years, 1976 through 2015. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 2, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_306.10.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2016e). Table 306.60. Fall enrollment in degreegranting (associate’s or higher) postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity of student and state or jurisdiction: 2015. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 2, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ digest/d16/tables/dt16_306.60.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2016f). Table 320.20. Certificates below the associate’s degree level conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: 1998–99 through 2014–15. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_320.20.asp?current=yes National Center for Education Statistics. (2016g). Table 321.20: Associate’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: Selected years, 1976–77 through 2014–15. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_321.20.asp?current=yes National Center for Education Statistics. (2016h). Table 321.30: Associate’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and field of study: 2013–14 and 2014–15. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/ dt16_321.30.asp?current=yes National Center for Education Statistics. (2016i). Table 322.20: Bachelor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: Selected years, 1976–77 through 2014–15. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.

148 References Department of Education. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ digest/d16/tables/dt16_322.20.asp?current=yes National Center for Education Statistics. (2016j). Table 323.30: Master’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and field of study: 2013–14 and 2014–15. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/ dt16_323.30.asp?current=yes National Center for Education Statistics. (2016k). Table 324.80: Statistical profile of persons receiving doctor’s degrees, by field of study and selected characteristics: 2012–13 and 2013–14. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/ dt15_324.80.asp?current=yes National Center for Education Statistics. (2017a). Average scale scores for long-term trend reading and mathematics, age 17 by race/ethnicity 6 categories [RACE], year and jurisdiction: 2012, 2008, 2004, and 1994: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Washington, DC: Institutes of Education Sciences. Retrieved July 8, 2017, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/lttdata/ National Center for Education Statistics. (2017b). Averages for reading, math, science, problem solving, age 15 years by Race/ethnicity (U.S. only) [RACE03], year and jurisdiction: 2012, 2009, 2006, 2003, and 2000. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Washington, DC: Institutes of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. (2017c). Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved January 17, 2017, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/idepisa. National Center for Education Statistics. (2017d). 2015 science assessment: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences Retrieved July 8, 2017, from www.nationsreportcard.gov/science_2015/#?grade=; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Early child care and children’s development in the primary grades: Follow-up results from the NICHD study of early child care. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 537–570. National Institute for Early Education Research. (2013). Trends in state funded preschool programs: Survey findings from 2001–2002 to 2011–2012. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://nieer.org/sites/nieer/files/Trends%20in%20State%20Funded%20Preschool% 20Programs_0.pdf National Institute for Early Education Research and Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes. (2014). Young immigrants and dual language learners: Participation in preK and gaps at Kindergarten. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://ceelo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/11/ceelo_nieer_webinar_equity_immigrant_dll_pre_k_slides_ final.pdf National Research Council. (2015). The integration of immigrants into American Society. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2016). Parenting matters: Supporting parents of children ages 0–8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Science Foundation. (2016). Table 34. Postdoctoral appointees in science, engineering, and health in all institutions, by field, citizenship, ethnicity, and race: 2010–15. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering. Retrieved June 23, 2017, from https:// ncsesdata.nsf.gov/datatables/gradpostdoc/2015/html/GSS2015_DST_34.html

References  149 National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2017a). Snapshot report: First-year persistence and retention. Retrieved June 16, 2017, from https://nscresearchcenter.org/ snapshotreport28-first-year-persistence-and-retention/;. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2017b). National data tables 7–10: First-year persistence and retention rates by race/ethnicity. Retrieved June 16, 2017, from https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/NSC_SnapshotReport28_PersistenceRetention_Data_Tables.xlsx National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics. (2007). Para nuestros niños: Expanding and improving early childhood education for Hispanics—main report. Tempe, AZ. Retrieved September 15, 2015, from www.ecehispanic.org/work/ expand_MainReport.pdf New America Foundation. (2015). Boomtown kids: Harnessing energy and aligning resources for dual language learners in San Antonio, Texas. Washington, DC: Author. Nuñez, A. M., Hurtado, S., & Galdeano, E. C. (Eds.). (2015a). Hispanic-serving institutions: Advancing research and transformative practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Núñez, A. M., Hurtado, S., & Galdeano, E. C. (2015b). Why study Hispanic-serving institutions. In A. M. Nunez, S. Hurtado, & E. Calderon-Galdeano (Eds.), Hispanic-serving institutions: Advancing research and transformative practice. New York: Routledge. Oakley, E. O. (2017a, July 21). Letter to the field: Strategic vision & guided pathways. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. Oakley, E. O. (2017b). 2016 State of the system report. California Community College Chancellor’s Office. Retrieved July 17, 2017, from http://californiacommunitycolleges. cccco.edu/Portals/0/Reports/2016-SOS-Report-ADA.pdf Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. (2013). Report to congress on dual language learners in head start and early head start programs. Retrieved June 30, 2016, from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/resource/report-to-congress-on-dual-languagelearners-in-head-start-and-early-head Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Civil Rights Project. Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2016). Unauthorized immigrant population stable for a half a decade. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Pew Hispanic Center. (2014). Unauthorized immigrant population trends for states, birth countries and regions. Retrieved June 21, 2016, from www.pewhispanic.org/2014/12/11/ unauthorized-trends Place, S., & Hoff, E. (2011). Properties of dual language exposure that influence 2-yearolds’ bilingual proficiency. Child Development, 82(6), 1834–1849. Pompa, D., & Park, M. (2016). New opportunities? The Every Student Succeeds Act and dual language learners and its implications for workforce development. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Portes, R., Salas, S., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Mellom, P. J. (2014). U.S. Latinos and education policy: Research-based directions for change. New York: Routledge. Powers, J. M. (2014). From segregation to school finance the legal context for language rights in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 38(1), 81–105. Powers, J. M., & Williams, T. R. (2013). State of outrage: Immigrant-related legislation and education in Arizona. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 6(2); Predicts individual differences in joint attention at 9 months. Developmental Science, 16. 46–59. Public Policy Institute of California. (2016, April). Higher education in California. PPIC Higher Education Center. Retrieved June 30, 2017, from www.ppic.org/publications/

150 References Qiuyun, L. (2006). Beyond cultural deficit approach: Disentangling language minority parents’ involvement in the early grades. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Quay, S., & Montanari, S. (Eds.). (2016). Bilingualism across the lifespan (pp. 103–122). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Reardon, S. F., & Fahle, E. M. (2017). “Education” in “State of the union: The poverty and inequality report.” Special issue, Pathways Magazine. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from http://inequality.stanford.edu/publications/pathway/state-union-2017 Reardon, S. F., & Galindo, C. (2006). Patterns of Latino students’ math and English literacy test scores. Report to the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Latinos. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Reese, L., Balzano, S., Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (1995). The concept of “educación”: Latino family values and American schooling. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(1), 57–81. Rios-Aguilar, C., & Gandara, P. (2012). Horne v. Flores and the future of language policy. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–13. Rios-Aguilar, C., González-Canche, M., & Moll, L. C. (2010a). Implementing structured English immersion in Arizona: Benefits, costs, challenges, and opportunities. Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Rios-Aguilar, C., González-Canche, M., & Moll, L. C. (2010b). A study of Arizona’s teachers of English language learners. Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Rodriguez, A., & Calderón-Galdeano, E. (2015). Do HSIs really underperform? Using propensity score matching to compare outcomes of HSIs to Non-HSIs. In A. M. Nunez, S. Hurtado, & E. Calderon-Galdeano (Eds.), Hispanic-serving institutions: Advancing research and transformative practice. New York: Routledge. Rodriguez-Brown, F. V. (2009). The home-school connections: Lessons learned in a culturally and linguistically diverse community. New York: Routledge. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press. Rose, M. (2016, June 16). Reassessing a redesign of community colleges. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 21, 2017, from www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/06/23/ essay-challenges-facing-guided-pathways-model-restructuring-two-year-colleges. RP Group. (2017a). RP Group’s mission, vision, and strategic framework. The Research & Planning Group for California Community Colleges. Retrieved July 22, 2017, from http://archive.rpgroup.org/about/what-we-do RP Group. (2017b). RP group awards. The Research & Planning Group for California Community Colleges. Retrieved July 22, 2017, from http://archive.rpgroup.org/content/ rp-group-awards Ruiz, R. (1995). Language planning considerations in indigenous communities. Bilingual Education Research Journal, 19, 17–81. Rumberger, R. W., & Tran, L. (2010). State language policies, school language practices, and the English learner achievement gap. In P. Gandara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press. Rumi, M.J. (n.d.). Discourses of Rumi (Fihi Ma Fihi) (A. J. Arberry, Trans.). Ames, Iowa: Omphaloskepsis Books, 2000. Retrieved from https://ia800509.us.archive.org/35/items/ sufism_tasawwuf_outlook_Dis/dis.pdf Sandhofer, C., & Uchikoshi, Y. (2013). The relationship between dual language development and development of cognition, mathematics, social-emotional development, and related domains California’s best practices for young dual language learners:

References  151 Research overview papers: Child development division, California Department of Education (CDE). Retrieved March 11, 2017, from www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ce/documents/ dllresearchpapers.pdf Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Sinatra, G. M., & Chinn, C. (2011). Thinking and reasoning in science: Promoting epistemic conceptual change. In K. Harris, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), Educational psychology: Contributions to education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Education Research, 75(2), 247–284. Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Putting the pieces together: Systemic school reform. CPRE Policy Brief, RB-06-4/91. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Snow, C. E., & VanHemel, S. B. (2008). Early childhood assessments: Why, what and how. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. SRI Education. (2016, June). The McKnight Foundation pathway schools initiative phase I cross case report. Palo Alto, CA: Author. Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality. (2017). State of the union: The poverty and inequality report. Special issue, Pathways Magazine. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from http:// inequality.stanford.edu/publications/pathway/state-union-2017 Takanishi, R. (2016). First thing first: Creating the new American Primary School. New York: Teachers College Press. Takanishi, R., & LeMenestrel, S. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Tharp, R., Estrada, P., Dalton, S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. U.S. Census Bureau (2008). U.S. Population Projections. National Population. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Language spoken at home by ability to speak English for the population 5 years and over (Hispanic or Latino). Retrieved March 12, 2017, from https:// factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Table 8. Enrollment status for families with children 5 to 24 years old, by control of school, race, type of family, and family income: October 2015. Retrieved June 27, 2017, from https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/ demo/tables/school-enrollment/2015/2015-cps/tab08.xls U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). 2011–2015 American community survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved June 27, 2017, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk United Nations. (2010). International migrant stock: The 2008 revision (United Nations, POP/DB/MIG/Rev.2005), data in digital form. Retrieved September 25, 2015, from http://esa.un.org/migration United States Department of Education. (2010). Biennial report to Congress on the implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program. Washington, DC: Author. United States. National Education Goals Panel. (1995). The national education goals report: Executive summary: Improving education through family-school-community partnerships. National Education Goals Panel.

152 References University of California. (2017). Transfer dashboard: Transfer fall admissions summary (1994–2016). Retrieved July 2, 2017, from www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/ transfer-admissions-summary Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools—an ethnographic portrait. New York: Teachers College Press. Valdés, G., Capitelli, S., & Alvarez, L. (2011). Latino children learning English: Steps in the journey. New York: Teachers College Press. Valencia, R. (2009). Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas. New York: Falmer Press. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Valenzuela, A., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Familism and social capital in the academic achievement of Mexican origin and Anglo adolescents. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 18–36. Velez-Ibanez, C. G. (2017). Hegemonies of language and their discontents: The Southwest North America region since 1540. New York: Routledge. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32; 108(38), 16056–16061. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weber, D. J. (2003). Foreigners in their native land: Historical roots of the Mexican Americans. Albuquerque, NM; University of New Mexico Press. Weis, R., & Toolis, E. E. (2010). Parenting across cultural contexts in the USA: Assessing parenting behaviour in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse sample. Early Child Development & Care, 180(7), 849–867. Weisberg, D. S., Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Talking it up: Play, language development, and the role of adult support. American Journal of Play, 6(1), 39. Weisner, T. S. (2005). Attachment as a cultural and ecological problem with pluralistic solutions. Human Development, 48, 89–94. Whiting, B., & Edwards, C. (1991). Children of different worlds: The formation of social behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Williams, C. (2014). Chaos for dual language learners: An examination of state policies for exiting children from language services in the pre-K-3rd grades. Washington, DC: New America Foundation. Williams, C. (2014). Putting dual language learners first in Minnesota. Washington DC: New America Foundation. Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323–346. Wright, W. E. (2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy, and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing. Xia, R. (2017, June 5). Most private colleges take very few transfers. At USC, about 1,500 get a spot each year. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 9, 2017, from www.latimes. com/local/lanow/la-me-usc-transfers-20170605-story.html Yazejian, N., Bryant, D., Freel, K., & Burchinal, M. (2015). High-quality early education: Age of entry and time in care differences in student outcomes for English-only and dual language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 32, 23–39. Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M. R., Espinosa, L. M., Gormley, W. T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K. A., Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M. J. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool education. Retrieved March 11, 2017, from

References  153 http://repositorio.minedu.gob.pe/bitstream/handle/123456789/4015/Investing%20in%20 Our%20Future%20The%20Evidence%20Base%20on%20Preschool%20Education. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Zamora, J. (2015). Mexican immigrants families traditional and non-traditional language and literacy practices at home that prepare children for school in the United States. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Zentella, A. C. (2005). Building on strengths: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities. New York: Teachers College Press. Zero to Three. (2014). How to communicate with parents. Retrieved February 3, 2017, from www.zerotothree.org/resources/92-how-to-communicate-with-parents Zong, J., & Batalova, J. (2015). Indian immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved June 6, 2015.

Index

Page numbers in italics indicate figures, and page numbers in bold indicate tables. AACC Pathways Project 111 Abbott preschools 47, 49 Abbott v. Burke 46 Abriendo Puertas 124 academic language 62 academic performance: and early childhood preparation 22 – 23; and English language proficiency 25; and international student assessments 27 – 29; in Latino subpopulations 23 – 24; reading skill levels 23, 23, 24, 24 – 25; and socioeconomic status 24 – 25; trends in 25 – 26 Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) 114 Academy for College Excellence (ACE) 113 – 114 accelerated classes 117 ACE see Academy for College Excellence (ACE) achievement gaps: Arizona case study 71 – 73; and English language proficiency 80; Latino students 3, 15, 22, 24 – 25, 28 – 30, 49, 71 – 73; progress in addressing 1, 26 – 28, 30; and socioeconomic status 21, 24 – 25 Achieving the Dream 112 ACT College Readiness Benchmarks 31 ACT Test readiness benchmarks 71, 73 adult–child interactions 40 African Americans: academic achievement 26 – 29, 29; and culturally responsive teaching 64; high school completion 30; persistence rates 87; and socioeconomic status 24 Alvarez, L. 55 American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) Pathways Project 111

American Institutes for Research 122 anti-immigrant initiatives 5, 11, 70, 82 Arce v. Douglas 79 – 80 Arias, M. B. 77 Arizona case study: achievement gaps 71 – 73; ACT Test readiness benchmarks 73; anti-immigrant initiatives 82; English language learners (ELL) 73 – 82; English-only instruction 77 – 78; Flores case 74 – 77; H.B. 2281 78 – 80; high school completion 73; Latino demographics 70 – 71, 71; Latino student enrollment 71, 72; NAEP math proficiency 71 – 72, 72; NAEP reading proficiency 71 – 72, 72; Proposition 203 76, 78 Arizona Education Equity Project 77 Asian students: academic achievement 26, 28 – 29, 29; persistence rates 87; retention rates 86 Aspen Institute 112 associate’s degrees 89 AVANCE 43, 124 bachelor’s degrees 89 – 90 Bailey, T. 108 Bakersfield College 115 – 116 Bank Street Developmental Interaction Approach 47 Barrueco, S. 44 Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) longitudinal study 87 Bensimon, E. M. 99 bilingual education: for English language learners 76; and heritage language 8; and home language skills 57 bilingualism: as an asset 69, 80 – 81; and brain activity 11 – 12; and vocabulary 58

Index  155 brain activity 7, 11 – 12 Bridges, M. 39 Brown v. Board 49 Calderón Galdeano, E. 109 California: demographics 94; educational policy 95; higher education in 94 – 95, 95, 96 – 101, 102, 103 – 105, 110 – 111; Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) 110; Kindergarten Readiness Act of 2010 122; Latino population 95; Latino students 83 – 84, 94 – 95, 95, 96 – 101, 103 – 105 California Acceleration Project (CAP) 116 – 117 California community colleges: enrollment in 96, 97; Exemplary Program Award 114 – 115; Latino students 84, 95 – 101, 103 – 105; preparation and remedial outcomes 103 – 104; reforms in 112 – 116; remedial/ESL completion rates 104, 105; Research & Planning Group (RP Group) 116; retention rates 97 – 98; success rates 97 – 98; transfer outcomes 98 – 99, 99, 100 – 101, 102, 103; transfers to California State University (CS) 101, 102, 110 – 111; transfers to University of California (UC) 100, 100, 101, 110 – 111 California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office 97, 101, 103 – 104 California Community Colleges Success Network (3CSN) 116 California Guided Pathways project 111 – 112 California State Seal of Biliteracy 126 California State University (CSU) 94, 98, 101, 102, 110 – 111 Campaign for College Opportunity 95 CAP 116 – 117 capital/resources 18, 18 Capitelli, S. 55 career-ready students 30 Carnoy, M. 26 Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE) 112 Central Americans 23 Chan, J. Y. 27 Cheslock, J. 99 Child Care Development Fund 36 child development: adult–child interactions 40; and early childhood education 36 – 37, 40, 43 – 44; and experiential influences 37; and family culture 37 – 40; and language 57 – 58; parent-infant talk

43 – 44; and parenting behaviors 44; racial and ethnic differences in 44 child poverty 21 – 22 Cisneros, J. 77 classroom interactions: culturally responsive 52 – 54, 64; culturally specific 53 – 54; cultural relevance in 54; and difference appreciation 54; generic-instructional 53; and responsive pedagogy 50 – 54; sociocultural approach to 50 – 51, 62 – 63 see also teaching Clinton, B. 69 college preparation: benchmarks for 31; Latino students 30 – 31; progress in addressing 30 colleges see higher education Combs, M. C. 76 community 10 – 11 community-based early childcare 60 Community College Research Center (CCRC) 108, 112 community colleges: ACE model in 114; preparation and remedial outcomes 103 – 104; reforms in 108 – 109, 112 – 113; remedial/ESL completion rates 104, 105; retention rates 97 – 98; student enrollment in 95 – 96, 96, 97; transfer outcomes 98 – 99, 99, 100 – 101, 102, 103 see also California community colleges community practices 51 – 52 content area instruction 62 content disconnects 52 Contreras, F. 133 core content 62 Creative Curriculum® 47 Cubans: and early childhood education 23; parent education levels 21 Cui, J. 30 cultural assets 62 – 63 cultural competence 54 – 55 culturally responsive teaching 52 – 54, 64 – 65 culturally specific teaching 53 – 54 cultural models 38 – 40, 52 cultural relevance 54 culture: defined 50; dimensions of 6; and language 55 – 56; and meaning 51 Curiosity Corner® 47 Darling-Hammond, L. 30, 64 Dee, J. 99 difference appreciation 54 Digital Bridge Academy (DBA) 113

156 Index Diniz de Figueiredo, E. H. 77 diversity: among Latinos 23; cultural and linguistic 1, 12, 14, 47, 129, 131, 131, 132, 135; and difference appreciation 54; of English language learners 75; in higher education 15, 83; in schools 64, 132 doctoral degrees 91 Dowd, A. C. 99 dual language instruction 57 dual language learners (DLLs): assessment of 128; and culturally responsive teaching 56; and early childhood education 35, 37, 47, 56, 59 – 61; and English language proficiency 59; and family engagement 60 – 61; identification of 60; immersion programs 125 – 127; and immigrant parents 22; literacy initiatives 120 – 121; models for 56 – 57; and multicultural education 56; and native language instruction 59 – 61; and oral language skills 55, 58 – 59; and responsive pedagogy 125 – 126; second-language outcomes 58; and vocabulary 58 early childhood education (ECE): and achievement gaps 22 – 23; benefits of 44 – 49; California program 47; and child development 36 – 37, 40, 43 – 44; as a civil rights issue 49; community-based 60; delivery of 36, 42 – 43; and dual language learners 35, 37, 47, 56, 59 – 61; family engagement with 40 – 44; Latino enrollment in 35; and native language instruction 59 – 60; New Jersey program 46 – 47; Oklahoma program 45 – 46; and poverty 36; programs for 56; quality of 41; and readiness benefits 45 see also preschool programs Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) 22 Early Childhood Longitudinal StudyKindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) 23 Edley, C., Jr. 117 educational equity 15, 18, 27, 50 educational policy: California 95; for English language learners 68 – 70, 74 – 76, 80 – 82; language-of-instruction issue 69 – 70; and Latino students 68 – 70, 113 educational research 133 – 134 educational risk 5

educational success: framework for 15 – 22; and poverty 18 – 19; risk factors 17 – 19 Edwards, C. 39 Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA) 68 – 69 elementary school students: and academic language 62; content area instruction for 62; core content in 62; and English language proficiency 61; explicit instruction for 62; and mathematics skills 61; and peer-assisted learning 62; and reading skills 61; visual and verbal supports for 62 English language 9 – 10, 22, 48, 55, 59 English language learners (ELL): Arizona case study 73 – 82; and bilingualism 76, 80 – 81; content area instruction for 62; cultural assets of 62 – 63; and culturally responsive teaching 56; diversity of 75; educational policy for 68 – 70, 74 – 76, 80 – 82; and elementary school 61; explicit instruction for 62; Flores case 74; high school completion 80; and multicultural education 56; native born 75; and peer-assisted learning 62; and postsecondary opportunities 31; and poverty 75; proficiency levels 76 – 77; screening for 63; segregation of 76 – 77; small-group academic support 63; visual and verbal supports for 62 English-only instruction 9, 57, 69, 77 – 78 Epstein, Joyce 43 ESL pull-out instruction 56 – 57 ESL push-in instruction 57 ESL self-contained instruction 56 ethnic studies 78 – 80 Every Student Succeeds Act of 2016 (ESSA) 56, 68 – 69 Excelencia in Education 30, 110, 113 Exemplary Program Award 114 – 115 explicit instruction 62 Fahle, E. M. 27 families: cultural context of 8; culture and child development in 37 – 38; engagement with early learning 41, 60 – 61; parenting behaviors 44; parent involvement 40 – 41; school-family partnerships 10; support systems 2, 35 see also Latino families familism 38, 40 five R’s 123

Index  157 Flores v. Arizona 74 – 78 Foundation for California Community Colleges 110 – 111 Fuller, B. 39 “Funds of Knowledge” 129 Gabbard, G. 99 Gandara, P. 75, 133 García, E. 26, 77 García, E. E. 39 García, R. 65 Gay, G. 64 – 65 generic-instructional teaching 53 Giles, D. 99 Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 69 Gómez, L. 76 – 77 González-Canche, M. 76 Governor’s Language Summit 125 Governor’s World Language Council 125 Griffith, D. 5 guided pathways model 108 Habla Conmigo! (Talk with Me!) 43 – 44 Harvard Civil Rights Project 117 Harvard Family Research Project 42 Hayward, C. 116 H.B. 2281 78 – 80 Head Start/Early Head Start 35, 45 Henderson, Anne 43 heritage language 8 – 11 Hernandez, D. J. 11 heterogeneity 2, 6 high-achieving students 22 higher education: associate’s degrees 89; bachelor’s degrees 89 – 90; California 83 – 84, 94 – 95, 95, 96 – 101, 103 – 105, 110 – 111; certificates 88 – 89; completion strategies 106 – 108; diversity in 15, 83; doctoral degrees 91; and English learners 31; enrollment status 32 – 33; enrollment trends in 84 – 94; equity gaps 112; Hispanic-serving 109 – 110; immediate college enrollment rates 84; Latino enrollment in 88; master’s degrees 90; persistence rates 86 – 87; postdoctoral study and training 92 – 93; preparation efforts 106 – 107; preparation for 30 – 31; projections for 85 – 86; reforms and improvements in 108, 110 – 117; remediation in 104 – 108; retention rates 86 – 87, 97 – 98; systemwide reform in 110 – 112 see

also California community colleges; community colleges high school completion: African Americans 30; English language learners (ELL) 80; Latino students 30, 73, 84; White students 30 High/Scope Preschool Curriculum 47 Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) 109 – 110 Hispanic-Serving Institutions (Nunez, Hurtado, and Calderón Galdeano) 109 Holloway, S. 39 Horne v. Arizona 74 Huntsman, Jon, Jr. 125 Hurtado, S. 109 immersion programs 125 – 127 immigrants: anti-immigrant initiatives 5, 11, 70, 82; demographic trends 4 – 5, 20; and English language proficiency 48; and school 5; and teacher expectations 11 Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 69 Integrating Student Transformation, Support and Accelerated Learning 114 intergeneration communication gaps 134 International Initiatives 125 Jaggars, S. S. 108 Jenkins, D. 108 Jiménez-Castellanos, O. 76 – 77 Jobs for the Future 112 Kastberg, D. 27 Keegan, Lisa G. 76 kindergarten: achievement gaps 49; and English language proficiency 23, 25, 48, 59, 61; enrollment trends in 35; immersion programs 126; parent involvement in 41; performance in 23, 25; reading skills 23 – 24; transitional 47, 122 see also early childhood education (ECE); preschool programs Kindergarten Readiness Act of 2010 122 Kirp, D. 81 – 82 Ladson-Billings, G. 64 Lally, J. R. 37 language: academic 62; bilingualism 11; and brain activity 7; and child development 57 – 58; and community 10 – 11; and culture 55 – 56; dual

158 Index language learners (DLLs) 22, 55 – 59; English 9 – 10, 22; and everyday practices 6 – 7; heritage 8 – 11; and intergeneration communication gaps 134; and linguistic segregation 75; native 59 – 61; oral 55; second-language outcomes 58; as a social construct 74; Spanish 22, 57, 78 language education policy 68 – 69, 76 – 79 language-of-instruction 9 – 10, 69 – 70 Las Positas College 115 Latino families: and anti-immigrant climate 5, 11, 43; cultural models 38 – 40; familism in 38, 40; high expectations of 41 – 42; parent involvement 40 – 43; programs for 43 – 44; socialization in 38 – 40; support systems 2, 10, 35, 41; two-parent 2, 35, 38 Latinos: cultural models 38 – 40; demographic trends 4 – 5, 17, 19 – 20; family context of 8; geographic concentration of 20; and immigration 20; language-learning 11; parent education levels 20 – 21; population 95; and poverty 21 – 22, 24; and social policies 11 Latino students: academic achievement 5, 9, 22 – 29, 29; assets of 61; and college preparation 30; conceptual framework for 3 – 12, 13, 14, 118 – 132; cultural and linguistic diversity 1, 131; cultural context of 3 – 4, 6; and early childhood education 22 – 23, 35 – 49; educational gaps of 1; effective teachers for 64 – 65, 66; and English language proficiency 48, 55; family support systems of 2, 10, 35; heterogeneity 2, 6; high school completion 30, 84; immersion programs 127; and inequality 82; and international student assessments 27 – 30; learning opportunities 8 – 9; legislation actions targeting 78 – 80; low-achieving 22 – 23; persistence rates 87; preparation and remedial outcomes 103 – 104; programs and strategies for 105 – 106; remedial/ ESL completion rates 105; and resourcefulness 128 – 129; respect for 123 – 124; and responsibility 127 – 128; and responsive pedagogy 124 – 127, 131; retention rates 87; school-age population of 1, 4 – 5; social context of 11 Lau v. Nichols 49

Lawton, K. 77 learning: asset-oriented 134; and community practices 51 – 52; and content disconnects 52; and cultural models 52; redirection of 134; and responsive pedagogy 50; sociocultural approach to 50 – 52 Learning for English Academic Proficiency and Success (LEAPS) Act 80 Lee, C. 75 LeMenestrel, S. 8, 128 Lillie, K. E. 77 linguistic segregation 75 – 77 literacy instruction: explicit instruction for 62; preK-3 initiatives 120 – 121 Livas, A. 39 López, M. H. 44 low-achieving students 22 – 23 Lucas, T. 64 Macias, E. 99 Making it Happen (MIH) program 115 – 116 Mangual, A. 39 Mapp, Karen 43 Markos, A. 77 Martinez, D. 76 master’s degrees 90 math performance: in elementary school 61; increases in 26; NAEP proficiency 71 – 72, 72; racial and ethnic differences in 26; twelfth grade 26 McFarland, J. 30 McKnight Foundation 120 – 121 Melguizo, T. 99 Mexican Americans: and early childhood education 23, 48; and familism 38; and immigration 20; parent education levels 21; parent involvement 41 – 42; resiliency of 61; socialization of 38 – 40 Mexican-American Studies (MAS) programs 79 – 80 Minnesota Department of Education 80 – 81 MiraCosta College HealthStart Program 115 Mireles, L. 39 Moll, L. 129 Moll, L. C. 76 multicultural education 56 multilingualism 80 multiracial students 29 Murray, G. 27

Index  159 NAEP math proficiency 71 – 72, 72 NAEP reading proficiency 71 – 72, 72 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine 61 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 25 – 26, 36, 71 – 72, 72 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 26 – 27, 85 – 92 National Center for Inquiry & Improvement (NCII) 112 National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) 92 National Institutes of Health (NIH) 92 National Research Council 7, 37 National Science Foundation (NSF) 92 National Student Clearinghouse Research Center 86 – 87 Nation at Risk 69 Native Americans 68 native language instruction 59 – 61, 81 Neurons to Neighborhoods (National Research Council) 37 New America Foundation 68, 78 No Child Left Behind 68 – 69 Nuñez, A. M. 109 Oakley, Eloy Ortiz 110 – 111 One-on-One English 55 one-semester co-requisite support model 107 oral language skills 55, 58 Orfield, G. 75, 117 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 27 parent-infant talk 43 – 44 parenting behaviors 44 parent involvement: barriers to 43; benefits of 43; and child development 41 – 42; and early childhood education 40 – 44; and high expectations 41 – 42 see also Latino families parents: defined 16; dual language learners 22; education levels 20 – 21, 23; and poverty 21 – 22 participation 16 Pasadena City College 115 peer-assisted learning 62 persistence: defined 16; first-year students 86 – 87 Persistence and Attainment of 2011 – 12 First-Time Postsecondary Students After 3 Years 87 Pittenger, L. 30

pobrecito phenomenon 123 – 124 population: defined 16; geographic concentration of 20; Latino demographics 17, 19 – 20; national origin 20; parent education levels 20; race/ethnicity in 17; risk factors 17 – 19 postdoctoral study and training 92 – 93 postsecondary education see higher education Potential Pathways to Equitable Foreign Language Immersion and Dual Language Education in Montgomery County Public Schools 82 poverty: child 21 – 22; and child development 36; and English language proficiency 75; racial and ethnic differences in 27; rates of 18, 19; and student achievement 18, 24 prekindergarten see early childhood education (ECE); preschool programs preparation: for college 30 – 31; for community colleges 103 – 104; defined 16 Preschool Development Grants 56 preschool programs: benefits of 45 – 48; dual language 47; and English language proficiency 9; state mandated 46 – 47 see also early childhood education (ECE) Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 27 – 29, 29, 30 progress 16 Proposition 203 76, 78 Public Agenda 112 Puerto Ricans 23 Qiuyun, L. 41 racial and ethnic minority (REM) students 52 reading comprehension 58 reading skills: in elementary school 61; fifth grade 24 – 25; increases in 26; kindergarten 23, 23 – 24; Latino subpopulations 24; NAEP proficiency 71 – 72, 72; racial and ethnic differences in 26; screening for 63; and socioeconomic status 24 – 25; twelfth grade 26 Reardon, S. F. 27 Redesigning America’s Community College (Bailey, Jaggars and Jenkins) 108 Reedley Middle College High School 115

160 Index Research & Planning Group (RP Group) 116 research agenda 133 – 134 resourcefulness 128 – 129 respect 123 – 124 responsibility 127 – 128 responsive pedagogy 50 – 54, 64 – 65, 124 – 127, 131, 131 retention rates 86 – 87, 97 – 98 Rios-Aguilar, C. 76 risk factors: access to capital/resources 18, 18; poverty 18 – 19; socioeconomic status 17 Rodriguez, A. 109 Rodriguez v. San Antonio 75 RP Group see Research & Planning Group (RP Group) Ruiz, R. 69 Sanger Unified School District 81 school-family partnerships 10, 40 – 43 school readiness: and early childhood education 9, 22, 34, 36 – 37, 45, 56; and transitional kindergarten 122 schools: culture of 51; educational equity in 50; and immigrant youth 5; racial and ethnic segregation in 26 Seal of Biliteracy 126 second-language outcomes 58 segregation, linguistic 75 – 77 semiotics 51 Singleton, S. 99 Six Ps of success 15 – 16, 16, 17 – 22 small-group academic support 63 social stratification frameworks 119 sociocultural teaching approach 50 – 52, 62 – 65 socioeconomic status: and academic performance 24 – 25; and early childhood education 45 – 46; and enrollment status 33; as a risk factor 17 South Americans 21, 23 Spanish language 22, 57, 78 SRI International 120 Stark, P. 30 structured cohort model 107 Structured English Immersion (SEI) 76 – 77 students: and cultural competence 54 – 55; programs and strategies for underserved 105 – 106; underprepared 106 – 109 see also Latino students support systems 2, 35, 41 Takanishi, R. 8, 128 teacher educators 64

teacher preparation 64 teachers: effective 10, 64 – 65, 66; and expectations 11; practices for 132 – 133; and responsive pedagogy 50 – 54, 64 – 65; school-family partnerships 10; sociocultural approach 62 – 65 teaching: culturally responsive 52 – 54, 64 – 65; culturally specific 53 – 54; schoolwide practices 132; sociocultural approach 50 – 52, 62 – 65 see also classroom interactions Toolis, E. E. 42 Tools of the Mind 47 transitional kindergarten 47, 122 Transition Kindergarten 47 UCLA Civil Rights Project 77 universities see higher education University of California (UC) 92, 94, 98, 100, 100, 101, 110 – 111 U.S. Department of Education 4, 26 – 27, 87 Utah Dual Language Immersion Program 125 – 126 Valdés, G. 55 Valencia, R. 133 Valenzuela, A. 38, 133 Villegas, A. M. 64 Vision for Success (Foundation for California Community Colleges) 110 – 111 visual and verbal supports 62 vocabulary 58 Weis, R. 42 WestEd 112 White students: academic achievement 22 – 29, 29; cultural models 39; and higher education 86, 93, 94; high school completion 30; parent education levels 20 – 21; persistence rates 87; remedial/ ESL completion rates 105; retention rates 87; socioeconomic status 19, 21 White-Tennant, G. 37 Whiting, B. 39 Wiley, T. G. 77 Wilhoit, G. 30 Willett, T. 116 Williams, C. 68, 78 Wong Fillmore, L. 134 Zamora, J. 41 – 43 Zentella, A. C. 129