General Provisions

Transcription

1 Testimony ofshai Goldstein, Executive Director of the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network (NJIPN) on the Proposed Readoption of the New Jersey Education Code on Bilingual Education Introduction The New Jersey Immigration Policy Network (NJIPN) supports the proposed readoption of New Jersey's Bilingual Education Code, N.J.A.C. 6A:15, which is scheduled to expire on September 8, NJIPN supports the proposed readoption of the Bilingual Education Code, as a statewide organization that is committed to educating, engaging, and empowering immigrants to advocate on behalf of their children. Later in this testimony, we will outline concerns with regard to proposed amendments. The New J.erseyhnmigration Policy Network is a broad-based, statewide coalition dedicated to a fair and humane immigration policy that ensures respect, dignity and justice for all newcomers to the United States - a policy that uplifts the life of the community as a whole. The network focuses on grassroots-driven advocacy, policy development, and legislative initiatives. NJIPN strongly supports bilingual education as an instrument in the education process to provide opportunities for success in America for immigrants. Numerous studies have all concluded that bilingual education as a transitional program pennitting students to both learn English and progress in academic subjects in their native language is an essential educational strategy. Although ESL and bilingual teachers usually have the motivation and preparation to work with LEP students, most school districts do not yet provide adequate training for other teachers to excel in an increasingly multicultural environment. Some school systems have recognized this need and arranged opportunities for professional development in cultural competence and linguistic sensitivity. However, the content and goals of such training need to be clarified and standardized. The New Jersey Administrative Code, which now requires teachers to complete at least 100 hours of in-service training over a five-year period, should be amended to require sufficient time for professional development in cultural competence. The code should also provide some detail as to the required content of such training. Whenever possible, immigrants themselves should be members of the training team. NJIPN has worked closely with the Statewide Parent Advocacy Network, Hispanic Directors Association and numerous other groups within NJIPN's network on several projects aimed at helping LEP families understand their rights and the rights of their children, as well as how to exercise those rights and advocate on behalf of their children. Thus, NJIPN supports the continuation of the requirement for school districts to provide bilingual services whose goal is to prepare students meet the standards of the regular public school curriculum and help them to learn English so that they can be productive members of our conummities and society.

2 While NJIPN supports the proposed readoption of the state's Bilingual Education Code, we do have serious concerns about certain sections, which are outlined below. NJIPN has conducted research regarding the implementation ofn.j.a.c. 6A: et seq. This research revealed that many parts of the code are either not being enforced or that there is inadequate outreach to immigrant parents regarding the provisions of the code. This is particularly true regarding N.J.A.C.6A: Whatever version of the Bilingual Education Code is finally adopted by the New Jersey Board of Education, NJIPN urges the Board of Education to provide greater oversight of the Department of Education's monitoring and enforcement activities related to the Bilingual Education Code. All legislation and regulations take on meaning only to the degree with which they are enforced. Our primary concern is that the Bilingual Education Code is enforced. General Provisions N.J.A.C. 6A: General Reauirements NJIPN is concerned about the possible deletion of the Office of Bilingual Education as the entity responsible for administering New Jersey's bilingual education rules and providing assistance to districts in implementing language assistance programs, and its replacement by the Department of Education. NJIPN strongly believes that there must continue to be an Office of Bilingual Education, and we fear that the elimination of this title from the proposed regulations foreshadows the elimination of the office itself, which would be a tremendous mistake, particularly in this time of continued immigration and growing need for effective oversight and monitoring of, and technical assistance to, districts' bilingual and ESL programs. Further, maintaining identification of the Office of Bilingual Education as the responsible entity sends a clear message to the field about the perceived importance of this office within the Department. N.J.A.C. 6A: Identification ofeli.ble limited En ish roficient LEP students This section delineates the steps districts must take to identify LEP students. NJIPN supports the amendment establishing a uniform screening process by mandating that a home language survey be used as the initial step for students in K-12th grade, but the code must specify that this survey must be conducted in all needed languages. NJIPN also supports the proposed amendment that adds the term "department-approved" to the requirement that LEP students shall be identified and eligible for program services by using a language proficiency test, as any such tests must be valid and reliable for the purposes for which they are used. NJIPN also supports the proposed amendment that would eliminate the use of "assessment instruments" to identify LEP preschool students, in favor of "age-appropriate methodologies" in accordance with department guidelines adopted by the State Board. This is developmentally more appropriate for young children. N.J.A.C. 6A: Re uired bilin ro s for limited En ish roficient students NJIPN supports the proposed amendment to require districts to provide appropriate instructional programs to eligible preschool students, based on need, in accordance with the New Jersey Preschool Teaching and Learning Expectations. All students with limited English proficiency, regardless of their age, must be provided with appropriate instructional programs, including appropriate language instructional programs. NJIPN also supports the proposed amendments that establish language proficiency as the determining factor in the amount of ESL instruction

3 that must be provided. NJIPN recommends that the code be revised to encourage dual language bilingual programs, a best practice, and provide financial support to districts to do so. N.J.A.C. 6A: Waiver process provided by statute NTIPNhas serious reservations about the waiver process itself, and would prefer that no waiver be allowed under the Bilingual Education Code. If a district has students who meet the requirements for a full-time bilingual education program, then the district should be required to offer that program. Merely requiring submission of an annual request for a waiver does nothing to protect the education rights of students. NJIPN is very concerned about the proposal to remove the section that currently defines the circumstances that would prohibit a district from requesting a waiver, as we fear that this will be interpreted as opening the door to more waiver requests and thus further denials of an appropriate education for LEP students. N.J.A.C. 6A: Approval procedures NJIPN supports the proposed revisions to incorporate the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)- required data collection of immigrant students. NTIPN further supports the proposed language requiring districts to specify the budget for the bilingual/esl program{s) and how the bilingual categorical aid funds are directly related to bilingual/esl instructional services and materials. N.J.A.C. 6A: Supoortive services NJIPN strongly supports the continued requirement in code that LEP students have access to all educational support services available to other students, and the clarification that bilingual personnel providing support services must be certified, but recommends that the phrase "if administratively feasible" be replaced with the language, ''unless the district can demonstrate that it is not administratively feasible to do so." Unfortunately, in our experience, in many districts neither of these requirements are being met, and far too many LEP students do not have access to all educational support services available to other students, and/or are being assisted by bilingual personnel who do not meet appropriate certification requirements. NTIPNurges the New Jersey State Board of Education to provide more information on the types of educational support services that must be available to LEP students, including Intervention & Referral Services teams, counseling, Section 504 mechanisms and other services. N.J.A.C. 6A: In-service training NJIPN urges the New Jersey Board of Education to strengthen the requirements for in-service programs for bilingual, ESL and mainstream classroom teachers to help them prepare LEP students to meet the Core Curriculum Content Standards. N.J.A.C. 6A: Graduation requirements for pupils of limited English proficiency We concur with readoption. N.J.A.C. 6A: Location NJIPN supports the readoption without amendments of this section, which establishes the requirement for conducting programs in approved classrooms within the regular school buildings of the district rather than in separate facilities. However, NJIPN would encourage the New Jersey Board of Education to specify in clear and unequivocal terms that LEP students must not be discriminated against in any manner including location of classes or other facilities. LEP

4 students must not bear the burden of district overcrowding or be placed in inappropriate areas such as school basements. N.J.A.C. 6A: Notification NJIPN supports the readoption of this section, which establishes the requirements for notifying parents in their native language when their children have been identified for participation in a language assistance program and informing them that they have the right to decline program services. However, NJIPN opposes the proposed amendment that would change the mandated school district plan for bilingual education from an annual plan to a three-year plan. With the significant student mobility in New Jersey, and continued immigration growth, three years is too long a period to wait before changing a district bilingual education plan. NJIPN supports the maintenanceof an annualplan.. N.J.A.C. 6A: Parental involvement NJIPN strongly supports the readoption of this section, which mandates the establishment of a parent advisory committee in school districts that implement bilingual education programs. However, we urge the New Jersey State Board of Education to strengthen provisions for ensuring parent involvement, particularly since this section of the bilingual education code is rarely implemented. Few if any districts with bilingual education programs have the required Bilingual Education Advisory Council, and those that do are noncompliant with the requirement that a majority of the members of the Advisory Council be parents of children with limited English proficiency. NJIPN recommends that the Board of Education require the Department of Education to enforce this critical provision of the law. Furthennore, NJIPN looks forward to working with the Department of Education, the Office of Bilingual Education, SPAN, and a broad cross-section of immigrant-based community groups to ensure proper utilization of parental advisory committees in school districts. To facilitate more effective enforcement of this provision, we recommend the following:. Specify in this section that detailed information on the establishment, maintenance, membership, training, meeting dates, topics of discussion, and impact of the Advisory Council on district policies, be required to be submitted as part of the Bilingual Education Plan and periodic reports;. Require the district to convene the Bilingual Education Advisory Council at least 4 times a year, and to hold meetings at times and locations that are convenient for parents of children with limited English proficiency, based on the input of LEP parents;. Mandate the inclusion of parents representatives from the Bilingual Advisory Council on district NCLB and Special Education Parent Advisory Councils, so that the issues of LEP children and families are addressed by those other district advisory councils;. Require at least one meeting of the Bilingual Education Advisory Council with the district Superintendent and/or representatives of the Board of Education each year; and. Require the district to ensure that the parent members of the Bilingual Education Advisory Council are representative of LEP students and their families, including ensuring that parents ofnclb/ Title I-eligible students and students with disabilities axeproportionately represented on the Bilingual Education Advisory Council and that LEP families representing the full diversity oflep students in the district (by language, age/grade, etc.) be included;

5 . Mandate that the district send infonnation about the Bilingual Education Advisory Council, criteria and selection process for membership, meeting dates, times and locations, topics/agendas, and other relevant infonnation be sent to all parents of children eligible for bilingual or ESL services in a timely manner so that parents can participate in the meetings. N.J.A.C. 6A: State advisory committee on bilingual education NJIPN supports the continued requirement for a State advisory committee on bilingual education. However, NJIPN urges the Board of Education to strengthen this provision by requiring that membership on the committee include more representatives from the immigrant communities. Furthennore, NJIPN recommends that infonnation on the meetings dates, times, places, agendas, and other relevant infonnation of the Bilingual Education Advisory Council be prominently posted on the Department's website, with infonnation on how to request to be named to the Advisory Council, and with copies of meeting minutes and recommendations available online for public review. NJIPN additionally recommends consideration of the recommendations by SPAN regarding inclusion of representatives from the federally-funded Parent Training and Infonnation Center (PTI) and Parent Infonnation and Resource Center (pirc). NJIPN's paramount concern is that the state advisory committee on bilingual education reflect the diversity oflep parents in our state. Failure to include immigrants as part of the committee will prevent the committee from being an effective instrument in promoting bilingual education. Conclusion As a state with one of the highest immigrant populations in the United States, where more than 20% of all public school students come from homes where a language other than English is spoken, the need for a strong, cohesive and enforced bilingual education code has never been more apparent. All teachers must be prepared to effectively teach limited English proficient students, and all LEP students must be provided with linguistic access to instruction in the Core Curriculum Content Standards as well as the opportunity to both learn English and develop written and spoken literacy in their home language under a unifonn, statewide set of rules that ensure compliance with state and federal laws, including non-discrimination laws. NJIPN supports the readoption of the proposed bilingual education code, and urges the New Jersey Board of Education to seriously consider and adopt our proposed revisions and act more forcefully and assertively to ensure that the bilingual education code is implemented across our state for the benefit of immigrant and LEP students and their families. Thank you.