LITERACY FOR LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY (LEP) STUDENTSeducation.ucf.edu/mirc/Research/Limited English Proficiency.pdf · LITERACY FOR LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY (LEP) STUDENTS Vicky

LITERACY FOR LIMITEDENGLISH PROFICIENCY(LEP) STUDENTSVicky Zygouris-Coe, Ph.D.Florida Literacy and Reading Excellence (FLaRE) CenterUniversity of Central FloridaCollege of Education

Document # 5-001©2001 FLaRE CenterUniversity of Central Florida

Florida Literacy and Reading Excellence CenterCollege of EducationUniversity of Central FloridaOrlando, FL 32816http://ucfed.ucf.edu/flare/

Larry Bedenbaugh

FLaRE Logo Words

MISSION OF THE FLaRE CENTER

The mission of the Florida Literacy and Reading Excellence (FLaRE) Center is to support the Florida Departmentof Education in its statewide implementation of the Florida Reading Initiatives by functioning as a principal infor-mational delivery mechanism for improving the early literacy and reading instruction to children and familiesacross the state of Florida.

The Center will serve as…

• an information clearinghouse for scientifically based reading and family literacy research

• a lighthouse for disseminating information on successful projects

• a research/development center to document effective practices based on rigorous research methods

• a development center for preservice and inservice teacher training

• a linkage for school districts, IHEs, and community organizations that have a vested interest in family literacy and reading excellence.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FLaRE RESEARCH DOCUMENTS

Richard Allington, Ph.D., University of Florida

Joyce Fine, Ph.D., Florida International University

Deborah Harris, Ph.D., Florida Atlantic University

Susanne Lapp, Ph.D., Florida Atlantic University

Robert Lemons, Ph.D., Florida A & M University

Geri Melosh, M.A., University of Florida

Charleen Olliff, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University

Barbara Palmer, Ph.D., Florida State University

Rex Schmid, Ph.D., University of West Florida

Nile Stanley, Ph.D., University of North Florida

Gail West, Ph.D., University of Central Florida

Florida Literacy and Reading Excellence CenterCollege of Education • University of Central Florida • Orlando, FL 32816

http://flare.ucf.edu©2001 FLaREUniversity of Central Florida 2

Table of ContentsSection I Language and Literacy Page 4

Section II Characteristics of Limited-English Proficiency (LEP) Students Page 6

Section III What Teachers Can Do Page 11

Section IV What Principals/Schools Can Do Page 17

Section VI What Parents Can Do Page 22



Language and Literacy

Culture refers to the shared beliefs, values, and rule-governed behavioral patterns that define a group and are re-quired for group membership (Goodenough, 1981). Culture involves what people know and believe, what peopledo, and even what people make and use. One vital aspect of culture that can affect learning and teaching has to dowith language. Problems arise from lack of a common language. Teaching and learning depend on clear communi-cation between teacher and students.

The number of linguistically and culturally diverse students in the United States continues to increase. Immigrationand the changing demographics are major factors in the new diversity in America. The growth of minority lan-guages has had a significant effect on American schools and society in general. The need to provide meaningful in-struction to students who are not proficient in English creates difficulties for educators. Limited-English proficient(LEP) students also have multiple education needs. Many students from culturally and linguistically diverse popula-tions are at risk for school failure and placement into special education classes because of their limited-English pro-ficiency. A large number of immigrants have had limited experience with literacy. Even students who come fromcountries with well-developed school systems have limited understanding of the cultural and performance expecta-tions in American schools.

Minority students may differ from the mainstream in ethnicity, primary language spoken at home, and social class(Au & Raphael, 2000). Thirty-six percent of the total student population in the U.S. public elementary and sec-ondary schools comes from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. The National Center for EducationStatistics (2000) has reported the following cultural composition of students in American public K-12 schools:

• 63.5 % whites (non-Hispanic);• 17% blacks (non-Hispanic);• 14.4% Hispanics;• 3.9% Asians or Pacific Islanders; and• 1.2% American Indian or Alaskan natives.

There is much local and state variation on the definition of LEP population, identification procedures, data collec-tion methods, and purposes. There is much disagreement on how to operationalize the definition. For example, dowe base census data only on reports by people with limited English ability? How about people who may speak En-glish well but who are limited in their ability to read and write English?

The definition of the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) student population has changed since the Bilingual Educa-tion Act of 1968. Prior to 1978 the term “limited English speaking ability” (LESA) was used to define the popula-tion served through Title VII funding. This term was broadened in the 1978 amendments to include not only thosestudents who were limited in their speaking ability but also those who had sufficient difficulty in reading, writing,or understanding the English language; hence, the term “limited English proficient” (LEP) was created.

According to Title VII of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-382), a student is LEP ifhe or she:

• has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language and whose diffi-



culties may deny such individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language isEnglish or participate fully in our society due to one or more of the following reasons:

• was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English and comesfrom an environment where a language other than English is dominant;

• is a native American or Alaska native or who is a native resident of the outlying areas and comes from anenvironment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on such individual’s level ofEnglish language proficiency; or

• is migratory and whose native language is other than English and comes from an environment where a lan-guage other than English is dominant” (sec. 7501).

We, at the Florida Literacy and Reading Excellence (FLaRE) Center, have chosen to adopt the federal defi-nition for LEP students.

Based on research over the past three decades, Congress incorporated two important principles in the Bilingual Ed-ucation Act of 1994:

• Given access to challenging curriculum, language-minority and Limited English Proficient (LEP) studentscan achieve to the same high standards as other students.

• Proficient bilingualism is a desirable goal, which can bring cognitive, academic, cultural, and economicbenefits to individuals and to the nation.

Being labeled as an LEP student has several implications. For example, it denotes a particular deficiency and leadsto a lower quality of education in terms of materials, expectations, interactions, experiences, and learning (Faltis,1997). Many times what began as a second language limitation may turn into a permanent problem in the cognitiveand academic development of an LEP student’s life. Igoa (1995) cautioned educators not to treat LEP students as ahomogeneous group; instead, educators should get to know the strengths of the immigrant children, listen to them,respect their values and beliefs, create a positive and supportive school environment, and help them adapt to thenew language and school system.

An LEP student is a student who comes from a non-English background and whose English language skills impairhis/her ability to perform ordinary class work in an all-English medium. Disagreement occurs around the followingquestions:

• What does the term “fully English proficient” mean?• Which English language modes (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) should be assesses to determine

English language ability?• What English proficiency levels are necessary for students to be classified as fluent English proficient

(FEP)?• Should some students always be considered LEP given that they are unlikely to score at a certain level on a

standardized achievement test?



Second-language learning is an important factor in children’s reading development. If there is a mismatch betweenthe home language and school language, children may be at a disadvantage for success in early reading tasks andthus spend many of their school years trying to catch up (Foertsch, 1998; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Researchhas shown that native language use can aid in English-language acquisition (August & Hakuta, 1997; Cuevas,1997).

Krashen (1982) developed five hypotheses about second language acquisition. A description of Krashen’s hy-potheses follows:

• The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. There is a difference between acquiring and learning a second lan-guage. Language learning refers to the formal and conscious study of language forms as they are taught inforeign language classrooms.

• The Monitor Hypothesis. The formal learning of language leads to the creation of an internal grammarmonitor, which helps polish language knowledge and skills. Language teaching should focus on communi-cation and not on rote rule learning.

• The Natural Order Hypothesis. Learners acquire the rules of language in a predictable order.• The Input Hypothesis. The acquisition of a second language is a direct outcome of the learner’s under-

standing of the target language in natural communication interactions.• The Affective Filter Hypothesis. Low-anxiety learning environment, student motivation, self-confidence

and self-esteem support the acquisition of a second language.

McLaughlin (1992) discussed the many myths and misconceptions about how children learn languages. McLaugh-lin indicated that young children do not learn a second language as easily and quickly as many people believe be-cause they lack the contextual experiences and memory techniques that experienced learners use and are not will-ing to share their knowledge of language in front of peers or adults. Second, although younger children tend tohave better pronunciation, there is no empirical evidence that the younger the child, the more skilled she or he willbe in acquiring a second language. Third, exposure to home and English language helps children develop betterlanguage skills. It is estimated that oral communication can be acquired in two to three years whereas it may takeup to six years to acquire academic language. Fourth, proficiency in oral communication does not predict profi-ciency in content/academic language. Lastly, children learn a second language in different ways. McLaughlin re-minded teachers thatsecond-language learning for school-age children is a long and complex process.

Characteristics of Limited-English Proficiency (LEP) Students

The United States Congress found (Congressional Findings on the Bilingual Education Act, P.L. 103-382, Oct. 30,1994) that—

(5) limited English proficient children and youth face a number of challenges in receiving an educationthat will enable such children and youth to participate fully in American society, including—

(A) segregated education programs;(B) disproportionate and improper placement in special education and other special programs due



to the use of inappropriate evaluation procedures;(C) the limited-English proficiency of their own parents, which hinders the parents’ ability to fully

participate in the education of their children; and(D) a shortage of teachers and other staff who are professionally trained and qualified to serve

such children and youth. (sec. 7012)

Many of the challenges LEP students face originate from racial and ethnic segregation. Hispanic students are nowmore segregated than any other racial group. Due to inappropriate assessment and placement, educators often con-fuse the consequences of limited English proficiency, such as underachievement or inattention in class, with learn-ing disabilities or speech and language disorders. Many times students are placed in bilingual programs on the ba-sis of ethnicity regardless of their English skills. Most schools are providing students with programs such as bilin-gual education English as a second language (ESL).

Federal law requires that all English learners be provided with an educational program that offers them access tothe core curriculum and opportunities for English language development. English language learners find them-selves in a wide variety of school programs. Several kinds of bilingual programs have been created since the re-birth of bilingual education supported by Title VII. Below is a description of various types of Bilingual educationprograms and English language development programs:

• Bilingual Education Programs • Transitional Bilingual Education• Designed for LEP students.• Primary language instruction for 1-3 years.• No instruction in home language after transition to English instruction.

• Maintenance Bilingual Education• Designed for LEP students.• Primary language instruction is provided throughout the elementary grades and continues

through high school.• Provides full bilingualism and bi-literacy for English learners.

• Immersion Education• Designed for language majority students (i.e., students whose primary language is English).• Students receive subject matter instruction through their second language to develop second lan-

guage proficiency while learning content (e. g., Spanish).• Structured English Immersion

• Designed to teach English to language minority students by teaching content in English.• Two-way Immersion Program

• Language majority and minority students are grouped together for instruction.• Newcomer Programs

• Designed for students who have recently arrived to the US.• Last for about a year.• Provide personal and instructional support.

• English Language Development Programs • Sheltered English or Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE)• Students are taught subject matter in English.



• Appropriate for students who have intermediate English proficiency.• ESL Pull-Out• Students receive the majority of their instruction in regular classrooms.• Students are “pulled-out” of the regular classroom to receive additional help from an ESL

teacher or aide.• English Language Development (ELD)• Designed for non-native English speakers with varied levels of English proficiency.• The goal is full English language, literacy, and academic development.

ESL program designs can be broadly categorized as either stand-alone ESL or ESL-plus. Stand-alone ESL pro-grams usually operate for a small part of the school day, and in some cases students will receive special instructiononly two or three times a week. In general, in stand-alone ESL programs LEP students are grouped together andinstructed in a manner similar to that of foreign language classes. Below are some examples of stand-alone ESLprogram design:

• Pull-out programs are generally used in elementary settings. Pull-out instruction may be provided by teach-ers who are assigned to one building and students from different first-language backgrounds may be sepa-rated into groups for instruction.

• The resource center is a variation of a pull-out design; students come together from several classes or sev-eral schools for one or more periods of ESL instruction. It is staffed by a full-time ESL teacher—

• who may or may not be bilingual. Some programs utilize home language surveys, teacher reports, and othersubjective and objective measures as standards for placement.

Other English-plus program designs for elementary schools consist of Structured Immersion Programs (SIP),which include development of the student’s first language skills and content area instruction in English.

Students who are learning English and receive instruction in their native language during the early years eventuallytransition (Transitional Bilingual Education—(TBE)) into mainstream English. Transition can occur at in elemen-tary, middle, or even high school grades. Although this is considered a positive indication of English proficiency,transition can be problematic for teachers and students. If transition takes place too quickly, students’ performancecan drop and they can be referred for compensatory or special education classes (Gersten, 1996). Many teachersare uncertain about the appropriate methods to use during this transition. We need to study effective transition in-struction and curriculum that will help students continue to learn and succeed.

Important elements for programs serving English learners are outlined in the statement issued by The Teachers ofEnglish to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and the international organization for educators working withEnglish learners (TESOL, 1992) organization. A synthesis of those elements follows:

• Programs should prepare learners to handle material in English.• Instruction needs to be challenging and tailored to the academic needs of students.• Teachers should provide students with opportunities to develop and use their primary language in order to

support academic and social development.• Teachers should receive professional development that prepares them to meet the needs of linguistically

and culturally diverse students.



In general, the majority of LEP students are young, Spanish-speaking students (Navarrette & Gustkee, 1996). Themajority of LEP students are in elementary schools with only 14% attending grades 10 through 12. In addition tolanguage difficulties, LEP students have characteristics associated with low educational achievement, especiallylow test scores. The following synthesis on the challenges LEP students face was selected from various sources(Anstrom & Kindler, 1996; Council of Chief State School Offices (CCSSO), 1990; United States General Ac-counting Ofiice (USGAO), 1994):

• LEP students’ level of acculturation (i.e., the acquisition of the language, values, beliefs, attitudes, behav-iors, customs, and ways of knowing of a new culture).

• Cultural, social, emotional, psychological, economic, and dietary changes.• LEP students are exposed to curriculum with lower standards and do not receive rigorous academic prepa-

ration.• Different experiences with teaching methods, school expectations, daily routines and relationships with

teachers and peers result in difficulties adjusting to a new school culture.• Appropriate assessment.• Low social status and high family mobility result in racial tensions and lack of educational continuity.• Poor academic preparation due to limited resources of schools in lower income neighborhoods and LEP

students’ lack of access to content courses.• Poor school attendance and drop out rate.• Poverty and unemployment rates, overcrowded neighborhoods, and health problems.

Various researchers have been examining the effective literacy practices of teachers for Latino students. Moll(1988) found that teachers’ repeated emphasis on creating meaning, the use of trade books with stimulating andrelevant content, and a balanced literacy curriculum that incorporated lots of writing in dialogue journals and logscontributed to the academic success of students. In a recent study on effective Latino schooling, Reyes, Scribnerand Scribner (1999) found the following characteristics of effective literacy practices: a) well-integrated thematicunits; b) quality literature and culturally-relevant trade books; and c) instruction that accommodated students’ indi-vidual reading levels.

Below is a summary of research-based characteristics of effective literacy instruction practices for Latino students:

• Effective teachers of Latino students strived for a balance between meaning and skills (Gertsen, 1996).• Teachers used a variety of literacy approaches to help students develop literacy skills (Rutherford, 1999).• Teachers held positive perceptions of children’s language, culture, family, and community (Sleeter, 1997).• Teachers believed in students’ abilities to learn and had positive expectations for student achievement

(Sleeter, 1997).• Students were perceived as valuable resources and teachers did not discourage students from using non-

standard English, Spanish, or other forms of language or culture to express themselves (Reyes et al., 1999).• Teachers incorporated students’ cultural knowledge and experiences in literacy instruction (Moll, 1988).• Teachers selected culturally-relevant materials and used collaborative and cooperative learning activities in

class (Reyes et al., 1999).• Teachers accepted language alteration and encouraged and assisted students to express some of their

thoughts in their developing English (Gersten, 1996).



• There were strong teacher-parent relations. Parents and teachers worked closely together to help studentssucceed in school (Reyes et al., 1999).

Goldenberg (1994) conducted three studies on the reading instructional practices in Kindergarten and first low-income Hispanic schools in Los Angeles. Goldenberg found that students performed better academically whenteachers used meaningful and culturally-relevant booklets/materials, direct instruction of letters, sounds, and sylla-bles, and adopted a balanced early literacy instruction. Language-rich classrooms with a balanced approach toreading and writing supported the literacy development of Latino students.

Similar results are supported by Lemberger (1996, 1997) who observed and interviewed effective bilingual teach-ers in New York. Lemberger (1996) studied the teachers’ efforts to develop their students’ dual language (i.e.,reading, writing, speaking, and listening) abilities. Teachers in her study read aloud to students, expressed dissatis-faction with reading materials both in English and Spanish, criticized the Spanish reading texts for having lowerquality than the English texts, and created warm, caring, and language-rich classroom environments that supportedstudents’ literacy development.In 1997, Lemberger worked with eight effective elementary bilingual teachers in New York, California, and Illi-nois. With this sample, Lemberger found that teachers used culturally-relevant teaching strategies and materials,balanced literacy instruction, peer teaching, hands-on integrative content-based thematic instruction, a wide rangeof meaningful projects, and authentic assessments.

Barrera and Jimenez (2000) conducted a year-long study that examined the literacy practices of 30 teachers ofLatino students in elementary schools in Chicago, El Paso, and Washington. They conducted 1 ½ to 2 hour inter-views to obtain information on instruction, assessment, home relations, and research related issues. Below is a syn-thesis of their findings:

• The fine arts curriculum was a powerful vehicle for supporting children’s emergent and beginning literacylearning.

• Curriculum integration was beneficial for students and teachers. Reading and writing was integrated acrossthe curriculum. Hands-on activities and cooperative learning were important aspects of instruction.

• Students benefited from a balanced literacy approach.• Children’s literature and trade books played a significant role in Latino students’ literacy development. Ma-

terials that reflected cultural experiences and knowledge of Latino students were useful in helping studentscreate meaning.

• Writing was a motivational and instructional tool (i.e., journals, logs).• The mediational practices of teachers strengthened literacy instruction. Teachers:

• built on students’ prior knowledge;• encouraged students to make predictions during reading;• selected and “taught” key vocabulary prior to reading;• encouraged students to draw connections between new and old information;

• provided scaffolding instruction; translated materials extensively; and used extra-linguistic behaviors, such asgestures, intonation and actions to compensate for unfamiliar vocabulary and content.

• Teachers used multiple forms of assessment and allowed students to express their comprehension both inSpanish and English.

• Teachers called for informal, authentic and ongoing means of assessment for young learners.



• Teachers emphasized the need for assessment that is culturally-sensitive and for close monitoring of achieve-ment and progress both in Spanish and English.

• The affective dimension (both teachers’ and students’ attitudes) plays an important role in language and liter-acy learning and instruction.

What Teachers Can Do

According to the 1997 report “Schools and Staffing Survey” by the U.S. Department of Education (as cited in Tor-res, 2001) in 1993-1994 50% of all LEP students in public schools were concentrated in the West and 60% in ur-ban areas. Forty-two percent of all teachers had LEP students in their classes, 3 out of 10 teachers had some type oftraining for teaching LEP students, and fewer than 3 out of 100 teachers had a bilingual or English as a SecondLanguage (ESL) degree.

Torres (2001) studied the experiences three European American teachers had with their LEP students, how theyunderstood the background characteristics and experiences of their students, and how they modified their curriculato create meaningful experiences for their students. In her study, Torres (2001) described the personal transforma-tions teachers reported. Teachers realized:

• The interdependence between native language development and the acquisition of English as a second lan-guage.

• Promotion of native language use can be an effective way to develop an academic foundation for acquiringsecond language proficiency.

• Becoming aware of students’ lives (e.g., feelings, culture, perceptions, values) is as important as the lan-guage and intellectual dimensions for creating a learning environment.

• The most frequent coping mechanism used by LEP students was self-isolation: being silent and doing noth-ing.

• Teaching happens through teachers’ strengths but also through students’ strengths.• Their students had many strengths (i.e., musical intelligence, Spanish language skills).

Acquiring specific knowledge bases will help teachers develop their awareness and understanding of student char-acteristics. Teachers need to keep families informed about everything that goes on in school and in their children’slives. Communication with parents needs to be ongoing, flexible, immediate, sensitive, and varied.

To help all students succeed in school, teachers must be responsive and sensitive to the variety of cultures andfamily literacy in the United States. Students are likely to demonstrate competence and improve academicallywhen their teachers treat them as competent, provide academic challenges for all students, and encourage all stu-dents to succeed, provide scaffolding, and use students’ prior knowledge and skills as a foundation for planning,teaching, and student learning (Ladson-Billings, 1994). Teachers need to provide authentic experiences for stu-dents and they need to have a first hand knowledge of their students, their specific characteristics, skills, knowl-edge, needs, experiences, and cultural background.

Teachers must become aware of the interplay between their own culture and their students’ culture and they needto acknowledge and respect their students’ language, literature, values, culture, and ways of knowing (Abt-Perkins



& Rosen, 2000; Orange & Horowitz, 1999). Understanding students’ cultures will help teachers better communi-cate with students and their families and help students achieve academic success. Cultural knowledge can helpteachers understand differences in language, values, ideas, parenting practices, roles and expectations differentfamily members play, patterns of interactions among children and adults, and customs of response and behavior(Heath, 1983; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988).

In order for educators to effectively reach all students, they must understand how students’ patterns of communica-tion and various dialects affect their classroom learning and how second-language acquisition affects literacy ac-quisition. School expectations for language use, ways and types of communication, and literacy definitions and ex-periences may differ from the expectations of culturally and linguistically diverse children. We know that standardacademic English is not always the language of many children at home. Lisa Delpit (1993) stated, “Teachers mustacknowledge and validate students’ home language without using it to limit students’ potential” (p. 293). Teachersmust incorporate the role of students’ home language and literacy practices and experiences when planning in-struction.

LEP students have linguistic strengths and literacy experiences; educators must build upon students’ strengths byrespecting, supporting, and scaffolding students’ languages and help them move to a more standard form of En-glish. Larson and Irvine (1999) suggested that culturally and linguistically diverse students become interested andengage in literacy activities when teachers spend time developing strong cultural knowledge bases, create support-ive and collaborative classroom environments, and provide students with culturally-relevant and meaningful activ-ities.

A teacher who is culturally informed is one who knows a lot about his/her students’ culture, family structure andpractices, language, values, and supports the learning needs of his/her students. Delpit (1995a) said,

The question is not necessarily how to create the perfect ‘culturally matched’ learning situation for eachethnic group, but rather how to recognize when there is a problem for a particular child and how to seek itscause in the most broadly defined fashion. (p. 167)

Culturally informed teachers select the appropriate strategies for each student and use materials that build upontheir prior knowledge, experiences, and interests. Moreover, culturally informed teachers are caring and respectfultoward their students (Twiss, 1998). Paley (1995) stated, “We teachers must figure out . . . how to care for what-ever group of children enters our classroom. We must teach them to care about themselves and each other” (p.114).

Knowledge of multicultural literature, materials, and methods are effective ways to bridge student/home cultureand school culture. Multicultural literature can encourage cross-cultural understanding and help students under-stand issues of diversity. The following is research-based synthesis of characteristics of culturally responsiveteachers and the culturally relevant classrooms they create (Craviotto & Heras, 1999; Ladson-Billings, 1994;Strickland, 1998; Zeichner, 1993):

• Culturally responsive teachers use gestures and body movements.• Create many connections between students’ prior knowledge and new information.• Are enthusiastic and sensitive to cultural issues.



• Invest time in developing personal relationships with students.• Create activities that incorporate literature and storytelling.• Affirm differences among students and teach them to appreciate diversity.• Have high expectations for all students and communicate their expectations with students.• View families as resources for knowledge.• Are knowledgeable about issues of acculturation and second language acquisition.• Use multicultural literature and materials that reflect a diversity of experiences and perspectives.• Provide opportunities for students to create meaning through

interactions and collaborative partnerships with others in class.• Apply scaffolding to link the academic curriculum and the cultural resources students bring to school.• Use dialogue as a fundamental aspect of classroom interaction among students and adults.• Create inviting classroom environments.• Encourage parents and community members to become involved in students’ education.• Involve parents in school decisions and programs.• Practice several languages as resources for communication, learning and community building in the class-

room and school.

The following list is a synthesis of research on knowledge bases that are essential for teachers in diverse class-rooms (Abt-Perkins & Rosen, 2000; Haberman & Post, 1998; Jackson, 1998; Smith, 1998):

• Self-knowledge• Personal cultural affiliations• Self-acceptance• Self-analysis• Reflection

• Linguistic knowledge• Second-language acquisition

• Cultural knowledge• Focal cultural characteristics• Sociocultural contexts of human development and learning• Community knowledge• Learning styles theory and research• Language, communication, and interactional styles• Cultural conflicts• Experiential knowledge

• Multicultural knowledge• Foundations of multicultural education• Foundations of racism• Experiential knowledge

• Culturally-responsive teaching knowledge• Effective strategies for teaching diverse students• Sensitivity and appreciation to children and families

• Knowledge of multicultural materials and literacy methods



• Principles of culturally sensitive and responsive curriculum• Knowledge of culturally relevant, developmentally appropriate, and motivating materials

• Knowledge of policy issues• Effects of policy and practice on diverse populations

• Relational knowledge• The ability to work effectively with diverse children and adults

• Knowledge of home-school relationships• Knowledge of home environment, culture, and needs• Ongoing communication with parents and families

Teachers need to remember that people, family structure, family practices, and family values vary greatly. Differ-ences should not be perceived as deficiencies. Instead, teachers need to build upon students’ family literacy, cul-tural knowledge and experiences. Students who have limited English proficiency may or may not exhibit the fol-lowing characteristics:

• Be apprehensive about speaking out in a group.• Resist participation in physical education activities.• Perceive physical closeness differently.• Refrain from asking for help.• Answer voluntarily.• Avoid eye contact.• Prefer to work in cooperative learning activities.• Have different attitudes about school, school hours, and school expectations.• Misunderstand messages/communication.

It is important that educators become familiar with all students and their families. For example, many migrant stu-dents move with their families two to three times each school year. This mobility prevents many students who of-ten have limited English proficiency to adapt to the school culture and structure and get used to new teachers andclassmates. The parents of migrant students face many challenges (i.e., limited income, insufficient housing, andlong hours of hard work). Many have marginal education and very little knowledge about schooling in America.Migrant parents, like all parents, want the best for their children. Teachers can seek the help of a bilingual personwho will assist them to find out about family values, home language, and student needs. Teachers need to informmigrant parents about their children’s education.

Below is a synthesis of suggestions teachers need to consider and implement in order to work effectively with LEPstudents:

• Understand the difference between the natural progression of second-language acquisition and accultura-tion and a language disorder.

• Be warm, welcoming, use gestures, and speak clearly and simply.• Create a comfortable, non-threatening atmosphere.• Start by learning the students’ names and correct pronunciation.• Find out information about your students’ home, cultural, and linguistic background. Build your instruction



on students’ language, literacy, and culture.• Find out your students’ needs in listening, reading, speaking, and writing.• Be knowledgeable about acculturation and second language acquisition.• Use natural intonation, rhythm, pace, and volume when speaking to the student.• Include the child in all class activities.• Have frequent conferences with students to monitor progress or develop agreements and contracts.• Review rules and expectations daily.• Provide—preferably a bilingual—peer tutor.• Encourage the student to share his/her language and culture with others in class.• Create individual, small group, whole class, and cooperative learning experiences for students in class.• Create tape-recorded books to help LEP students practice reading skills independently.• Promote the importance of storytelling by encouraging students to “tell their stories” and ask parents,

grandparents and other family members to share their life stories.• Help develop students’ vocabulary through visuals, charts, graphs, and stories to teach vocabulary in con-

text.• Review daily.• Provide relevance in teaching/learning.• Talk to the student and encourage him/her to speak in English without forcing him/her to produce.• Provide additional help in English.• Supplement textbooks with trade books and books in Spanish or other languages.• Use a grading system that shows progress.• Do not use standardized test scores for placement purposes.• Keep student at grade level by adjusting your instruction and assignments and provide additional support in

English whenever possible.• Hold the same standards of behavior and treat the student as an equal. Help him/her understand your expec-

tations and classroom management rules, procedures, and routines.• Help the student recognize key words (e.g., read, write, add, speak) and signals that will help him/her keep

up with directions and assignments.• Do not correct every mistake the student makes as he/she starts to speak in English.• Help students to set short-term goals.• Be flexible.• Provide a language-rich environment (e.g., labels, charts, posters, written instructions, books, signs).• Encourage student writing and alternative ways of self-expression.• Select culturally-relevant materials.• Select books that provide students with meaningful information about their new culture.• Use quality literature, predictable books and wordless books.• Use read alouds—it is particularly important for second language learners.• Introduce books carefully and activate students’ background knowledge.• Integrate themes across the curriculum.• Promote higher order thinking skills.• Participate in ongoing professional development on effective strategies for educating children in culturally

and linguistically diverse classrooms.



• Develop mutual respect and trust with parents. Encourage parents to participate in school activities, listento parent concerns, and help them find resources and solutions.

Nieto (1999) emphasized that teachers’ beliefs and expectations about students’ abilities, skills, language, and cul-ture have a tremendous impact on students of minority language backgrounds. In order for teachers to prevent LEPstudents from becoming marginalized and isolated in classrooms, they need to find out what their students’strengths are, what is important and relevant to them, create a meaningful curriculum, and interact with familiesand communities.

Teachers should become researchers in their own classrooms, get to know their LEP students, examine their ownassumptions and perceptions about LEP students and their families, check their parents’ expectations and knowl-edge about schooling in America, and bring about transformation in oneself and in schools (Coulter, 1999; Fisher,Mercado, Morgan, Robb, Sheehan-Carr, & Torres, 2000; Igoa, 1995; Zeichner, 1993).

Language and literacy development are key issues with LEP students. The Students who experience difficulties inreading and writing can benefit from direct instruction, language-rich classrooms and teaching that connect schoolto students’ experiences. Here are some practical ideas about developing LEP students’ language and literacy inthe classroom:

• Encourage students to talk about their experiences at home, school, and the community.• Give students immediate feedback.• Use modeling, clarifying, questioning, eliciting, giving clues, and praising help build students’ language

development.• Encourage students to use their first and second language in class.• Develop students’ content vocabulary.• Integrate reading, writing, speaking, and listening across the curriculum.• Pay attention to nonverbal communication and wait time while speaking with or listening to students.• Model appropriate language, vocabulary, and behavior.• Invite students to paraphrase and connect information to their experiences.• Ask students to explain their reasoning and use acquired knowledge about language, content, and interac-

tional patterns.

It is important that teachers have knowledge of school and home relationships. Educators need to find variousways to involve parents of culturally and linguistically diverse students in their children’s education. Auerbach(1995) has offered evidence that shows that poor, minority and immigrant parents value literacy development andsee it as a way out of poverty and challenging socioeconomic circumstances. Soto (1997) and Jimenez, Moll,Rodriguez-Brown, and Barrera (1999) discovered through their ethnographic work with Latino families that fami-lies were trusting of schools and they all wanted a quality education for their children and respect for their cultureand values. Some families do not trust schools either because of lack of understanding of the American educationsystem, because of personal experiences at school, or even more because they feel unwelcome by the school. Lan-guage barriers can cause many misunderstandings.

Schools can partner with parents in supporting the literacy development of students and meeting their diverseneeds. Morrow and Young (1997) developed a family literacy program for (Latino and African-American ) inner-



city children to help improve the literacy achievement of children. Morrow and Young found that when teachersand parents collaborate the children benefit. They attributed the increase in parents’ involvement and students’ lit-eracy to the following elements of their program:

• Culturally sensitive literacy activities in school and at home;• Parents were involved in planning;• Teachers assigned homework that required parent involvement; and• Teachers, parents, and students were involved in decision-making.

What Principals/Schools Can Do

Au (1993) emphasized the importance of helping students of diverse backgrounds understand their own literacyexperiences and their experiences with people from other cultures. Au suggested that school literacy should incor-porate multicultural literature, instructional practices that help students’ co-construct meaning, and culturally-responsive reading and writing instruction that makes students’ background central.

Comer (1984) emphasized the importance of emotional support that children need in order to learn and indicatedthat such an environmental support is best created when families and school personnel cooperate. It is importantfor schools to consider the wide range of adjustments immigrant families and students go through in order to cometo terms with the new language and culture. Below are stages of adjustment for immigrant families:

• Arrival/survival• Culture shock• Coping• Acculturation

• Acculturation includes learning about the new culture, incorporating behaviors of individualswithin the new culture, and adopting values and views representative of the new culture.

• Berry (1986) identified three phases of the acculturation process• Contact phase : interactions with members of the new culture.• Conflict phase : dissonance because of differences between the personal culture and new culture.• Adaptation phase: adoption of new culture’s values vary from full assimilation to exclusive commitment to

the native culture.

Parents will need orientation and information on how to enroll their children in school and about the school struc-ture, values, and expectations, in general. Parent support groups can help parents and students deal with emotionalstress. Open communication and personal contact are helpful. Parental involvement will vary depending on a)length of residence in the United States; b) English language proficiency; c) availability of bilingual staff at theschool and support groups at the community, and d) prior experiences with schools.

Although all literacies are equally valid in our society, there are many ways in which parents can make literacycontributions in their own lives and in the lives of their children. Griswold and Ullman (1997) created the FamilyLiteracy Involvement Through Education (FLITE) program to involve parents in literacy through the sharing ofstorytelling of real-life experiences. They partnered with a public school in the Bronx and the University of New



York and provided a series of workshops in which participants shared recipes as a way of enhancing reading, writ-ing, and speaking skills. Participants shared dishes and recipes from their culture and talked about the historicalorigins of their dishes. Through sharing, they also developed their cultural and literacy knowledge with others.Taylor (1998) challenged educators to discover the wealth of knowledge poor, minority, and/or immigrant familieswho lack English proficiency offer.

The following is a synthesis of elements of successful urban family literacy programs based on research (NationalCenter for Family Literacy [NCFL], 1994):

• Training parents to be their children’s primary teacher.• Inviting parents to become full partners in their children’s education.• Provide services at centers and in families’ home.• Provide training in interactive literacy activities involving parents and their children.• Offer information on child-rearing and behavior management.• Teach strategies for transferring learning to various settings at home and at work.• Inform parents on family relationships, alcohol/substance/other abuse.• Present assistance with household management and work schedules.• Emphasize the importance or reading to children daily.• Share ideas about games, writing, discussions, playing, and spending time with children at home.• Provide feedback and evaluation of services.

Administrators can help create a culturally responsive school environment that invites parental involvement. Thefollowing suggestions are based on the US Department of Education (US DOE) report: Team up for kids!! Howschools can support family involvement in education (2001).

• Help teachers develop various knowledge bases to help teach literacy effectively in linguistically and cul-turally diverse classrooms.

• Create a school climate of respect for diversity, culture and language.• Develop a long-term school plan to promote understanding and respect for cultural and linguistic diversity.• Emphasize the relationship between developing language proficiency and connecting school to students’

lives.• Build trust and respect, develop relationships, and encourage dialogue with parents and community leaders

from diverse cultural groups.• Have accessible names of interpreters who are available to assist parents and teachers.• Collect detailed information on LEP students, their families, and country of origin, native language, and

any information available on the students’ academic background.• Assess students’ level of skills in their native language.• Assess students’ English language proficiency.• Schedule slots for classes where LEP students can be grouped, periodically, for intensive classes in English

as a second language and mathematics.• Secure better assessment methods and monitor LEP students’ progress, achievement, and needs.• Lower the student-teacher ratio in classes with large number of LEP students.• Have orientations for parents.• Create back-to-school nights.



• Have flexible hours for parent-teacher conferences.• Form multilingual family night learning activities.• Establish native language parent groups.• Encourage the development of citizen advisory committees.• Offer parent education workshops.• Invite parents and students from all cultures to participate in school activities.• Listen carefully to parents’ concerns, questions, and issues.• Learn about the various communities of the students in school and become involved in their needs and con-

cerns.• Educate teachers for diversity. Provide ongoing staff development in culturally and linguistically diverse

issues.• Help families to support all students’ success.• Involve the community in students’ success (e.g., businesses, religious organizations, enforcement officials,

and other community agencies).• Involve parents in school improvement plans and in decision-making.• Overcome language barriers by proving interpreters, translating materials into parents’ first language as

much as possible, use interactive bilingual telephone recordings, and English-as-a-second-language classesfor parents.

• Adopt curriculum that is inclusive and sensitive to cultural, ethnic, and other diversity related issues.• Build on students’ prior culture, knowledge, and language.• Accommodate instruction to meet all students’ needs.• Provide opportunities for faculty and staff to gain knowledge about different cultural groups.• Provide training to help teachers use students’ family, language, and culture as a resource for learning.• Provide training to help teachers work effectively with culturally and linguistically diverse students and

families.• Provide opportunities for professional development and training in parental involvement.

The community plays an important role in helping families support their children’s learning and success in school.The following suggestions are based on the US DOE’s report: Join together for kids! How communities can sup-port family involvement in education (2001).

• Develop programs for parents (e.g., academic classes, parenting skills, children’s health, literacy practices,career preparation).

• Provide mentor programs to help youth with emotional, social, and academic support.• Develop a list of community volunteers who can assist teachers, parents, and students.• Support preschool programs.

Dauber and Epstein (1993) studied over 2,000 schools and discovered that the best predictor of parental involve-ment was what the school did to promote it. School attitudes and efforts to involve parents were more importantthan parents’ ethnicity, language, income, or educational level. Parents who received positive feedback from edu-cators became more involved in their children’s education than other parents did.The following are key suggestions about promoting parental involvement in schools (for additional information,see FLaRE Family Literacy Document):



• Make parents feel welcome in school.• Learn about the students’ cultural backgrounds and how to communicate with diverse families.• Create specific programs to reach parents whose first language is not English.• Develop a comprehensive plan to establish parent-teacher partnerships in school.• Evaluate the effectiveness of the school’s parental involvement efforts.• Offer different forms of parental involvement.• Provide flexible hours for parent-teacher conferences so that parents are able to attend.• Invite parents to express their concerns and serve on school committees.• Teach parents about school structure, policies, and expectations.• Provide a parent center for parents to use in school.• Have a resource person (a parent, teacher, or community member) who can communicate with parents in

their native language.• Provide adult English classes and family literacy programs.• Encourage parents to form advocacy groups.• Create a home visitor program with staff who will visit families and help them understand how they can

help their children succeed in school, provide information about reading or other programs, curriculum,summer programs, and additional services to families.

• Offer specific information about how parents can assist their children at home.• Invite parents to visit the school, observe classes, ask questions, and receive feedback.• Provide free transportation and child care for parents who need it.• Keep parents informed of their children’s progress in school through conferences, telephone messages

(bilingual recordings), newsletters, informal one-on-one meetings, and home visits.• Utilize technology to keep parents informed (i.e., voice mail messages, video/audio tapes).• Create interactive assignments that involve the student’s parents and family.

School administrators need to provide school faculty with relevant professional development opportunities thatwill help them meet the literacy and academic needs of linguistically and culturally diverse students. Lewis,Parsad, Carey, Bartfai, Farris, Smerdon, & Greene (1999) recommended that professional development that tacklesthe needs of limited English proficient and culturally diverse students varied from region to region. Finally, teach-ers need to have diverse knowledge about culture, language, and literacy and be committed to supporting the liter-acy development of all students. Including supplementary multicultural materials or just celebrating holidays andfestivals are not enough to bring about change. Schools need to be show a firm commitment to diversity, do sub-stantive changes to the curriculum and instruction, integrate culturally relevant materials throughout subject areas,involve parents in planning, help parents assist their children at home, and value different ways of knowing (Nieto,199).

Professional development is vital in helping teachers “reach and teach” culturally and linguistically diverse stu-dents. It must be ongoing and it must incorporate learning that centers on teachers, students, and families. Fillmoreand Snow (2000) suggested that teachers need to understand how language impacts student learning. Knowledgeabout language will aid in the teaching of literacy (Snow, Burns, and Griffin, 1998) and in working with LEP stu-dents (August & Hakuta, 1998).



What Parents Can Do

The family is a primary resource for helping children succeed academically and preparing them to enter schoolwith the necessary skills to succeed. Researchers have documented (Henderson & Berla, 1994; National ParentTeacher Association (PTA), 1998; Tse, 1996) the importance of parent and community involvement in students’academic success. The most important predictor of student achievement is the extend to which a student’s familyis able to: a) create a home environment that encourages learning; b) communicate high expectations for their chil-dren’s achievement and success, and c) become involved in their children’s education in school and in the commu-nity. LEP students are more likely to succeed when their parents help them with homework, attend school events,serve as volunteers, or are part of school governance.

Research on bilingual Latino families’ literacy practices has yielded much information about challenges familiesface and the role of Latino parents and siblings in children’s schooling. Below is a summary of these insightsgleamed from various research sources (Delgado-Gaitan, 1990; Goldenberg, Reese & Gallimore, 1992; Moll,1992; Paratore, Melzi, & Krol-Sinclair, 1999; Ramirez, 1992; Rodriguez-Brown, Li, & Albom, 1999; Valdes,1996):

• Contrary to the traditional stereotype, Latino parents hold positive values about the education and successof their children in school.

• Parents have significant cultural knowledge (i.e., “funds of knowledge”) that teachers can use in their class-rooms.

• Households are not socially, culturally, or intellectually void; families use reading, writing, singing, play-ing, and storytelling.

• Families differ in the degree and consistency of literacy activities and parental involvement.• Parents pay close attention to homework and use it as a vehicle for asking their children questions about

school and as a way to evaluate the instruction their children receive in school.• Parents become confused when homework assignments and instruction are not meaningfully connected and

are decontextualized. Parents who do not know enough about the school structure, English language, andschool expectations about assignments, depend on social networks for insights into the school culture.

• Parents’ theories of literacy development caused them to view school literacy materials as redundant.Latino parents’ familiarity with the Spanish code approach causes them to emphasize letters, sounds, sylla-bles rather than whole words. Latino parents emphasize the correct formation of letters before children areable to write.

Parents and families need to realize the importance of learning activities (i.e., writing for fun, playing games, read-ing aloud, talking about the day or family trips and events, or everyday problem-solving situations) and how theycontribute to children’s literacy development and overall school success.

Navarrette (1996) stated:

Many minority students start school without the necessary tools needed to succeed in school. Many mono-linguals, as well as bilingual low income children, may have delayed language development caused by alack of educationally oriented experiences. Few have attended day care or preschool, and many have never



been out of their immediate neighborhoods. Parents may nor provide educationally oriented experiencesbecause they are too busy trying to provide for their families’ physical needs, and others may not realize theimportance of developing the home language through active interaction with their children. (p. 1)

Parental involvement is especially crucial for language minority students; parents need to reinforce children’s na-tive language development at home, communicate high expectations about academic achievement, and learn aboutschooling and how they can help their children succeed in school (Crawford, 1989; Navarrette, 1996).

Parents can support their children’s learning development in many ways. For example, parents can:

• Read to their young children.• Involve children in everyday family activities.• Speak to children in their native and (if possible) in their second language.• Ask their child to share what happened at school.• Promote school attendance.• Have high expectations for their children’s behavior and learning at home and at school.• Monitor television viewing.• Provide a quiet place for children to complete homework.• Praise and encourage their children to do their best in school.

(For additional information, see FLaRE Family Literacy Document).

Summary

As educators, we cannot change our LEP students’ socio-economic, ethnic, and home circumstances; instead, wecan change our own perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors; we can create opportunities, experiences, interactions,and environments that value and respect LEP students’ knowledge, treat them as valuable members of the class-room/school community, and help them learn and succeed. Culturally and linguistically diverse students are enti-tled to a free, appropriate public education.

Balance emerges as a theme in research in literacy instruction of linguistically and culturally diverse students.There is a need to mediate traditional school practices and curriculum materials. Schools, families, and the com-munity need to provide LEP students with the necessary conditions for becoming literate and successful in schooland in society in general.A varied and rich curriculum that encourages multiple ways of knowing, learning, and expressing knowledge helpssupport the language and literacy development of LEP students. In conclusion, we need to:

• Replace the LEP label that implies deficiency with a term that implies progressive acquisition of an addi-tional language.

• Find ways to properly assess LEP students, study the validity of current assessments for LEP students.• Create opportunities for LEP students to participate in those assessments early on.• Increase the knowledge bases of teachers of LEP students.• Involve all key stakeholders. Teachers, administrators, parents, community leaders, guidance counselors,

speech and language therapists, and school psychologists need to work cooperatively to develop and imple-Florida Literacy and Reading Excellence Center

College of Education • University of Central Florida • Orlando, FL 32816 http://flare.ucf.edu

©2001 FLaREUniversity of Central Florida 22

ment programs that help students succeed in school and in the community.• Involve parents in children’s schooling.• Restructure schools to accommodate the needs of LEP students.• Examine teacher and parent perspectives in a thoughtful and rigorously systematic fashion, and learn more

about the role of curriculum, instruction, assessment, family literacy, and policy on the literacy develop-ment of second language learners.



References

Abt-Perkins, D., & Rosen, L. (2000). Preparing English teachers to teach diverse student populations: Be-liefs, challenges, and proposals for change. English Education, 32(4), 251-266.

Anstrom, K., & Kindler, A. (1996). Federal policy, legislation and education reform: The promise and thechallenge for language minority students [On-line]. Available National Clearinghouse of Bilingual Education Re-source Collection Series No. 5.: http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/resource/fedpol.html

Au, K. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Au, K., & Raphael, T. (2000). Equity and literacy in the next millennium. Reading Research Quarterly,35(1), 170-188.

Auerbach, E. (1995). Which way for family literacy: Intervention or empowerment? In L. Morrow (Ed.),Family literacy: Connections in schools and communities (pp. 11-27). Newark, DE: International Reading Associ-ation.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1998). Educating language minority children. Washington, DC: Na-tional Academy Press.

Barrera, R. B., & Jimenez, R. T. (2000). Literacy practices for Latino students [On-line]. Available: http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/reports/literacy/intro.htm

Berry, J. W. (1986). Multiculturalism and psychology in plural societies. In L. H. Elstrand (Ed.), Ethnic mi-norities and immigrants in a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 35-51). Berwyn, NY: Swets North America.

Comer, J. P. (1984). Home-school relationships as they affect the academic success of children. Educationand Urban Society, 16(3), 323-337.

Coulter, D. (1999). The epic and the novel: Dialogism and teacher research. Educational Researcher,28(3), 4-13.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1990). School success for LEP students: The challenge and thestate report. Washington, DC: CCSSO, Resource Center on Educational Equity.

Craviotto, E., & Heras, A. (1999). Cultures of the fourth-grade bilingual classroom. Primary Voices, 7(3),25-35.

Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual education: History, theory, and practice. Trenton, NJ: Crane PublishingCompany, Inc.



Cuevas, J. (1997). Educating limited-English proficient students: Areview of the research on school programs and classroom practices. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parent attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city elemen-tary and middle schools. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society. Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children’s education. NewYork: The Falmer Press.

Delpit, L. (1993). The politics of teaching literate discourse. In T. Perry & J. W. Fraser (Eds.), Freedom’splow: Teaching in the multicultural classroom (pp. 285-295). New York: Routledge.

Delpit, L. (1995a). Education in a multicultural society: Our future’s greatest challenge. In L. Delpit, Otherpeople’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom (pp. 167-183). New York: New Press.

Faltis, C. J. (1997). Joinfostering: Adapting teaching for the multicultural classroom (2nd ed.). Upper Sad-dle River, NJ: Merrill.

Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. [On-line]. Available:http://www.cal.org/ericcll/teachers.pdf

Fisher, D., Mercado, M., Morgan, V., Robb, L., Sheehan-Carr, J., & Torres, M. (2000). The curtain rises:Teachers unveil their processes of transformation in doing classroom inquiry. Networks: Online Teacher-ResearchJournal (OISE Toronto). [On-line]. Available: http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~ctd/networks/journal/Vol%203(1).2000april/Article1.html

Foertsch, M. (1998). A study of reading practices, instruction, and achievement in District 31 schools. OakBrook, IL: North Central regional Education Laboratory [On-line]. Available: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/31abs.htm

Gersten, R. (1996). The double demands of teaching English language learners. Educational Leadership,53(5), 18-22.

Goldenberg, C. (1992). The limits of expectations: A case for case knowledge about teacher expectancy ef-fects. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 517-544.

Goldenberg, C. (1994). Promoting early literacy development among Spanish speaking children: Lessonsfrom two studies. In E. H. Hiebert & B. M. Taylor (Eds.), Getting reading right from the start: Effective early lit-eracy interventions. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Goldenberg, C., Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (1992). Effects of literacy materials from school on Latino chil-dren’s home experiences and early reading achievement. American Journal of Education, 100, 397-536.



Goodenough, W. H. (1981). Language, culture, and society. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Griswold, K., & Ullman, C. M. (1997). Not a one-way street: The power of reciprocity in family literacyprograms. The Bronx: City University of NY, Herbert H. Lehman College Institute for Literacy Studies. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 413 420)

Haberman, M., & Post, L. (1998). Teachers for multicultural schools: The power of selection. Theory intoPractice, 37(2), 96-104.

Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (Eds.). (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to stu-dent achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education, Center for Law and Education.

Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jackson, F. R. (1998). Seven strategies to support a culturally responsive pedagogy. In M. F. Opitz (Ed.),Literacy instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students: A collection of articles and commentaries(pp. 57-63). Newark, DE: International reading Association.

Jimenez, R., Moll, L., Rodriguez-Brown, F., & Barrera, R. (1999). Latina and Latino researchers interacton issues related to literacy learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2), 2-15.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American children. SanFransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Larson, J., & Irvine, P. D. (1999). “We call him Dr. King”: Reciprocal distancing in urban classrooms. Lan-guage Arts, 76(5), 393-400.

Lemberger, N. (1996). Factors affecting language development from the perspectives of four bilingualteachers. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 18, 17-31.

Lemberger, N. (1997). Bilingual education: Teachers’ narratives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates.

Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., Smerdon, B., & Greene, B. (1999). Teacher quality:A report of the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers (Statistical Analysis Report 1999-080).Washington, DC: National center for Education Statistics [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999080/index.htm

McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: What every teacherneeds to unlearn. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language



Learning. (ERIC Reproduction Service ED 352 806)

Moll, L. C. (1988). Some key issues in teaching Latino students. Language Arts, 65(5), 465-472.

Moll, L. C. (1992). Literacy research in community and classrooms: A sociocultural approach. In R. Beach,J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives in literacy research (pp. 211-244). Ur-bana, IL: National Conference on Research in English.

Morrow, L., & Young, J. (1997). A family literacy program connecting school and home: Effects of atti-tude, motivations, and literacy achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 736-742.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Digest of education statistics: 1999 (NCES 2000-031).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of education, Office of Educational research and Improvement.

National Center for Family Literacy (1994). The power of family literacy. Louisville, KY: Author.

National Parent Teacher Association. (1998). National standards for parent/family involvement programs.Chicago, IL: National PTA [Online]. Available: http://www.pta.org/programs/pfistand.htm

Navarrette, Y. G. (1996). Family involvement in a bilingual school. The Journal of Educational Issues ofLanguage Minority Students, 16, 77-83.

Navarrette, Y. G., & Gustkee, C. (1996). A guide to performance assessments for linguistically diverse stu-dents. Albuquerque, NM: Education Assistance Center—Western Region.

Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Orange, C., & Horowitz, R. (1999). An academic standoff: Literacy task preferences of African Americanand Mexican American male adolescents versus teacher-expected preferences. Journal of Adolescent and AdultLiteracy, 43(1), 28-39.

Paley, V. G. (1995). Kwanzaa and me: A teacher’s story. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Paratore, J. R., Melzi, G., & Krol-Sinclair, B. (1999). What should we expect of family literacy?: Experi-ences of Latino children whose parents participate in an intergenerational literacy project. Newark, DE andChicago, IL: International Reading Association and National Reading Conference.

Public Law 103-382, Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. (24 October 1994). [On-line]. Available:http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/gov/titlevii/

Ramirez, J. D. (1992). Executive summary. Bilingual Research Quarterly, 16(1 & 2), 1-62.

Reyes, P., Scribner, J. D., & Scribner, A. P. (1999). Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools. New



York: Teachers College Press.

Rodriguez-Brown, F., Li, R. F., & Albom, J. B. (1999). Hispanic parents’ awareness and use of literacy-rich environments at home and in the community. Education & Urban Society, 32(1), 41-58.

Rutherford, W. (1999). Creating student-centered classroom environments: The case of reading. In P.Reyes, J. D. Scribner, & A. P. Scribner (Eds.), Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools (pp. 131-168).New York: Teachers College Press.

Sleeter, C. E. (1997). Foreward. In L. Diaz-Soto, Language, culture, and power (pp. ix-xiii). Albany, NY:State University of New York.

Smith, G. P. (1998). Common sense about uncommon knowledge: The knowledge bases for diversity.Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) Publications.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Soto, L. (1997). Language, culture, and power: Bilingual families and the struggle for quality education.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Strickland, D. S. (1998). Principles of instruction. In M. F. Opitz (Ed.), Literacy instruction for the cultur-ally and linguistically diverse students: A collection of articles and commentaries (pp. 50-52). Newark, DE: Inter-national Reading Association.

Taylor, D. (1998). Review of many literacies: An international declaration of principles. Harvard Educa-tional Review, 68(2), 268-269.

Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

TESOL. (1992). A TESOL statement on nonnative speakers of English and hiring practices. Alexandria,VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. [On-line]. Available: http://www.tesol.org/advo-cacy/fedup/fed980503.html

Torres, M.. N. (2001). Teacher-researchers entering into the world of Limited-English-Proficiency (LEP)students: Three case studies. Urban Education, 36(2), 256-289.

Tse, L. (1996, Summer). Who Decides?: The effects of language brokering on home-school communica-tion. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 16, 1-16.

Twiss, L. (1998). Acceptance and caring are the heart of engaging classroom diversity. In M. F. Opitz(Ed.), Literacy instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students: A collection of articles and commen-taries (pp. 53-56). Newark, DC: International Reading Association.



United States Department of Education. (2001). Team up for kids!!: How schools can support family in-volvement in education. Washington, DC: Author. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Family/schools.html

United States Department of Education. (2001). Join together for kids!: How communities can supportfamily involvement in education. Washington, DC: Author. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Family/com-munity.html

United States General Accounting Office. (1994, January). Limited English proficiency: A growing andcostly educational challenge facing many school districts. Report to the chairman, Committee on Labor and Hu-man Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, USGAO. GAO/HEHS 94-38.

United States House of Representatives (1994). Improving America’s Schools Act, P. L. 103-382. Wash-ington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Valdes, G. (1996). Con respecto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools.New York: Teachers College Press.

Zeichner, K. (1993). Action Research: Personal renewal and social reconstruction. Educational Action Re-search, 1(2), 1999-219.



Family Literacy Books

Acculturation — The acquisition of the language, values, customs, and ways of knowing of a newculture.

Bilingual Education – Various models that use both English and native-language instruction toteach school subjects and that feature some form of ESL.

Culture – The shared beliefs, values, and rule-governed behavioral patterns that define a group andare required for group membership.

Developmental bilingual education – Model whose goals include fluent bilingualism as well asacademic excellence.

ESL – Various approaches to teaching English, adapted to the needs of minority-language speakers.

FLITE – Family Literacy Involvement Through Education (FLITE) – A program created by Gris-wold and Ullman (1997) that utilizes health, stress, cooking, and discipline as curriculum topics.

Immersion education – Designed for language majority students (i.e., students whose primary lan-guage is English). Students receive subject matter instruction through their second language to de-velop second language proficiency while learning content (e. g., Spanish).

Limited-English-Proficiency (LEP) – Individuals who have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading,writing, or understanding the English language. They may also include individuals who were notborn in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English and comes froman environment where a language other than English is dominant.

Linguistically Diverse Students – Students who speak one or more languages.

Maintenance Bilingual Education – Designed for LEP students; primary language instruction isprovided throughout the elementary grades and continues through high school



Limited-English-Proficient Glossary

Larry Bedenbaugh

FLaRE Logo

Multicultural Literature – Literature about racial or ethnic minority groups that are culturallyand socially different from the white Anglo-Saxon majority in the United States.

Newcomer Programs – Designed for students who have recently arrived to the US. The programlasts for about one year and provides personal and instructional support.

Submersion – Teaching students in mainstream, English-language classrooms that offer no spe-cial language assistance.

Scaffolding -- Support provided by the teacher to help students bridge gaps that may occur whentheir abilities fall short of the goal.

Transitional bilingual education (TBE) -- A model designed for LEP student; primary languageinstruction for 1-3 years with no further instruction in home language after transition to Englishinstruction.

Synthesized by: Vicky Zygouris-Coe, Ph.D. and Lourdes H. Smith, M.Ed., FLaRE Center



Documents

LITERACY FOR LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY (LEP) STUDENTSeducation.ucf.edu/mirc/Research/Limited English Proficiency.pdf · LITERACY FOR LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY (LEP) STUDENTS Vicky