How Do Socio-economic Factors Affect

Early Literacy?
Ads by Google

Literacy is a fundamental tool that students must have in order to further

their academic success. Literacy can be seen as being crucial to a
student’s academic achievement throughout their school years. Early
problems in literacy may have a devastating effect on their later academic
motivation and achievement.

According to Ruby Payne in her book , A Framework for Understanding

Poverty, low achievement can be closely correlated with low
socioeconomic status. Poverty can be related to academic achievement in
the United States. Students who come from impoverished families are
more likely to have problems in school than students who come from
middle-class or upper-class families. Unfortunately, the United States has
very high rates of childhood poverty. Furthermore, it is very difficult for the
impoverished families to escape poverty once they are in it.

The purpose of this article is to study the impact of socio-economic

(SES)status on educational achievement and early literacy. It will also look
at the success of compensatory programs, such as Head Start , Title 1 and
Early Interventions, that have been developed in order to help at-risk
students from low-income families and communities overcome learning
problems associated with their socio-economic factors.

According to the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) children of

low-income families began school far below their more advantaged peers.
(Klein Knitzer, 2007). Their studies point out the following facts:
 Before entering kindergarten, the average cognitive scores of
preschool-age children in the highest socioeconomic group are 60
percent above the average scores of children in the lowest
socioeconomic group.
 At age 4 years, children who live below the poverty line are 18
months below what is normal for their age group; by age 10 that gap is
still present. For children living in the poorest families, the gap is even
larger
 By the time children from middle-income families with well-educated
parents are in third grade, they know about 12,000 words. Third grade
children from low-income families with undereducated parents who
don’t talk to them very much have vocabularies of around 4,000 words,
one-third as many words as their middle-income peers.
Early education studies have demonstrated that one of the greatest factors
that can predict a child’s success are their early literacy skills. This
“readiness to read” must be nurtured during a child’s early years. This is
long before they ever enter preschool or kindergarten. It is important that
children begin their formal education as developmentally ready as possible.
These are the fundamental skills that provide an important foundation for all
education skills--reading, writing, and all other subject areas.

It has been well documented that there is an association between family

poverty and children’s health, achievement and behavior . Family income
appears to be more strongly related to children’s ability and achievement
than to their long term emotional outcomes. However, the association
between income and a child’s educational outcomes is much more complex
than a simple of association between these factors.

Health can be viewed as an outcome in itself. However, it is also a means

by which poverty can influence other childhood outcomes such as cognitive
ability and school achievement. Furthermore, a child’s home environment
also has a substantial effect on these to factors as well. Opportunities for
learning in the home must include the important mother-child interactions
as well as the physical condition of the home. Poverty can be linked to a
lower quality of parent and child interaction. Parental practices may also
include the use of harsh punishments. All of these factors play important
roles in the learning outcomes for children living in poverty.

Research shows that the critical period for children to develop foundational
capabilities on which all subsequent development builds is between the
ages of birth to 5 years old. This is the time when the most dramatic
progress in linguistic and cognitive gains are made. Emotional, social,
regulatory and moral dimensions are also intertwined with this early
developmental period. Each of these critical areas will require focused
attention in order to develop appropriately.

This is the very period of development when noticeable disparities in what

children know and are able to do become evident before they ever enter
kindergarten. These differences are strongly associated with social and
economic circumstances that these children find themselves. These
disparities are also predictors of their subsequent academic and cognitive
performance. It has been suggested that, even before entering
kindergarten, the difference between high-status and low-status is
estimated to be over 60%. (Lee & Burkam, 2002) . There are large
differences especially between children’s receptive and expressive
language skills. Even more serious than their skill deficiencies, are the
knowledge deficiencies that are a reflection of the limited access to the
informal information that come from the daily interactions between parent
and child. There has been limited study on the differences among children
in content knowledge and its relationship to achievement. However, it has
been suggested that skill development without meaningful content has only
limited usefulness or staying power for these socially disadvantaged
students. (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp,
2000).

The idea behind compensatory education is to, in a sense, "compensate"

for these disadvantages by expanding and improving the educational
programs offered to children living in poverty. Early intervention programs
which focus on young preschool and primary school children, attempt to
provide them with the skills they will need in they will need in school that
they may not acquire at home or in their regular school. The federally
funded Title 1 program provides schools money so that they may provide
students from low-income families, who are having school-related
problems, with additional services.

For low-income preschoolers, increasing early literacy and math skills is

vital to closing the achievement gap between them and their more
advantaged peers. New research shows that an intentional curriculum and
professional development and supports for teachers are important
components of effective preschool classrooms and programs.

A special focus on these strategies is important because many low-income

children in early learning settings fall behind early and remain very much
behind their peers in reading and math. The various studies regarding
Head Start have produced somewhat contradictory and controversial
results about the effect that the program has had on children from
economically disadvantaged homes.( Zigler, E. & Styfco, S.J. (1994). Their
study analyzed this program in terms of both long and short term effects on
children attending the Head Start Program. Their research seemed to
confirm some of the controversial issues about Head Start. In particular, it
appears that the Head Start program has only proven to be beneficial to
children’s short-term educational development. (Lee, V.E., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Schnur, E. et al. (1988).) Long term effects seem to indicate that students
lose any increased cognitive ability they may have gained relatively shortly
after leaving the Head Start Program.
Ron Haskins compiled various studies that compared the differences
betweennon-compensatory preschool programs and compensatory
programs like Head Start.(Haskins, Ron, 1989). The result of these studies
showed that by the end of the year both programs produced significant
gains in intellectual performance and socio-emotional development.
However, both programs saw a decline within a few years after the
students left the program. When looking at the variables of school
performance, there was strong evidence of positive effects on the non-
compensatory preschool program and only modest evidence any long term
effects from the Head Start Program. Students who have attended the
Head Start Preschool program, seem to lag behind their peers in the later
grades. The question that still requires additional study is the how much
independent factors such as family income and parent education has
attributed to these differences.

It appears to be a difficult task for such a compensatory preschool program

to have a long term effect on early literacy and later school achievement.
Killian and Kagen’s research also points out that the Title 1 Reading
Program hasnot had the positive effects on reading achievement as first
projected. Their study followed a group of students from second through
sixth grade. The results showed that, although Title I intervention had a
positive effect on students tested in the third grade, they could not maintain
these gains after leaving the program. The Title I program had resulted in
only minimal gains for struggling students. Many of the students,
particularly those with low ability, required continued interventions and
supports in order not to fall behind their peers.

In his research, Slavin (2006) indicated that there are some compensatory
programs which are designed to help students from low income families to
overcome learning problems which can be associated with their social
economic status that have been successful. As far as the effects of Title 1
programs in general, has shown only inconsistent success rates. He points
to the success of the early intervention, prevention and some school reform
programs that have proved to be beneficial to these high risk students.

The Reading Recovery program provides struggling first graders

withaccess to individualize literacy tutoring with trained teachers. The
program can helpthose students that are at most risk reach their
appropriate level of reading performance. Slavin(2006) indicates that its
positive effects are long term and the program is used in more than 9,000
elementary schools around the country.

Success for All is an accomplished CSR program that provides research-

based reading programs to preschools, elementary, and middle schools
(Slavin, 2006). However, its main focus main focus is on prevention and
early intervention children in elementary school. Students in this program
do read substantially better than their peers through out the elementary
grades. They are also less likely to needspecial education services or to fail
a grade.

Summer school seem to close the achievement gap which appears

between the lower and middle class students during the summer months.
Socio-economically disadvantaged students are more likely not to make
any achievement gains during the Summer months. In contrast, middle
class students tend to make gains during this same period. Furthermore,
the lower class students are more likely to forget previously learned
material. Ultimately, they fall even further behind their peers. Summer
school may provide a solution to this discrepancy by engaging at-risk
students in academically-related activities they would have otherwise not
participated in. Because summer school has been found to increase
children’s knowledge and skills, it may lead to achievement gains in at-risk
students, in addition to helping them maintain previously learned material
(Harris, Kelly, Valentine, Muhlenbruck, 2000).
In summary, the detrimental effects of poverty on children's academic
outcomes and general well being are well documented. The question
remains about which program, or programs, can best address this socio-
economic disadvantage and provide students with the skills necessary to
be successful learners. Although state governments have primary
responsibility for elementary and secondary education in the United States,
The federal government ‘s concern for the education of poor children,
continues to remain compelling enough to support the continued funding
and commitment to compensatory education policies from the mid-1960s to
the early twenty-first century.

Obviously, research confirms that The Title I and Head Start compensatory
education programs have come a long way, but neither has reached its full
potential in breaking the connections between poverty and early literacy
success. Neither of these program may ever be the “great equalizer” that
PresidentJohnson had in mind . In order to compensate for poor schools,
poor health care, poverty and the various other conditions that have been
shown to have adverse effects on students’ development is going to take
more of a commitment that these two federally funded programs. In the
history of both programs, neither has had sufficient funding to provide
services to all eligible children. To the millions of children, however, that
Title I and Head Start have served, it has made important differences in
their lives, their families' lives, and in their schools.

The Comprehensive School Reform Program (CSR) encourages schools to

focus on all aspects of their school's operations when making
improvements rather on just isolated programs that have not proven to be
effective in improving student performance. This program encourages the
school to improve themselves by implementing comprehensive school
improvement models that provide proven methods and strategies for
teaching, learning, and school management. It has been found to
significantly improve the academic achievement of students or
demonstrates strong evidence that it will improve the academic
achievement of all students.

Ultimately, we continue to ask the question: “What compensatory programs

or strategies can actually help these low socio-economic students catch up
to their peers?” There is much research showing that effects of poverty on
early literacy are not irreversible. With comprehensive, ongoing early
interventions , it is possible to change the educational outcomes for low-
income children. Using an intentional curriculum, as well as providing
teachers with professional development and supports can help close the
achievement gap.

An Intentional Curriculum can be defined as being:

content driven, research-based, emphasizes active engagement with

children, includes attention to social and regulatory skills, and is responsive
to cultural diversity and children just learning English.

An intentional curriculum is directive without using drill and kill strategies;

it is fun for young children and promotes positive peer and teacher
interactions. It must also be developmentally appropriate. ( Klein and
Knitzer, 2007).

Research finds that children make even more academic gains when they
have teachers who encourage communication, reasoning and an
enthusiasm for learning. It is also important to align early learning curricula
and teaching strategies with K-3 standards.

Key skills must be identified and student progress must be monitored in

order to identifythe children who need this targeted intervention to promote
early literacy. The assessments must provide reliable and valid
measurements of these skills. Findings further suggest that instruction
focused on these skills may provide valuable literacy preparation,
particularly for children at risk for developing reading. Because these at-risk
children are in critical need of effective instruction in the early years in order
to develop effective reading and writing skills, curriculum must include the
following key elements for effective literacy instruction.

 A book-rich literate environment;

 Teacher read-alouds;

 Students reading aloud to others;

 Shared reading;

 Phonological awareness instruction;

 Phonics instruction;

 Reading comprehension strategy instruction;

 Writing strategy instruction;

 Variety of reading and writing activities; and

 Time for reading and writing.

As this article has shown, early intervention is important for students who
are struggling with reading and writing. This is especially true of children
living in poverty. With well designed curriculum and scientifically based
early interventions, thesestudents have an opportunity to overcome their
low socio-economic backgrounds and become successful students, while
at the same time breaking the cycle of poverty. However, it will take a
sustained effort of the government, school districts and dedicated teachers,
in order to insure early literacy success for all students.

Bibliography
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice--Revised.

Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Duncan, G.J., and Brooks-Gunn, J., eds. Consequences of growing up poor. New York:Russell Sage Foundation, 1997.

Harris, C., Kelly, C., Valentine, J. C. (2000). Making the most of summer school: A Meta-analytic and narrative

review. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child development, 65, v-118.

Haskins, Ron. (1989). The Efficacy of Early Childhood Education. American Psychological Journal, 44(2), 274-282.

Howes, C.; Bryant, D.; Burchinal, M.; Clifford, R.; Early, D.; Pianta, R.; Barbarin, O.; &

Ritchie, S. (2006). National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL).

Chapel Hill, NC: NCEDL, FPG Child Development Institute.

Kilian, Lawrenc J.: Kagen, Edward. The Long Term Effects of the ESEA Title I Reading

Program on Reading Achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association (Los Angeles, CA, April 13-17, 1981).

Chapel Hill, NC: NCEDL, FPG Child Development Institute.

Knitzer, Jane, Klein, Lisa G (2007).Promoting Effective Early Learning .What Every

Policymaker and Educator Should Know. National Center for Children in Poverty.

Columbia University. Mailman School of Public Health.

Lee, V.E., Brooks-Gunn, J., Schnur, E. et al. (1988). Does Head Start Work? A 1-yr

Follow-Up Comparison of Disadvantaged Children Attending Head Start, No

Preschool , and Other Preschool Programs. Educational Psychology, 24(2)

Lee, V. E. & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin

school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Neuman, S.B. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2000). Learning to read and write:

Developmentally appropriate practice. Washington, DC: National Association for

The Education of Young Children.

Parlakian, Rebecca. 2003. Before the ABCs: Promoting School Readiness in Infants and Toddlers.

Payne, R. K. (2003). A framework for understanding poverty (3rd rev. ed.). Highlands,

TX: aha! Process

Slavin, R.E. (2006). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Zigler, E. & Styfco, S.J. (1994). Head Start: Criticism in a Constructive Context.

American Psychologist, 49 (2)

http://theindividualist.hubpages.com/hub/socio-economicfactorsofearlyliteracy

Socioeconomic Status Affecting

Literacy
Several studies have revealed and demonstrated how low socioeconomic status can both be a ba
acquiring early literacy skills (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2007, p. 199). The risk for literacy problems is gre
families compared to children from middle and high income families (Dearing, 2004, p. 446). Childre
families experience significant difficulties learning to read and write because they enter school with
familiarity with words” (p. 199). Gettinger and Stoiber asserts that “deficits in early reading skills at
remain, or even increase through elementary school, creating a continuously widening gap between
and those who do not” (p. 198).

A literature review done by Klass, Dreyer, and Mendelson, found “dramatic socioeconomic differe
language exposure” of children (2009, p. 21). Children from low income families, on average hears a
with children from working class families who hears 1,250 words per hour, and to those children fro
(p.21). The gaps identified were due to the differe
who hears 2,150 words per hour
parental feedback and interaction experienced by the children in poorer fa
differences were also remarkable by age 3 and persisted into school age (p

Childhood literacy problems have significant consequences, including “an increase in school drop
welfare costs. (Dearing, et al, 2004, p. 446). Consequently, due to recent “technological advances, th
literate workforce, thus the costs of literacy problems for society are likely to increase” as well (p.44

low soc
As health care providers, we understand the barriers and consequences of being in the
person, family, and the community as a whole. It is an issue that we canno
scope of practice, however we can augment this problem and provide supp
from low-income families. We can provide community resources to parent
develop skills to help their preschool child achieve emergent literacy skills

“No skill is more crucial to the future of a child, or to a democratic and

prosperous society, than literacy.”

(Los Angeles Times: A Child Literacy Initiative for the Greater Los Angeles Area, n.d.)

Learning English as a Second Language

Anyone who is thinking of moving to an English speaking country
will clearly be anxious to learn the language, so they can
integrate themselves easily. Learning English as a second
language opens many doors for people and provides them with a
variety of options they might have otherwise gone without. ELS
persons will be able to converse freely with people they meet,
making getting settled in a new home much easier. People also
want to have an understanding of English for work purposes, as
an internationally accepted language and the language of
business, the English language is imperative to the success and
advancement in many industries and workplaces.

In order to learn English with no existing knowledge base, a

person will need to know their options in terms of programs and
school that will work best for their learning style. For example, a
person could sign up for a night school class, or a college course,
or try to learn English using audio tapes and books. A popular
option for many students is to participate in an online program.
Learning using online tools and support systems can be helpful
for anyone who has work or family commitments and cannot
attend a weekly lesson. This type of learning is much more
interactive than trying to learn using audio and books alone, and
can usually provide extra resources and support for student
struggling with course material.

By using online facilities to learn English as a second language,

students will find that they are able to manage their lessons
much easier and see improvements in the speaking and
understanding of the English language . They can learn at their
own pace and be able to go over anything that they do not
understand, which makes the whole experience a lot more
positive. Having the flexibility to learn English as a second
language in your spare time means that the student will not have
to alter their usual routine to accommodate their coursework.

Another benefit of using the internet to learn English as a second

language is that popular language courses may offer students a
free lesson when they begin. This will help a learner to get a
feeling of the course, and decide whether or not it would be
suitable for them. Without this kind of session a lot of potential
learners can be put off by the style of learning/teaching before
signing up for a full course or series.

The benefits of learning English as a second language in a user-

friendly environment are very valuable and will be greatly utilized
in future communication experiences, including personal,
professional, and educational. Anyone thinking of expanding their
language skills should certainly consider using online learning
tools to help them succeed. Using such a method is not only
interesting and interactive, but it can also be very enjoyable and
is perfect for anyone with a busy schedule.
http://www.eslpartyland.com/learning-english-as-second-language.html

Holly Rowlands

The Ameliorating Effects of High Socioeconomic Status: A

Secondary Analysis
Krashen, Stephen; Brown, Clara Lee
Bilingual Research Journal, 2005
A secondary analysis of previously published data shows that high-
socioeconomic status (SES) English language learners (ELLs) outperform low-
SES fluent English speakers on tests of math, and they do about as well on tests
of reading. Thus, for ELLs, SES can offset the effects of language proficiency on
standardized tests of math and reading. This result suggests that we can improve
the performance of all ELLs by providing aspects of high SES known to impact
school performance. This can be done by improving the print environment and
providing bilingual education. (Contains 4 tables.)
Keywords: Second Language Learning, Standardized Tests, Language Proficiency, English
(Second Language), Bilingual Education, Socioeconomic Status, Mathematics Achievement,
Reading Achievement
National Association for Bilingual Education, 1030 15th Street, NW, Suite 470, Washington, DC
20005. Tel: 202-898-1829; Fax: 202-789-2866; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site:
http://www.nabe.org

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ724704

The Filipino boy who doesn’t want to

speak Filipino is what, exactly?
By Dennis Clemente
Philippine Daily Inquirer
5:18 am | Monday, September 12th, 2011

New York—As this city closed (who would have thought?) and braced itself for the fierce
hurricane called Irene, a close encounter of a different kind took us by surprise.
It came from the Philippines and it was called James Soriano, who caused an online storm with
his Manila Bulletin essay “Language, Learning, Identity, Privilege,” in which he makes the claim
that “Filipino is not the language of the learned.”
He adds, “We are ‘forced’ to relate to the tinderas (store clerks), manongs (usually the driver)
and katulongs (the help) of this world.”
Soriano claims his mother made home conducive to learning English since he was a “toddler” to
the point that she even hired English tutors. So we know who’s to blame now?
Well, not so fast. After all, our educational system and form of business communication is still
English. Which brings us to the question: Why do we imbibe the language of the empires when
they come and go, anyway?
Soriano proceeds to say he “learned Filipino because it was practical. (It) was the language
outside of the classroom; it was how you spoke to the tindera when you went the tindahan
(convenience store). He says he needed to speak the language “to survive the outside world.”
It’s unfortunate how the boy chooses to live in a bubble, but he is just a symptom of a larger
problem.
The glaring social stratification in the Philippines is connected to one’s chosen language, too.
The use of English among the rich sets them apart from the rest who speak Tagalog. The
Tagalogs may feel superior toward other Filipinos who speak a different dialect.
At a disadvantage
So when Soriano says Filipino is not the language of the learned, is he suggesting Filipino
speakers are at a disadvantage compared to him? Did he mean his relatives, too, since they
speak Filipino like everyone else? Who feels insulted in all these?
The “interruptions” of foreign colonizers on our shores have, of course, hindered the full
flowering of our language but it doesn’t mean Filipino language development should stop.
If the use of one language can be ultimately unifying and there are more Filipinos speaking
Filipino, some sort of compromise could be reached.
Already, Filipinos combine both Filipino (and a dialect) with English and the combination of the
two is already acknowledged. While some purists may frown on “Finglish,” this writer thinks
language has to catch up with the times.
Having one language certainly can help break down social divisions. America has only one
language that allows both rich and poor to communicate with each other on an equal footing.
If we use Filipino only, imagine poor Filipinos having access to knowledge. Isn’t that going to
make them more functional members of a nation, able to compete against our most educated?
For Filipino-Americans reading this piece, the struggle over the Filipino language is an issue
that does not concern them directly, but it may just give them further insights as to why Filipinos
who move to America never teach Filipino to their children. It’s not for any deliberate hatred for
the language but for knowing that it is a language they can simply give up without
consequences.
Dispassionate teaching
This is because most Philippine schools treat Filipino language dispassionately—and an
impressionable student may think about its limitations when it is how we have mishandled the
language that is the issue.
As Soriano says, Filipino is treated as the “other subject (in school), tedious and difficult,” which
is why Filipino “did not come naturally” to him.
Teaching Filipino certainly has to evolve. One can mine our popular entertainment’s use of the
language from an etymological, unbiased stance.
From the sublime (Eraserheads music) to the world of TV soap operas, there is a wealth (or
heap of trash for some) of pop culture to dissect. The process can actually be fun if analyzed in
any number of ways—as a cultural medium, the effective facilitation of relationships and even
as emotive expression.
It would be great to teach students of this common declaration, “mahal ko ang bayan ko” (I love
my country), as a purely emotive expression, devoid of meaning until converted to action.
While we’re at it, it’d be great to get rid of derisive reactions such as “ang lalim naman ng
Tagalog mo” (your Filipino is so profound); “saan bang probinsiya galing ’yan? (From what
province did he come from? or “Ay, hindi marunong mag-English!” (He or she doesn’t know how
to speak English!)
The latter was a comment directed at Venus Raj in the 2010 Miss Universe Pageant. But if you
recall, the more disturbing thing for Americans back then was not her grammar but her non-
answer to the question, “What is the one big mistake in your life and what did you do to make it
right?”
World is much bigger
These common put-downs may also account for the disinterest toward learning the Filipino
language, as Soriano could be accountable for when he didn’t bother to look for translations for
bayanihan, tagay, kilig and diskarte.
But the world is much bigger. In a multicultural America where they must convey messages to
non-English speakers, those words Soriano cannot translate will need to be translated or
“transcreated” (a term used in the ad agency world). Depending on context, variations to these
Filipino words are “community spirit,” “cheers,” “titillated” and “technique,” respectively.
Those words can translate to $600 million—the advertising budget spent by American
companies in Asian American advertising. Unfortunately, the Filipino American market gets only
a meager sum, because we are less language-dependent than other Asians and is therefore
almost absconded as a viable market.
The Internet has, of course, blurred the line between journalism and blogging—or writing in
general. What passes for journalism these days is one’s solipsistic opinion devoid of any solid
research or verifiable truths.
This can be in the form of a blog, which has diminished the value of journalism to a certain
extent, because a blogger who gives writing a bad name at least, can easily get published
online without culpability whereas a journalist is liable to an organizational structure with strict
editorial policies. Count the fact that some journalists blog, too, and the result is utter confusion.
Summing up, Soriano says, “I have my education to thank for making English my mother
language,” discounting Filipino altogether.
For a very young person to put himself in a mental box seems too final and unduly conclusive.
Doesn’t that rob you of the enjoyment of seeing the multidimensionality of the world? Besides,
we know where boxes go—in corners.

http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/13471/the-filipino-boy-who-doesn%E2%80%99t-want-to-speak-filipino-is-
what-exactly

Education in the Philippines

By brentreview on May 11, 2012

The education in the Philippines is not developed enough to achieve their UN Millennium Goal
#2. The Philippines suffer in their bad educational cycle. Not all of the students in the Philippines
are getting enough education for different reasons, and the effect of not getting enough education
makes the future of the Philippines even worse.
The education in the public schools is much weaker than the one in the private schools.
The public schools follow the teaching styles of America and Spain, caused by the colonization
of those two countries in the past history. (Weinberg 97) The Filipinos start off with 80% of them
going to the elementary schools. However, the percentage decreases directly to only 48% of them
going to the high schools. It even decreases down to 20% of the Filipinos, who go to the colleges
and the universities. Even though students go to the schools to study, the books they use have
several errors with unreliable information, grammatical and spelling errors. They ranked
7th place among the 9 Southeast Asian Nations in the area of education and innovation. Out of
138 economies in the world, the Philippines ranked 99th by having 112th place for Science and
Math, and 76th place for Internet access. (“ABS CBN News”)
There are various reasons why education in the Philippines is very weak. First of all, the
country itself is too undeveloped and poor to support the education. The government does not
take any care of the public schools at all. They do not give them any supports that students’
parents have to support the schools by themselves. However, most of the parents are not rich
enough to support the school by themselves. 80% of the Filipinos live in the rural areas, and they
try to survive by 96 pesos a day. (“Josh Weinstein”) It is totally reasonable for them to be not
able to support their children’s schools. Since people live so poor in the Philippines, they send
their kids to work every day. The kids who are sent to work cannot go to school to study, but they
have to earn money to live. This is why the percentage of the people getting
educationdecreases as their age increases. As people get older, their expected responsibility
increases, and they must be able to make their living. To live, people earn money by working in
their job places, rather than to use money by getting education in the schools. (Hindman 917).

Several factors are affected when people do not go to school to get education. People
become vulnerable when they are not taught properly. They cannot make up their own ideas or
opinions, and other people can easily affect them. They also become useless when they do not
have any personal thoughts, and are welcomed in more-narrowed-down areas, because the top
classed job places would want someone who is well-educated, and who can lead their companies.
Following, they would make lesser money and have hard living, which makes the next
generation also impossible to go to school to get their education. Lastly, the possibility of
producing a global leader also decreases when the number of people getting educateddecrease.
Since there is not enough education in the Philippines to produce a global leader, the situations in
the Philippines get worse and worse every time. (Ide 509)
In conclusion, the education in the Philippines is too poor and undeveloped to achieve their
UN Millennium Goal #2. Not many people go to schools to get education, and even the
percentage of those who do go decrease as the ages increase. This is because the government
does not take any responsibility of the schools and they lay the responsibility to the students’
weak parents. The students chose to go to work to make money for living, rather than going to
school to get education. When people do not get education, they are not able to stabilize their
own opinions or ideas that they become vulnerable. They are less welcomed inthe society
because they do not have a lot of abilities. This makes them to have worse jobs, which leads to
their hard living. Lastly, no global leaders are produced when there are not many people who
got education. Since no global leaders are in the Philippines, the country’s conditions, including
the education get worse every year.

Written by Hayen Kim and Cathy Reyes

http://review.brentsubic.edu.ph/2012/05/education-in-the-philippines/

Students’ Difficulties in Speaking English and How to

Solve It
Since English is a foreign language in our country, most students especially
senior high school students are not familiar with it (Hetrakul, 1995). Kavin Hetrakul
also said that they use English more frequent only inside the class and less frequent
outside the class. Whereas, students’ have limited time to learn English in class, and
they still do not have enough encouragement to practice English outside the class in
order to get familiar with English. This case brings a problem that make senior high
school students have difficulties to communicate in English. This article will analyze
the causes that make the students difficult to communicate in English and suggest
some solutions that can overcome the difficulties.

The first cause that makes the students difficult in speaking English is that the
environment does not support the students to speak English frequently. The
environment here means the people outside the class. Those people may think that the
students just want to show off when they speak English for daily conversation. The
response that the students get makes them loose their self-confidence to improve
their speaking. Since the students do not want to be rejected by the people around
them, so they use their native language in daily conversation. That makes the students
unable to communicate in English fluently outside the class.

The second cause is problem with grammar. English always deals with reference
of time while Indonesian does not have one. Moreover, there are singular and plural
forms that the students have to distinguish and still many forms that have to be
learned. Most students are very easy to get confused with English grammar, while
grammar is very needed to form a right sentence. If the students do not have grammar
mastery, of course they will not be able to produce sentences that grammatically right.
Realizing that the grammar students have is very weak, so they feel embarrassed when
they want to produce English sentences orally.

Now, English is an international language. Even technology and working world

use English. It is believed that the students want to be the winner in working world
competition that is getting tight day by day. One of the conditions that the students
must require is having ability to speak English fluently. This skill will be their plus
point in facing the working world. From now on, the students have to try hard to
overcome their difficulties to speak English fluently.

There are two ways to encourage students to overcome their problem. The first
one is a way for the teacher to do. It is considered necessary for the teacher to force
the students only to speak English during the class. The teacher may fine the students
every time they speak their native language. The teacher himself must be able to
convince his students to be brave to speak English, does not matter if they have very
bad grammar. Just say whatever the students want to say. And the teacher must
convince his students that making errors is a normal thing in learning. This way will
raise students’ confidence to try to speak English. It will be better if the teacher does
not give correction every time his students make errors, but he should give feedback
and give explanation for every error after the students finish their speech.

The second solution is for the students themselves. They can have an English
conversation club that consists of their own classmates. They can share and talk about
anything in English during that time. In this club, they can learn together. Students can
correct each other without feeling embarrassed. English will become students’ routine
by doing that activity (Hetrakul, 1995).

Every problem can be solved, likewise the problem to speak English fluently that senior
high school students have. Even though the problem seems as students’ problem, but
in fact teachers also play an important role in solving this problem. Students’
difficulties to communicate in English must be solved as soon as possible considering
their needs in facing the working world. In conclusion, by forcing the students only to
speak English during the class and having conversation club will solve their difficulties
to speak English.

REFERENCE:

Hetrakul, Kavin. 1995. The Second Language.http://eserver.org/courses/spring95/76-

100g/KavinHetrakul.html(Accessed on October 28, 2005)

http://dianingpadmi.wordpress.com/eedduuccaattiioonn/students%E2%80%99-difficulties-in-speaking-
english-and-how-to-solve-it/

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012

Bridging the socio-economic divide between public and private schools

by Marilyn Achiron
Editor, Directorate for Education

Several months ago, we describedhow PISA results show that, when it comes to the
question of private versus public schooling, it’s the students who make the school.
Both PRIVATE SCHOOLS and public schools with student populations from socio-
economically advantaged backgrounds benefit the individual students who attend them. But
PISA results also showed that there is no evidence to suggest that the proportion
of PRIVATE SCHOOLS in a country, in and of itself, is associated with higher performance
of the school system as a whole.

In most PISA-participating countries and economies, the average socio-economic

background of students who attend privately managed schools is more advantaged than
that of those who attend public schools. The PISA team wanted to find out why some school
systems seem to be better than others at minimising the socio-economic differences that
are often apparent between publicly and privately managed schools.

The team’s findings have just been published in Public and Private Schools: How
Management and Funding Relate to their Socio-economic Profile. What the team found out
is that the prevalence of privately managed schools in a country is not related to greater or
lesser degrees of difference between the socio-economic profiles of public and private
schools; but the level of public funding to privately managed schools is.
There are many ways of providing public funding to privately managed schools. One of
these is through vouchers and tuition tax credits, which assist parents directly. If school
vouchers are available for all students, they could help to expand the choice of schools
available to parents and promote competition among schools. School vouchers that target
only disadvantaged students can make admission to schools more equitable, which
ultimately has an impact on the prospects in life for all children and contributes to social
cohesion; but they have a limited effect on expanding school choice and promoting
competition among schools overall. When researchers ANALYSED DATA from PISA 2009,
they found that school systems that offer vouchers to all students tend to have twice the
degree of socio-economic differences between publicly and privately managed schools as
systems that offer vouchers only to disadvantaged students.

Crucially, the results also show that those countries that have smaller socio-economic
differences between publicly and privately managed schools also tend to show better
overall student performance. That means that policy makers—and ultimately parents and
students—do not have to choose between equity/social cohesion and strong performance in
their school systems. The two are not mutually exclusive.

OECD Global Perspectives on Education and Skills

Education & Socioeconomic Status

Socioeconomic status (SES) is often measured as a combination of education, income, and occupation. It is
commonly conceptualized as the social standing or class of an individual or group. When viewed through a social
class lens, privilege, power, and control are emphasized. Furthermore, an examination of SES as a gradient or
continuous variable reveals inequities in access to and distribution of resources. SES is relevant to all realms of
behavioral and social science, including research, practice, education, and advocacy.
SES Affects Our Society
Low SES and its correlates, such as lower education, poverty, and poor health, ultimately affect our society as a
whole. Inequities in wealth distribution, resource distribution, and quality of life are increasing in the United States and
globally. Society benefits from an increased focus on the foundations of socioeconomic inequities and efforts to
reduce the deep gaps in socioeconomic status in the United States and abroad. Behavioral and other social science
professionals possess the tools necessary to study and identify strategies that could alleviate these disparities at both
individual and societal levels.
SES and Educational Issues
Research indicates that children from low-SES households and communities develop academic skills more slowly
compared to children from higher SES groups (Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, & Maczuga, 2009). Initial academic skills
are correlated with the home environment, where lowliteracy environments and chronic stress negatively affect a
child’s preacademic skills. The school systems in low-SES communities are often underresourced, negatively
affecting students’ academic progress (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008). Inadequate education and increased dropout rates
affect children’s academic achievement, perpetuating the low-SES status of the community. Improving school
systems and early intervention programs may help to reduce these risk factors, and thus increased research on the
correlation between SES and education is essential.
SES and Family Resources
Families from low-SES communities are less likely to have the financial resources or time availability to provide
children with academic support.
 Children’s initial reading competence is correlated with the home literacy environment, number of books
owned, and parent distress (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008). However, parents from low-SES communities may be unable
to afford resources such as books, computers, or TUTORS to create this positive literacy environment (Orr, 2003).
 In a nationwide study of American kindergarten children, 36% of parents in the lowest-income quintile read
to their children on a daily basis, compared with 62% of parents from the highest-income quintile (Coley, 2002).
 When enrolled in a program that encouraged adult support, students from low-SES groups reported higher
levels of effort towards academics (Kaylor & Flores, 2008).
SES and the School Environment
Research indicates that school conditions contribute more to SES differences in learning rates than family
characteristics (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008).
 Schools in low-SES communities suffer from high levels of unemployment, migration of the best qualified
teachers, and low educational achievement (Muijs, Harris, Chapman, Stoll, & Russ, 2009).
 A teacher’s years of experience and quality of training is correlated with children’s academic achievement
(Gimbert, Bol, & Wallace, 2007). Yet, children in lowincome schools are less likely to have well-qualified teachers. In
fact, of high school MATH TEACHERS in lowincome school districts 27% majored in mathematics in college as
compared to 43% of teachers who did so in more affluent school districts (Ingersoll, 1999).
 The following factors have been found to improve the quality of schools in low-SES neighborhoods: a focus
on improving teaching and learning, creation of an information-rich environment, building of a learning community,
continuous professional development, involvement of parents, and increased funding and resources (Muijis et al.,
2009).
SES and Academic Achievement
Research continues to link lower SES to lower academic achievement and slower rates of academic progress as
compared with higher SES communities.
 Children from low-SES environments acquire language skills more slowly, exhibit delayed letter recognition
and phonological awareness, and are at risk for reading difficulties (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008).
 Children with higher SES backgrounds were more likely to be proficient on tasks of addition, subtraction,
ordinal sequencing, and math word problems than children with lower SES backgrounds (Coley, 2002).
 Students from low-SES schools entered high school 3.3 grade levels behind students from higher SES
schools. In addition, students from the low-SES groups learned less over 4 years than children from higher SES
groups, graduating 4.3 grade levels behind those of higher SES groups (Palardy, 2008).
 In 2007, the high school dropout rate among persons 16- 24 years old was highest in low-income families
(16.7%) as compared to high-income families (3.2%) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2008).
Psychological Health
Increasing evidence supports the link between lower SES and learning disabilities or other negative psychological
outcomes that affect academic achievement.
 Children from lower SES households are about twice as likely as those from high-SES households to display
learning-related behavior problems. A mother’s SES was also related to her child’s inattention, disinterest, and lack of
cooperation in school (Morgan et al., 2009).
 Identifying as part of a lower/working class in college has been associated with feelings of not belonging in
school and intentions to drop out of school before graduation (Langhout, Drake, & Rosselli, 2009).
 Perception of family economic stress and personal financial constraints affected emotional
distress/depression in students and their academic outcomes (Mistry, Benner, Tan, & Kim, 2009).
What You Can Do
Include SES in your research, practice, and educational endeavors.
 Measure, report, and control for SES in research activities related to education support and academic
achievement.
 Take SES into consideration in all published work. Report participant characteristics related to SES.
 Contribute to the body of research on the educational and societal barriers experienced by students from
low- SES communities and the impact of these barriers on academic achievement and psychological well-being.
 Establish practice opportunities in community settings where students have access to diverse social class
populations.
Get involved.
 Support legislation and policies that explore and work to eliminate socioeconomic disparities. Visit the Office
on Government Relations for more details.
 Become an SES Key Contact! As an expert, advocate for SES-related issues.
 Join APA’s SES Network to contribute to and stay abreast of current developments in SES-related activities.
 Visit APA’s Office on Socioeconomic Status (OSES) website.
 Visit APA’s Children, Youth, and Families office website.

American Psychological Association

http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.aspx

English Language Learners – The Impact of Language and Socio-Cultural

Factors on Learning
English Language Learners: The Impact of Language and Socio-Cultural Factors on Learning
Lori Navarrete, Nevada State College
Silvana M. R. Watson, Old Dominion University
(Revised August 2013)
Our daily educational experiences can be enriched by learning in culturally and linguistically diverse
classrooms because we learn from others whose experiences and beliefs are different than ours. We learn to
communicate effectively and respectfully with individuals of varied backgroundsand then may then think twice
about stereotypes, prejudices, and discriminatory behaviors because we grow as individuals, as stewards of
knowledge, and as change agents. We become good citizens in a pluralistic society.
Our fastest growing diverse population in PreK-12 are English language learners (ELLs) from diverse cultures
and socio-economic backgrounds. By 2030, English language learners (ELLs) will account for approximately
40% of the entire school-age population in the United States (Roseberry-McKibbin & Brice, 2013). ELL
students are spread throughout the country with their proportion of the total public school enrollment varying
greatly by state. In 2010, Nevada had the highest density of ELL enrollment at slightly over 31%, followed
byCalifornia with 25%, New Mexico with 18.5%, and Arizona and Texas with about 15% each (Batalova &
McHugh, 2010).
Educators across the country concede that too few adequate programs exist to address the needs of ELLs with
disabilities (Utley, Obiakor, & Bakken, 2011; Zehler, Fleischman, Hopstock, Pendzick, &Stephenson, 2003).
This InfoSheet contains information drawn from federal regulations and other relevant sources for educators
seeking to address the unique needs of ELLs with academic difficulties.
Who are English Language Learners?
Almost half of all culturally and linguistically diverse PreK-12 students have limited English language proficiency
and are classified as English language learners, formerly known as limited English proficient (LEP)
(Goldenberg, Reese, & Rezaei, 2011). An ELLis one who has to acquire a second or additional language and
culture, a process that can be very challenging. The degree of challenge will depend on the personal,
experiential, and contextual factors students bring to the process as well as how well they regulate the
linguistic, cognitive, social, and emotional tasks required in language and cultural acquisition (Chu, 2011;
Herrera, Perez, & Escamilla, 2010; Marinova-Todd & Uchikoshi, 2011; Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2011).
The ELL student population is not only culturally and linguistically diverse, but also socioeconomically diverse.
Some students come from families with high levels of income and schooling, while others live in poverty or
below poverty and have little formal schooling. This is important to know because family socioeconomic status
and education level influence the academic achievement of students (Goldenberg et al., 2011). Research
indicates that low-income
ELL students are usually behind their peers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds in language and
readiness skills and they need empirically validated and culturally responsive instruction (Cartledge & Kourea,
2008).
What is Involved in Acquiring a Second Language?
Acquiring a second language can be an arduous and slow process. Krashen and Terrell (1983) were the first to
explore stages of second language acquisition and suggested there are five stages that an individual goes
through in learning a second language: preproduction (0-6 months), early production (6 months-1 year), speech
emergent (1-3 years), intermediate fluency (3-5 years), and advanced fluency (5-7 years). Many factors will
influence the development of a second (or third) language such as age at arrival, first language proficiency,
type of instruction including contextualized (i.e., supported by familiar situations and visual cues) and
decontextualized instructional situations, and opportunities to use language (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2006; Flynn &
Hill, 2006).
Cummins (1984) differentiated between social and academic language acquisition and identified different
timelines for each. Under ideal conditions, it takes the average ELL 2 years to acquire Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills (BICS). BICS involves the context–embedded, everyday language that occurs between
conversational partners. On the other hand, Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), or the context-
reduced language of academics, takes 5 to 7 years under ideal conditions to develop to a level commensurate
with that of native speakers. Often, many educators assume that because ELLs have achieved oral language
proficiency in their second language they do not need support in school. However, research has consistently
affirmed that it takes time for students to acquire a second language, at both the BICS and CALP levels, and to
catch up with their monolingual peers (Marinova-Todd & Uchikoshi, 2011). Students must be exposed to rich
learning environments with regular opportunities to practice language and literacy skills in the new language
(Utley et al., 2011).
What is the Difference Between Language Acquisition and a Language-based Learning Disability?
Five percent of all school-age children in public schools have a learning disability. Over half of all students with
a learning disability have a language-based learning disability, many with challenges in reading (Pierangelo&
Giuliani, 2010). Oftentimes ELLs who are in the process of acquiring a second language will experience
language and literacy development challenges similar to their peers with a language learning disability. See
table below (Ortiz, 1992).

Language Acquisition Language Disorder

When children are learning English as a When children have a language impairment
second language: or disorder:

it is typical for their skills in English errors or limited skills in vocabulary,

vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar,
and comprehension to be less well-developedthan their peers
who
pronunciation, grammar, and
speakonly English.
comprehension interfere with
communication in their first language
(L1), compared to peers from the
samelanguage group.

they will acquire English in a their English skills are delayed in

predictable developmental sequence, comparison to peers from the same

similar to younger children who are language group who have been
beginning to learn English. learningEnglish for the same length of time.

reduced opportunities to use their first language may their communication is impaired in

result in loss of
interactions with family members and
others who speak the same language.
competence in L1 before becoming
proficient in English.

they may switch back and forth skills in their first language will be

between L1 and English, using their limited, inappropriate, or confused in

most sophisticated skills in both content, form, or use.
languages within single utterances.

results from assessments conducted inEnglish are assessments conducted in English

unlikely to reflect the child’strue skills and abilities in most will

domains.
be unable to discriminate between
language acquisition and languagedisorder.

On the other hand, it is critical that school personnel be able to predict when an ELL might also be experiencing
a learning disability. If an ELL exhibits patterns of behavior similar to those listed below, then it may suggest a
learning disability (Spear-Swerling, 2006).
 The child has a history of oral language delay or disability in the native language.

· The child has had difficulty developing literacy skills in the native language (assuming adequate instruction in
the native language).
· There is a family history of reading difficulties in parents, siblings, or other close relatives (again, assuming
adequate opportunity to learn to read).
· The child has specific language weaknesses, such as poor phonemic awareness, in the native language as
well as in English. (However, these difficulties may manifest somewhat differently in different languages,
depending on the nature of the written language; for example, Spanish is a more transparent language than
English, so children with phonological weaknesses may decode words more accurately in Spanish than in
English.)
· The child has had research-based, high-quality reading intervention designed for English language learners,
and still is not making adequate progress relative to other, similar English language learners
Referral of an ELL for Special Education Assessment
The increase in the number of ELLs in our nation’s schools requires there to be a structure in place when
referring, assessing, and identifying ELLs for special education services. Each school should have well
developed referral guidelines and procedures as well as knowledgeable professionals who can examine
academic and behavioral concerns from the context of language, culture, and disability. Many schools lack a
comprehensive approach when assessing these students, and educators have difficulties sorting out the
multiple overlapping characteristics of ELLs and students with learning disabilities (Rueda & Windmueller,
2006; Sanchez & Brisk, 2004).
It is important to remember that ELLs are entitled to the same services and interventions as their non-ELL
peers. Response to Intervention (RTI), a critical component of the special education law, ensures equity and
access to education for all students. RTI is a process that schools can use to help children who are struggling
academically or behaviorally.One of its underlying premises is the possibility that a child’s struggles may be due
to inadequacies in instruction or in the curriculum either in use at the moment or in the child’s past. Schools
identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based
interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s
responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities or other disabilities (NICHCY, 2012).
The RTI instructional methods and interventions should be culturally sensitive and address the child’s language
needs. If after receiving high-quality instruction and intervention the ELL student does not demonstrate
improvement, the student should be referred to a screening or intervention team to gather the following
information:
· What is the student’s level of English
language proficiency? Low – Median – High
· What has been the student’s rate of English acquisition?Low – Median – High
· Is the student struggling with cultural and
affective issues? Low – Median – High
· Has the student received instruction that
addresses his or her language and cultural
needs? Low – Median – High
· What is the student’s academic proficiency
level compared to same-age peers?Low –
Median – High
· Has the student received quality instruct-
tion and intervention to meet her or his academic needs?Low – Median – High
· Is there objective evidence of failure to
respond to intervention?
Low – Median – High
If the intervention team determines the ELL’s difficulties are not the result of language acquisition or
acculturation issues, it would be appropriate to refer the student for further assessment in order to determine
eligibility for special education services (Klingner, Artiles, & Méndez Barletta, 2006).
Once the intervention team formally refers the student, a full psycho-educational evaluation must be conducted.
The following guidelines and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA-04), Part
B,(U.S. Department of Education, 2006) must be met:
1. Parents should be notified of the proposed evaluation in their native language and they should be invited to
be a part of the multidisciplinary team. The multidisciplinary team should, at minimum, include parents, general
educators, special educators, and an ESL educator in order to assess whether the weaknesses evidenced by
the student are attributable to inadequate instruction, limited English proficiency, or to a learning disability.
2. A variety of assessment tools and strategies should be employed when gathering relevant functional,
developmental, and academic information about the student. This includes information provided by the parent
on how the child functions at home, developmental milestones, and physical and social behaviors compared to
siblings and peers. It is important to find out from parents if their child had language delays in the native
language. Careful attention should be given to cultural differences and prior schooling experience as well as to
relevant family medical, immigration, and acculturation history.
3. No single measure or assessment can be used as the sole criterion to determine whether the child has a
disability or for determining an appropriate educational program. Teams should gather multiple sources of
information about the student because of the challenges associated with differentiating between language
acquisition difficulty and disability-related characteristics when determining the cause for low achievement.
4. The instruments used in the assessment must be technically sound and help in determining how cognitive,
behavioral, physical, or developmental factors contribute to the child’s learning. This requires that the team
members be knowledgeable about the instruments and their usefulness when assessing ELLs.
4. It is also the responsibility of team members to ensure that the assessments and other evaluation materials
selected and administered are not racially or culturally biased. Team members should gather information from
parents and others familiar with the student so they can better understand the family’s racial and cultural
background, and thus rule out assessments and materials that are inappropriate.
5. Assessment and other evaluation materials must be provided and administered in the child’s native language
and/or other mode of communication (e.g., sign language) and in the modality and language most likely to yield
accurate information about the child’s abilities. The majority of evaluation materials in the U.S. are available
only in English; a few are available in Spanish. Translation of standardized- and norm-referenced tests is not
considered best practice (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2007) because translation affects a test’s validity. In many
instances, alternative assessment techniques such as structured observations, informal inventories, dynamic
assessment, and diagnostic assessment should be incorporated into a comprehensive assessment.
6. Team members should ensure that the assessments and measures are used for the purposes for which they
are designed and thus are reliable and valid. For example, a verbal intelligence measure administered in
English should not be used to assess intelligence if the student has not yet developed adequate verbal skills in
English.
7. The assessment and other evaluation materials must be administered by team members who have been
trained and are knowledgeable of both the instruments and the nuances associated with assessing ELLs.
Schools often lack school-based professional training in the assessment of ELLs. Consequently, team
members with limited knowledge about the acquisition of a new language and a new culture often confuse
differences with disabilities (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). Therefore, it is important that educators be trained
to recognize these differences and exercise caution when interpreting test results.
8. The student should be assessed in all areas of a suspected disability including health, vision, hearing,
general intelligence, academic performance, communication skills, and/or motor abilities. The assessment is a
collaboration amongst all team members, each contributing unique information about the student to help
determine eligibility and an appropriate educational program.
Determining Eligibility
Once the assessment is complete, the team must determine if the ELL meets the criteria for special education
services. These criteria include (a) having a disability, (b) experiencing adverse educational effects as a result
of the disability, and (c) requiring specialized instruction that cannot be provided within a general education
program. If the child is eligible for special education services, the team must begin to structure a program that
meets the child’s academic needs while still providing access to the general curriculum. This means the team
will discuss the best instructional methods that will help the child to continue to develop English proficiency as
well as improve academic skills that will ensure that the child meets the general education curriculum standards
to the greatest degree possible. Once this information is determined, an Individualized Education Program
(IEP) will be written.
Developing an IEP
If the student is found eligible for special education, the next step is to develop an IEP. Information that was
gathered during the evaluation phase should be used to describe present levels of performance, areas of
strengths and weaknesses, the nature of the disability, and its impact on the student’s education. For ELLs, the
assessments results should also provide educators with accurate diagnostic information about the degree to
which the ELL’s level of English proficiency and rate of acquisition can negatively impact performance in the
general education classroom. Furthermore, it should provide information on the student’s academic and ability
levels in his or her primary language and how these compare to those in English. This should result in
developing a program that will make use of the student’s strengths in his or her native language and skills in
order to facilitate the development of the second language. Each case of an ELL will be unique and the IEP will
be individualized for assessment and instruction and will include clearly documented goals and objectives as
well as the educators responsible for providing the services.
Instructional Considerations
English language learners with LD can benefit from interventions known to benefit their ELL peers without
learning disabilities. These interventions include, but are not limited to, building background knowledge, explicit
phonemic awareness and phonics instruction, explicit instruction in comprehension strategies, direct-instruction
in vocabulary, context-embedded instruction, and peer-assisted learning. English language learners require
additional sheltered instruction techniques such as graphic organizers, gestures, visual aids, and memory
strategies to facilitate English comprehension(Spear-Swerling, 2006).
Resources for Teachers
The following is a list of informal assessments for determining English language proficiency and acculturation
status of ELLs. The assessment tools may be used by the intervention team when compiling information about
an ELL who is being considered for a special education evaluation.
1. Acculturation Quick Screen. (2003). Published by CrossCultural Developmental Education Service,
Ferndale, WA. Available at www.crosscultured.com
2. Checklistof Language Skills for Use with Limited English Proficient Students.
http://www.k12.wa.us/SPECIALED/pubdocs/culturally_linguistically_diverse/limited_english_proficient_checklist
.pdf
3. Classroom Language Interaction Checklist. (2002). Published by CrossCultural Developmental Education
Service, Ferndale, WA. Available at www.crosscultured.com
4. Resiliency Checklist. (2002). Published by CrossCultural Developmental Education Service, Ferndale, WA.
Available at www.crosscultured.com
5. Sociocultural Checklist. (2002). Published by CrossCultural Developmental Education Service, Ferndale,
WA. Available at www.crosscultured.com
6. Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) (1985). Developed by San Jose U.S.D., San Jose, CA.
Available at http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/LangAssessmtMMdl
7. ELL Starter Kit for Educators: Tools for Monitoring Language Skills. Available
athttp://www.colorincolorado.org/pdfs/guides/ellstarterkit.pdf
References
Batalova, J.,& McHugh, M. (2010). States and districts with the highest number and share of English language
learners.Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
Cartledge, G., & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally responsive classrooms for culturally diversestudents with and at
risk for disabilities.Exceptional Children, 74, 351-371.
Chu, S-Y. (2011). Perspectives in understanding the schooling and achievement of students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds.Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38, 201-209. Retrieved
fromhttp://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/76117156/perspectives-understanding-schooling-achievement-
students-from-culturally-linguistically-diverse-backgrounds
Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy.Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Diaz-Rico, L. T., & Weed, K. Z. (2006).The crosscultural, language, and academic development handbook: A
complete K-12 reference guide (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: PearsonEducation.
Flynn, K. M., & Hill, J. D. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English language learners. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Goldenberg, C., Reese, L.,& Rezaei, A.(2011).Contexts for language and literacy development among dual-
language learners.In A. Y. Durgunoglu & C. Goldenberg (Eds.),Language and literacy development in bilingual
settings (pp. 3-23).New York, NY:Guilford.
Herrera, S. G., Perez, D. R., & Escamilla, K. (2010). Teaching reading to English language learners:
Differentiated literacy. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A.J., & Méndez Barletta, L. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading:
Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108-128.
Krashen, S. D.,& Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. London,
England: Prentice Hall Europe.
Marinova-Todd, S. H., & Uchikoshi, Y. (2011). The role of first language in oral languagedevelopment in
English.In A. Y. Durgunoglu &C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual settings (pp. 29-60).
New York, NY: Guilford.
NICHCY (2012).Response to intervention. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/schools-administrators/rti
Ortiz, A. (1992). Considerations in the assessment of language minority students with communication
disorders. In W. A. Secord & J. S. Damico (Eds.), Best practices in school speech language pathology:
Descriptive/non-standardized language assessment (pp. 107-113). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corp.
Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. B. (2011).Dual language development and disorders: A handbook of
bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Brooks.
Pierangelo, R.,& Giuliani, G. (2010). Prevalence of learning disabilities.Retrieved
fromwww.education.com/reference/article/prevalence-learning-disabilities
Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S., & Ortiz, S. (2005).Assessing culturally and linguistically diversestudents. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Roseberry-McKibbin, C., & Brice, A. (2013).What’s ‘normal,’ what’s not: Acquiring English as a second
language. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/5126
Rueda, R., & Windmueller, M. P. (2006). English language learners, LD, and overrepresentation: A multiple-
level analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 99-107.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2007).Assessment in special and inclusive education (10th ed.).Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Sanchez, M., & Brisk, M. (2004).Teacher’s assessment practices and understandings in abilingual
program.NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2, 193-208.
Spear-Swerling, L. (2006).Learning disabilities in English Language Learners. Retrieved
fromwww.ldonline.org/spearswerling/Learning_Disabilities_in_English_Language_Learners
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities
program and preschool grants for children with disabilities: Final rule.Federal Register, 34, CRF Parts 300 and
301.
Utley, C. A., Obiakor, F. E., & Bakken, J. P. (2011). Culturally responsive practices for culturally and linguistically
diverse students with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 9, 5-18.
Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pendzick, M. L., & Stephenson, T. G. (2003).Descriptive study
of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities.(No. 4). Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of English language Acquisition (OELA).

©2013 Council for Learning Disabilities.

CLD grants permission to copy this article for educational purposes.
Other InfoSheets are available on our website
(http://www.council-for-learning-disabilities.org/publications/infosheets).

Council for Learning Disabilities

11184 Antioch Road
Box 405
Overland Park, KS 66210
Challenges for Immigrant Children--SES

Socioeconomic Status and Its Influence on Children?

A family's socioeconomic status (SES) is based on family income, parental education level, parental
occupation, and family’s social status in the community. Parents of high socioeconomic background
often have more success in preparing their children for school because they typically have access to a
wide range of resources to promote and support their children’s learning such as high-quality child care,
books, and toys. Also, parents of this group can easily provide their children with rich health care, which
has an important role in children’s social, emotional, and cognitive well-being.

In contrast, the families with low socioeconomic status often lack financial, social, and educational
supports for their children. They have limited access to community resources that can support and
enhance children’s school preparation. McCormic and Mason (1986) found that only half of
preschoolers from low-SES have alphabet books in their homes, compared to 97% of children with
professional parents. Furthermore, the parents from low class background are less able to provide their
children with health care. Zill et al. (1995) also found that having inadequate resources and limited
access to helpful resources can negatively affect their children’s development and learning.

How Many Children are Facing Poverty Today?

It has been clearly mentioned that SES is one of the leading factors that places a significant impact on
children’s learning. Today, there are many children in U.S. including immigrants and minorities who are
facing this inevitable predicament. The 2000 U.S. Census reported that there are approximately 15
millionchildren who are living in poverty and about 15 % of these children are living under extremely poor
conditioned neighborhood (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2004). A number of studies have reported that
children and adolescents who live in deprived neighborhoods do more poorly in school compared to
other students who are from advantaged neighborhoods.
More current poverty data and statistics can be found in U.S. Census Bureau.

How Does SES Affect Immigrants and Minority Children?

The Yearbook of Immigration Statistics reported in 2004 that there were more than 900,000 (946,142 to
be exact) immigrants who were admitted as lawful permanent residents in United States. Among the
admitted immigrants in 2004, approximately 185,071 or about 10 percent were school-aged children
between ages of 5 to 19.

Immigrant children from low socioeconomic background also face many challenges in school such as
learning difficulties, communication skills, higher rates of drop out, poor academic performance, summer
loss, and many other academic related issues. It has been researched and clearly stated that the limited
accessibility to available resources can clearly mark the difference in school preparation and emergent
literacy of immigrant children.

Moreover, most parents of immigrant families are dual-employed and do not speak English. Since
immigrants parents in low-SES have to work many hours trying to earn their ends meet, many children
are left at home by themselves after-school without any adult supervision. Willwerth (1993) found that
there are about 10 million children under age 13 who are left to care for themselves after-school. The
parents of these children do not have time or may not have adequate skills for activities as reading
books to their children or helping them with homework. Also, they may lack information about available
resources for their children. Cosden et al. (2001) found that adult support is positively correlated with
children’s academic performance, whereas limited adult supervision is a risk factor that is associated
with children’s negative behaviors.

Although there have been a growing number of studies that found negative correlation between low-SES
and children’s learning, it cannot be generalized across all immigrant groups. According to Schmid
(2001), Asian groups seem to adjust better than Hispanic groups. The reason being is that there are
multiple factors other than SES that interact together to affect academic achievement of different
immigrant groups in different ways. The several factors that Schmid identified are SES, cultural
characteristics, social reception, language proficiency, and gender. For instance, most Asian groups are
voluntary immigrants who are more likely to receive better social reception than involuntary immigrants,
Mexican-Americans. Schmid found that the negative reception makes Mexican immigrants to feel more
threatening toward schools and teachers. More information on the different factors that affect the
academic achievement of Asian and Latino immigrant and second-generation students can be found
inNorth Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
difficulties in school, then to provide and support them with any available academic interventions.
Moreover, the school should initiate communications with immigrant families to inform them what
programs are available and to plan over the student’s learning needs. In response, at least one of the
parents should be actively involved to encourage and to give support in their children’s school
performance. A parent should also plan to monitor their children after-school whenever it is possible.

Some Vital Statistics of Immigrant Families by Urban Institute in 2001

Population

- 10 % of the U.S. population are immigrants

- 20 % of the U.S. children are children of an immigrant
- The number of immigrant families with children grew by 15 % between 1995 and 2000

Children of immigrants with economic disadvantages

- 26 % of children living in a low-income family with an income below the poverty level
- 50% of immigrant families with children had incomes below twice the poverty level in 2002, compared
to only 33% of native families
- 33 % of immigrant children are without insurance
- Immigrant children are more likely to lack usual source of medical care
- Immigrant children are more likely to face food insecure

Young Soon
University of Michigan
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.son/s.e.s.