Gibson Ferguson Language Planning and Education Edinburgh ...

44 Language Planning and Education
monies to states replaces a system of competitive federal grants. One consequence
is that state education agencies have greater control over disbursement
decisions, meaning they can fund programs of their preference.
4. Funding for programs for LEP students is increased (to at least $650 million
annually). 11
5. Accountability provisions are tightened. Schools are assessed annually on the
percentage of LEP students reclassified as ‘English fluent’.
6. All education programs, including those for LEP students, should be informed
by ‘scientifically based’ research.
7. A three-year time limit on enrolment in ‘bilingual programs’ is set, after which
the child should transfer to a mainstream class.
8. The Federal Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs
(OBEMLA) is retitled the Office of English Language Acquisition, Language
Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient
Students (OELA) (Crawford 2002).
A number of commentators (e.g. Crawford 2002, Evans and Hornberger 2005) see
in these changes a retreat from the bilingual education provision made available
under Title VII, and certainly it would appear that the Act does strengthen the
emphasis on English language acquisition at the expense of the development of home
language skills. That said, it is too early yet, perhaps, to assess its longer-term impact.
This brief overview has, of course, focused on federal policy and on legislation
rather than implementation, both of which are significant restrictions in view of
Ricento’s (1998: 92) claim that there has been ‘inadequate planning and allocation
of resources to effectively implement legislative or judicial remedies’. The consequence
has been hesitant and uncertain compliance with federal mandates.
A somewhat similar point is made by Macias (2000: 41), who points out that ‘the
language needs of many LEP students are not being addressed, most are taught
entirely in English, and there are not enough qualified teachers for either bilingual
or English as a second language instruction’. Federal funding for LEP students has
certainly increased, but it has never kept pace with the growth in LEP enrolments,
as confirmed by Gandara (1999), who reports from California that in 1997, contrary
to the Lau ruling, between 20 and 25 per cent of LEP students received no special
educational services. She also says that only around 30 per cent of LEP students were
in a bilingual program, and that over the decade leading up to 1996 the ratio
of bilingual teachers fell from 1:70 to 1:98. Related research (e.g. Gandara and
Rumberger 2003) suggests meanwhile that underqualified teachers are much more
likely to be found in schools serving poor or minority children. 12
Such figures certainly undermine the assertions made by Proposition 227’s
supporters about the failure of bilingual education. Far from failing, it would seem
that in California at least the majority of LEP learners have never experienced
bilingual education.
By way of conclusion to this section, we highlight two general trends that seem to
emerge out of the historical detail. First, notwithstanding the fluctuations between