Background: In the late eighties documented inequities in educational opportunities for linguistic minority students in Florida's schools prompted the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), joined by other minority community groups, to bring suit against the Florida Department of Education (DOE) on behalf of those students. In 1990 LULAC and the DOE entered into a consensual relationship, jointly drafting an ESOL (English to speakers of other languages) Agreement having several components that mandate identification and monitoring of students, inclusion of limited English proficient (LEP) students in categorical programs, staff development, and the incorporation of ESOL strategies into content instruction. That far-reaching agreement has resulted in a district-by-district, school-by-school effort to comply with the mandate - most significantly, massive inservice to re-certify teachers, and the creation of the Office of Minority and Second Language Education (OMSLE) in the DOE. This office monitors the progress of LEP students at all levels, maintains a database at all levels, supports schools' implementation plans, and recommends ESOL program policy for the districts.

The Problem: The topic discussed here is that of inclusion, addressed from the perspectives of the field in general, and from Florida's school districts, as reported by ESOL administrators responsible for compliance with their districts' ESOL plans and DOE regulations. The inclusion policy is being promoted widely and is rapidly replacing other models; this type of model to be successful requires the diffusion of responsibility for the progress of LEP students among school personnel than more specialized programming does. For these reasons my colleague at the University of Florida, Candace Harper, and I have, through a variety of means, been investigating the effectiveness of ESOL programming for LEP students in Florida's districts since the mid-nineties. Our research findings lead us to question whether the promotion of any single instructional model is warranted at this time.

Special education/ESOL differences in favoring inclusion model: While for the field of special education historical, philosophical and legal factors strongly promote the inclusion of special students in 'least restrictive environments' for as much of their school experience as possible (HB 142), for the field of ESOL matters are not quite so clear. Legal and legislative precedents (Lau v Nichols, 1964; Bilingual Education Acts, 1974, 1984) have intended to assure that LEP students receive 'meaningful instruction,' variously interpreted as occurring either in students' home languages or in English language that is simplified to the proficiency level of the students. Thus, while special educators are prepared to see inclusion as the right of all their prospective students and the preferred school model, ESOL teachers have been traditionally prepared for a pull-out setting, with some in the profession favoring bilingual or dual language instruction (Cummins, 1981; Collier, 1989; Baca & de Valenzuela, 1998; Cloud, Genessee, & Hamayan, 2000), and others tacitly supporting pull-out ESOL approaches within more comprehensive diversity-oriented, school-based structures (Genessee, 1999; August & Pease-Alvarez, 1996). In either case, learners are separated from their classmates for at least part of the school day. An unfortunate consequence of the pullout scenario has historically been the lack of adequate transition to mainstream content settings for the students, and the subsequent avoiding of responsibility for teaching LEP students by non-ESOL teachers. This state of affairs contributed to Florida's LULAC lawsuit in 1989.

Previous research on inclusion: (Full) inclusion is defined in the special education literature as "the practice of serving special needs students within the general education setting with all appropriate services provided in mainstream classrooms" (Harper & Platt, 1998, p. 31). Research on the inclusion model suggests that they can be successful when adequate knowledge is available, personnel are trained, and curricular resources exist for the mainstream teacher. Our own earlier reportage included discussion of the results of a survey of Florida's teachers and teacher trainers (Harper, 1995), and summaries of case studies conducted in Florida (Platt & Troudi, 1997; Copenhaver, 1995), an extensive review of the literature on problems and potentials for inclusion, and an extensive review of the literature on problems and possibilities for inclusion (Platt & Harper, 1997; Harper & Platt, 1998). Three major expectations must be met in order for successful inclusion of special needs and LEP students to occur: comprehensible instruction, opportunities for participation and interaction, and an appropriate curriculum. Our Florida-based research revealed that, like situations elsewhere for LEP students (Harklau, 1994), the requisite conditions do not necessarily obtain. Additional concerns include adequate teacher training, positive teacher attitudes, and sufficient resources to support students in inclusion settings. Unfortunately, the top-down way in which the ESOL Agreement was implemented meant that teachers bore the major burden, being pushed to complete inservice hours quickly, to make several changes in their instructional methods, and to accept children they did not always feel well prepared to teach. Unfortunately, resentment of the Agreement has sometimes resulted in negative attitudes toward the LEP children as well.   

Current research on program models: Despite our misgivings about the inclusion model, we lacked focused, systematically collected data from the districts. Thus, in 1999, with funding from University of Florida Project EXCEL and the Sunshine State TESOL organization, we conducted a survey of Florida's ESOL administrators seeking answers to these questions:

• What percentage of your elementary (K-5) and secondary (6-12) LEP students are being served through each of the program models: ESOL pullout, ESOL classroom (elem only), inclusion classroom, sheltered content (sec only) and bilingual or home language instruction?
• What three areas do you feel represent the most important issues in meeting the needs of LEP students in your district today: Identification and assessment of LEP students, Instructional program models serving LEP students, LEP student access to categorical and other programs, Administrative services for LEP students (placement, monitoring, etc.), LEP student progress in English language development and/or academic achievement, Staff development for content area and language arts teachers of LEP students, Changes in responsibilities for all teachers of LEP students, Other issues (please describe)?

Responding to that survey were 44 ESOL coordinators from districts of every size. For the purposes of capturing the data in a more meaningful way, we grouped districts of similar size, with the breakdown shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Categories of Florida School Districts (responses to SST survey received)

________________________________________________________________________

Category 1:     8000 LY students                    5 districts

Category 2:     1000 - 7,999 LY students       10 districts

Category 3:     400 - 999 LY students            6 districts

Category 4:     30 - 399 LY students              11 districts

Category 5:     30 LY students.                       12 districts

________________________________________________________________________

Figures 1 - 4 below show the program options districts selected for 60% or more of their LY students. LY is the classification used by the Florida DOE to refer to LEP students enrolled in classes specifically designed or adapted for their needs. (It should be noted that some districts provide more than one program service for any given student, so the charts should be read accordingly.) Figures 1 and 2 portray programming in elementary and secondary schools respectively in Category 1 and 2 districts. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the figures for elementary and secondary schools respectively in Category 3 and 4 districts. For Category 5 districts inclusion was the only option reported at both elementary and secondary levels. 

As the charts reveal, most of the larger districts provide more than one program option for the majority of their LEP students, and in the larger districts there are more options than in the smaller ones. We also see that more programs are available for students at elementary than at secondary levels, particularly in the larger districts. Moreover, even in districts with the largest variety of programs available, few bilingual services are offered to a majority of the LY students. Speaking more generally, the overall findings clearly show that inclusion is the most frequently selected option for all levels, with the exception of the equal prominence of the ESOL pullout model at the elementary level in the Category 1 and 2 districts.

Figure 1. Program options for school districts in Categories 1 and 2: Elementary

Figure 2. Program options for school districts in Categories 1 and 2: Secondary

Figure 3. Program options for school districts in Categories 3 and 4: Elementary

Findings about major concerns: Keeping in mind that the inclusion model is the most widely practiced, and the one favored by the Florida DOE/OMSLE, we see that the ESOL administrators ranked the following three issues of top concern: 1) LEP student progress in English language development and academic achievement, 2) staff development for content area and language arts teachers of LEP students, and 3) instructional program models for LEP students. The data for this part of the report were taken both from the returned surveys and from explanations provided in follow-up telephone and face-to-face interviews with some 30 of the administrators (Harper & Platt, 1998).

With respect to LEP student progress, many concerns were related to assessment and the inappropriate nature of the instruments being used to assess content knowledge. The route toward second language learning being different from that followed by a native speaker, the progress achieved by LEP students in English language development, while considerable, is not usually sufficient for them to express knowledge adequately in the content areas, nor are the means to assess reading and other linguistic knowledge the same as for native speakers. Several of those interviewed said they would prefer that content knowledge be assessed through students' home languages. The requirement that LEP students participate in FCAT and other statewide tests after only two years also exerts undue pressure on districts to force students into the standardized testing mode early. This is particularly difficult for migrant or refugee students who come to Florida's schools with inadequate academic backgrounds, as well as limited English proficiency. 

The survey and interviews verified the concern we had expressed in our earlier work about the nature of the staff development component of the ESOL Agreement. If inclusion is to be successful, much rests on the quality of the inservice, the teachers' willingness to participate, and the follow-up to monitor the use of ESOL strategies in the classroom. Although some districts had provided good inservice programs, in others teachers were simply given a series of training videos and told to watch them on their own; such a practice demonstrates the importance some districts place on the LEP student and the quality of his or her education. Finally, with respect to program models, the greatest concern was expressed about the inclusion model and how its success essentially rests on the efforts of the individual teacher, rather than on a program or a small group of ESOL professionals. Some of those surveyed said that even well-meaning ESOL-trained teachers could not adequately provide effective instruction for high need LEP students in large mainstream classrooms without adequate support (e.g., teaching assistants, native language materials, additional planning time). And even where good results were reported with inclusion, administrators would have preferred a wider array of options such as newcomer programs, sheltered content classes, and bilingual programs. 

Concluding remarks: In conclusion, our research has clearly demonstrated that despite the soundness of the rationale for inclusion of LEP students in the full program of the schools, there remain many obstacles to quality implementation in Florida. Our research has put us in touch with the administrators best positioned to comment on these programs and LEP students' progress. Experts in the English as a second language teaching field generally recommend that a wide array of program options remain available for the many kinds of LEP students that enter our schools (Short, 1998): from those with elite educational backgrounds in their home countries, to those with almost no literacy and innumeracy, or to those severely traumatized by war or separation from family members. This researcher, along with counterparts in the profession both here and outside Florida, strongly believes that the promotion of any one program model to the exclusion of other options is ill-advised at this time. Otherwise, the inequities that were to be remedied with the 1990 ESOL Agreement will persist.

References

August, D. & Pease-Alvarez, L. (1996). Attributes of effective programs and classrooms serving English language learners. Technical report funded by the U. S. Dept. of Education, OERI. Santa Cruz, CA: The National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.

Baca, L. & de Valenzuela, J. S. (1998). Background and rationale for bilingual special education, Ch. 1. In L. M. Baca, & H. T. Cervantes (Eds.), The bilingual special education interface, Third edition.(pp. 2-25). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Cloud, N., Genessee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched education.  Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Collier, V. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 509-531.

Copenhaver, J. (1995). Portfolio of an L2 learner. Unpublished manuscript. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (p. 3-49). Sacramento, CA: Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education, California State Department of Education.

Genesee, F. (Ed.) (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. (Educational Practice Report 1). University of California, Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 241-272.

Harper, C. (1995). An evaluation of ESOL inservice training in Florida. Technical report. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Harper, C., & Platt, E. J. (1999). Florida's LEP student programs and issues: A clear

picture or chaos? Sunshine State TESOL Journal, 7(5), pp. 30-36. 

Harper, C. A. & Platt, E. J. (1998). Full inclusion for secondary ESOL students: Some concerns from Florida.  TESOL Journal, 7(5), 30-36. Lau v Nichols (1974). 414 U. S. 563; 39L ED 2d 1, 94 S. Ct. 786. LULAC v Florida DOE. (1989). 

OMSLE. (2000). 1998-1999 ESOL annual report - State synopsis. 
http://www.firn.edu/doe/bin00011/9899tot.html. Tallahassee, FL: Florida DOE.

Platt, E. J. & Harper, C. (1997). Problems and possibilities of full inclusion of LEP students in mainstream Florida classrooms. Sunshine State TESOL Journal, fall. 

Platt, E. J. & Troudi, S. (1997). Mary and her teachers: A Grebo-speaking child's place in the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal, 81(1), 28-49.

Short, D. (1998). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. Center for Applied Linguistics/CREDE, Santa Cruz, CA.