Volume 39 Number 2 2013 NATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Official Journal of the National Social Science Association Name of Publication: NATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Issue: Volume 39 # 2 ISSN 2154-1736 Frequency: Quarterly Office of Publication: National Social Science Association Mailing Address 2020 Hills Lake Drive El Cajon CA 92020 Association Office 9131 Fletcher Parkway, Suite 119 La Mesa CA 91942 On Line journals: http://nssa.us e-mail address: [email protected]; [email protected] The National Social Science Journal is being abstracted in: Cabell's Directory; Eric Clearinghouse; EBSCO, Economic Abstracts; Historical Abstracts; Index to Periodical Articles; Social Science Source; Social Science Index; Sociological Abstracts; the University Reference System. We wish to thank all authors for the licensing of the articles. And we wish to thank all those who have reviewed these articles for publication This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Editor, Lem Railsback EDITORIAL BOARD Editorial Board: Nancy Adams., Lamar University Mark Bellnap, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Richard Bieker, Delaware State University Benita Bruster, Austin Peay University Jose da Cruz, Armstrong Atlantic State University Robert Dewhirst, Northwest Missouri State University Amy Shriver Dreussi, University of Akron Jack Covarrubias, University of Southern Mississippi Talitha Hudgins, Utah Valley University Calvin Meyer, Dalton State College James Mbuva, National University Barbara Peterson, Austin Peay University Pegly Vaz, Fort Hays State University NATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Volume 39 #2 Table of Contents Educators’ Knowledge of English Language Learners Nancy J. Adams, Nancy Leffel Carlson, Pamela Monk, Vance Cortrez-Rucker, Lamar University 1 The Prospects for Statehood and Unity in Palestine Daniel Baracskay, Valdosta State University 9 Anything but Primary! Fostering Historical Inquiry with Library of Congress Primary Sources Ruth S. Busby , Troy University 20 The Ethics of High Deductible Health Care: How Can This Model Square With Societal Values and Health System Reform? Richard J. Dahlkemper, Weber State University 30 Now How Am I S’posed to Know That? Addressing the Neglected “R” in Teacher Education Betty Duncan , Lamar University 39 Collaboration in the Workplace: Issues and Resolutions Jack J. Hourcade, Holly Anderson, Boise State University 45 Applied Social Sciences and Public Health in Disaster Response: Comparative Analysis of New Orleans, Haiti, and Japan James A. Johnson, Central Michigan University James Allen Johnson III, Georgia Southern University 52 Sparking Girls’ Interest in Technology: The NSF Tri-IT Project LaDonna K. Morris, Linda J. Austin, Amaya M. Davis, Florida State College at Jacksonville 60 Special Needs Students as Bully Targets Charles E. Notar, Sharon Padgett, Jacksonville State University 70 Enhancing Language Learning Opportunities in Family Contexts for Young Learners With or At Risk for Communicative Developmental Delay: An Initial Investigation Juli Lull Pool, Deborah Russell Carter, Jack J. Hourcade, Boise State University 75 The Brief Return of Nurses to Television Drama: What Went Wrong? Dianna Lipp Rivers, Kenneth Troy Rivers, Lamar University 89 The Rise of the Extreme Right-The Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik) Marcus Stadelmann, The University of Texas at Tyler 97 Student Paper Competition Winner – Graduate Legal and Political Issues faced by Turkey in Becoming A Member of European Union Riza Dogan, Larry Carstenson, University of Nebraska at Kearney 104 Film Review “Ethel” Ben Miles, Art Institute of California 124 Educators’ Knowledge of English Language Learners Nancy J. Adams Nancy Leffel Carlson Pamela Monk Vance Cortrez-Rucker Lamar University Purpose The study examined educators’ understanding of the educational laws and guidelines of federal and state agencies governing the English Language Learner (ELL) population. Information gleaned from the survey provided a basis for identifying professional development needs of educators of English Language Learners and the schools they serve. Background Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S.563, 569 (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the United States Department of Education (USDOE) memorandum of May 25, 1970 which directed school districts to take steps to help limited-English proficient (LEP) students overcome language barriers and to ensure their meaningful participation in the district's educational programs (USDOE, 2005). This federal law required programs that educate children with limited English proficiency to be (a) based on a sound educational theory, (b) adequately supported, with adequate and effective staff and resources to support a realistic chance of success, and (c) periodically evaluated and, if necessary, revised (USDOE, 2005). Definition The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 defined limited English proficient students as, “…ages 3-21, enrolled in elementary or secondary education, often born outside the United States or speaking a language other than English in their homes, and not having sufficient mastery of English to meet state standards and excel in an English-language classroom” (USDOE, 2001). The term limited English proficient (LEP) and English language learner (ELL), were both used to describe students who are not native speakers of English and whose English language skills are such that the student has difficulty performing ordinary class work in English (USDOE, 2005). Literature Review English Language Learners According to the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (2011), approximately 5.4 million English Language Learners were enrolled in grades pre-K through 12 in the 2008-2009 school year, an increase of more than fifty-one percent since 1997-1998. Non-English-speaking students were the fastest growing subgroup of children among public school populations, increasing approximately 10 percent annually (McCardle, 2005). While more than 400 languages were spoken by this group, approximately eighty percent spoke Spanish as their native language (NCELA, 2011). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (USDOE, 2001) mandated that students meet state standards, that classrooms be staffed with highly qualified teachers, and that parents be notified in their native languages of their children’s progress. Schools were mandated by NCLB to disaggregate the performance of LEP children on standardized tests. Title III of NCLB mandated that states improve the English proficiency of LEP students (USDOE, 2005). 1 Home Language According to the 2000 census, about six in seven LEP students at the elementary level lived in linguistically isolated households, meaning homes where everyone over age 14 was Limited English Proficient (LEP). This pointed to the need for translation and interpretation assistance to help meet NCLB parental involvement requirements. It also emphasized the importance of involving limited English speaking families in the education of their children as mandated by NCLB (Capps, Fix, Murray, Ost, Passel, & Herwantoro, 2005). School Responsibility Under Title I and Title III, NCLB provided more than $13 billion (FY 04 funding) for LEP students for English language acquisition and academic achievement (Ed.Gov, 2004). Title III, Part A, Section 3102, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (USDOE, 2001), aimed to ensure that English language learners (ELL) and immigrant students attained English language proficiency and met the same challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards as all children were expected to meet. According to the Office of Civil Rights (USDOE, 2005), limited English proficient (LEP) students who were not offered services to assist in overcoming language barriers may experience repeated failure in the classroom, fall behind in grade levels, drop out of school, may be inappropriately placed in special education classes, and not have access to high track courses or Gifted and Talented programs. Parents could choose to decline ELL services, and “when that occurs, the district retains a responsibility to ensure that the student has an equal opportunity to have his or her English language and academic needs met” in a variety of ways, “such as adequate training to classroom teachers on second language acquisition and monitoring the educational progress of the student” (USDOE, 2005). Limited English Proficient Classification Limited English Proficient (LEP) classification changed as students gained language proficiency. Its’ membership changed from year-to-year with language proficient students exiting each year and new LEP students entering each year. ELL students were provided alternative services until they were proficient enough in English to participate meaningfully in the regular program. To determine whether a child was ready to exit, a district considered factors such as the “student’s ability to keep up with their non-ELL peers in the regular education program and their ability to participate successfully without the use of adapted or simplified English materials; moreover, exit criteria must include some objective measure of a student's ability to read, write, speak and comprehend English” (USDOE, 2005.) The Study Research Design A non-experimental basic research design using