The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Education HOW THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT IMPACTED BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN A RURAL SCHOOL WITH NAVAJO STUDENTS A Thesis in Educational Leadership by Melanie Lee Haskan © 2007 Melanie Lee Haskan Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2007 The thesis of Melanie Lee Haskan was reviewed and approved * by the following: John W. Tippeconnic, III Professor of Education Thesis Adviser Chair of Committee Nona A. Prestine Professor of Education Professor-In-Charge of Graduate Programs in Educational Leadership Edgar P. Yoder Professor of Agricultural and Extension Education Susan C. Faircloth Assistant Professor of Education *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT How the No Child Left Behind Act Impacted Bilingual Education in a Rural School with Navajo Students This study focused on how educational policies can bring about change within school systems. This case study presents an analysis of one school on the Navajo Nation to determine if the implementation of No Child Left Behind at Rock Point Community School (RPCS) has changed the way bilingual education is delivered to students. Data collection included reviewing relevant documents and interviews with 15 participants at the school. The findings of the study indicate that the bilingual program used at Rock Point Community School before the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act was not clearly identified or perceived by the school participants. After No Child Left Behind there was a clearer understanding of the type of bilingual education program being used at the school. Also, there was more of an emphasis on learning the English language and making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). In other words, the Partial Immersion bilingual program was better known but its effectiveness seems to be less because of limited Navajo language use, there was an increased emphasis on learning the English language, and pressure to make AYP. There was more parental involvement with stable leadership before No Child Left Behind. After No Child Left Behind parents were less involved with the bilingual program and the leadership was not stable. Additionally, funding sources for bilingual education are limited thus minimizing bilingual education programs and the usage of the Navajo language for instruction. The findings in this study indicate a need for additional research on the partial iv immersion program to gain reliable evidence that would prove that it is an effective method in helping the children at RPCS learn the same rigorous content as other children across the United States. Also, stable, quality leadership is needed. Policy and practice implications are also discussed. v TABLE OF CONTENTS I. CHAPTER I………………………………………………………...……………… 1 Introduction………………………………………………………........................... 1 Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………. 2 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………. 3 Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………………. 4 Figure I. Conceptual Framework…………………………………............................5 Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………5 Definition of Terms………………………………………………............................7 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..8 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………………..... 9 Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 9 Historical Overview of Bilingual Education………………………………………..10 Bilingual Education and Native Americans………………………………………... 23 Bilingual Education and the Navajos………………………………………………. 37 Elementary and Secondary Education Act………………………………………….43 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. ……………… 48 III. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………….50 Introduction………………………………………………………. …………………50 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………51 Site Section Criteria…………………………………………………………………53 Site Selection………………………………………………………………………...53 vi Data Collection………………………………………………………………………54 Document Analysis………………………………………………………………… 56 Triangulation……………………………………………………………………….. 57 Limitation………………………………………………………….. ……………… 58 IV. A PORTRAIT OF THE NAVAJO NATION……………...……………………….59 Introduction………………………………………………………............................ 59 Description of the Navajo Nation….………………………………………………..59 The Diné Culture.…………………………………………………………………...70 A Portrait of Rock Point Community School ………………………………………77 The Research Site…………………………………………………………………...77 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….103 V. THE ANALYSIS PROCESS……………………………………………………….104 Results and Analysis of Findings…………………………………………………...104 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………104 Findings………………………………………………………………………….….108 Table I. Percentages of Navajo and English languages used…………………….…112 Summary……………………………………………………………………………121 VI. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS…………………………........................... 124 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..124 Figure II. Corn Plant Analogy……………………………………............................126 Figure III. Hogan/White House……………………………………. ……………....127 Implications for Research…………………………………………..........................129 vii Implications for Practice……………………………………………………………130 Implications for Policy……………………………………………...........................131 Summary……………………………………………………………………………132 REFERENCES……………………………………………………. ………………133 Appendix A: Organizational Chart…………………………………………………143 Appendix B: Color Codes…………………………………………………………. 144 Appendix C: Field Log……………………………………………………………. 145 Appendix D: Frequency/Member Check………………………….. ………………146 Appendix E: Observations………………………………………………………….147 Appendix F: Interview Protocol with Alternative Questions……………………... 148 Appendix G: Focused Interview Questions for Participants……………………….149 Appendix H: Interview Questions for Budget Technician…………………………154 Appendix I: Interview Questions for the Principal……………….......................... 156 Appendix J: Open-ended Interview Questions for Six Bilingual Teachers…..…...161 Appendix K: Coding-Start List………………………………….………………… 162 Appendix L: Table A1-A5 Quotes According to Topics in Coding……….………165 Appendix M: Table B1-B5 Conversions……………………………………………178 Appendix N: Table C1-C5 Graphs from Conversions………….…...……………..188 Appendix O: Chart 1.0 Bilingual Program Topics………….……..........................193 Appendix P: Table 1.0: Bilingual Program before NCLB………........................... 194 Appendix Q: Table 1.1: Bilingual Program after NCLB………….. ………………195 Appendix R: Map of Rock Point Community School Grounds…...………………196 viii Appendix S: Informed Consent Form………………………….…………………. 197 Appendix T: Data Sources…………………………………………………………199 1 CHAPTER I Introduction Bilingual education has not been free from controversies, both in the political spectrum and in the world of education. Stabilizing its reputation has been an on-going struggle between proponents and opponents of bilingual education for decades. Advocates have fought for public acceptance while its opponents pushed for English-only in classroom instruction as well as a national language. Advocates claim that teaching speakers in their native language shows that “children advance further in both English and other academic subjects when native-language instruction is used and the transition to English is very gradual” (Rothstein, 1998, p.301). Opponents favor the idea of transition to the English language as quick as possible by immersing limited English proficient students in English only classrooms from the time they are enrolled in school. Other issues that are of public concern about bilingual education are allocation of fiscal resources, effectiveness, and how the changes in No Child Left Behind affect bilingual programs in schools. The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 is noted as the first official federal recognition of the needs of students with limited English speaking ability. This Act is known as Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The Act evolved from court litigations such as Lau v. Nichols, 1974; the Equal Opportunity Act of 1964; and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. The Bilingual Education Act provided fiscal support to school districts to improve educational opportunities and the way language-minority children were taught in schools in the United States. 2 The No Child Left Behind Act known as H.R. 1, was passed into law by the House on December 13 and the Senate on December 18, 2002. The legislation states the following: It incorporates the principles and strategies proposed by President Bush. These include increased accountability for States, school districts, and schools; greater choice for parents and students, particularly those attending low-performing schools; more flexibility for states and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the use of Federal education dollars; and a stronger emphasis on reading, especially for our youngest children (No Child Left Behind, 2001, p. 1). Statement of the Problem Several major changes have been made to bilingual programs by No Child Left Behind. Allocation and ways of distributing funding resources have changed. In addition to developing the English skills, Title VII of the 1994 Improving Americas Schools Act’s goals for developing the native language “…. to the extent possible” (as cited in Crawford, 2003) have also changed. The word “bilingual” has been deleted from the law. Schools “are no longer required to give children with limited proficiency in English their state’s regular reading test if such students have been enrolled in a U.S. school for less than a year” (Zehr, 2004, p. 1-2). Instruction and professional