Esther Isabel Oteiza.

Evaluative and longitudinal study of the bilingual education program in Hillsborough County, Florida, 1977-1980 online

. (page 1 of 9)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

AN EVALUATIVE AND LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE
BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM IN
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA:
1977-1980



py



ESTHER ISABEL OTEIZA



A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA



1981



To My Mother, Father
and Grandfather



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS



There are no words to express my appreciation to
Dr. Clemens L. Hallman for the faithful dedication, con-
tinuous support, and sincere friendship that he extended
to me. As chairman of my doctoral committee, his endless
patience and valuable suggestions were vital to the
completion of this study.

To Dr. Arthur J. Lewis, I offer my deepest gratitude
for partaking in the production of this work. The spirit
of scholarship and respect which characterizes him served
as a neverending source of professional inspiration and ad-
miration for me. |

A very special "thank you" is expressed to Dr. Elroy
Bolduc for the many hours he sacrificed and the many times
he interrupted his own work to minister to mine. His en-
couragement and generosity will always be held in the
highest esteem. |

I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to Dr. Ruthellen
Crews, who kindly reviewed the manuscript, and whose wisdom
and experience provided many priceless suggestions for its
imiprovement .

My thanks are extended to Dr. Ralph Kimbrough for
forming part of my doctoral committee and for always being
prepared to facilitate help when it was needed.



Throughout the development of this dissertation,
Dr. Eugene Todd has consistently represented a positive
and effective force which generated in me all the energy,
strength, and perseverance required to reach the finish-
line victoriously. To him I extend an expression of the
sincere and profound gratitude that will always be remembered,

Heartfelt thanks are extended to Dr. John A.
Hilderbrand, Mrs. Norma Lobato, Mrs. Stella Lopez, and
Mr. Gioacchino Ippolito. Their kindness, cooperation, and
hospitable welcome into the Hillsborough County Board of
Education offices were responsible for making the present
study a reality.

Acknowledgment of appreciation is due to the U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare for extending to
me an Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title VII
Bilingual Education Teacher-Trainer Fellowship, which made
my doctoral studies possible.

The Florida Educational Research and Development
Council (FERDC) deserves special recognition and thanks for
offering me a research grant which extended financial support
and became instrumental in conducting this investigation.

Sincere gratitude is expressed to my dearest friend,
Mr. Charles L. Wilson, Jr., for the numberless times he en-
couraged me to continue the stride when I thought that the
rugged journey was too long and arduous to carry on.



I lovingly thank my sister, Miss Elizabeth E.
Oteiza, and my grandmother, Mrs. Esther H. Sabin, for the
persistent emotional and moral support they extended to
me during the difficult times.

There is throughout this study a reflection of the
love and devotion of my mother, Mrs. Igdalia Perera-Oteiza ,
and my father. Dr. Jorge A. Oteiza. It was their constant
kindness, compassionate understanding, and trusting faith
in my abilities, which made the seemingly endless hours of
toil tolerable, and ultimately, fruitful.

It is to my mother, to my father, and in the memory
of my grandfather. Dr. Francisco M. Sabin, who truly taught
me to love learning, that I humbly dedicate this work.



TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS



Page



111



LIST OF FIGURES ix

LIST OF TABLES x

ABSTRACT -^"^

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem 1

Delimitations 2

Justification ^

Assumptions ^-^

Definition of Terms 27

Null Hypotheses ^2

Limitations

Notes



34
37



II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Evolution of Bilingualism and Bilingual

Education Public Opinion

Types of Bilingual Education Program

Evaluations

Brief History of Bilingual Education

in the U.S

The Need for Sound Bilingual Education

Program Evaluation Research 53

Zappert and Cruz: A Model Set of Bilingual

Education Program Evaluation Criteria . . 60
Sound Research Yields Favorable Results. . 60

Zappert and Cruz's Task 62

Zappert and Cruz's Evaluative Criteria . .
Final Conclusions of the Zappert and

Cruz (1977) Research

Summary

Notes



38
50

51



62

63
64
65



TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

CHAPTER ' Page

III DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 66

Background Description of the Site Area .... 66

History 66

Geography 67

Population 67

Education 68

Agribusiness 69

Other Economic Resources 69

Selection of the Site 70

Description of the Study's Population 70

Selection of the Sample 71

Description of the Sample 75

Description of the Treatment (Bilingual

Education Program) 78

Rationale 78

Eligibility and Identification for

Bilingual Education 79

Resource Management 81

Staffing ^2

Itinerant Bilingual Education Program ... 82

Bilingual "Buddy Tutor" Program 83



83

84



Bilingual Education Program Design
Transitioning from the Bilingual Program
Procedures for Waiving the Bilingual

Program °~'

Evaluation ^^

Description of Design

Description of the Instrumentation

Description of Data

Collection of Other Data ....

Data Analysis

Notes



86
86
91
92
93
100



IV FINDINGS 101



CTBS
CTBS
CTBS
SFTAA



Reading Subtest 101

Language Arts Subtest 108

Mathematics Subtest HO

Academic Aptitude Measure HI



CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 114



Conclusions



114



Implications 117



Recommendations
Notes



119
122



TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

APPENDICES Page

A DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING HISPANIC

MINORITY'S GROWTH IN THE U.S 123

B LAU ENGLISH PROFICIENCY CATEGORIES .... 125

C BILINGUAL PROGRAM TRANSITIONING

LETTERS TO PARENTS 126

D ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING

INSTRUMENTATION USED IN STUDY 127

E LETTER TO PAPJENTS REGARDING THE BILINGUAL

ITINERANT PROGRAM 12 9

F PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION

PROGRAM INCEPTION 13

G FEDERAL REGISTER INFORMATION REGARDING

BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 131

REFERENCES 132

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 142



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I Page

1 Hispanic Population Growth in the U.S. ... 20

2 Percentage of Hispanics by State 21

3 Percentage of Hispanics in Florida

by County 24

4 An Ecological Model for Education 46

5 The Study's Plan: A Flow Chart 72

6 Reading Percentile Transformation 96

7 Language Arts Percentile Transformation . . 97

8 Mathematics Percentile Transformation ... 98



LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ' Page



TOP 3 HISPANIC AREAS OF DOMINANT
INFLUENCE



9 ANALYSIS OF CTBS LANGUAGE ARTS
SUBTEST SCORES



18



2 THE EIGHT STATES WITH THE HEAVIEST

CONCENTRATION OF HISPANICS 22

3 THE SIX FLORIDA COUNTIES WITH THE HEAVIEST

CONCENTRATION OF HISPANICS 25

4 THE 57 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOLS

PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY 74

5 TOTAL FREQUENCY OF LUNCH CATEGORIES A, B,

AND C FOR GRADES 3, 5, AND 8 77

6 FREQUENCY OF LUNCH CATEGORIES BY

GRADE AND PROGRAM 7 7

7 COMPOSITION OF CTBS BATTERY 86

8 ANALYSIS OF CTBS READING SUBTEST SCORES. . 102



103



10 ANALYSIS OF CTBS MATHEMATICS

SUBTEST SCORES 104

11 ANALYSIS OF SFTAA ACADEMIC APTITUDE

MEASURE SCORES 10^

12 SUMMARY OF MEAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

THE SCORES OF THE BILINGUAL EDUCATION

AND REGULAR PROGRAMS 115



Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate

Council of the University of Florida in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

of Doctor of Philosophy

AN EVALUATIVE AND LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE
BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM IN
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA:
1977-1980

By

Esther Isabel Oteiza

August, 1981

Chairman: Clemens L. Hallman

Major Department: Subject Specialization Teacher Education

The purpose of this investigation was to determine
if there was a difference in academic performance between
the Spanish-dominant students in the Hillsborough County,
Florida, Bilingual Education Program and comparable students
in the Regular Program. Both groups entered their respective
programs three years before data collection as Lau English
Proficiency Category A (LEPC-A) and were no less than
Category C, when tested with the Comprehensive Tests of
Basic Skills (CTBS) reading, language arts, and mathematics
subtests and one measure of mental ability from the Short
Form Test of Academic Aptitude (SFTAA) .

The sample of 300 subjects was randomly selected from
a population of 453 students in the 3rd, 5th, and 8th grades

xi



attending 5 7 schools throughout the county. Socioeconomic
status was determined and controlled by recording in which
Lunch Category Program (Free, Reduced, or Full-Priced) each
student was enrolled. Baseline data were provided and
utilized by the exclusive inclusion of only those students
who met all criteria and were in their respective programs
for all three years.

The hard data consisted of scale and percentile
scores for each of the three CTBS subtests and an IQ score
for the SFTAA. Twelve null hypotheses were tested using
the generalized linear model procedure (Proc GLM) of the
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) . F tests from standard
analysis of variance (ANOVA) were run in order to try de-
tecting differences in achievement levels for the four
areas throughout the three target grades.

The results obtained in this study show, through
rejection of all twelve null hypotheses, that in every case
there was a significant difference between the Bilingual
Education and Regular Program groups at a statistically
significant level of at least a = .05, and at times a = .01,
depending on the variable and grade in question.

Judging from the implications of these testing per-
formance data, therefore, it appears that the Hillsborough
County, Florida, Bilingual Education Program is more effective
than the Regular Program in increasing the academic achieve-
ment level, as well as the aptitude test performance, of its
Spanish-dominant students.

xii



CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Because the federal government has made bilingual
education a funding priority in the past (U.S. Code: Johnson
in 1968; Nixon in 1974; Ford in 1976; Carter in 1978), and
due to the current federal efforts of the present administra-
tion to diminish its momentiora (Reagan, 1981), the questions
of evaluation and accountability in that area have become
paramount. With its perpetual preoccupation with inflation,
recession, the decline of the dollar, the staggering rise in
the price of gold, the exorbitant rate of unemployment, and
that dominating atmosphere of general economic malaise slowly
filtering to all socioeconomic strata, today's American
public has a legitimate and justifiable interest in deter-
mining the effectiveness and quality of the educational
programs supported by its taxes. This outcome evaluation
study was conducted to satisfy that need in Hillsborough
County, Florida.

Statement of the Problem



The purpose of this study was to compare the effects
of the Bilingual Education Program (BEP) with the Regular
Education Program (REP) in Hillsborough County, Florida, on



low socioeconomic, Spanish-language-dominant students in
the third, fifth, and eighth grades. The effects were
measured by comparing scores on the reading, language arts,
and mathematics subtests of the Comprehensive Tests of Basic
Skills (CTBS) and on the academic aptitutde scores of the
Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude (SFTAA) .

Delimitations

This is an ex post facto research study confined and
delimited to 300 subjects randomly selected from a population
of low socioeconomic, third, fifth, and eighth grade students
in Hillsborough County, Florida. They all were Spanish-
language-dominant, as determined by the Crane Oral Dominance
Test (CODT), and had qualified for the County's Bilingual
Education Program three years before the testing event by
diagnostic placement in the Lau English Proficiency Category A,
as determined by the Dade County Test of Language Development:
Aural Comprehension (DCTLD-AC) . Both of these tests were
administered to the students upon entrance to the school
system.

The study's outcome was never intended to become an
exclusive index of pupil potential, progress, and/or achieve-
ment. Because innate human ability cannot be either iden-
tified or measured directly, it is understood that the
manifestations of this potential cannot always be exhibited
in any set test and at any set time, whatever be that test,



and whatever be that time. However, a part of this innate
ability may often be demonstrated through specific "correct"
responses in test performance and may be usefully inter-
preted as functions of the intellectual potential that the
student had to possess in order to attain that response. It
is therefore inferred that the innate ability is possessed
if the predetermined "correct" response is selected. On the
other hand, one may not be so quick to judge that the ability
is not possessed by the student, should the overt response
chosen be "incorrect," especially yet not exclusively, when
focusing on students who are native to other-than-English
languages and native to other-than-Anglo cultures. Over-
looking this consideration can be particularly dangerous when
comparing minority children to their Anglo counterparts.

The level of test performance becomes dependent
upon opportunities which students have had to de-
velop their abilities through experience. In
general, the Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude
elicits responses which have been developed through
various channels open to all members of our culture,
rather than reflecting only those which are functions
of formal school training. ( Short Form Test of
Academic Aptitude Examiner's Manual , 197 0, Level 2,
p. 6)

Corroboration for this view comes from Saville-Troike :

Cultural factors are critically relevant to all
evaluations of student achievement, teacher per-
formance, and program effectiveness. Testing
itself is a social event, and students may perform
differentially in differing testing conditions.
Evaluation instruments can never be considered
culturally neutral, no matter how "objective" their
format. (Saville-Troike, 1978, p. 49)



Justification
Since the passage of the Title VII Bilingual Edu-
cation Act in 1968, much controversy has been raised re-
garding the effectiveness of its programs. As Zappert and
Cruz (19 77) report, much of the argument stems from extreme
ethnocentric opinions ranging from "if one is in America he
should speak English only and give up his language and
culture" (p. iii) to the other extreme that "bilingual edu-
cation works because children in bilingual classrooms have
smiling faces and are happy" (p. iii). Both of these atti-
tudes are based on superficial impressions and do not provide
empirical data on which policymakers could base their de-
cisions. These decisions should emerge after close examination
of rigorously constructed research designs addressing the
issue of bilingual education program evaluation and effec-
tiveness.

Unfortunately, one of the most persistent weaknesses
in bilingual education has been specifically in the area of
program evaluation. There is an urgent need for evaluator
training and preparation, so that the forthcoming evaluations
can be carried out properly (Troike & Perez, 1978). In sup-
port of the same, Troike (1978) reports that A. Cohen and
Laosa (1976) and Engle (1975) indicate that one of the
greatest difficulties in determining the source of positive
or negative effects of bilingual programs has been the in-
adequacy of incommensurability of reported data, resulting



from unacceptable program evaluations. For example,
"longitudinal studies in bilingual education are almost
non-existent" (Blanco, 1977, p. 58), and unfortunately,
less rigorous criteria continue to be the norm for evalua-
tion research in most programs (McLaughlin, 1978).

The year 1968 brought more than just Title VII of
the Bilingual Education Act. With the advent of that year,
the "Era of Accountability" was inaugurated by requiring
that program evaluations be added to the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title VII Bilingual Education
Programs. The Hillsborough County Bilingual Education Program
was no exception. In order to comply with this federal
specification, the topic treated in this study was con-
sidered to be among the top educational research priorities
in Hillsborough County for 19 80. This investigation compared
reading, language arts, mathematics scores, and a measure
of academic aptitude of students in the Bilingual with those
in the Regular Program. Once study results are made public,
they will serve to address the issue of accountability.

The results of this study yield one index of compara-
tive student academic and aptitude performance. As sum-
mative evaluation, this information will contribute to the
determination of both programs' effectiveness in serving
the area's low socioeconomic status (LSES) , Spanish-language-
dominant (SLD) , limited-English-proficiency (LEP) clientele.
As formative evaluation, the study's outcome could be utilized
in preparing guidelines for consecutive years.



6

Accountability per se reflects the concern of the
American people to verify the effectiveness of and the
rationale for publicly supported educational systems where
tax dollars have been invested. Tye (1971) points out that
emphasis has been placed on the performance (product ob-
tained) in comparison to the promises (resources utilized) .
Zamora (1980) continues to address the issue of the need
for well-constructed bilingual education program evaluation
designs so as to yield valid research, and in turn, account-
ability:

At a time when the education profession faces tighter
budgets, decreasing enrollments, declining academic
standards and student achievement, a tempting thought
would be to turn a deaf ear to the poignant call for
accountability in education. . . . Further compounding
the ever-pressing problems is an echoing cry for equal
educational opportunities via a dual-language program
for all ethnic-minority-group children. Bilingual-
Bicultural Education (BBE) has definitely experienced
its share of questions and criticism as it approaches
the end of a decade of federal support under Title _ VII,
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) . ^^7hlle
the number of these Title VII projects has steadily
increased, evaluation of them has lagged behind. _ In
the course of these years, local education agencies
have made concerted but frustrated efforts to evaluate
their BBE programs with adequate instrumentation. But
BBE opponents and even naive proponents have all too
often released distorted, incomplete, sketchy evalua-
tion reports. Millions of dollars have been expended
and a plethora of evaluation reports have been sub-
mitted to funding agents, yet useful, meaningful
information regarding program designs, approaches,
methods, or teaching is lacking. . . . This void is
far from being filled, and evaluation must be improved
Darticularly in this age of accountability as it seems
to provide timely and relevant data at all levels of
the decision-making process. The reasons for failure —
whether they are due to insufficient emphasis on the
development of an organizational philosophy, lack of
definitive policies and procedures, faulty implementa-
tion, poor curriculum design, mismanagement, or lack



of top-level administrator's support — should all
be documented and reported. . . . Indications are
that with continued economic, political, and social
pressures, the word accountability will make itself
heard more often and be more visible on the educa-
tional scene, thus requiring the design of sounder
evaluation plans. ... In addition, there needs to
be a careful and comprehensive evaluation of BBE
programs. (pp. 112-113)

There has been a definite paucity of valid bilingual
education program evaluations. It should be remembered that
bilingual education may substantially increase the equal
educational opportunity of language minority students, but
only if it is implemented successfully. Without careful
planning and consistent evaluation, any bilingual education
program would be limited in its effectiveness and repli-
cability (Anderson & Boyer, 1978), as well as risk its
self-destruction due to lack of accountability and re-funding.

Most opponents of the bilingual education movement
tend to antagonize the funding of research such as the one
at hand because they find other priorities which are deemed
to be more urgent. The anti-bilingual education lobbyists
claim that bilingual programs represent an expensive, un-
necessary weight to the already financially overloaded
American educational system. They support cuts in this area,
embracing the conviction that dissolving its existence will
save the American citizen many tax dollars.

Large numbers of children in the nation and especi-
ally in the State of Florida speak Spanish at home. Unfor-
tunately, many of these do not speak English at all. Considered



8

as a group, these children constitute one of the most
dramatic failures of the American educational system. They
enroll in school lacking the elementary prerequisite for
educational success — the ability to understand and communi-
cate in the language of instruction. The majority of these
children are mainstreamed and left to sink or swim. Because
of psychological, sociological, and educational pressures,
too often they sink. \^niat little instructional aid is given
to these non-English-speaking children usually takes the
form of remedial reading. All of these programs fall under
the general category of compensatory education and are
predicated on the idea that the children are intellectually
inferior or handicapped, sometimes not only by their inability
to speak English, but much too often by their ability to
speak Spanish. They are considered to be "culturally de-
prived" (Ausubel, 1963; Dickey, 1964; Fantini & Weinstein,
1968; Groff, 1963; Malkin, 1964; Olson & Larson, 1966;
Shaw, 1963; Wolf & Wolf, 1962) or "culturally underpriveleged"
(Burton, 1967) or "culturally disadvantaged" (Black, 1965;
Fantini & Weinstein, 1968; Frazier, 1964; Haubrich, 1963;
Kaplan, 1963; Yourman , 1964), or what is even worse, they
are considered to be "linguistically, culturally, socially,
educationally, and economically 'deprived'" (McHugh, 1981,
p. 400) by ascribed status at birth. Most of the terms
used to describe these children's home culture imply a
negativistic and ethnocentric judgment. Nonintentionally



and ironically enough, the remedial programs in which the
limited-English-speaking-ability (LESA) children are placed
have a destructive effect upon their self-concept and serve
to retard their normal intellectual progression. It would
be safe to assume the likelihood that these results or
responses from the child may have been caused or stimulated
by the teachers themselves or by the program in which the
child is enrolled, both of which had no ambitious expecta-
tions of the student. This hypothesis would lend credibility
to the Pygmalion Effect and "self-fulfilling prophecies"
theories (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). These students
become so disillusioned with school that a shocking per-
centage of them drop out of school. In Texas, 47 percent
of the Mexican-American students dropped out before completing
high school (Wright, 1973). In Boston, 90 percent of the
Puerto Rican pupils had already dropped out by the time they
reached high school age (Wright, 1973). In the five South-
western states, Anglos 14 years of age and over have completed
an average of 12 years of school compared with 8.1 years
for Spanish-surnamed students (Yarborough, 1967) . Compared
with that of persons with English-language backgrounds, the
dropout rate was 4.5 times as high for Hispanics who usually
speak Spanish (HEW's Survey of Income and Education , Spring
1976, as reported in Roybal, 1979). It is a proven socio-
logical fact that high dropout rates yield unemployment,
which in turn brings about crime, poverty, and a plethora of
other socioeconomical problems.



10

Contrary to the belief of many, the studies of
foreign languages and cultures, as well as the acceptance
of bilingual education, do not present separatist or un-
American philosophies: Quite the opposite.


1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9