Increasing Access to Quality ESOL Programs: State Policy Challenges and Opportunities

Presentation by Judith Combes Taylor Cross-State Meeting/Working Poor Families Project Chicago, IL June 7, 2007

Immigrants, Changing Demographics, and the US Workforce

• Between 1970 and 2005, the US foreign-born population tripled to an estimated 35.8 million individuals or 12.4% of the US population. (2005 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau) • As of 2005, one in five working-age adults between 18 and 65 years old in the US spoke a language other than English at home. (US Census Bureau, 2006) • More than half of the US workforce growth during the 1990s was due to immigration. (Sum et al, 2002) • Immigrants make up 44 percent of all US workers with < high school education and 22 percent of the US’s low-wage workers, earning less than twice the minimum wage in 2001. (US CPS, 2004 5)

Slide 2

The Limited English Proficient (LEP) Population in the US

• LEP adults have a diverse spectrum of education and skill levels. Some have earned college degrees, while others have little to no educational experience at all. • As of 2005, more than 17 million adults between the ages of 18 and 65 in the US spoke English less than “very well”—considered LEP. Of this group, 4 million individuals are native-born, consisting mostly of Puerto Ricans, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and Alaskan Natives. (ACS, US Census Bureau)

Slide 3

The Limited English Proficient (LEP) Population in the US (ctnd.)

According to Census 2000:

62 percent

of low-wage immigrant workers in US are LEP, compared to 2 percent of low-wage natives.

29 percent

of foreign-born workers in US 20+ years are LEP.

83 percent

than a 9 th of immigrant workers with less grade education are LEP.

23 percent

of immigrant workers with a bachelor’s degree are LEP.

Slide 4

Implications of Language Barriers

• With the growing skills demands on the 21 st century workforce, LEPs will not be able to compete – may find jobs but they will not be able to advance or earn family-sustaining wages.

• Impediment to everyday functioning • Negative health, education, and labor market outcomes • LEPs lack political power due to language, social, economic, and other barriers • LEP can create greater obstacles to citizenship (English proficiency requirements for citizenship test) • Marginalization and exploitation of LEPs—often underpaid, no benefits, no advancement opportunities, inability to navigate institutions and systems vital to self-sufficiency and personal/family success.

Slide 5

Adult ESOL Programs

• ESOL= fastest growing area of adult education. (US DOE) • State funding plays a larger role: In 2001, local and state governments provided 68 percent of AEFLA-supported program funding. In 1966, the federal government provided 67 percent of the support for state adult education programs. (Chisman, 2002; National Center for ESL Literacy Education, 2003) • Funded through numerous federal and state programs in adult education, workforce development, and welfare. Main federal funding source for adult education is the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), Title II of the Workforce Investment Act. Some programs receive local funds including those from private foundations, businesses, and labor unions. (Asian American Justice Center, 2007)

Slide 6

Adult ESOL Programs

• According to NCLE, ESOL programs fall under five main categories: 1) Life skills or general ESOL courses; 2) Family literacy programs; 3) Vocational English as a Second Language (VESL) programs; 4) English literacy/civics programs; and 5) Workplace ESOL classes for incumbent workers. • ESOL service providers include: community colleges; adult schools; adult learning centers; employer-sponsored programs; labor unions; public libraries; community-based organizations; and elementary, junior high, and high schools.

Slide 7

Adult ESOL Students

• An estimated 23.3 million adults in the US are Limited English Proficient (LEP). (ACS, US Census Bureau, 2005) •Yet, in 2006, only 1.2 million participants were enrolled in federally funded ESOL programs. (AAJC, 2007) •

Typical adult ESOL student:

–is a working poor person who holds two jobs; –supports a family; and –takes evening classes.

Slide 8

Adult ESOL Students (ctnd.)

• Majority of adult ESOL students are enrolled in the most basic ESOL levels. • Most adult ESOL students in class 2-4 days per week.

• A DOE-funded study showed that these students generally show high interest in/enthusiasm for learning English, and that they stay in programs longer than learners in other ABE programs.

Slide 9

Adult ESOL Students (ctnd.)

• Experts estimate that between 500 and 1,000 hours of instruction are needed before LEP adults who are literate in their native language can master basic English verbal and literacy skills for basic needs and workplace functioning. (NCLE, 2003) • It can take several years for LEP students to acquire English language and literacy skills equal to that of someone with a 5 th grade education, which is still considered a functionally illiterate level. (Tucker, 2006)

Slide 10

Benefits of Effective ESOL Programs

The Adult English Language Learner uses improved language and literacy skills to. . .

…conduct daily business and meet basic needs including understanding traffic signs and paying bills. …increase their productivity on the job, which can lead to higher wages, benefits such as health insurance, and job advancement.

…better navigate our health care and educational systems. …more fully participate in civic activities such as volunteering and voting.

Society benefits by. . .

…having a populace with increased basic skills, which increases public safety and efficiency.

…profiting from a more skilled workforce able to meet the demands of the 21 st century’s knowledge economy. As a result, businesses enjoy lower turnover and higher productivity.

…decreasing % of population that is poor and, as a result, its demands on government support.

…incurring savings to the health care and educational systems through preventative measures and more targeted interventions.

…strengthening our democratic system and principles by decreasing barriers to its rights and duties.

Slide 11

Challenges to Program Access and Quality

According to recent reports by the Asian American Justice Center and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, among others: • Despite high and growing demand for ESOL programs, many are gravely under-funded or facing budget cuts. Federal funding has declined. • Some states have little to no experience in providing ESOL programs, yet they have some of the fastest growing immigrant populations in the country (e.g., SC, TN, DE, GA, AL, AR). They can learn from some of the successes in other states (e.g., CA, NY) but must tailor their approach to their unique geographic, industry, and demographic needs.

Slide 12

Challenges to Program Access and Quality (ctnd.)

• Enrollment and retention barriers for students include: time, program schedule, money, long waiting lists, and lack of support services (e.g., transportation and child care). • Overcrowded classrooms and lack of qualified instructors and appropriate facilities discourage participation, decrease program quality, and limit offering of intermediate and advanced classes.

• Basic ESOL fills up the fastest, but need for more intermediate and advanced classes is vital to increasing English language proficiency to functional levels.

Slide 13

Challenges to Program Access and Quality (ctnd.)

• Some ESOL students require specialized instruction due to additional learning issues including: visual impairment, learning disabilities, no previous academic experience, illiteracy in native language, etc.

• While Spanish speakers are the most common ESOL students, ESOL programs must increasingly meet the needs of speakers of other languages such as Chinese, Haitian Creole, and Portuguese. Need for instructors and teaching resources in these languages.

Slide 14

Challenges to Program Access and Quality (ctnd.)

• Many programs use unpaid volunteers, some of whom have little to no teaching experience or training in ESOL instruction.

• Field lacks solid infrastructure for coordinating cross-sector service delivery, research, and advocacy.

• AEFLA recipients are not mandated to record ESOL program instruction expenditures.

Slide 15

Strategies for Increasing Program Access and Quality

According to reports by CLASP, AAJC,CAAL. and NALEO, among others, the following strategies can increase access to and quality of ESOL programs: • Increase funding for ESOL program availability and quality– state funds (some providers currently do not receive state funding) and local funds including philanthropic contributions from business and foundations, etc. Must keep cost minimal for low-income students. Most ESOL providers offer free courses, but some charge hundreds of dollars. • Improve design and delivery.

– tailored to the needs of this population e.g., evening and weekend classes, transportation and child care assistance, distance learning). Provide incentives (e.g., paid release time for worksite ESOL classes).

– Contextualize ESOL programs so that English proficiency and life/work skills gains are achieved simultaneously. Combining language and literacy services with job training can increase student interest and motivation, accelerate progress, and increase program retention. Can also result in higher earnings over time.

Slide 16

Strategies for Increasing Program Access and Quality (ctnd.)

• Improve design and delivery – Involve business, CBOs specialized in working with LEPs, labor unions, and LEP students in the design and implementation of ESOL programs – Implement managed enrollment program policies, which lead to better attendance rates than open enrollment and exit policies – Provide more professional development and training opportunities for ESOL instructors and volunteers – Train non-ESOL instructors that work with this population to better serve ESOL students’ goals and needs • Educate the public about: 1) the economic and social costs of functional illiteracy; and 2) the LEP population’s desire to learn English and the barriers to doing so.

Slide 17

Recommendations for State Policy Strategy--Increase Funding

Recommendation 1:

Lobby to ensure that formulas distributing ESOL $ match the geographic distribution of populations needing ESOL services.

 California  New York

Slide 18

Recommendations for State Policy Strategy--Increase Funding

Recommendation 2:

Sequester some portion of state AEFLA match $ from the state plan/NRS for dedication to purposes that AEFLA guidelines appear to inhibit.

 California AND/OR Request waivers for the same purpose (in the state WIA plan).

Slide 19

Recommendations for State Policy Strategy--Increase Funding

Recommendation 3:

Fund remedial ESOL through FTE funding at community colleges at the same level as college-credit classes.

 California  Oregon

Slide 20

Recommendations for State Policy Strategy--Increase Funding

Recommendation 4:

Establish an Unemployment Insurance (UI) diversion fund (“surtax”) to support work related ESOL.

 Massachusetts

Slide 21

Recommendations for State Policy Strategy--Increase Funding

Recommendation 5:

Seek a state appropriation to support ESOL.  California

Slide 22

Recommendations for State Policy Strategy--Improve Programs

Recommendation 1:

Promote the development of ESOL workplace certificates to document that job seekers and incumbent workers have achieved desired English proficiency levels and work related skills.

“The ESL training field could greatly benefit from a standard-setting effort that lays out what adults new to English need to know and be able to do to succeed in particular job clusters . . . This type of certificate could act as an alternative to the GED for those immigrants who completed their schooling in another country as well as for those who have less than a high school education.” (Wrigley, Strawn, et al, 2003)

Slide 23

Recommendations for State Policy Strategy--Improve Programs

Recommendation 2:

Lobby states to ensure that they include ESOL goals in the plans they submit to the federal government under WIA Titles I and II.

Slide 24

Contact Information

Judith Combes Taylor, Program Director Jobs for the Future 88 Broad St., Floor 8 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 728-4446, ext. 124 Email: [email protected]

Web site: www.jff.org

Slide 25