-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/621201fd68aca0d390f324de3208cbba.pdf
12de645efee15304edaf0c0aa80d421d
PDF Text
Text
DHHSINPUT,
EARL Y CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ISSUE GROUp·
WHITE HOUSE STRATEGY SESSION ON HISANIC EDUCATION
The Department ofHealth and Human Servicesfeels that the Early Childhood Education goal
for the White House Strategy Session on Hispanic Education presents a significant opportunity
to highlight the President's Child Care initiative (particularly the $817 million increase in .
funding for the CCDF and the Early Learning Fund) and the President's proposal to expand
..
.
Head Start by $1 billion.
As requested, we have included some suggestions of individuals or groups to consult, specific
goals with indicators and strategies, research on the importance of participation in quality
programs and parent involvement, initiative to highlight, charges to the community, and
descriptions of the early childhood services offered by the Administration for Children and
Families and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adininistration.
.
.
I. .
SUGGESTED GROUPS TO CONSULT
Advocates/Programs'
• Sarah Greene
Chief Executive Officer
National Head Start Association (NHSA)
1615 Prince Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 739-0875
Ms. Greene has been involved with Head Start in various capacities since 1969, having
served as the President ofNHSA, President of the Florida Head Start Directors Association,
and Director of a Head Start program.
• Rebeca M. Barrera
Executive Director
National Latino Children's Institute
1412 West Sixth Stree
. Austin, TX 78703-5139
512-472-9971
fax: 512':472-5845
NcLI focuses on issues concerning Latino children, youth and families by raising awareness,
building capacity in the field, and building public and private partnerships.
.
.
• National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies
1319 F St. NW, Suite 810 .
Washington, DC 20004-1106
(202) 393-5501
�i
• Joan Lombardi
1941 Shiver Drive
Alexandria, V A. 22307
703-660-6711
Dr. Lombardi is a child and family expert and former Deputy Assistant Secretary,
ACFIDHHS). ;
i
• Mark Ginsberg
National Assotiatioll for the EducationofYoung Children
1509 161h Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-1426
(202) 232-877:7
mrg@naeyc.otg
• Richard Gonzales
Assistant Deputy Commissioner
.
.
.
I
Administration for Children's Services - Head Start
30 Main Street
lh
Sweeney Building, 10 Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
(718) 260-7083
I
I
Mr. Goni.ale~ oversees one of the Head Start "supergrantees" with 73 delegate agencies
through NewrY ork City, serving 19,000 pre-school children and their families. He has over
24 years ofekperience in the early childhood field.
.
!
• Blanca Enriquez
.
Head Start Executive Director
11670 Chito ;Samaniego
EI Paso, TX :79936
(915) 790-4~09
Not only does Ms. Enriquez bring the Head Start perspective, but she is also familiar with the
specific
issu~s of the border region.
.
• Jesus Garda
Research Se'rvices Coordinator
Kern CountY Superintendent of Schools Office
1300 17th S~reet
Bakersfield; CA 93301
Phone: 661:-636-4648 .
Mr. Garcia has done significant work in helpihg communities understand shifting'
demographics and explore the accessibility of early childhood services to Hispanic families.
,
.
• .Elba Montalvo
Executive Director·
. National Council of Latino Executives
Committee: for Hispanic Children and Families
,
2
�140 W'22nd Street, Suite 301
.
I
New York, NY! 10011
Phone: '2} 2-206-} 090
As an advisory group to the Child Welfare League of America, the National Council of
Latino Executives (CLE) is a key resource on matters of Latin 0 child welfare ..
•
Dr. Sylvia Sa~chez
Associate Professor, ESL Bilingual Education
George Mason; University
4400 University Drive
Fairfax, V A 2:2030
•
Jarrett T. Barrios
Representativ~
Commonweal~h of Massachusetts House of Representatives
Room 130
'
. State House :
Boston, MA 02133
Phone: 617-7,22-2130
Key Researchers I
• Delia Pomp~
Director
National Ass6ciation on Bilingual Education (NABE)
1220 L. street, NW, Suite 605
Washington, DC 20005-4018
202-898-1829 x 184
dyompa@n~be.org
In addition to being the current director ofNABE, Dr. Pompa is also the past Director of the
.office of Bilingual Education and Mi~ority
•
Luis Hernandez
Early ChildHood Education Specialist
Regio~l 4 H~ad Start Qualitylmprovement Center
,
. Western Ke~tucky University'
(305) 444-4779
I
Dr. Hernandez has a strong background in training and technical assistance, as well as
research, around bilingual and multicultural issues for early childhood providers.
,
•
.
Edward DeI Avila
'
Linguametrics
5866 Harbord Drive
Oakland, CA 94611
(510) 547-8328
I
3
�,
,
,
Dr. De Avila d~veloped a key preschool language assessment scale, and isa leader in the
field of language development. He is an excellent speaker and can help make complicated
issues about language development and assessment clear.
,
• Catherine Snow
" Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
I
Larsen 3
I
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 495-3563
Dr. Snow "wrqte the book" on language development and preventing reading difficulties.
"
She is very highly regarded in the field.
I
• Kathy Escamilla
University of Colorado, Boulder
School of Education":" Campus Box 249
Boulder, CO ~0309-0249
I
, ' .
.
Dr. Escamilla; is' an expert in language development and assessment of bilingual children.
• "Sylvia Pena :'
Dean, Schooliof Education
University of!Texas, Brownsville
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, :TX 78520
(956) 983-72:19 ,
Dr. Pena doe~ work on literacy, early childhood and bilingual bac~ground.
r
'.
Elena Izquierdo
Associate Pr~fessor
College of Epucation
,:,University of Texas, El Paso
EI Paso, TX :79968
Dr. Izquierdp is an expert in teacher educati9n and training.
• Kenji Hakuta
Professor I '
Stanford U~iversity "
School of Eaucation
CERAS 20~5
Stanford, CA 94305
650-725-75~5
. Dr. Hakuta'has done a great deal of work on educating minority chilpren. He
serves on the Board for OERI in the Department of Education.
4
�i
• Georgia Earnest Garcia
Associate Professor and Associate Head
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Department of;Curriculum and Instruction
1310 South 6th Street, Room 311
Champaign, IL 61820
217-333-7048 ~
Ms. Garcia recently wrote a review of the bilingual research on children's reading.
II.
SPECIFIC GOALS WITH INDICATORS & STRATEGIES
1) Increase Participation ofHispanic Children in Q~ality Early Childhood Programs
I
"
I
a) Head Start will serve 294,000 Hispanic children by 2001, an increase ()f62,OOO from
1999, and will serve Hispanics at a level that is.at least comparable to the percentage
'.
eligible i~ the population within the next 10 years.
Strategies:
• Expahsion: $1 Billion increase; goal of 1 million kids by 2002
[See language in 311 0 White House draft document]
• To ertsure that this expansion reaches Hispanic children and families, the Head Start
.
, Bure~u has been taking action and will continue to: '
• qive greater priority to underservedgroups in the expansion process by making "
ihcreasingly specific the importance of and increasing by 50% the number of
points awarded for reaching underserved populations in the expansion
annoul1cem ents.
• Ihcrease funding for the children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
• Provide information, training, and technical assistance' to promote the recruitment
.of children and families from undeNepresented populations, help reach out to
Hispanic families to overcome any cultural gaps around enrolling young children
in center-based programs, ~nd identify local organizations to help ensure that
services are culturally appropriate.
• Reinforce monitoring to ensure that grantees serve new and under-represented
~opu lations.'
.
.
I
"
[Note: An update to the Head Start Hispanic Action Plan is currently underway and
will;be finalized shortly.]
b) , In the f~derally subsidized child care system, establish a baseline for Hispanic
participation and serve Hispanics at a level that is at least comparable to the percentage
eligible 'in the population within the next 10 years.
Strategies:
• Set baseline: The Child Care Bureau has already put in place the data element in the
State child care reports to the federal government requiring information on who is
beiI~g served by race/ethnicity. However, States must then change how they are'
coll,ecting. information from child sare providers, which may take time. It is expected
5
�,
'
,"
"
that we'will begin getting reliable data in 2002 or shortly thereafter with which we
can develop a baseline.
'
,
• Address affordability issues: CCDBG $817 M and CDCTC Refundable proposal [See
language in 3/1 0 White House draft document]
,
• Address access!cultural-pppropriaienessof care: The Child Care Bureau and States
should Iwork in partnership with Hispanic advocates and communities to build local
capacity for culturally-appropriate quality care settings
,
I
I
c) [Pre-Kindergarten participation goal- TBD by Education]
2) Ensure the Qqality ofServices for Young Hispanic Children
Double th~ number of early childhood care/education providers who obtain nationally
recognized, credentials (e.g. CDA, AA, BA).
'
Strategies~'
• Estabiish a baseline for the early ch,ildhood field.
• The Head Start Bureau is working with higher education institutions to ensure that
their ~oursework and training helps improve classroom quality and allows the
program to meet the statutory requirement that half of all Head Start teachers have
either. an AA or a BA by 2003. Head Start has invested $120 million in this effort
over ~he last two years, and is planningto invest a minimum of$80 million per year
going forward. In addition, the Bureau will provide at least $1 million per year
specifically to Hispanic-serving institutions of higher education for at least the next 3
years;.
• ELF; [See 'language in 3/10 White House draft document]
b) By 2010,: the majority of early childhood programs will have set child-to-staff ratios at
the levels recommended by the National Association of Education for Young Children
(NAEYC) or Head Start.
'
,
Strategies:
• ELF, [See language in 3/10 White House draft document]
• Chilp Care and Development Block Grant - increased funding ($817 M) ,
[Se~ language in 3/10 White House draft document]
I
I
,
c) By 2010, every early childhood program that serves Hispanic children and families will
;'
have (ot have access to) someone with a bicultural background and bilingual ability.
Strategies:
I
,
• ELF [See language in 3/10 White House draft document]
• This.is currently a Head Start standard. Head ,Start is also conducting a Training and
Technical Assistance effort to help programs respond appropriately to changing
demographics.
'
d) '[If an o~tcome measure is desired on I~nguage and lit~racy or math skills, the best
measures/sources would be the data that is collected for kindergarten children by the
Department of Education through the ECLS'study or the National Assessment of
6
�;
Elementary Progress. Therefore, HHS will defer to ED on the specifics ofthis,goal, if we
choose to h~ve one.] ,
3) Promote Parent Involvement in Early Child/tood Development
a) [If an outcome measure is desired on parents reading to or telling stories to their children,
the best measures/sources would be the data that is collected for kindergarten children by
tlu; Depart~ent of Education. For instance, the ECLS study gathered this information for
one national cohort in 1998 and will collect it for another cohort in 2006. Therefore, HHS
,
will defer to ED on the specifics oftliis goal, if~e choo~e to·haveone.]
I
,
,
III.
'
,
,
,
RESEARCH ON THE IMPORTANCE OF PARTICIPATION IN QUALITY
PROGRAMS AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT
Importance ofQ~ality Programming
I,
•
The Family arid Child Experiences Survey (FACES), new longitudinal study ofa nationally
representative' set of 40 Head Start programs, found that classroom quality is good, parent
involvement and satisfaction are high, and program quality is significantly related to
'
children's out;comes and success in the early school years.
,
• The Cost, Qu~lity and Child Outcomes study of more than 800 preschool children shows that
"
young children receiving poor qua'lity child care were less prepared for school than students
who received I high quality care in their preschool years. Further, they found that children
who have traditionally been at risk for not doing well in school "are affected more by the
quality of child care experiences than other children.
I
• Research by David Yaden of the University of Southern California oil emergent literacy in a '
bilingual low-income, pre-kindergarten program in downtown Los Angeles, Para Los Ninos,
shows that enhancements ofliteracy activities in the classroom as well as a strong parent
literacy component, yield clear gains in chi,ldren's literacy skills and abilities overtime. '
I
•
,
The NICHD!Study of Early Child Care '(1999) fQund that quality child care was related to
children displaying greater social competence arid less problem behavior at 2 and 3 years of
age. Also, more experiences in groups with other children predicted more cooperation with
other childn;m.
r
.
:
.
,
A recent major longitudinal study has shown that the influence of good, early education" lasts
into adulthood, affecting things like reading and mathematics skills and even the timirig of,
,childbearing! In the Abecedarian Project in Chapel HiH, North Carolina, half of the children
were randomly assigned to high-quality child care from infancy to age 5, while others
received only nutritional supplements and family support. The study found that children in
the intensiv~ early educational program were more successful than their peers on virtually
"every meas!-lre. [Note: this study focused e;X.clusively on African American children.]
!
7
�I
Importance ofPar~nt Involvement
i
,
• Kevin Cole, a ~enior Researcher at the Washington Research Institute in Seattle, Washington
recently compl~ted a study on emergent literacy in a bilingual Head Start program in Seattle.
His literacy intervention is based on a very cost-effective parent training model and his
research has demonstrated both immediate effects on improving children's language and
literacy skills, ~s well as maintenance of g<iins at a I-year follow-up.
I
•
In the FACES study (above), researchers found that parents who read to their children had
children with h'igher vocabularyscores, even after accounting for differences in parent
education. Th~y also found that parents who were involved in their children's classrooms in
meaningful w~ys were more likely to engage their children in developmental activities at
home.'
;
I'
I~portance
of C,¥ltural Appropriateness .,'
• David Dickinson at EDC in Newfon, MA h~s done work examining the administration of
literacy measures in both English andSpanish in longitudinal studies of bilingual Head Start
children to assess differential growth trajectories. His research has demonstrated that Spanish
speaking children demonstrated increases in an i'mportant area of language development
, phonemic awareness - in both Spanish and English, ahdthat there is evidence of the transfer
of such abiliti~s from one language to the next These findings suggest that children's
acquisition of English may improve even when their home language, Spanish, is maintained
during part ortheir daily early childhood program experience. Thus, their overall English
acquisition may be enhanced when efforts are made to build upon their basic Spanish
language skills. (Dr: Dickinson is involved in Head Start both through one of the Head Start
Quality Rese~rch Centers as well through one of the Training and Technical Assistance
.Quality Improvement Center).
,
IV.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIINITIATIVES TO HIGHLIGHT
Presidential Proposals,
,
• Highlight President's proposals on Child, Care and Head Start
• The primary items that we want to be s!1re will be highlighted are the President's
proposals on Child Care (the $8] 7 million, the Early Learning Fund, etc.) and on Head
Start ($1 billion increase to stay on track to reach] million kids,in 2002). [See language
in 311 0 White House draft document]
.
• It would be good to bring in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in some way; for
instance, the CHC 60uld announce their endorsement of these proposals the day of the
strategY; session.
.
• Note the Pr~sident's proposal on extending health coverage, since healthy children come to
school better prepared to succeed.
.
Successful Early Childhood Initiatives
• Many Head Start programs in Hispanic areas (e.g. Miami/Dade County) have been providing
quality, culturally-appropriate services for years: However, one of the challenges has been,
for Head Start programs that have not traditionally had many Hispanics in their service areas
8.
�to adjust to changing demographics. One e['ample of a program that has done a particularly
good jobresponding to emerging Hispanic populations is listed.below. We also know of an
excellent example in Fairfax County, VA if a nearby example would be useful.
• The Family Resource Agency of Northern Georgia
1217 Lafayette Road
Rossville, Georgia 30741
[Contact: Flo Abel at 706-861-0105]
i
..
This program is located in an area of Georgia where there is a large carpet making
industry. While at one time there were hardly any Hispanics in the area, starting in
1995, there was an influx of Central American Hispanic families immigrating to the
area. In the last year alone, the Hispanic population has risen from40% to 50-60%.
The Family Resources Head Start program took note of the changing demographic~
and worked to proactively hire bilingual teachers, staff and other coordinators, and to
proVide more home visits for families that were not immediately comfortable with
com i~g to the ceilter.
I .
.
•
•
• Avance Family Support Education Program
San Antonio, Texas
Avance Famil'y Support Education Program, which began in 1973, was one of the first
comprehensive family support and education programs in the United States. The program's
approach is centered on providing comprehensive, community-based family support for at
risk and Latino populations. The core of their services is the Parent-Child Education
Program, teaching parents skills to enhance the development of their children and to provide
an academic~lIy and emotionally secure environment in which to raise their children.
,
The Parent-Ohild Education Program provides a nine-month intensive parent education
course that includes instruction in toy making, community resource awareness, home visits
. and home teaching, early childhood educati,on, and transportation. The Parent-Child
Education Prbgram provides educational child care to children ages 0 to 2 while their parents
attend 3-hour classes for the first year of the program. Other educational programs include a
comprehensi~e child development program', fatherhood and couples classes, Even Start and
Project First;, adult literacy and higher education programs.
.
• Betances Fa:mily Resource Center of La Casade Puerto Rico
Hartford, ConneCticut
The Betancds Family Resource Center of La Casa de Puerto Rico is founded on the belief that
healthy development and good education begin with access to quality child care and support
services from birth. [tis a system of child 9are and family support that takes advantage of the
physical acsessibility of the school. Its mission is toprevent an array of childhood and
adolescent problems by strengthening effective family management practices and establishing
a continuurrl of child care and support servi~es that children and parents need.
I
• Circulo de !Ia Vida Familiar
Lcljayette, Colorado
Circulo de la Vida Familiar (Circulo), which began in 1992, is a comprehensive family
oriented, h9me-visiting program for,monol!ngual, monocultural Latino families. The
program offers primary prevention and intervention for pregnant women and families with
I
9
�children zero to three. The program seeks to prevent negative outcomes and to promote
health and well-being of the infants througl~ close work with their families. Circulo is a mini
team of the Community Infant Project, which is a collaborative program of the Boulder
County Healtli Department, Boulder County Department of Social Services, and tll'e Mental
Health Center;of Boulder County, Inc.
.
!
•
Cuidando NJestros Nifios
New York. New York
Cuidando Nu~stros Ninos (CNN) is the only Latino Child Care Resource and Referral
(CCR&R) service in New York City. CNN has been providing child care referrals and
informationa(workshops to Latino families throughout the 5 boroughs of New York City for
5 years. Cl\fN has three goals, including: providirig child care resource and referral to
parents; educating parents on child care issues; and increasing the number of group and
family day care providers. CNN is a projec't of the Committee for Hispanic Children and
Families, Inc.
•
El Comienzo'
California (Statewide)
I
El Comienzo;is a Californ'ia-based project that has been working since 1990 to expand the
supply of high-quality child care options for Latino families and children, by recruiting and
training Span,ish-speaking fain'ily child care providers. EI Comienzo grew from the,
California Child Care Initiative Project, a public/private partnership which was begun in
1985, throug~ community-based child care resource and referral agencies, to recruit and train
family child care providers throughout the state. The Initiative chose to focus on family child
care, and was developed by the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network.
•
Isabel S. Na~ano Migrant Child Development Center
Courtland, C,alifornia
.
The IsabelB! Naranjo Migrant Child Developm~nt Center is a Montessori preschool program
for low incoine and migrant agricultural working families since 1980. The Naranjo Center's
goal is to provide the appropriate curriculum so that children will surpass the minimum
educational tequirements throughout their lives. The Naranjo Center incorporates culture at
many levels,'I including Latino art and musit, and tasks that center on Mexican culture.
.
•
Family Foc~s Nuestra Familia
Chicago, Illinois
\
.
Family Focus Nuestra Familia serves ,a primarily Latino population since 1982. The
programs focus on reforming the education process by approaching educational preparation
through the family, and specifically the parents, instead of working solely with the child.
Family Focus Nuestra Familia has worked together with Mexican and Puerto Rican families
in the development of programs and family. services. Their programs include Our Children,
I
health and n'utrition Classes, Latino fam ily cu Itural arts, Play' n' Learn, parent workshops, and
sewing and dressmaking. Family Focus also familiarizes low income immigrant parents with
the school system and offers English classes in order for parents to be better prepared to help
their childr~n.
•
Florida Fir'st
Florida (Statewide)
Florida First Start began in 1991 as a state-wide program for children ages zero to four years
and their families. The program's main objective is to enhance parents' role as their
'
10
�children's first teacher and to give children 'the best possible start in life, particularly those
with handicaps and those who are at risk offuture school failure. The program emphasizes
offering early, h;igh-quality education and support services that will help families enhance
their children's intellectual, language, physical, and social development.
J
I
I
• Project Early:
Kansas City, M{ssouri
Project Early was initiated by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Founda,tion in 1989 and focuses
on serving infants and their families through a series of partnerships in the community.
Project Early ~orks with families to reach self-sufficiency as'defined by the families
themselves. Afrangements with other community agencies also assure that Project Early
meets the range of needs families have. Project'Early's program services include home visits,
community-based social services, and ESLand GED classes.
V.
CHARGES TO COMMUNITIES/PRIVATE SECTOR
• Hispanic AdvJcates and Community Members: Develop community leadership and
ownership of efforts to recruit child care providers, build local capacity and articulate wluit is
, needed from srate and federal partners in terms offunding and technical assistance. The
government can never know what is most locally and culturally appropriate in tI~e way that a
member ofth~ community can; therefore, there needs to be local control of reshaping early
childhood seryices for Hispanic families.
• Research CommunitY: Initiate research on the impact of program qual ity and cultural
relevance on the early childhood development of Hispanic children.
I
I
• iiigher Edudtion Community: Ensure that early childhood education curricula include
multicultural!perspectives and components on working with children and families with home
langul').ges otijer than English. Encourage students to pursue early childhood training and
obtain appropriate credentials. Ensure that 'these programs meet the needs of Hispanic
studerits trairiing to become care givers or teachers.
,
'
• Private Sectbr: Recognizing that child care is a major concern for employees and unstable
care arrangements can be the cause of missed work time, employers should be encouraged to
provide quality child care or partner with local early care/education programs to promote
stable, quality care for the.children of empl?yees or of the community at-large.
• ,Early Childhood CommunitY: Build partnerships to ensure that care is culturally- and
linguistically-appropriate. Also use partnef;ships to promote the health of the children in care
'
and their families, and to provide stable, quality care that meets the needs of parents who
work full d~ys or non-standard hours.
• Healtl1; Co~munity (public and private): Build partnerships with early childhood care and
education 'programs, as well as with school 'systems, to ensure that children have access to
available health insurance, a medical home: and needed health services.
11
�I
VI. 'FEDERAL:PROGRAMS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE IN EARLY CmLD CARE
AND EDUCATION (DHHS)
Administration for Children, Youth and Families
'.
Head Start:
I,
PROGRAM:
Head Start is a national program providing comprehensive developmental services to low-income
preschool children ,~nd their families. To help children achieve their full potential, Head Start
provides comprehensive health, nutritional, educational, social and other services. Operating
within a set of fedt1ral performance standards, Head Start programs are locally designed and
provide ,services through a variety of program options, such as center-based and home-based
. services, adapted to the needs of the children and families enrolled in the program. Begun in
1965 as part ofthe;War on. Poverty, Head Start has served almost 18 million children over the
past 34 years.
:
,
' . '
I
Since its inception:, Head Start has served millions of Hispanic children across the nation. In FY
1999,230,500 ofthe more than 829,000 children funded by Head Start were Hispanic. This
equals 27.8 percellt of Head Start enrollment. The Head Start program has. made steady progress'
over time to extend greater access to Head Start services to Hispanic families.· Since 1992,
Hispanic enrollm~nt has increased 62%.
'
Despite these incr~ases, Hispanic children remain underrepresented in Head Start. In 1998
young, low-income Hispanic children represented 31.3 percent of all low-income preschoolers in
the U.S. (excluding Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories), compared to 25 percent in Head Start
(again, excluding Puerto Rico and . ACF is committed
the territories).
to identifying and resolving
I
,
barriers to fully equitable access and service fot Hispanic children in Head Start. "
In communities ~ith traditionally large Hispanic populations, Head Start programs alt:eady report
substantial percerytages of Hispanic enrollees. For example, in Houston and Miami, Hispanics
comprise almost 10% of childrenserved, in New york and San Diego, 50%, and in San Antonio
and Los Angeles the figure is as high as 75%. Head Start has also demonstrated flexibility in
adapting services;to the needs of migrant farnlworker families, 95% of whom are Hispanic.
Hispanics appear: to be most underrepresented in Head Start communities where Hispanic
populations haveideveloped more recently. While some programs have adapted more quickly,
other grantees have been slow to change their recruitment strategies, hiring patterns and services
to meet the needs of the new and 'growing Hispanic populations in their service areas.
'
1
'd
. RESEARCH
,
To determine both the community needs and the program effectiveness in this area, ACF recently
conducted The Descriptive Study ofHead Start is Bilingual and Multicultural Program Services.
I
The study, not yet released, determined that 140 languages were spoken within the currently
enrolled Head start population, and that the most common language, after English, is Spanish.
A ;ecently completed Study ofthe Characteristics ofFamilies Served by Head Start Migrant
Programs, founC! that Head Start has been successful in developing unique approaches to meeting
the needs of migrant families. Migrant Head .Start families are very poor, with larger families
I
I "
l'
12
�I
often earning no m,bre than 50 perc,ent of federal poverty guidelines. Less than a third of families
1
speak or read Engli sh well and almost half did notcomplete elementary school. Migrant Head
Start centers are generally staffed with bilingual/bicultural workers with backgrounds similar to
those of migrant families. The study found that staff are responsive to families needs and parents
report that they are:generally very please with the care their children are receiving. The study
estimated that 28 percent of eligible Migrant children are currently being served. '
I
,
'
,
The Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is currently piloting methods of assessing
children's language and literacy development, both in one-on-one assessments and in the
classroom context. I FACES assesses children's vocabulary, book knowledge, pre-writing,
11umeracy, and letter recognition at entry into the program, at the end of the program (either one
or two years) and ~gain after a year of kindergarten. Children whose ~rima:ry language was'
'
Spanish were assessed in Spanish at baseline; if they continued in a.8panish-speaking program
they were assessed in Spanish again in the follow up assessment. If the program language was
primarily English,!they were assessed in English in the follow up. Cognitive assessments were
combined with as~essments of social-emotional development, both, by observation and by parent
and teacher report;, since such factors also~play a role in the,child's school readiness. '
,
In order to capturd the experiences of all families involved in Head Start, FACES researchers
offered families the opportunity to be intervie\\(ed in their home language: Out of individual
parent interviews with approximately 3200 families (a nationally representative sample that
included Puerto Rico), 16.9% of the families chose to be interviewed in Spanish. This study
made the encouraging finding that parent participation in the program did not vary by primary
language; participation (ie: volunteering in centers, participating in classroom activities) was
equal across English speaking and non-English speaking families.
'
i·
:
•.
On February 17,2000, ACYF, NICHD and the Department of Education joined with the National
Association on Bi,lingual Education (NABE) to'puton a Bilingual Education Research
Conference on re~earch based, language and literacy-focused efforts with preschool- and
kindergarten-age second language learner,~. The conference,held in San Antonio Texas, was
focused on stimulating communication 'and collaboration among researchers conducting work in
this important ar~a., It was also designed to promote the dissemination of research findings to the
program and pOlifY communities and to encourage increased exchange and partnerships between
researchers and practitioners on issues pertaining to language and literacy activities with young
Second Languag~ Learners.
..
'
.
i
Child Care Bureau:
i
,
PROGRAM
I
The Child Care Bureau (CCB) operates the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which is
a block grant to states to provide subsidized child care to low-income working families. CCB
administers thesJ funds to the states and provides policy leadership and technical assistance to
states, tribes and!territories. The Child C,are Bureau also provides technical assistance to t h e ,
state lead agenci~s for child care. TA cOines in the form of information and practical approaches
I
"
to issues of program, policy, design and delivery.- CCB also supports the National Child Care
Information Center, which maintains in its database information on local and state model efforts
to meet the needs of Hispanic families for culturally competent child care services, keeps lists of
materials in Spanish and translates materials that would be of value to Hispanic parents and
providers. There, are full t!me bi-lingual ~taffto respond to questions/requests.
j '
.
'
13
�RESEARCH
I
.
. For the first time the Child Care Bureau is collecting, demographic information on the rac~ and
ethnicity of the children served by CCDF. The Bureau will also be'funding field-initiated and
research 'scholar, projects specific to child care. The needs of underserved and non-English
speaking families wlilI be identified as prio'rity areas for study.
I
I
I
I
Substance Abuse Jnd ,Mental Health Services Administration
I
.
.
, The Substance Abu'se and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) launched a major
Hispanic!Latino initiative, Hablemos en Confianza. This initiative focuses on improving the'
delivery of sUbstanpe abuse. prevention services to Latino children. This campaign incorporated
culturally relevant best practices materials, a process for providing technical assistance to
consumers, organi~tions and communities, the use of new knowledge to facilitate
communication between Hispanic parents, th~ir children and their care providers. The campaign
was carried out in five major Hispanic markets: Miami; Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago and New
York.
Starting Early, Stqrting Smart:
,
I
PROGRAM! RESEARCH
•
I
Starting Early, St<irting Smart (SESS) is an early childhood collaborative initiative that delivers
integrated behavidral health services (sub~tance abuse prevention, treatment and mental health
services) to children and families within early childhood settings (child care, Head Start, primary
care clinics). Each site has tailored interventions for their unique population. Sites in
Albuquerque, Arkansas;Boston, Las Vegas, Miami and Montgomery County, MD all serve
Hispanic populati~)J1s.
Albuquerque:
The population at: this site is primarily from Mexico, Central America, and South America,
though mostare ~merican citizens. The immigrant population has great difficulty getting
primary care due ,to immigration status. Since this is a bicultural and bilingual city, many of the
barriers experienced in other sites do not exist here. Spanish is spoken by most and participating
schools have adapted to serv'ing the needs of students with limited English proficiency.
I
Arkansas:
I
,
This site has exPrrienced a recent influx of populations from Mexico to Northwest Arkansas.
Although theyhave enrolled only a small:number of Spanish speaking children, interpreters are at
all intakes, follow-ups, and program servi~es. Two interpreters are available in the program.
This is a rural site so service providers travel extensively from site to site. There is great
difficulty with resources available to these families, but SESS has had materials related to SESS
translated into Spanish. As much as possible, they use representatives from the local community
to reach these fa~i1ies., Western Arkansas Counseling and Guidance has bilingual staff and
assists the SESS: sites. They are actively seeking Spanish speaking professionals. Currently, the
local Migrant Head Start program offers assistance with language and culture when needed.
Language devel?pment is difficult to assess with Spanish speaking children due to lack of
I
I
,
.
,
I
, I
I
I
. i
14
�standardized measures. The Preschool Language Scale does have a Spanish version, but required
,I
.
.
too much time and increased respondent burden.
Boston:
.
Staff reflect the popu lation served. Many of the staff have gone through imm igration themselves
and understan<:f the issues first hand. They work closely with local agenCies that provide special
services for Latino families. The Boston SESS site has links to the. Latino Health Institute and'
multi-service centers. They advertise in the local Latino newspapers to recruit staff and families.
The site has strong ~ommunity resources for Latino families.
I
!
Las Vegas:
The population in this site is predominantly from Mexico, Central America, and South America.
Staff serving children and families are Spanish speaking. One setting is Hispanic and the other.
one is both Hispanfc and African~American. Four counselors work as a team; the Spanish
speaking staff works with those families needing translation. It is clear that the cO,ncem in this
community is in the bi-cultural site where the Hispanic numbers are small and the resources few.
It is harder to serv~ smaller population numbers. Local measures are translated into Spanish.
Language tests are:done in English with all children, which has been problematic for Spanish
speaking children. ,Classroom activities conducted as are part of Head Start so the resources are
. there for classrooni support. This SESS program has a videotape study, and every attempt to
make the tasks relevant to the popUlation has been made.
I
. "
Miami:
I
The populations served in this SESS site are from Cuba, Nicaragua, and other Central American
populations. Staff, reflect the population served and are generally bi-lingual. All materials and
information sheet~ about parenting, child pare, substance abuse and services within mental health
are in Spanish. AI,I local measures are translated into Spanish. Community resources. for this site
are fairly well es~blished and they do not have the barriers that other sites encounter. This site
serves infants and'their families. Since the children are born in this country they are eligible for
provided bylocal Hispanic community
primary care, and parent and family services
organizations.
'
. I
are
Technical Assistance:
I
'
Technical assistance is provided to all sites through a contract with Cosmos and the Georgetown
Child DevelopmentCenter.· Cultural diversity is such a significant part of this study, that this
I
contract was chos,en based on the strength ofits contacts with. training/trainers that reach many
cultures. They hdve conducted on-site training to ensure cultural sensitivity with the research
plan, and now are looking at the interventions.
1
.
I
1
,
Center for Menttll Health Services (CMHS):
I
.
The Center's programs target children birth through 21. Programs offered through CMHS inClude
the Hispanic Initiative of the Community Action Grants Program and Comprehensive
Community Mental Health Services to Children and Families. The purpose ofthe action grants is
to assist state an~ community .groups in adopting exemplary practices in mental health services by
building consensus, aiding in decision-support and adaptation of service models. The following
programs are part of the Hispanic Initiative of the Community Action Grants Program:
,
"
•
I
Child System of Care:
15.
�The Family Service AssoCiation of Greater Tampa, the Hispanic Needs and Services Council
and the Departfnerit of Child and Family Studies of the Louis de la Parte Florida Mental
Health Institute have collaborated to implement consensus building among the community,
family members, and the mental health sy~tem in order to implement an exemplary practice
I
for Hispanic cI:ients.
j
• Mental Health & Anti-Addiction Administration
This program in San Juan, Puerto Rico proposes consensus building for the program known
as the System of Care for Children and Adolescents with Severe Emotional Disturbance ..
This project f09uses on Puerto Rico's medically indigent population, including children with
SED and persons with co-occurring conditions.
I
• Escondido Youth Encounter (EYE)
This program in Escondido, CA is a private, non-profit counseling and crisis service agency
with 30 years experience; half of this agency's clients are Latino. This site proposes to build
consensus to develop a wrap-around service for families.
Two additiona'i projects under the Hispanic,Initiative of the Community Action Grants
Program focus' solely on adolescents.
The Comprehensive 'community Mental Health Services for Child atid Families
(CCMHSCF) program is a service grant initiative to develop community based, family
focused, culturally-competent systems of care for children and adolescents with serious
emotional dis~urbances and their families. Two of the grants serve communities with
populations-that are over 60% Latino:
I
I
• The MottHaven Friends Initiative
This grant was funded in 1994 for the Mott Haven community in South Bronx, New
York. Si~ty-seven percent of the children and adoles~~nts receiving services are Latino,
primarily:of Puerto Rican and Dominicpn descent.
•
The Las cruces Olympia Program
This grant was funded in 1994 for the city of Las Cruces, New Mexico, near the Mexican
border. 7q% of the child population receiving services are Latino.
I
In addition to the~e-programs, CMHS is involvyd in an International Symposium on Children's
Mental HeaIth, ~hich inCludes representatives from ten Pan-American countries.
I
'
The Center for Mental Health Services also offers several technical assistance resources:
•
I
National Techni~al Assistance Center for Children's Mental Health
These resources are intended for states, counties, communities, tribal organizations, and
territories. The center provides technical assistance on systems of care by proyiding information
I
through confererice calls, institutes, workshops, publications, seminars and consultation. The train
the trainer institute on cultural competence, academy for providers of color, and the urban
initiative are other ways this center provides information.
,
.
f
Technical Assistance Center for the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services
These resourceslare intended for the 43 current grantsites ofCMHS's Comprehensive
Community Mehtal Health Services for Childr~n and their Families Program. The Center
16
�I
provides technical assistance to sites of the CMHS programs, cultural competency training on
infrastructure development of systems of care, quality assurance of systems of care, and family
I
'
involvement.
The Federation ofEamilies for Children's Mental Health
These resources are intended for the 41 current grant sites of CCMHSCF. It provides technical
assistance on family participation on systems of care in grant programs as advocates"evaluators,
and service providers.
I
The Macro International
These resources are intended for the 65 current grant sites of the CCMHSCF Program .. It
provides technical kssistance to the Mott Haven Friends Initiative and the Las Cruces Olympia
program to implement thenational evaluation. '
RESEARCH
Macro Internationc,ll is conducting a National Evaluation for CMHS. They receive and analyze
data from comprehensive outcomes and process evaluations of the 31 grant sites of the
CCMHSCF. Data includes several sites, which service a.large percent of Hispanic children ..
,
.
The National I~stitutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD)
RESEARCH
. NICHD, in conjunction with the Office of Edu~ational Research and Improvement,
launched a resean?h initiative entitled: "Development of English Literacy in Spanish
Speaking Children." The goal of this initiative ,is to stimulate research that will .
increase the unde~standing of the cognitive and ,socio-cu Itural factors that promote or
impede English reading and writing abilities for Spanish-speaking children.
i
!.
,
17
�V,.1I J. I f \ ) \ )
UO::><:: r'll 20227,34768
-' "--,-- -
-
_.
-. -
I
- -.
I4J 001
'r
j
u.
S. OEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
; OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT
,
National Institute On Early Childhood Development arid Education
j
555 New Jersey Avenue. NW R~rn 606
Washington, DC 20208
I
I
,
'
.--",
FAX COVER SHEET
I
# Pages ('including this one)
I
,
,
To:
d
3 _
lA
,i
b1 6ltva 1'V1 "f
'7.. 02
FoxNumb~r:4~1o - z..~1-B. phone Number:_','_ _ _ _ __
,
~C\ Q
From:
,,\/\',
~o. Y'f1
Fax Numb'er:, 202-273-4768 Phon~ Number: 202-219-1935
,
"
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20208-5520
.
�VOt.LIIVV
-. -
-
\JO;;)~
' - -:--
tAX 2022734768
,
-
----:-
- - -
--,
141002
CQO children go
19~ to S c h00,1
Nattonal Center:
E Development&L~.
,
,
SpotUgbt No. 11 JUDI!
Fofloll'il'1g ure excel'ptS' from '7'1W Chtldr~n ojrhe Cost, Qualit),. Ol1ri Ourcomes Study Go To School," F..'T:~cmi\·e Summary, Junlt,
1999. hy Ifll~ Co,,'r, QUQlity. OlitcOtnl!..! Study Team.. Begun in 1993. fhl! ego strldy examiNed tbtl jnfl.llcm::~ a/typical center-based
child care on childl'/!YI's deve'apl~e1lt dJlI"l..rt1f 'heir pre$chool.wan; Qna thtrll,'TlbstU/fJemly as they I/tQved IflfO r:lemelltary scl/oo/.
Th~' eJ:C!l:uli\'e Slut/mary is avail.o.Me
onUne at <"wU'lII.ncedl,org">,
Benefits of qualitY child care persist into elementary grades
,
In recent years there has been increasing interest in the effects of pTeS(:hool experi~mces--especjally child care--on
children's later performance iii schooL A substantial mfljority of preschoolefs llOW participate in some form of child care
before coming to schooL In the COO study. researchers in four states examined child care quality during children's next-to·
last year in child care and continued to follow children for four more years, through the end of second grade. Here are
summaries of the overall findings: I
an
High quality (:hild eare is
iw- .
portant clement in acbie"illg the l na
tional gO<il of haviJ1g all children ready
for school. Children who attended higher
quality child care centers scored higher
on measures of both cognitive and social
skiiJIs tn child care and through the
tra.nsition into school. Further. this
influence of child care quality w~s
im portant for children from a wide range
of family backgrounds.
i
. High qualit)· child care continues
to positively predict children's:
performance lveU into'their s(!~ool
C~treers. The quality of child care
experienced by these children ~fore they
l!\1tcred school continued to affc'ct their
de'lr'elopment at least through ki!ldergarten
and in many cases through the l,:'1ld of.
second grade, Child care quality was
relaled to cognitive skills (language and
matb) and social skill:;, both ofwhich are
important factors in children's ability to
take advantage of the opportunities
available in school.
Children who bllve tt'llditionally been
at risk of not doing wen in s.chool are
affected more by the qualitY of child
experiences than otheli children.
For some o\!tCI,)mes (nwth skiUs and
car~
CfWdreu', J..angua,e Skill; OverTime by .
Quality orCJliJd CarfJ C~S9rOtlm practkcs
lllG
104
E
102
-
100
,~
~
t
98~'
ge
94
_ ........ ....
"
.... -
,
.' '
.
..
....
-- ------ ------ ----
.
...........
........
...
".
..
..........
... ,..
4
'"
-
.......................... .
....
- - - High
······1..0\\1
92+-----------~-----------T-4
.5
____________
----···--·--·--~
7
B
pt'oblem behaviors), children whose mothers had lower levels of education'
benefited even more from bigh quality child care, Moreover. these influences
of child care quality for children Ilt risk were sustained through second grade.
The quality of child care classroom practices was rel~ted to
children'S cognitive (levelopmcnt, while the closeness ortbe child ca.l"C
teacher-child relatioJ:lsbip influenced children's social dcvelopmen.t
through the early school years. Cbildren who attended child care with
higher quality classroom practkes' bad better cognitive developmellt through
enrly elementary school. while children \vho had closer relationships with
theil' child care teachers had better classroom belUlvior and s~)ciaJ skills over
this time period, High quality child care exp~riences. in {em1S of both
classroom practict.'s and teacher-child relationships, cnhallce children's
abilities to take advantage of the educational opplomunitiesin ~ChO\1L
I
For more Information: Lc>yd Uttlc at 919--966~0861 Dr
(COnlitlUl!d on
EIm.. I'· <lovd_little@I.InI::,edu>.
rf"l,'('f'se)
Our web site is <WWW.NCEDL.QR:G>
�UJ/17/00
08:52 FAX 2022734768
--I
._ _EARL¥, CHILDHOOD INST.
Igj 003
J
.
I ·
Implications for practice and policy
I
. . . .
.
.
11tere is oneoverarc.:hing im.plication from the study: If America 'vants aU its children to be ready for school, it
mwt improve the quality of child care experiences avmJable in Ulis country. The first phase of this Sludyindicated
thklt a majority of children in chi~d care did not have access to high quality care. Thecurrem phase of research
shows that this lack ofquality c~e has negative effects on children \s school readiness and development during the
early school years. Below are a number ofsuggested ways of working toward the goal of high quality child care_
Fiscal striiltegies;
System and 'program· change strategies:
- The quality set-aside in the federal and
state funds for child care is a wise investmel1t '
,
--Recent comprehensive attempts by states to provide
preschool care and education exp~ences for children are
well founded and .should be greatly expanded.
-- Programs which are accredited by national
accrediting agencies tend to have higher q~lity, Efforts·
. to expand use of such accrediting could prove useful in
.overall efforts to raise the quality of child care.
- Improvements and expansion ofthe teacher prepar
ation systems will be needed.
- States should focus on ill1pr~>ving licensing
standards asa means of raising quality.
and should be extended.
:
- Subsidy systems can be reconfigured to
tie subsidy payments 10 higher program
standards and to provide higher ,compensation
for teachers.
-- Tax. incentives should be redesigned to
encourage use of higher quality! care and edu
cation.
i
Professional preparation iand compensation approaches:
_. States should require higher minimum· levels of training faT. teachers than are ooently in place. Fonnal
training is a key clement for te~cher preparati()n and sbou1d be required such as through some form of
credentialling comparable to the K-12 system.
-- Teacher prep~ation progtams should include a greater focus on helping teachers ~evelop skills in
relationship building with yow't.g children.
Inservice training is also important in building a high quality early childhood system. . .
Teacher compensation is~ues are important to address so that these .training initiatives will produce long
tenll improvements in child c~e quality.
.
N_
w-
If you want to know more:
y
;
Bredckamp, S_ & COWie, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmental!)' aoprC)priate practice in early childhood pr01!rtlms. re\'l!;;cd edition.
\\/ashingmn, DC: National Association for the Education ofYoUIl!! Children.
CQO Study Team. (]995). CQst, Qu.alitv. lind Outcomes in Child Care Centeflj, Public repm'!. University of Colorado at Denver_
Peisfi\."l'-Feinberg, E. S_, BprchinaJ; M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M-L., Howes. C., Kagan, S. L., Yazejian, N., Byler, P., Rustici, J .•
and Zelazo, J. (1999). The children (.fthe Cost, Oualily_ and Outcomes Stuuy go to school: T(!chnicai r~p()n. Chapel Hill: University of
NQrilh Carolina at Chapel HHI, Frank Porter G...~ham Chifd .Development Center.
West, J.• Wright, D., & Hausken, E. O. (1995), bhild care and carl'll education pIl.lgram participation ofinfanls, tooc!lers, and pre
schoolers. WaShington, DC: U.S_ D~partn1ent of Educatio8\, National Center for Education Statistic:).
The IIIllthOrs 01 The Chilllrm, of/he :Cost, Qttalill, end OlltC{)II11!S. Srudy Go To Schoo/, Execll.li~'e Smrurntl)'. include EII~n :reilmer~FeiDberg.
M:lrglll"llt Burchinal, Rtchnrd Clirrord, "nd NoreeD Yaaejian. 9t! M UNC-CUj Ctlroltoe nowO$ lun;! PatriciR Byler at UCLA: Mary Culkin
and Janice Zelazo aUhe Universitj of Colorado Healtb Sciences Center; and Shar&I1 Lynn Kaglln and Jean Rustid at Yale Universit1'.
NCE1)l, Is administratively h(ttlse~ at t';NC·CH. This pruject i, ~l.IpportQd in p:1l'hmder the ~du~ulion ReseuJrcb and Developm(:ntCent~rs
Program, PR!award number R301Mi00It4, as sdnlinhitl'red by «he Office of t~duu.tional Rescnrth lind IInpro'llcment, ll.S. llcparunent of
Edu~ntion.Other fonders or this tcscarcb ihchlde the Carnegie Corpor3tion of New Yurk, the Willia11l T. GnlDt FOlmdlltion, the JE"M
foumiation, tbl: A. 1.. Mldlnu.1l Fn:Olily F'outldation, the J.)oyid nod Lucilt Plu~k3rd Foundation, tltePew Ch.aritnble Trusts, the lfSWEST
f'ollodatian, and the Smith Riclmr:d5IJn Foundation. Ollinijons If' these rllports de hot !U~('es3arily upresent ihe pos.jHulIs 01; poliCies ofthe .
l'i:ltiOJJ:illnstitut~ on Early Cbildhood De\'elopment nnd Educaliun <ww,~·_~d.gov/ofti~o ../OERIlECI/>. tbe Office of t:tlucatiorml Research
:.'Iud Impru'..ement, tbe \1.S. Dep~r~mCtlt (If Education, or liny other ,puorormg orgaoi-lution. Permi"si.Gn i~ grullted to reprint this
SpoHght; we ask that )QU lH'Kliuwledge the lIuthor.s of thl: paper·on which tllis l'petllght is based and tile N:\tiClI1~1 Ccnt~r for Earl.)'
Ue"~l(}pln~m & l . . e a r l l i n g . ·
.
'~-. ., ,-------,--+-.------.. ---~-------.----------
---'-
�"Wilhelm, Susan" <Susan_Wilhelm@ed.gov>
03/221200004:44:18 PM
Record Type:
To:
Record
Ruby Shamir/OPD/EOP
cc:
"Karp. Naomi" <NaomLKarp@ed.gov>, "Agee, Eve" <Eve_Agee@ed.gov>
Subject: RE: Hispanic Early Childhood Education
Ruby, in term of other things that are going on in the Department of Ed re
Hispanic early childhood are the following:
The Reading Compact for parents of children ~-3 (Which 'I am trying to find
out exactly what this is) has been translatedin~o Spanish' and will soon be
available. Also -- we will do our training materials for the Even Start
Parenting Guide in Spanish
,I:
I will forward you a separate e-mail with the additional feedback that I got
in res'ponse to the questions raised at our last h,eeting. Susan
,..!
/
I
, : "
.
, > -----Original Message----I"
,
> From: RubLShamir@opd.eop.gov [SMTP:R~bLShamir@opd.eop.gov]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 20004:20 PM'
> To:
Naomi_Karp@ed.gov; HeidUamirez@ed.gov; susan_wilhelm@ed.gov;
> jbosland@acf.dhhs.gov; Eparker@acf.dhhs.gov; pmontoya@acf.dhhs.gov;
> Eve_Agee@ed.gov; deborah_santiago@ed.gov; Quirina_J._Orozco@omb.eop.gov;
> 8ethany_Little@opd.eop.gov
> Cc: Ann_O'Leary@opd.eop.gov
~
> Subject:
Hispanic Early Childhood Education
!
>
> We would like to have a follow-up meeting tomorrow (Thursday, 3/23) at 4pm
> in room 100 OE08 on Hispanic Early ChildIJ60d Education, but we have not
>y~
I
> received any new memos from you all. Please try to send us your memos by
I
> the end of the day today, or latest by noon tomorrow, so that we can
> incorporate your ideas into a new document that we will discuss tomorrow.
'> Thanks.
.
>
I;
>
�"Wilhelm, Susan" <Susan_Wilhelm@ed.gov>
03/2212000 05:01: 13 PM
Record Type:
To:
,Record
Ruby Shamir/OPD/EOP
cc:
"Karp, Naomi" <NaomLKarrj@ed.gov>, "Agee, Eve" <Eve_Agee@ed.gov>
Subject: more Hispanic early childhood
The following was provided by our office of Migrant Edl!cation and may be
useful.'
'
Additional Department of Education early childhood activity:
la~gUage
. Bilingual family literacy projects which su PPo:tive
literacy
(directly funded by the Department) include Migrant Education Even Start
'programs in Newaygo, MI/Grandview, WAiMcAllen, TX; San Antonio, TX; New
Oxford, PA; Salem-Keizer, OR; Laredo, TX; Mdntana/lllinois/Eagle Pass, TX;
La Grange, Kentucky; and Geneseo Migrant C~nter, New York. (Programs
separated by I are single projects with multiple Isites~ the lead agency)s
listed first.) California and Kansas operate stat~-funded family literacy
initiatives for migrant students which are institutionalized from MEES
grants in 1990-91.
Research findings:
*
Even Start evaluations show that second-language families achieve
greater gains than English-only famiiies.
#,
\ ,
I
*
The evaluation of Even Start projects in Kansas indicates that
l
projects serving migrant families show greater gains than State Part B
projects serving English-only families. Anecd9talJY, these families and the
projects that serve them express,a more urgent sense of needing to acquire
English, prepare their children for school, and /establish families economic
,
.,
self-sufficiency in the comm,unities where the~ migr",te.
Suggestions for challenges for the prilVate
s~ctor.
Employers:
,
Consider supporting child care centers (early childhood and beyond)
that meet the needs of shift-working parents. This may mean creating
facilities that operate 24 hours/day.
*
*
Provide incentives that place BOOKS in the hands of parents.and
young children. Low income Latino families 6vm few books and are not
�L
library users. In Lexington, NE, the local employer provided "BEEF BUCKS"
to families who participated in a CATV public awareness campaign on reading,
using the library, helping with homework, andtalkirig to teachers. In
addition to distributing hundreds of books paid. for by the BEEF BUCKS,
library use rose over 200% with new users. I~
..
Partner with CBOs, LEAs and advocacy groups to leverage Federal
funding that supports early childhood educatibn and family services. These
grants may be available from a variety of agehcies including HUD, HHS, .
Agriculture, an9 Labor. Not all education prog~ams ~re funded through this
I'
Department.
..
Become an advocate for your employees. Programs and services that
support them influence your profit margin andiemployee retention rates.
Providing administrative or liberal leave to Release employees for teacher
conferences and school activities is such an .1
ini;tiative.
.
:
.~
..
Consider inviting communities (such as the Siouxland, NEIIA/SD area)
where employer/education partnerships have created family learning centers
and partnerships with minimal Federal support to share their strategies
Community Services
i .
.
..
When 5,000 new immigrants arrive inlyour c;;ommunity, please consider
that it may be easier to adjust your internal oPleratiol)s (that affect
several dozen individuals) rather than attempt to force your Standard
operating procedures on the thousand or morb families that seek your service
•
Build capacity to
communicat~
with nL populations
..
Recruit liaisons from the target comJunity Js ombudsmen,
translators, and advocates for new clients
I. ' :
..
Form a diversity task force (such as Emporia, KS) to lead change
among community leaders in business, health, municipal services, and .
education
i
Businesses
..
Newspapers and media: Create programs and supplements that provide
information to Spanish language parents on child development, inoculations,
safety, school enrollment policies, and which ~cknowledge holidays and
celebrations for that community.
..
Develop partnerships and resources with early childhood education
providers and colleges/universities that train ECE and Bilingual educators.
Provide programs and services that use your Ipublication to support skill
building with parents and young children.
I'·:
Employers
..
Provide incentives that place BOOKS in the hands of parents and
young children. Low income Latino families
few books and a[e not
0rn
1
�library users. In Lexington, NE, the local employer provided "BEEF BUCKS"
to families who participated in a CATV public awareness campaign on reading,
using the Hbrary, helping with homework, andltalking to teachers. In
addition to distributing hundreds of books pai<i:Hor by the BEEF BUCKS,
library use rose over 200% with new users. I
*
Regarding employee retention policieis: Provide administrative or
liberal leave to Release employees·for teacher conferences and school
activities.'
I
:.
Non-Government Resource recommended by, Beatriz Ceja
I
..
Raising Nuestros Ninos by Gloria G. RodrigueZ, Ph.D. combines child
I
and skill development information with engaging parent/child activities.
Using'songs, stories, games, meals, and pop~lar media, Dr. Rodriguez
encourages parents and children to enjoy multicultural experiences that
I
celebrate their Latino and U.S. heritage. Dr. Rgdriguez was with the White
House Council on Hispanic Education.
I
�Latinos in Early ,Childhood Education
.
.
Early chi Idhood education, or preschool, encompasses education programs for children up to 5 years of age, and may
provide related services to meet children's psychological and health needs. Preschool prepares .children for a solid
education by teaching learning and socialization skills. Given the importance of these efforts and services, both the federal
government and the states make significant investments in early childhood programs, totaling about $10 billion annually.
Population
The Hispanic population in the United States is very young. Today, 10% of Hispanics are under age 5 and make
up over 15% of their age group in the U.S. population. By the year 2030, they will make up 25% of the total
school-age population. The projected increase in the number of Hispanic children in preschool brings with it
critical strengths and challenges to the nation's educational system. [Bureau of the Census, CPS Report, No. P25-1130, 1996]
Enrollment
Hispanic chi Idren under age 5 are less likely to be enrolled in early childhood education programs. In 1998,
only 20% of Hispanic 3-year-olds were enrolled in early childhood programs, compared to 42% of whites and
44% of blacks. Of 4-year-olds, less than 60% of Hispanics were enrolled in early childhood programs,
,compared to 67% of whites and 73% of blacks. [Bureau ofthe Census, CPS Report, No, P20-52I, Table-2]
In 1998, differences in the enrollment of 5-year-olds largely disappeared between Hispanics (90%), whites
(94%) and blacks (95%). However, while the enrollm,ent gap closes at kindergarten, Latino' children still remain
less prepared for school because of lower enrollment rates at the younger ages. [Bureau of the Census, CPS Report, No.
P20-521 , Table-2]
In 1998, the early childhood education enrollment rate for Hispanics was similar in both urban (48%) and
suburban (42%) locations. By comparison, the enrollment rate for blacks was higher in urban areas (55%) than
in suburban are~s (32%), while the rate for whites was much higher in suburban areas (62%) than in urban
areas (19%). [Bureau of the Census, CPS Report, No. P20-S21, Table~5]
As parents' educational attainment increases, so does the early childhood enrollment rate of their children.
However, in 1997, fewer Hispanics age 25 and older had completed high school than their black and white
counterparts-55% of Hispanics, 75% of blacks, and .86%.of whites had completed high school. [NCES, Digest of
Educ~tion
Statistics, 1998, Table 8]
Income and Enrollment
In 1998, the median family income for Hispanics was: about $28,000 while·the overall median income was
$39,000. Research shows that families with higher in~omes are more likely to enroll their 3-and 4-year-olds in
early chi Idhood education than those with lower incomes. [NCES, The Conditi~n of Education, 1999, Indicator 44] [Bureau of the
Census, CPS Report, No. P60-206, 1998]
While Latinos children are over-represented in families living in poverty, they are under-represented in Head
Start programs designed to remedy the effect of poverty on educational achievement. In 1998 the child poverty
rate for children under 6 years of age was 36% for Hispanics, 40% for blacks, and 15% for whites. In Fiscal
Year 1998, Head Start served 822,316 children. Of these, 36% were black; 32% white; 26% Hispanic; and 3%
American Indian and Asian. [1999 Head Start Fact Sheet, Administration for Children, Youth and Families]
School Rea(liness .
Hispanics are more likely to tell their child a story than read to them. Three to 5-year-olds may startschdol
better prepared to learn if they are read to or told a story o~ce a week. In 1996, 'of 3- to 5-year olds, 80% of
Hispanics were told a story--consistent with blacks (7.7%) and whites (84%). Hispanic children were less
likely to be· read to--65% ofHispanics were read to i~ the last week, compared to about 75% of blacks and
nearly 90% of whites. [NCES, The Condition of Education, 1999, Indicator 3 4 ] '
,
Approximately 70% of teachers said they felt only moderately, somewhat, or not at all prepared to address the
needs or students with limited English proficiency or from diverse cultural backgrounds. This lack of,
�pr.eparation has profound implications for the large population of Hispanic students in early childhood today_
[NCES, The Condition of Education, 1999, Indicator 23]
�"Santiago, Deborah"
<Debora~_Santiago@ed.gov>
03/16/200005:20:12 PM
Record Type:
To:'
Record
Ruby Shamir/OPD/EOP
cc:
Subject: RE: CHANGE - Hispanic Early Childhood
Attached is one-page fact sheet on Latinos in early childhood education I
thought might be helpful to you as you're putting the goal' together. It is
intended to be a primer (part of a 6-part series I completed) for those who
know very little about the condition of Latinos in education. I also have
one-pagers on elementary (K-8), secondary (9-12), iJndergraduate and graduate
education. I am trying to use these as a base of knowledge and build from
them to do issue briefs on a number of topics in education focussed on
Latinos.
Hope this is helpful. (By the way, we've laid them out in a "sexy" design
for public consumption and will have them back from GPO by March 31).
«ech.doc»
> -----Original Message----
> From: RubLShamir@opd.eop.gov [SMTP:Ruby.:...Shamir@opd.eop.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, March 16,20009:01 AM
'
> To:
Santiago, Deborah
> Subject:
RE: CHANGE - Hispanic Early Childhood
>
> As you know it is a draft - not anywhere near final) We will hand it out
> at
> the mtg to use a basis for our conversation:
.
> (See attached file: early childhood.doc) « File: Lotus Manuscript 1.0 »
- ech.doc
�'.
DRAFT, 3/17100
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND HISPANICS
Background
Demographic Trends
.
• The Hispanic population is among the fastest growing segments of American society and is
very young. Today, 10% of Hispanics are under age 5 and make up over 15% of their age.
group irithe U.S. population.,
.
• By the year 2030, they will make up 25% of the total school-age population. The projected
increase in the number of Hispanic children in preschool brings with it critical strengths and
challenges to the nation's educational system. [Bureau of the Census, CPS Report, No. P25-1130, 1996]
Economic Indicators
• Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, Hispanic poverty has dropped
from 30.6 percent to 25.6 percent, the lowest level since 1979. The Hispanic child poverty
rate has fallen 15.9 percent since 1993. While this marks significant progress, President
continue to fight for polic,ies that help to raise incomes and reduce poverty. [WH
Clinton
Press paper 3/00]
.
. .,.
.
• In 1998, the median family income for Hispanics was about $28,000 while the overall
median income was $39,000. Research shows that families with higher incomes are more
likely to enroll their 3~ and 4-year~0Ids in ~arly childhood education than those with lower
incomes. [NCES, The Condition ofE~ucation, 1999, Indicator 44] [Bureau of the Census, CPS Report, No. P60-206, 1998]
will
Early Childhood Enrollment Facts
• Hispanic children under age 5 are less likely to be enrolled in early childhood education
programs. In 1998, only 20% of Hispanic 3-year-olds were enrolled in early childhood
programs, compared to 42% of whites and 44% of blacks. Of 4-year-olds, less thari 60% of
Hispanics were enrolled in early childhood programs, compared to 67% of whites and 73%
ofblapks. [Bureau of the Census, CPS Report, No. P20-S21, Table-2]
.
• In 1998, differences in the enrollment of 5-year-olds largely disappeared between Hispanics
(90%), whites (94%) and blacks (95%5. [Bureau of the Census, CPS Report, No. P20-52I, Table-2]
• As parents' educational attainment increases, so does the early childhood enrollment rate of
their children. However, in 1997, fewer Hispanics age 25 and older had completed high
school than their black and white counterparts-55%ofHispanics, 75% of blacks, and 86%
of whites had completed high schooL [NCES,i pigest of Education Statistics, 1998, Table 8]
• Hispanic Head Start enrollment has increased by nearly 60,000 [58,700} during the Clinton
Administration, with the program now reaching approximately 230,000 [229,700} Hispanic
children. Despite these increases, however, Hispanic children remain under-represented,
comprising less than 25 [24.9] percent of Head Start enrollment (excluding Puerto Rico)
compared to 29.8 percent of all low income~ pre:..school children in the nation. [OMB,
212000]
School Readiness
{
• Approximately 70% of teachers said they felt only moderately, somewhat, or not at all
prepared to address the needs of students with limited English proficiency or from diverse
cultural backgrounds. This lack of preparation has profound implications for the large
�DRAFT, 3/17/00
,
"
,
,
population of Hispanic students in early childhood today.
23]
[NCES, The Condition of Education, 1999, Indicator
, ;
• Hispanics are more likely to tell their child a story than read to them. Three to 5-year-olds
may start school better prepared to learn if they are read-to or told a story once a week. In
1996, of 3- to 5-year olds, 80% of Hispanics were told a story--consistent with blacks (77%)
and whites (84%). Hispanic children were less likely to be read to--65% of Hispanics were
read to in the la'st week, compared to about 75% of blacks and nearly 90% of whites. [NCES,
The Condition of Education, 1999, Indicator 34]
Overall Goal
The primary goal the Administration has set out to accomplish is to increase access to and
participation in high quality early childhood education and development programs, and make
sure that all kids enter school prepared to succeed.
Strategy #1: Access and Participation
i
Improving Access:,
• Target CCDBG to Hispanic Families
• Reach Out to Hispanics to Take Adv~tage of Child Care Tax Breaks
Encouraging Participation:
• Model after Head Start efforts to engage and enroll more Hispanic children in Head Start
[efforts announced at FL Hispanic Convening]
, • Reach out to stay at home families - to encourage participation and reading at home to
supplement school- activity. Target Early Head Start and Even Start - to further work oh
outreach to Hispanics through home visits.
• Use other programs to encourage participation [WIC, Food Stamps for low-income]
• Find ways to use faith-based and community organizations to encourage participation.
!
-Strategy #2: Ensuring High Quality
Improving Professional Training
Encouraging Parental Involvement
Building Language and Literacy Skills
:i
1
f
�.
,
,
i
()ft...f4~
•
.
(}vu~-I:;rt(ly(, «J ~~~ R-J
,.
"0'
~
'(~vWlf'.fok ~4..t
M"?J·
Lt. ~a.
• ~ ~~~& ~{~t:rr~
.J dlv4/'['7
~(J
....
? ((
~ 'ct ~~~
h'Jv.L
IYI ~h..
~ I~V\
't trtd}7
~J
,
CLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
�i'
I
I
I
1
CLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
�...
DRAFT, 3/17/00
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND HISPANICS
BACKGROUND
Demographic Trends
'"
' . '
• The Hispanic population is among the fastest growing segments of American society and is
very young. Today, 10% of-Hispanics are under age 5 and make up over 15% of their age
group in the U.S. population.
,
• By the year 2030, they will make up 25% of the total school-age population. The projected
increase in the number of Hispanic children in preschool brings with it critical strengths and
challenges to the nation's educational syste~. [Bureau of the Census, CPS Report, No. P25-1130, 1996]
Economic Indicators
• Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, Hispanic poverty has dropped
from 30.6 percent to 25.6 percent, the lowest level since 1979. The Hispanic child poverty
rate has fallen 15.9 percent since 1993. While this marks significant'progress, President
, Clinton will continue to fight for policies that help to raise incomes and reduce poverty. [WH,
Press paper 3/00]
,
• In 1998, the median family income for Hispanics was' about $~8,000 while the overall
median income was $39,000. Research shows that families with higher incomes are more
likely to enroll their 3- and 4-year-olds in early childhood education than those with lower
incomes. [NCES, The Condition of Education, 1999, Indicator 44] [Bureau of the Census, CPS Report, No. P60-206, 1998]
Early Childhood Enil',.......,..~:;..,:;...:~
• . Hispanic childre
programs. In 199 0 y 20% of Hispanic 3-year-olds were enrolled in early cfiildhood
programs, compared to 42% of whites and 44% of blacks. Of 4-year~0Ids, less than 60% of
Hispanics were enrolled in early childhood programs, compared to 67% of whites and 73%
of blacks. [Bureau of the Census, CPS Report, No, P20-52·1, Table-2]
,; In 1998, differences in the enrollment of 5-year-olds largely disappeared between Hispanics
(90%), whites (94%) and blacks (95%). [Bureau ofthe Census, CPS Report, No. P20-52 I , Table-2]
• As parents' educational attainment increases, so does the early childhood enrollment rate of
,their children. However, in 1997, fewer Hispanics age 25 and older had completed high
school than their black and white counterparts-55% of Hispanics, 75% of blacks, and 86%
of whites had completed high school. [NCES,!Digest of Education Statistics, 1998, Table 8] .
• Hispanic Head Start .enrollment has increased by nearly 60,.000 [58,700] during the Clinton
Administration, with the program now reaching approximately 230,000 [229,700] Hispanic
children. Despite these increases, however,. Hispanic children remain under-represented,
comprising less than 25 [24.9] percent of Head Start enrollment (excluding Puerto Rico)
compared to 29.8 percent of all low incomei pre.,.school children in the nation. [OMB,
) 2/2000]
School Readiness
• Approximately 70% of teachers said they felt only moderately, somewhat, or not at all
prepared to address the needs of students with limited English proficiency or from diverse
cultural backgrounds. This lack of preparation has profound implications for the large
. ,
�DRAFT, 3/17/00
population of Hispanic students in e~rly, childhood t~day.
23]
"','
[NCES, The Condition of Education, 1999, Indicator
: , ',
• 'Hispanics are more likely to tell their child a story'than read to them. Three to 5-year-olds
may start school better prepared to learn if they are read to or told a story once a,week. In
1996, of3- to 5-year,olds,80% of Hispanics were told a story-:--consistent with blacks (77%)
and whites (84%). Hispanic children ,were less likely to be read'to--65%ofHispanics were
read to in tl~e last week, compared to about 75% of blacks and nearly 90% of whites. [NCES,
The Condition of Education, 1999, Indicator 34] "
OVERALL GOAL
The primary goal the Administration has set out to accomplish is to increase access to and
participation in high quality early childhood education and developmenfprograms, and make
sure that all kids enter school prepared to succeed. ' ,
Strategy #1: Access and Participation
Improving Access:
• Target CCDBG to Hispanic Families
• Reach Out to Hispanics to Take Advantage of Child Care 'fax Breaks
"
Encouraging Participation:
,
• Model after Head Start ,efforts 'to engage and enroll more Hispanic children in Head Start
[efforts announced at FL Hispanic Convening] ,
'
• Reach out to stay at home families to enc~urage participation and reading at home to ' '
supplement school activity. Target Early Head Start and Even Start to further work on
outreach to Hispanics through home visits. '
• Use other programs to encourage participation [WlC,Food Stamps for low-:income]
• Find ways to use faith-based and community organizations to encourage participation. '
Strategy #2: EnsuriJl'g High Quality,
Improving Professional Trainirig
Building Language and Literacy Skills
Strategy #3: Encouraging Parental Invol~ement
I,
�DRAFT, 3/10/00
"
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION' AND HISPANICS
BACKGROUND ,
The Hispanic population is among the fastest growing segments of American society and it is, '
, also one of the youngest, with one out ofevery thre,e Hispanics aged 15 years or younger. In
fact, the young Hispanic population is expe~ted to demonstrate a 54 percent groWth rate between
2000 and 2020, compared to an 18 'percent growth rate of that age group in the general
population during the same years. [Dr. Hector Cordero-Ouzman; New School, 8/99] ,
.
,
.
.
.
Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took-office, Hispanic poverty has dropped from
30.6 percent to 25.6percent~ the lqwest level since 1979. The Hispanic child poverty rate has
fallen 15.9 percent since 1993. ,While this marks significant progress, President Clinton will
continue to fight for policies that help,to raise incomes and reduce poverty. [WH Press paper
W~
,
The following indicators frame the status' of many young Hispanic children:
• Amo~g three-year-olds, 40% of whites and 41 % of blapks were ~nrol1ed in pre-primary
programs; compared to 21 %of Hispanics. Among four year olds, over 60% of whites,
68.2% ofblacks and 49% of Latinos were enrolled in pre-primary programs. At the
Kindergarten age, the gap closes. Some reasons include that Hispanics may prefer family- ,
based care, or may not be able to afford the high cost of private day care. [NCLR, 7/98]
'. Hispanic Head Start, enrollment has increased by nearly 60,000 [58,7001 during the Clintori ,
Administration, with the program now reaching approximately 230,000 [229,7001 Hispanic,
, children. Despite these increases, however, Hispanic children remain under-represented,
comprising less than 25 [24.9] percent of Head Start enrollment (excluding Puerto Rico)
'
compared to 29.8 percent of all low income, pre-school children in the nation. '
• Approximately 41 percent of Hispanic children under age 15 are living at ~r below the
poverty leveL Another roughly 20 percent live near the poverty line .
• ' Hispanic children lack health insurance at a rate of27.7%, which is more than twice the
percentage of white children.
' '
,
'
• ' Hispanic children are more likely than black or white children to be in fair or poor health. (7.8 ....
percent Hispanic children compared to 4.2 percent of black children and 2.9 percent of white
children).
'
.
.
"
,
• 27.8 percent of Hispanic mothers don't ~eceive prenatal care, compared t6 18.1 percent of
. mothers in the total population.,
'
GOALS
The primary goal the Administration has set out to accomplish is to increase access to high
quality early childhood education and development programs, and make sure that all kids enter
school ready to learn. "
"
Goal #1: Access'
"Despite increased Hispanic participation during the Clinton Administration in early childhood
progr::u:ns such as Head Start, this population of young people is still underserve4 by the
programs.
�DRAFT, 3/10/00
.
. . '
. ,
.
Making the CI,ifd'and Dependent Care Tax Credit-(CDCTC) Refundablefor Nearly Two'
Million Working Parents. ,In his FY 2001 budget, the President proposed to make the CDCTC
refundable. Under current law, a typical family-of four with an income under $25,000 has no tax
"liability and therefore is ineligible for relief from their often significant child care costs. Mariy
such families earn too little to claim the credit but too much to get the ftill benefit of child care
subsidies. To he!p these families, the President proposes to :make the CDCTC refundable for the
'first time -- so that families with no tax liability can receive up to $2,400 to help offset the cost
, of child care. For example, a single mother who has one child, earns
aimualsalary of
$15,000, and spends about $2,400 per year on child care, will receive a tax credit of $1 ,200, an
increase of $817 over current law. This proposal will assist nearly two million families. We can '
develop an outreach campaign to help Hispanic families take advantage of this tax break
an
.
.
'"
.
,
.
Child Care and Development Block Grant: The President's budget boosts the Child Care and·
Development Block Grant by $817 million in FY2001, enabling the program to provide child
care subsidies to nearly 150,000 more children nextyear. These new fun-ds, combined with the
child care funds provided in welfare reform, will enable the program to serve over 2.2 million
children ip 2001, an increase of nearly one million since 1997. The block grant is part of the
Child Care and Development Fund, the primary federal subsidy program that helps families pay
for child care, thereby enabling low-income parents to work. Today, millions of families who
are eligible for assistance with their child care costs do not receive any help; in 1998, only about
10 percent of the 15 million low-income children eligible for assistance under federal law '
, received subsidies. We are exploring options to provide information to states on how 'to rea,ch
out to Hispanic families to help them take advantage of CCDBG.
.
.
.
Head Start: The President'sbudget boosts funding for Head Start by $1 billion - the largest
funding increase ever proposed for the program -~ to provide Head Start and Early Head Start
slots to approximately 950,000 children, nearing the President's goal of serving one miliion
children in 2002.: Head Start is our nation's premier early childhood development program
, preparing low-income children for ,a lifetime oflearningand development by providing early,
co~tinu6us and comprehensive child development and family support services. Early Head Start,
created by the Clinton-Gore Administration in 1994, brings Head Start's successful
. comprehensive services to families with children ages zero to three and to pregnant women, and
works to enhance children's overall development and enable parents to be better caregivers of ..
and teachers to their children. Since 1993, this Administration has already boosted funding for
Head Start by 90 percent. '
• The Administration intends to continue efforts to increase participation by underrepresented
groups in specifically targeted areas' With recent influxes of immigrants and limited English
proficient children, including seasonal farmworkers.
'
,
,. increasing. by 50% the number ofpo!nts awarded to expansion grant applicants who
,emphasiZe outreach to under-served populations, such as seasonal fami. workers, recent
immigrant families and'non-English speaki~g groups;
"
' ,
• increasing the number of grant application reviewers that have expertise in serving language '
minority children;
,
'
• working with ,and monitoring programs to ensure full utilization of community assessments
to better target outreach, recruitment and enrollment ofunder'-served populations;
�DRAFT, 3/1 0/00
.• providing specialized technical assistance to ten communities where changing local
demogntphics have resulted in significant under-served populations.
Engaging the Private Sector: We need to improve outreach and funds f~r government programs
in this area, and we also need to further engage the private and non-profit sectors to focus on this
issue. During the First Lady's convening on Hispanic Children and Youth, the Administration
secured a pledge by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, as part of its ongoing partnership with
the Department ,of Education, to make a new commitment of more than'$300,000 commitnient to
. improve'Latino participation in after-school progmms. This effort builds on the Fo~ndation's
$83 million commitment in 1997 to support after-school activities in coordination with the 21 st
Century Community Learning Centers program. [We are following up with Mott to'see what
their progress has been,' and will try to report on it.] .
Goal #2: Improving Quality
Early Learning Fund: The Administration's child care proposal for FY 2001 includes a number
ofproposals to improve the quality of early childhood education.
ensure that children have
access to early childhood programs that promote their cognitive development, t4e President's
budget includes $3 billion over five years for the Early Learning Fund to help improve child care
quality and'early childhood education for children under five years old. The Early Learning Fund'
will provide community gmnts for activities that foster cognitive development, improve child
care quality and promote readiness for school. Resources could be. used to help child care
providers get training or certification, facilitate licensing or accreditation of child care centers..
,and reduce child-to-staff ratios -- factors assocIated with positive developmental outcomes for
young children.
'.
To
Stay At Home?
Goal #3: Improving Language and titeracy Skills ,
TBD - after Tuesday meeting.
�~
..
_ -'
...
Hispanic Education National Meeting·
Draft Goals as of 03/15/00
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
�"DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT
National Goals f~r Educational E~cellence for Hispanic Americans
This draft is an attempt to articulate what the national goals may look like at this point, and elicit areas of confusion or
disagreement. This is in no way a final product, and will not necessarily represent everyone's understanding ofwhere we
are with the goals. Following the goals are some possible strategies. We have not discussed how strategies will be
addressed at thesession, therefore the lists are not intended to be exhaustive pr articulate. Instead, they are included to
provide context for the goals and serve as a point ofdeparture for discussion.
1) Increase Hispanic American children's access to and participation in high quality early childhood education and
development programs, ~md .
1 re
ter schoo re are 0 succee
. (Alternative option:
enca children have access to high quality early childhood education and development
Ensure that all His'
programs,
eliminat he gap between the Hispanic participation rate and the national participation rate in high ,.I"
quality progr'tn-ts by 2 0 1 0 . ) ,
\)l~
Strategies to increase access and participation ~
~
::-,o\.l-'
• Community outreach -" ~....... ~ t~~!;
~ x ~ ,
• Inclusion .of parents and family in early chi dhood programs
~
• Make early childhood education affordable
Strategies to ensure high quality early childhood education programs
• Teacher training and teacher/child ratio .
• Ensure providers are skilled in building language and literacy skills
2) Respecting the value of multilingualism, different learning styles, and different instructional approaches, by 2010
states and school districts win ensure that all students graduate from high school having demonstrated competence (or
"are literate" or "are competent") in English.
Strategies to ...
3) Hispanic American students will receive a high quality education with the resources and systems that help students
"\ succeed, and the achievement gap between Hispanic Americans and other students as measured by state assessments
will be eliminated by 20 10;
Strategies to improve education of Hispanic American students
• Examine distribution of resources, including technology
• Help teachers be culturally sensitive and have high expectations for all students
• Prepare all teachers with techniques for teaching LEP students'
• Ensure Hispanic Americans are included in valid state assessments',
,
• Involve parents in students' learning'
4) Recognizing that education is the key to opportunity, the gap in the high school completion rate between Hispanic
be eliminated by 20 10.
students and the national average
Strategies to keep kids in school
.
• Offer tutoring and mentoring
• Encourage high expectations
• Help students access counseling and social services
will
5) Make progress towards eliminating the gap between the average rate of college completion for Hispanic Americans
and the national average by 2010 by at least doubling the percentage of Hispanic Americans who graduate from
college (receive their Bachelor's degree?).
Strategies to increase college access
• Counsel children early about their ~ptions
• Encourage students to begin by pursuing 2 year degrees or technical training if they are not prepared for
college
Strategies to, increase college completion
' . Offer more financial aid and scholarships
, • Increase support for HSIs
�DRAFT, 3117100
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND HISPANICS
BACKGROUND
Demographic Trends
The Hispanic population is among the fastest growing segments of American society and is
very young. Today, 10% ofl;Iispanics are under age 5 and makeup over15% of their age
group in the U.S. population.
• By the year 2030, they will make up 25% of the total school-age population. The projected
increase in the number of Hispanic children in preschool brings with it critical strengths and
challenges to the nation's educational system. [Bureau of the Census. CPS Report, No. P25-1130, 1996J
Economic Indicators
• Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, Hispanic poverty has dropped
from 30.6 percent to 25.6 percent, the lowest level since 1979. The Hispanic child poverty
rate has fallen 15.9 percent since 1993. While this marks significant progress, President
Clinton will continue to fight for policies that help to raise incomes and reduce poverty. [WH
Press paper 3/00]
.
• In 1998, the median family income for Hispanics was about $28,000 while the overall
median income was $39,000. Research shows that families with higher incomes are more
likely to enroll their 3- and 4-year-olds in early childhood education than those with lower
. Incomes. [NCES, The Condition of Education, 1999, Indicator 44] [Bureau of the Census, CPS Report, No. P60-206, 1998]
Early Childhood Enrollment Facts
• Hispanic children under age 5 are less likely to be enrolled in early childhood education
programs. In 1998, only 20% of ~ispanic 3-year-olds were enrolled in early childhood
programs, compared to 42% of whites and 44% of blacks. Of 4-year-olds, less than 60% of
Hispanics were enrolled in early childhood programs, compared to 67% of whites and 73%
of blacks: [Bureau of the Census, CPS Report, No. P20-521, Table-2]
• In 1998, differences in the enrollment of 5-year-olds largely disappeared between Hispanics
(90%), Whites (94%) and blacks (95%). [Bureau ofth~ Census, CPS Report, No. P~O-521, Table-2]
• As parents' educational attainment increases, so does the early childhood enrollment rate of
. their children .. However, in 1997, fewer Hispanics age 25 and older had completed high
school than their black and white counterparts-55% of Hispanics, 75% of blacks, and 86%
of whites had completed high school. [NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 1998, Table 8]
• Hispanic Head Start enrollment has increased by nearly 60,000 [58,7001 during the Clinton
. Administration, with the program now reaching approximately 230,000 [229,700} Hispanic
children. Despite these increases, however, Hispanic children remain under-represented,
comprising less than 25 [24.9] percent of Head Start enrollment (excluding Puerto Rico)
compared to 29.8 percent of all low income, pre-school children in the nation. [OMB,
2/2000]
School Readiness
• Approximately 70% of teachers said they felt oilly moderately, somewhat, or not at all
prepared to address the needs of students with limited English proficiency or from diverse
cultural backgrounds. This lack of preparation has profound implications for the large
�~
"
DRAFT, 3/17/00
population of Hispanic students in early childhood today,
[NCES, The Condition of Education, 1999, Indicator
23]
• Hispanics are, more likely to tell their child a story than read to them. Three to 5-year-olds
may start school better prepare,d to learn if they are read to or told a story once a week. In
1996, of3- to 5-yearolds, 80% of Hispanics were'told a story.,.~consistent with blacks (77%) ,
and whites (84%). Hispanic children were less likely to be read to--65% of Hispanics were
read to in the last week, compared to about 75% of blacks and'nearly 90% of whites. [NCES,
The Condition oi' Education, 1999, Indicator 34]
OVERALL GOAL
The primary goal the Administration has set out to accomplish is to increase access to and
participation in high quality early childhood education and development programs, and make
sure that all kids enter school prepared to succeed.
Strategy #1: Access and Participatiori
Improving Access:
• Target CCDBG to Hispanic Families
• Reach Out to Hispanics to Take,Advantage of Child Care Tax Breaks
Encouraging Participation:
• Model after Head Start efforts to engage and enroll more Hispanic children in Head Start
[efforts announced at FL Hispanic Convening]
• Reach out to stay at home families - to encourage participation and reading at home to
supplement school activity. Target Early Head Start and Even Start . . :. to further work on
outreach to Hispanics through home visits.
'
• Use other programs to encourage participation [WIC, Food Stamps for low-income]
• Find ways to use faith-based and community organizations to encourage participation.
Strategy #2: Ensuring High Quality
Improving Professional Training
Building Language and Literacy Skills
Strategy #3: Encouraging Parental Involvement
�Hispanic Education National Meeting
Friday, March 17, 2000
OEOB Rm. 180
11:00 a.m.
Agenda
I.
Developments Since Last Meeting:
A. Efforts of stakeholders -- Initiative
B. Outreach plan/efforts - Brian
C. white House Operations involvement - Rey
D. Language proficiency/acquisition goal meeting
E. Secretary Rjley's March 15, 2000 address at localhigh school
II.
Next Steps and Action Items
A.
Status of Goals -
•
•
•
•
•
B.
Pre-K Goal- Ann O'Leary, Ruby Shamir
Reducing Dropout Rate - lB. Buxton
Eliminating the Achievement Gap - Andy RotherhamlBethany Little
English Language Competency - Andy RotherhamlBethany Little·
Higher Education - Brian Kennedy, lB . .Buxton
Structure and format of event -
•
•
participation of White House Social Office
break-out session facilitators
C.
Event date
D.
Commitments and Deliverables
E.
Status of participant's list (both invitees and presenters) - need for separate
meeting
F.
Department of Education "report card" (suggestion from NCLR)
�Hispanic Education National Meeting
Preliminary Structure and Format
As of 3/17/00
I.
Invitees
•
II.
Estimated 180 participants
• Commissioners
• Congressional Hispanic Caucus
• Stakeholders
Location
•
•
•
III.
Building which contains capacity to seat 150-170
Building which contains capacity to host five 30-person breakout sessions
Possibly Reagan Bldg.
Outline of Event
9:00 - 9:30
Sign-in
9:30 -'- 9:45
Welcome & Possible Department of Education "Report Card"
9:45 - 11 :30 Breakout sessions to strategize on each.of 5 goals
11 :30 --.: 11 :45 Break
11 :45 .:. - 1 :00 Lunch (possible keynote from Vice President or Secretary Riley)
1 :00 - 2:00
Travel to and Re-Coriveneat White House East Room
2:00 - 3:30
Goals Presented, Commitments and Deliverables Outlined
•
•
Role, ifany, of Commissioners -- TBD
•
Role, if any, of Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- TBD
•
3 :30 .
Role of President, Vice President and First Lady -- TBD
Role, if any; of Stakeholders ~- TBD
Conclusion of Program with Understanding that Stakeholders Will
Meet Again ip June
\
�'EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND HISPANICS
/'
BACKGROUND
· The Hispanic pepulation is ameng the fastest grewing segmentsef American seciety and it is
also. ene ef the yeungest, with ene eut ef every three Hispanics aged 15 years er yeunger.
Between 1993 and 2000, the Hispanic pep,ulatien aged 0-24 is expected to' experience a 19.1
percent grewth - mere than twice the rate ef grewth ef the tetal under 24 U.S .. pepulatien. By the
year 2000, the number efHispanics 24 years er yeunger is 'expected to' reach 15 millien (er 15
percent) ef a tetal yeuth pepjllatienef98 millien. Unfertunately, Latino. yeuth are among the
·mest disadvantaged with cl<use to' 42 pervcent ef children living belew the peverty
level(cempared tp 16.3% fer white cjildrena nd 43.4% fer afr ams) Pepulatien growth
projectiens beyend are even mere proneunced -- with an expected 54 percent grewth rate
between 2000 and 2020 fer'the yeung Hispanic pepulatien, cempared to' an 18 percent grewth
rate efthat age greup in the general pepulatien during the same years. [Cerder-Guzman, New
Scheel,] ,
'v
Since President Clinten and Vice President Gere teek effice, Hispanic peverty has drepped from
30.6 percent to' 25.6 percent, the lewest level since 1979. The Hispanic child peverty rate has'
fallen 15.9 percent since 1993. While this marks significant pregress, President Clinten will
centinue to' fight fer pelicies that help to' nlise incemes and reduce peverty.
~~ l fi!lvvrNS,
• Ameng three year o1ds, 40% ef whites and 41 % ef backs are were enreleed in pre-primary
.programs, cempared to' 21 % ef Hispanics. Ameng feur year elds, ever 60% ef whites,
68.2% efblacks and 49% efLatines were enrelled in pre-primaru pregrmas. At the
Kindergarten age, the gap deses. Seme rweasells include that Hispanics may prefer family
based care, and may net be able to' afferd the high cest ef private day care. [NCLR, 7/98J
• Hispanic Head Start enrellment has increased by nearly 60,000 [58,7001 during the Clinten
Administratien, with the pregram new reaching appreximately.230,000 .
[229,7001 Hispanic
.
I
children. Despite these increases, hewever, Hispanic children remain under-represented,
cemprising less than 25 [24.9Jpercent efHead Start enrellment (excluding Puerto' Rice)
cempared to' 29.8 percent ef all lew inceme, pre-scheel children in the natien.
• Appreximately 41 percent ef Hispanic children under age 15 are living at er belew the
peverty level. Anether roughly 20 percent live near the peverty line.
• Hispanic children lack health insurance at a rate ef27.7%, which is mere than twice the '
percentage ef white children.
;;
• Hispanic children are mere likely than black er white children to' be in fair er peer health (7;8
percent Hispanic children cempared to' 4.2 percent efblack children and 2.9 percent efwhite
children).
• 27.8 percent efHispanic methers den't receive prenatal care, cempared to' 18.1 percent ef
methers in the tetal pepulatien.
GOALS
The primary geal the Administratien has set eut to' accemplish is to' increase access to' high
quality early childheed educatien and develepment pregrams.
.
,
l
o
�Goal #1: Access
The President's budget boosts the Child Care arid Development Block Grant by $817 million in
FY 2001, enabling the program to provide:.child care subsidies to nearly 150,000 more children
next year. These new funds, combined with the child care funds provided in welfare reform, will .
enable the program to serve over 2.2 million children in 2001, an increase of nearly one million
since 1997. The b~ock grant is part of the Child Care and Development Fund, the primary
.
federal subsidy program that helps families pay for child care, thereby enabling low-income
parents to work. Today, millions of families who are eligible for assistance with their child care
costs do not receive any help; in 1999, only about 12 percent of the 15 million low-income
children eligible for assistance under federal law received subsidies.
Despite increased Hispanic participation during the Clinton Adminstration in early childhood
programs such as Head Start, this population of young people is still underserved by the
programs. We need to improve outreach and funds for government programs in this area, and we
also need to furrther enagge the prtivate and non-profit sectors to focus on this issue. During the
First Lady's convening on Hispanc Children and Youth, the Adminsitration acquyired a pledge
by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, as part of its ongoing partnership with the Department
of Education, to make a new commitment of more than $300,000 commitment to improve Latino
participation in after-school programs. This effort builds on the Foundation's $83 million
commitment in 1997 to support after-school activities in coordination with the 21 st Century
Community Learning Centers program. [We are following up with Mott to see what their
progress has been, and will try to report on it.] :
Head Start [We need to figure out where we are with these goals from Convening]
The President's budget boosts funding for Head Start by $1 billion the fargest funding increase
ever proposed for the program -- to provide Head Start and Early Head Start slots to
approximately 950,000 children, nearing the President's goal of serving one million children in
2002. Head Start is our nation's premier early childhood development program preparing low
income child'ren for a lifetime of learning and deVelopment by providing early, continuous and
l
comprehensive child development and family support services. Early Head Start, created by the
Clinton-Gore Administration in 1994, brings Head Start's successful comprehensive services to
families with children ages zero to three and to pregnant women, and works to enhance
children's overall development and enable parents to be better caregivers of and teachers to their
children. Since 1993, this Administration has already boosted funding for Head Start by 90
percent.
• The Administration intends .to continue efforts to increase participation by underrepresented
.
groups in sp~cifically targeted areas with recent influxes of immigrants and limited English
proficient children, including seasonal farmworkers.
• increasing by 50% the number of points awarded to expansion grant applicants who
emphasize outreach to under-served populations, such as seasonal farm workers, recent
immigrant families and non-English speaking groups;
• increasing the number of grant application reviewers that have expertise in serving language
minority children;
• working with and monitoring programs to ensure full utilization of community assessments
to better target outreach, recruitment and enrollment of under-served populations;
\
�• providing specialized technical assistance to ten communities where changing local
demographics have resulted in signific~nt under-served populations.
Goal #2: Improving Quality
Early Learning Fund: The Adminsitration's child care proposal for FY 20tH includes a number
proposals to improve the quality of early childhood education. To ensure that children have
access to early childhood programs that promote their cognitive development, the President's
budget includes $3 billion over five years for the Early Learning Fund to help improve child care
quality and early childhood education for children under five years old. The Early Learning Fund
will provide community grants for activities that foster cognitive development, improve child
care quality and promote readiness for school. Resources could be used to help child care
providers get training or certification, facilitate licensing or accreditation of child care centers,
and reduce child-to-staff ratios -- factors a$sociated with positive developmental outcomes for
young children.
Stay At Home: Hispanic home-based care: do we want to have an initiative for this.
Goal #3: Improving Language and Literacy Skills
J
�~ Hispanic Education National Meeting -- Structure and Format
Monday, March 13,2000
4:00 p.m..
Agenda
Structure and format of event
1.
A. Event date -- Rey
B. Two program concept
•
White House event in April
•
"Stakeholders" event in June i~~110
of 1,{}-'l.\
C. Providing for the three principals - President, Vice President, First Lady
D. Forum for Announcement of Five Goals
E. Providing for the Commission/Commissioner's participation
F. Providing for Congressional Hispanic Caucus participation
G. Commitments and Deliverables
H. Participant's list (both invitees and presenters)
1.
II.
~~" t hv~ \~ ) ~ J or~
Department of Education "report card" (suggestion from NCLR)
Next Steps
�Hispanic Education National Meeting
Friday, March 10, 2000
11:00 a.m.
Agenda
1.
Developments Since Last Meeting:
A. Efforts of stakeholders -- Initiative
B. Outreach plan/efforts - Brian
•
Meeting with Commissioners - Rey, Andy
C. White House Operations involvement -- Rey
D. Language proficiency/acquisition goal meeting set for March 14,2000 at 3:00 p.m. ' \
E. Secretary Riley's March 15,2000 address at local high school-- Rey
II.
~~~1~d~
.
-" • ~
t~
\) \'L~ ,~- r-~
Status of Goals -- target date for distribution, Tuesday, March 13, 2000
~~ \V'(,~ .
N ext Steps and Action Items
A.
~CV\(
•
•
•
•
•
(\
Pre-K Goal- Ann O'Leary, Ruby Shamir
Reducing Dropout Rate - lB. Buxton
Eliminating the Achievement Gap - Andy RotherhamJBethany Little
English Language Proficiency - Andy RotherhamJBethany Little
Higher Education - Brian Kennedy, lB. Buxton
B.
Structure and format of event
C.
Event date
D.
Commitments and Deliverables
E.
Status of participant's list (both invitees and presenters) - Brian B.
F.
Department of Education "report card" (suggestion from NCLR)
\:i .
oJ~~
�\~~~
UO
11\
6nU1\~k ~~~~-
�)
o
:I
. '·.1
,
)
Sec. 101
GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
730
(13) the tenn "State", unless otherwise provided, means
each of the 50 States', the District of Columbia, the Common
wealth of Puerto Rico, and each of the outlying areas.
(b) TITLES lV, V, VI, VII, VIII, AND IX.-For the purpose of ti
tles IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX
(1) except as provided in paragraph (3) and unless other
wise provided, the tenns used in: such titles have the same
meanings given such tenns in section 14101 of the Elementary
.and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
(2) the tenn "Bureau", unless otherwise provided, means
"'~-.-the.Bureau.ofIndian-Affairs;.and-_-:-----:_ _ _--::--::_____.
.
(3) the terin"Secretary", unless otherwise provided, means
the Secretary of Education.
.TITLE I-NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS.
SEC. 101. (20 U.S.C. 58111 PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to establish National Education
Goals.
SEC. 102. (20 U.S.C. 5812) NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS.
The Congress declares that the National Education Goals are
the following:
..
.
.
(1) SCHOOL READINESS.--(A) By the year 2000, all children
in America will start school ready to learn.
(8) The objectives for this goal are thatall children will have access to high-quality and de
velopmentally appropriate preschool programs that help
prepare children for school;
(ii) every parent in the United States will be a child's
first teacher and devote time each day to helping such par
ent's preschool child learn, and parents will have access to .
the training and sUPf0rt parents need; and
(iii) children wil receive the nutrition, physicalactiv
ity experiences, and health care needed to arrive at school
with healthy minds and bodies, and to maintain the men
tal alertness necessary to be prepared to learn, and .the
number of low-birthweight babies will be significantly re
duced through enhanced prenatal health systems.·
.
(2) SCIIOOL COMPLETION.--(A) By the year 2000, the high
school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 perc!:!nt.
(B) The objectives for this goal are that
(i) . the Nation must dramatically reduce its school
dropout rate, arid 75 percent of the students who do drop
out will successfully complete a high school degree or its
equivalent; and
.
,
(ij) the gap in high school graduation rates between
American students from minority backgrounds and their
non-minority co'unterparts will be eliminated.
(3) STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND CITIZENSHIP.--(A) By the
year 2000, all students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having
demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter in
cluding English, mathematics, science; foreign languages, civics
·--and-govemment,.economics, arts, history,.and.geography,._and_·_._'_.
731
GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
Sec.,102
every school in America will ensure that all students learn to
use their minds well, so. they may be prepared for responsible
citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in
our Nation's modem economy.
(8) The objectives for this goal are that
(i) the academic perfonnance of all students at the ele
mentary and secondary level will increase significantly in
every quartile, and the distribution of minority students in
each quartile will more closely reflect the student popu
lation as a whole;
_ _ _ _ _ .. (ii) thepercentageoiaIL~tudents wh~demonstrate the~
ability to reason, solve problems, apply knowledge, and
write and communicate effectively will increase substan
tially;
..
.
(iii) all students will be involved in activities that pro
mote and demonstrate good citizenship, good health, com
munity service, and personal responsibility;
(iv) all students will have access to physical education
and health education to ensure they are healthy and fit;
(v) the percentage of all students who are competent
in more than one language will substantially increase; and
(vi) all students will be knowledgeable about t.he di
verse cultural heritage of this Nation and about the world
community.
(4) TEACHER EDUCATION AND. PROFESSIONAL .DEVELOP
MENT.-
.
(A) By the year 2000, the Nation's teaching force will
have access to' programs for the continued improvement of
their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the
knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all
American students for the next century.
(B) The objectives for this goal are that
(i) all teachers will have. access to preservice
. t eacher education and continuing professional develop
ment activities that will· provide such teachers with,
the knowledge and skills needed to teach to an in
creasingly diverse student population with a variety of
educational, social, and health needs;
(ij) all teachers will have continuing opportunities
to acquire additional knowledge and skills needed to
teach challenging subject matter and to use emerging
new methods, forins of assessment, and' technologies; ,
(iii) States and school districts will create inte
grated strategies to attract, recruit, prepare, retrain,
and support the continued professional development of
teachers, administrators, and other educators, so that
there is a highly talented work force of professional
educators to teach challenging subject matter; and
(iv) partnerships will be established, whenever
possible, among local educational agencies, institutions
of higher education, parents, and local' labor, business,
and professional associations to provide and support
. programs for the profession.al development of edu
cators.
'
�'
')
"
',\
')
Sec, 102
GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
132
_
(5) MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE.-{A) By the year 2000
United States students will be first in the world in mathe:
matics and science achievement.
(B) The objectives for this goal are that
(i) mathematics and science education, including the
metric system of measurement, will be strengthened
throughout the system, especially in the early grades;
(ii) the number of teachers with a substantive back
ground in mathematics and science, including the metric
system of measurement, will increase. by 50 percent; and
(iii) the number of United States undergraduate and
---~---graduate-students~especially~women-and-minorities;-wllo
complete degrees in mathematics, science, and engineering
wil~ increase significantly.
(6) ADULT LITERACY AND LIFELONG LEARNING.-(A) By the
year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will pos
sess tbe knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global
economy and exercise the rights and r~sponsibilities of citizen
ship.
'
(B) The objectives for this goal are that
(i) every major American business will be involved in
strengthening the connection between education and work;
(ii) all workers will have the opportunity to acquire
the kn'owledge and skills, from basic to highly technical,
needed to adapt to emerging new technologies, work
methods, and markets through public and private edu
cational, vocational, technical, ,workplace, or other pro
grams; ' .
(iii) the number of quality programs, including those
at libraries, that are designed to serve more effectively the
needs of the growing number of part-time and midcareer
students will increase substantially;
(iv) the proportion of the qualified students, especially
minorities, who enter college, who complete at least two
years, and who complete their degree prl:)grams will in.
crease s u b s t a n t i a l l y ; '
(v) the proportion of college graduates who dem
.-e
onstrate an advanced ability to think critically, commu
nicate effectively, and solve problems will increase sub
stantially; and
,
(vi) schools, fn implementing'comprehensive parent in
volvement programs, will offer more adult literacy, parent
training and life-long learning opportunities to improve
the ties between home and school, and enhance parents'
work and home lives.
(7) SAFE, DISCIPLINED, AND ALCOHOL- AND DRUG-FREE
SCHOOLS.
(A) By the year 2000, every school in the United
States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized
presence of firearms and alcohol and will' offer a dis-,
ciplined environment conducive to learning.
(8) The objectives for this goal are that
.~
133
GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
'
Sec. 102
(i) every school will implement a firm and fair pol~
icy on use, possession, and distribution of drugs and
' alcohol;
(ii) parents; businesses, governmental and commu
nity organizations will work together to ensure the
rights of students to study in a safe and secure envi
ronment that is free of drugs and crime, and that
schools provide a healthy environment and are a safe
haven for all children;
,
(iii) every local educational agency will develop
and imple.ment a policy to ensure that all schools are
free-of-VIolence" an,d-the-unauth-orize<l-presence of----
. weapons;
(iv) every local educational agency will develop a
sequential, comprehensive kindergarten through
.twelfth grade drug and alcohol prevention education
program;
,
(v) drug and alcohol curriculum should be taught
as an integral part of sequential, comprehensive
health education;
(vi) community-based teams should be organized
to provide students and teachers with needed support;
and
(vii) every school should work to eliminate sexual
harassment.
(8). PARENTAL PARTICIPATION.,
(A) By the year 2000, every school will promote part
nerships that will increase parental involvement and par
ticipation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic
growth of children.
(B) The objectives for this Goal are that
(i) every State will develop policies to assist local
schools and local educational agencies to establish pro
grams for increasing partnerships that respond to the
varying needs of parents and the home, including par
ents of children who are disadvantaged or bilingual, or
parents of children with disabilities;
(ii) every school will actively engage parents and
families in a partnership which supports the academic
work of children at home and shared educational deci
sionm~king at school; and
(iii) parents and families will help to ensure that
schools are adequately·supported and will hold schools
and teachers to high standards of accountability.
�DRAFT, 3/10/00
I
I
E~RLY
"
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND HISPANICS
BACKGROUND
The Hispanic population is among the fastest growing segments of American society and it is
also one of the youngbst, with one out of every three Hispanics aged 15 years or younger. In
fact, the young His I. c population is expected to demonstrate a 54 percent growth rate between
2000 and 2020, comp ed to an 18 percent growth rate of that age group in the general
population during th"j'ame years. [Dr. H.ector Cordero-Guzman, New School, 8/99]
.
Since President Clint0n and Vice President Gore took office, Hispanic poverty has dropped from
30.6 percent to 25.6 p1ercent, the lowest level since 1979. The Hispanic child poverty rate has
fallen 15.9 percent since 1993. While this marks significant progress, President Clinton will
continue to fight for Jolicies that help to raise incomes and reduce poverty. [WH Press paper
3/00]
I
indicat~rs
\,
The following
frame the status of many young Hispanic children:
• Among three-yea~-olds, 40% of whites and 41 % of blacks were enrolled in pre-primary
programs,compared to.21% of Hispanics. Among four year olds, over 60% of whites,
68.2% of blacks a~d 49% of Latinos were enrolled in pre-primary programs. At the
Kindergarten age, itne gap closes. Some reasons include that Hispanics may prefer family
based care, or maY[ not be able to afford the high cost of private day care. [NCLR, 7/98]
Hispanic Head St¥! enrollment has increased by nearly 60,000 [58,700} during the Clinton
Administration, with the program now reaching approximately 230,000 [229,700} Hispanic
children. Despite these increases, however" Hispanic children remain under-represented,
comprising less thb 25 [24.9] percent of Head' Start enrollment (excluding Puerto Rico)
compared to 29.8 percent of all low income, pre-school children in the nation.
• Approximately 411percent of Hispanic children under age 15 are living at or below the
poverty level. An0ther roughly 20 percent live near the poverty line.
I
'
• Hispanic children I health insurance at a 'rate of27.7%, which is more than twice the
lack ,
percentage of whi* c h i l d r e n . .
"
• Hispanic children ~e more likely than black or white children to be in fair or poor health (7.8
percent Hispanic children compared to 4.2 percent of black children and 2.9 percent of white
children).
• 27.8 percent of Hi~panic mothers don't receive prenatal care, compared to 18.1 percent q,f
mothers in the total population.
i'
.
'
I
GOALS
I
The primary goal the~dministration has set out to accomplish is to increase access to high
quality early childhood education and development programs, and make sure that all kids enter
I
school ready to learn. i
.'
.
,
I
Goal #1: Access
I '
,
Despite increased Hisp,anic participation during the Clinton Administration in early childhood
programs such as Head Start, this population of young people is still underserved by the
I
'
programs..
I
.
�DRAFT, 3/10/00
Making the Child add Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) Refundable for Nearly Two
Million Working Pa~ents. In his FY 2001 budget, the President proposed to make the CDCTC
refundable. Under current law, a typical family of four with an income under $25,000 has no tax
liability and therefore: is ineligible for relief from their often significant child care costs. Many
such families earn too little to claim the credit but too much to get the full benefit of child care
subsidies. To help th6se families, the President proposes to make the CDCTC refundable for the
first time -- so that fafuilies with no tax liability can receive up to $2,400 to help offset the cost
of child care. For exdmple, a single'mother who has one child, earns an annual salary of
.
$15,000, and spends Jbout $2,400 per year on child care, will receive a tax credit of $1 ,200, an
increase of$817 overlcurrent law. This proposal will assist nearly two million families. We can
develop an outreach c'ampaign to help Hispanic families take advantage of this tax break.
i
Child Care and Development Block'Gr~nt: The President's budget boosts the Child Care and
DeVelopment Block qrant by $817 million in FY 2001, enabling the program to provide child
care subsidies to nearly 150,000 more children next year. These new funds, combined with the
child care funds proviaed in welfare reform, wiil enable the program to serve over 2.2 million
children in 2001, an increase of nearly one million since 1997. The block grant is part of the
Child Care and Develbpment Fund, the primarY; federal subsidy program that helps families pay
for child care, therebYI enabling low-income p~entsto work.. Today, millions of families who
are eligible for assistance with their child care costs do not receive any help; in 1998, only about
10 percent of the 15 n1illion low-income children eligible for assistance under federal law
received subsidies. We are exploring options to provide information to states on how to reach
out to Hispanic families to help them take advantage ofCCDBG.
,.'
I
boost~
Head Start: The presihent's budget
funding for Head Start by $1 billion - the largest
funding increase ever proposed for the program -- to provide Head Start and Early Head Start
slots to approximatelyi 950,000 children, nearing the President's goal of serving one million
children in 2002. Head Start is our nation's pre,mier early childhood development program
preparirig low-incomelchildren for a lifetime ofilearning and development by providing early,
continuous and comprehensive child development and family support services. Early Head Start,
created by the Clinton~Gore Administration in 1994, brings Head Start's successful
comprehensive services to families with children ages zero to three and to pregnant women, and
works to enhance chil~ren's overall development and enable parents to be better caregivers of
and teachers to their children. Since .1993, this Administration has already boosted funding for
"
.
Head Start by 90 perc~nt.
.
I
, .
• The Administratiop. intends to continue efforts to increase participation by underrepresented'
groups in specifically targeted areas with recent influxes of immigrants and limited English
proficient childrenl including seasonal farmworkers.
• increasing by 50% the number of points awarded to expansion grant applicants who
emphasize outreach to under-served populations, such as seasonal farm workers, recent
immigrant familie~ and non-English speakii)g groups;
It increasing the nurdber of grant application r:eviewers that have expertise in serving language
. i.
.
minority children; I .
It
working with and monitoring programs to ensure full utilization of community assessments
to better target outreach, recruitment and enrollment of under-served populations;
�'DRAFT, 3/10100
I
' .
• providing specialized technical assistance t6 ten communities where changing local
demographics ha~e resulted in significant under-served populations.
Engaging the Privat~ Sector: We need to impr~~e outreach and funds for g~vernment programs
in this area, and we also need to further engage the private and non-profit sectors to focus on this
issue. During the First Lady's convening on Hispanic Children and Youth, the Administration
I
,
secured a pledge by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, as part of its ongoing partnership with
the Department of Ed'ucation, to make a new commitment of more than $300,000 commitment to
improve Latino partidipation in after-school programs. This effort builds on the Foundation's
$83 million commiWent in' 1997 to support after-school activities in coordination with the 21 st
Century Community Learning Centers program. [We are following up with Mott to see what
"
'
'
their progress has bedn, and will try to report on it.}
I
Goal #2: Improving !Quality ,
I
I
Early Learning, Fund: The Administration's child care proposal for FY 2001 includes a number
of proposals to improre the quality of early childhood education. To ensure that childrep have
access to early childh90d programs that promote their cognitive development, the President's
budget includes $3 billion over five years for the Early Learning Fund to help improve child care
quality and early chilqhood education for children under five years old. The Early Learning Fund
will provide community grants for activities that foster cognitive development, improve child
care quality and,prom'<?te readiness for school. Resources could be 'used to help child care
providers get training or certification, facilitate licensing or accreditation of child care centers,
and reduce child-to-st~ff ratios -- factors associated with positive developmental outcomes for
young children.
Stay At Home?
Goal #3: Improving Language and Literacy Skills
,
TBD
"
I
after Tuesday meeting.
�t
Hispanic Education National Meeting
I(
GOALS
0
1'
~
~ ~ \\.p
Two and one-half of five goals completed to date.
(
Please give comments/revisions to person responsible for goal.
• Pre-K Goal - Ann O'Leary (no~
f-e- J~C~
• Reducing Dropout Rate--~uxto~ (con1plete draft)
• Eliminating the Achievement Gap - Andy RotherhamJBethan{ Little (con1plete draft)
• English Language Proficiency - Andy RotherhanllBethany Little (meeting on goal on March
14,2000)
• Higher Education - Brian Kennedy (partial draft)
/5
�J
'. .
aper
ImmateDRAhAFTI''"
t e' c uevement G ap 1 " ' H'Ispamc S tu'd ents
lor
Interna I Worl\mg p ' on EI···
I.
Background.
. .
..
...
On the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the SAT, and other standardized tests there
is an achievement g~p betw~en Hispanic students and white, non-Hispanic students. For
example on th~ 199~ NA.EP mathematics' test for9-year-olds, non-Hispanic' white students
averaged 237 (6 points above the average of231) while Hispanic students averaged 215,16
points belowthe av~rage and 22 points below their non-Hispanic wl).ite peers. 13-year-old non':
Hispanic white students averaged 281, 7 points above the average while Hispanic students
averaged 256, '25 p~ints below their white peers and 18 points below average. 17-year..:old nonI
.
.
.
Hispanic white students showed a similar disparity scoring 292, 15 points below average and 21
points below their ~hite ·counterparts. The chart below illustrates the NAEP score disparity in
more detail:
I.. .
.
Reading
13-year
old
Reading
17-year- ,
old
Reading
9-year
old Math
13-year
old Math
17-year
old Math
9-year
old
Science
13-year
old
Science
17-year
old
Science
9-year
old '
'267
239.9
(19.2)
(27.1)
7.9
294
264.7
'(22.2)
(29.3)
7.1
237
215
J16)
(22)
6
281
256
(1.8)
(25)
7
313
292
(15)
(21)
6
. 239
. 207
(23) .
(32)
266
232
(24)
(34)
10
296
,
307
269
' (27)
(38)
11
207
216
191
'(16)
(25)
I
I
�I
\Vriting
13:-year
"
,
'j
271
246
_(18) ,
(25)
7
289
2641
269,
(14)
(20)
6
old
I
Writing
17-year
283i
old
\Vriting
~re
While all the score laps
senous, it is worth noting that the gap 'actuallY grows for students in
l they progress through school.
reading and math as
sco~e
eq~ally'problemati~
gap is
with an average verbal score for Hispanic
Oh the SAT the
students of 466 con1pared to 526 for non-Hispanic white students (60 points) and a gap of 486 to
526' (40 points) in:rhath. i State assessments and other standardized tests indicate similar
disparities.
"/.'
.':. .
....
'.
. ' ...
One means of ensurmg acapemlc success forL,EP students IS to use approprIate and valId
assessments aligned to state and local standards that take into account language acquisition. This
is especially imporlant in locations where "high-stakes" testing (i.e., testing for high school
graduation and sch~ol accountability) is required I!y law. Standardized tests should be used as
only one of many criteria to determine student competencies, The additional challenge of testing
Hispanic American's is that the test results must reflect an assessment of core content leaming,
and not reflect solely linguistic or cultural competencies.
,
,"
.
"
resul~s ~s~essme)1ts; d~ta
In addition to
on
show'that when compareq to non-Hispanic studel1ts, '
Hispanic students ~re: '
• less likely than black or white students to have access to a computer at home or in school,
• less likely than white" or black students to be enrolled in college preparatory programs,
• less likely than white or black students to be enrolled in gifted and talenfed programs,
• more likely to be placed in remedial-general' education tracks,
• more Iikely l:h~n white studel1ts to be enrolled in vocational programs, and
• more often inc6rrectly assessed as mentally retarded or leaming disabled.
"
I.
'
,
A 1998 teacher smlvey found that among tea.cherswho teach students with limited English
' I
".
'
proficiency or Jrorp diverse cultural backgroupds, almost hal f felt unprepared to address the
needs of these students.
I
"
The Secretary of Education's 1998 "Improving OPP0l1lll1ities" report foundthat:
At age 9, the gap in reading
perfonnance hlas not changed significantly sine the initial assessment [1971-1996]. In math '
ancl science proficiency there has been little improv'ement in the gap betweel1 Hispanics and
whites in the Ihst 20 years. At age 13, the gap in math proficiency has closed by ) 0 points;
however, the durrent gap of25 points still- reniains. And in reading proficiency, there bas
beeri little chabge in.the gap between Hispanics and whites over the ,
past 20 years. At age 17,
• "Achievement' gaps between Hispanics and whites remains high.
�I
I
the proficiency gaps for reading and math have closed by 11.6 and 12 points respectively;
however signifi6ant gaps ren1ain.
'
~chievement
r~te,
g1p contributes to the disproportionately high Hispanic dropout
and
This
disproportionately low rates of colJege attendance. The'report "Nation on the Fault Line" cites a
list of specific facto1rs that affect the educationalachievement 6fHispanic Americans. The
factors most relevarh to these students' perfom1ance on assessments include: '
I
'
• inequity in scho;ol financing,
'
• school segregation and poverty,
• underrepresenta'tion 'of Hispanics among school personnel,
• multicultural tr~ining for school personnel,
• lack of bilingual and ESL programs,
• testing a~d asse~sment, and
• parental involv6ment.
Goal for EliminatiJg the Achievement Gap
me~sured
This "achievement Igap" can be
in a variety of ways, from the national tests, scores
cited above(NAEP and SAT), to dis~ggregated scores on state assessments to a package of
indicators like AP ,xams taken, access to technology, retention in grade, etc.
Option
~ \ Eli~inate the achievement gap for Hispanic students on state assessments
witlhn the next decade.
. .
I
Pros: This goal would·continue an emphasis on aligning standards with curricula, using effective
assessment practic~s, and including as many students as possible in state assessments. ]t is also
the measure that will be the measure seen by parents and others on school and district report
cards and used to ~ssess the school's perfonnance.
"
I
Cons: This ';"ould be incredibly difficult to monitor, or even define, and does not show the rate
of progress among states. It might also create an incentive for states not to include all kids in
assessments, and to use "valid" assessments that may expect different levels of accomplishment.
Also, would you bb looking at alJ subjects and all grades? Or just language arts and math at key
transition points? I
.
Option #2
Eliminate the achievement gap for HispaniC students,on the National
Ass1essment of Educational 'Prog,ress within the next decade.
w~u
~as
Pros: This goal
ld be
ier tp moni tor, and ensures all kicts are bei ng assessed in the same'
way against the same standard.
I'
.'
.
Cons: The goal dGes not support the system of state standards and does not get at problems of
curriculum and as~essments. Also, NAEP is not given very frequently and actually tests far
fewer kids.
I
�Option #3
Elim1inate the academic achievement gap for Hispanic Americans.
I
Pros: This has beeh expressed by some of the groups as a preferable goal. It also more clearly
addresses the issues'jbehind what the assessments illustrate, and not get hung up on problems
with the assessments themselves.
Cons: Talk about a researcher's nightmare! Also, this is squishier and might be harder to out in
tem1S of message. '1
'.
.
Strategies for Eliminating the Achievement Gap
goverl1llent,stat~
Thefederal
and local govel11ments, the private sector, and community-based
organizations all ha~e a role to play in eliminating the achievement gap among Hispanic and
other students. The [federal government is 'co~'nmitted to help build a foundation for school..
.
success by increasing access for Hispanic students to Head Stmi, Title I, and after-school .
programs. All of thbe p~ograms have been shown to bolster literacy and academic achievement.
The federal goverru~ent's enforcement qfTitle Laccountability may be its strongest leverage
point on ~his i~sue -i~fthe political will exists to do this. More of the Administration's strategies
are descnbed 111 detaIl below.
.
Questions to considL in develop(ing our ap;;'oach to this issueinchide:
I
• What does "to the extent practicable" mean?
• How do we dete1'n1ine if an assesslnent is "valid "?
• How do you align classroom practices with assessments?
.
.
• What is the inte;section between assessments and educatio~? (i. e. even if assessments were
. .
done perfectly, it is still likely that there would be an achievement gap) ' .
• How do we enfoke our Title I provisions? .
.
.
• What is the role 10fteacher training and expectations?
.• How do access techn;logy; use oftechnology and equity ofschoolflnance(federal pi~ce
might involve mbre effective ta'rgeting) play into this?
.. '.
.
tb
Otherge~eral stratete~
un~eliaken
being
by businesses, foundations and non-prof:t groups to
help Hispanic stude~ts reach high academic standards include:
..
•
•
•
•
•
'
.
I
I
.'
.
:
.
parent involvement
alignment of stahdards and curriculum
.
I
teacher training in cultural sensitivity. and a focus on expectations
I
.
mentorii1g, tutoring and individvalized instruction
language mastery assistance
I
Deliverables by business, nonprofits and others for the conference (discussed below) should be
aligned with those strategies that have proven most effective in improving academic achievement
for Hispanic student1s.
.
�1
Conference Approach
I
I"
.
. "
.
The approach is heavily dependent upon the overall conference length (and fonnat). What
follows are two pos~ible approaches for addressing the goal qf eliminating 'the achievement gap
between Hispanicm{d othei' students,
.
.
.
Three-hour
StrategxlM~eting with No Breakouts
~
If the conference is 3-hour national strategy meeting in the East Room, where attendees stay
put, then the meeting can only lend itself to a panel or dialogue of ~ome sorts.
I
,
.
.
1
The first option for panel would be to have an academic- or foundation-type briefly layout
What is understood ~bout why the achievement gap exists. The panel could also include a
practitioner who is doing this well (and maybe one who is not), a business champion of standards
(like Lou GerstnerY,lgovernmeht and nonprofits or foundations (depending on the first speaker)
to respond and talk about what has'been done and what needs to be done, including the
commitmentsneede~ to be made. We should allow time for Q&A with a group this small
(schedulirig request references 150 people).
~
The second option ft panel would be' to focus more explicitly on what has 'been done, what
.
has been done well ~nd poorly and whatn~eds to be done still. Rather than a group'-of
respondents, we woyld invite three people to deliver prepared~o'mmentson three components of
the problem/challenge (components to be developed), A moderator could then handle pose some·
additional questionsjand allow Q&A
.
I
Six-hour Strategy Meeting with Breakout Sessions .
I.
.
. '
Ifthe fom1at were expanded beyond the scope ofthe scheduling request, then we.would have
some time for a speJker or panel arid breakout sessions on component issues. The panel for the
whole group could Be either option as described above. Breakout sessions would follow and
• I
.
.
. .
would either be organized along the goals and best practices or the goals and strategy to move
forward.
I '
.
Potential Deliverables'
[n addition to the ccltii1Ued commitment of the Clinton Adniinistrati'on, commitments could be
,
I
made by a variety of higher educatiol1, private sector and foundation entities. Among the
'.
.
commitments/delivdrables we might pursue arethe following.
Business c~uld comh1it to:
.
• Donating techn~logy and expertise to help close the. digital divide ,
'
• Implementing p6licies and advocating for parents to be involved in their children's education
I ,
.
• Getting involved with state and local efforts to implement standards
• Committing em~loyee time for tutoring
I.
�I
II mighl be interesli!,g 10 highlighllhe Gales' recent donation 10 "rein'venling .. public schools by
having him (an obvious longshot) or the head ofhis foundation appear on a panel.
.
.
I
.
...
.
Foundations could commit to: . .
I
- Funding research on what works to help Hispanic youth leam
I
- Funding research on effective assessment practices
- Supporting and teplicating effective programs
I
.
Non-profit organiza:tions could commit to:
'.
- Getting involvecl with state and local efforts to implement standards
- Communicating' with their communities about the importance of education and parental
involvement. I "
.
- A national effort to' raise awareness, ..
OfHigh~r
Institutions
Education could commit to:
- Educating teach1ers in cultural sensitivity and best practices for teaching LEP students
-Working with s6hools to identify best practices for teaching Hispanic students,
I '
.
Federal Govemment could commit to:
• Deliverable on Mfective assessment practices?
• If the tape mentioned below has not been sent out yet, it might be a good "deliverable" for
the conference.
.Administra.tion Strategies
,
GOAL
II:
I
'
,
CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
Title' I: (HEAP) GJants to local· educational agencies provide supplemental education services
for students who halve fallen behind in school, particularly those in high poverty communities.
.
About 32 percent, 3.6 million oftlle students served by Title i are Latil1o.
6r
I
FY 2000 Enacted Id·vel: $7.9 billion
FY 2001 Request: 1$8>36 billion
.
.
...
Department ()bjedive: To strengthen the effectiveness ofTitle I services to help Latino
students achiev~ to high academic standards. ,
Results to Date: Latino participation has increased by 72% (up from 1.9 million) since 1993-94.
This increase appeJrsto be attributable to the expanded number of schoo Iwide programs,
funding increases, ~nd clearer requirements that LEP students must be served und~r Title I.
jp
sta~dards,
The Depa rtmen t h issu ed fi nal gu idance 0 n T it Ie I
assessmen ts, and acco untabiIi ty
require'ments as well as,the guidance on the inclusion of LEP students ("in the native language to
the extent practicaBle") in assessment and accountability systems.
.
'
�The Department h1s als~ i~lcreased support for identifying and disseminating models of effective
practices for helpiAg Hispanic students learn" to read and meet academic standards in other
I
'
challenging.acadeqlic subjects. For example, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory,
in collaboration with the Comprehensive School Refornl Demonstration Program Office, has
organized a set of tesearch-based school [efonn models, including .Iocally developed approaches,
with demonstrated Ieffectiveness in serving LEP students, Information on these models is
available on the web (http://www.sedl.orglculture/adapting.html) to support communities with
high concentration~ ofLEP students in implementing whole school reform approaches.
The Department blgan production 'of a videotape for Spanish-speaking families and the schools
and org'anizations that serve them - to provide some b'asic suggestions about helping children
succeed in school. I The areas that will be covered include parent involv~mentin education, '
ready-to-:-learn issues, reading and mathematics, and preparing for college. The videotape will be
15 mimltes in length and .be used as a tool for presentations to groups of Spanish~speaking
families that migh~ be provided by schools, colleges, community-based organizations, faith
, ~ased organization~s, or others, The tape will be packaged with print materials as a kit to be
Inarketed to schools and community-based organ~zations serving Hispanic Americans., The'
'
video package will be ready to distribute in early 2000.
The Department plans to:
• Provide technical assistance to grantees with attention given to commUnities with new and
: emergirig popu'lations;
,
• Conduct three workshops on Title I assessment requirements and best practices; and
I
'
,
• Release "Toolkit for Assessment ofLEP StudentsHreports and handbook on large scale
testing--in part\1ership wi CCSSO.
,
'
Strategy 1: EnsurJ that schools are held accountable for improving the academic performance of
Latino students, bY: enforCing the Title I requirements for implementation of state standards,
assessments and ascquntability systems by school year 2000 - 2001, and ensuring the inclusion
ofLEP students inlthose systems .
. The Department plans to:
'"
.
.• Proquce a repol on state policies for including LEP students in assessments;
• Identify states ~I greatest difficulty in complying 'wi requirements for the inclusion of LEP'
students in statb assessment and accountability systems and provide appropriate technical
I
'
,
assistance and encouragement; and
' . , ..
• Develop folloJ-up and technical assistance plan for states needing 'assistance in improving
services to and [assessment of LEP students as wen as ensure appropriate consequences for
states that fail to .comply wi Title I assessment requirements.
Strategy 2: Provide Title ~. schOols and districts,particular!y those with high and growing
concentrations of Latino and LEP stlldents, with high quality resou~ce-s, including best practices
(Also in lihewith
Iff: English,Language Acquisition).
\
�.
' l'
The Department plans to:
,
4.1
(Wit~
• Co-sponsor
CAL) regional workshops on best practices in teaching reading to LEP
students (lAS cOI'lferences) as well as produce and disseminate a variety ofSpanish-langua'ge
niaterialsto suppbrt parent involvement in education and early reading. (Spanish language
catalogue ofmatbrials, Even Start guide on helping the child's brain develop, etc. have been
I .
.'
.
completed);
• Produce practical research summariesand related materials (including workshop videos) on
teaching reading!to LEP students and develop an :'ldea.book"on the education of Latino
students (An initial rep0l1 was developed by NCBE and released in January 1999); and
• Develop plan for, ongoing technical assistance and outreach to school districts with large. fast
growing, or emetging Latino student populations.
I
.
"
I
State Agency Migdnt Program (HEAP) The'Migrant Education program (MEP) provides
financial a~sistance to state educational agencies to establish and improve educational programs
for children of migdtory workers to enable. them to meet the same academic standards as all
,
students. Approxim~tely 85% of migrant children are Latino.
Enac~edL~vel:
$355 million
FY 2000
FY 2001 Request $3:80 million
I .
..
.
Objective: To help tmproved academic achievement and school completion ofmigrant children.
Results to Date: 752,000 migrant children have been identified as being eligible for the migrant·
education program; 621,000 are currently being served.
In Reading, ElemenJary & Middle Grades: At least 60% of migrant students scored at or above
basic in 6 of the 10 ~tates providirig usable data, In Math, Elementary Grade: At least 60% of
migrant students sco'red at or above basic in 4 of the 10 states providing usable data. In Math,
Middle Grade: At lekst 60% of migrant students scored at or ab'ove basic in 2 of the 10 states
' .
.
providing usable dat~.
Strategy 1: Ensure
standards.
~hat migrant children are included in state assessments that' a~e linke'o to higb
I.'
. .
. . ' ..
The Department plans to:
• .Conduct a study on level Of migrant student participation in state assessment systems;
• Disseminate a report describing state practices on assessing LEP students to State MEP
Director.s;
I.
..... .
.
.
..
.
• Work With states 111 Summer LeadershIp InstItute to examll1e the testllig, reportlllg, and lise of
state .assessm~!1tl info~mation for ~igrant studen~s; and ',. . . .
'.
.
• PrOVIde techmcal assIstance to states on the testll1g, reporting, and use of state assessment
data with the migrant student population.
.
�Strategy 2: Encourage the implementation of comprehensive school reforms (e.g., SWPs &
CSRD) that effecti+ly integrate MEP funds and services with other programs sothat migrant
children benefit more fully ..
I
The Department plqns
LO:
I
I
.
• Disseminate information to MEP State Directors on strategies for states and school districts
to work with Tifle I, Part A, staff in compreherisive sc~oo I reforms and school-'wide
programs;!·
.
.
• Monitor for evihence of support for building level attention to the unique needs of migrant
children in schdolwideand CSRD programs via state integrated reviews; and
.
• Implyment a re{ised research agenda for migrant edu~ation focusing on graduation rates,
secondary sch09l dropout risk factors & levels, student achievement on state standards, and
school readiness.
Strategy 3: Ensure that states and local school districts provide education services outside the
regular school term! to help migrant students achieve high standards.
.
.
I.
The Department plCms to:
I
"
• Conduct workshops at the National Migrant Education Conference on student participation
rates. and high quality programs; and' .
"
• Provide fundin~ incentives for multi-state consortia that will develop and use innovative
materials and ptocedures to ensure education continuity for migrant students;
I
Strategy 4: Increa~e the efficiency and effectiveness of service~ to migrant children through
more effective coordination.
.
I
The Department plans to:
.
I
i
.,
• Pilot consolidated database to assist in the transfer of migrant student records and coordinate
I
.
with Mexico's pepartment of Education on improving educational outcomes for bi-national
children; and
• Continue support of incentive grants that promote partnerships with agribusiness and other
local organizatibns to support education services and the work of migrant families and
workers.
I
.
. '
,
I
, I
.'
.
. .
Other Department yfforts to close the achievement gap:
I ,
.
' .
• The OERI funded National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in coordination with
other agencies (Census Bureau and others), is collecting significant demographic information
and general pdfonnance data via the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
and the Nation~l Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) that describe the educational needs
of Latino studebts;
.
.I .
�• The Educational Resources Information Clearinghouse (ERIC)jncludes numerous studies,
reports and anal1yses on Latino education. TheERIC National Clearinghouse on Reading
disseminates a series of booklets in both English and Spanish to help parents provide
academic suppo:rt for their children.'
,
'
I
GOAL
III:
I ,
.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Titl~
,Bilingual EducatiJn: (HEAP) The
VII, Bilingual Educati()n program assists schools to
build their capacity.!'o operate high-q~ality progr~ms designed to help limited-Engli~h proficient
(LEP) students achl,eve'to the same h.1gh academic standards as all students. ApproxJn'1ately 70%
ofLEP studen~s arelLatino. (May also.support Goal II: Closing the achievement gap).
FY 2000 Enacted !Level: $248 million '
I
FY 2001 Request: $296 million
,
.
~f
~n h~lping
Objective: To imprbve the effectiveness Title VII grantees
linguistically diverse
children lea'm Engli1sh and achieve to the same challenging academic standards required of all
children.
I
'
Results to Date: I
• In 1999, approximately 1.4 million Latino students were served by Title VII programs.
Federal bilingu~1 education projects continue to demonstrate effectiveness in teaching
~
I
English.
• Recent evaluati611 reports indicated that for 91 % of projects, at least two-thirds of LEP ,
students made g~ins il! .oral English proficiency.
'
,
"
,
• The Department! has supported' the distribution of a variety' of edu~ational resources for
teachers of lingJistically and culturally diverse students, the majority of whom are Latino.
For example, thl~ough the National Clea~inghouse for Bilingual' Education (NCBE), the
Department credted a series of guides on the preparation of teachers of English language,
leamers (http://~'ww.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/resource/ells); a report and cases studies on
Transforming Ellucationfor Hispanic Youth: Exemplary Practices, Programs, and Schools
grounded inthe rork of Hispanic Drop:'Out project,'
,
(http://www.ncb.e.gwuedu/ncbepubs/resource/hispanicyouthlindex.htm); and state-specific
data on LEP student enrollments in US schools'
,
,(http://www.ncb!e.gwu.edu/askncbe/faqs/Olleps.htm).
Strategy 1: Ensure effective project implementation through improved grants management,
technical assistance,1 and identification and dissemination of promising practices.
i
Strategy 2: Launchlan outreach and technical assistance campaign to solicit PI:ofessional
. Development grant proposals from IHE's al!d other eligible institutions located in and serving
areas with a large l\l{met n~ed for bilingual education and ESL instructors as well as in,
co m;n II niIies WI th el~ ergin g Lali nopopnl ali 0115.
The Departmentplans t o : '
'.
�i
-Identify and higplight promising practices (in coordination with NCBE and NABE) and work
with QESE to irhprove implementation of all federal programs;
.
"
- Support intensi~e evaluationof programs and individual criteria by developing and providing
technical assistance and guidance on and criteria for high quality evaluation;
- Increase outrea~h to parents and .teachers of LEP students (e.g, Produce and disseminate a
guide to parentslon standards-based reform and the inclusion ofLEP students in high quality
, instruction, assessment, and accountability systems); and "
- Analyze its datal collection and analysis efforts bY-developing a profile of data resources
related to Latind and limited English proficient students. The Department-wide profile on
assessing arid i~proving data ~ollectior:,t on Latino and,
students is being developt::d
through the Cle*ringhouse on Bilingual Education. The profiles will catalog data collection'
instrt.lments for each program and principal office in theDeparti11ent. The final report will
describe the datk being collected regarding both Latinos and
students, identify gaps in
data collection, ~nd make recomniendations for future data collection and evaluation efforts.
i
Research Agenda
"
,
~n limited-English proficient (LEP) Students: (HEAP 2001 proposal)
~ith
ofHealt~
This HEAP 2001 pLposal will include joint research
the National Institutes
(NIH) on improving the literacy learning of Spanish-speaking students, a systematic program of
research responding to the 1997 National Research Council report, Improving Schooling for
Lahguage Minority! Children: A Research Agenda and targeted efforts to build capacity,
especially among triaditionally underrepresented groupsto study these nationally significant .
. Issues.
FY 2000 Enacted: $0
FY 2001 Request:
10 million
$
Ensure that HiSPjniC Students Achieve Engiish Language Proficiency
Lack of Bilingual and ESt Programs. One ofthe most controversial issues in the education of
Hispanic children i~ language. The reason for this controversy is primarily political', rather than
educational, and reflect a public misunderstanding that bilingual and
.1
English-as-a-Secorid-Language education methods are somehow a threat to American culture
and values. Tn. fact, Ithe General Accounting Office (GAO) indicated in 1994 that "the bilingual
metliod" is the 1110st effective for non-English speaking children ...
. I
The fastest and. mokt effective way for bilingual students to acquire both a COrrimand of English
and a command oflclassroom subject matter is through well-d<;:signed and fully implemented
bilingualprogramsi. Unfortunately, many states and districts fail to provide full bilingual· .
I
.' :
'..
instruction .
in academic subjec1ts. In 1994, for example, .the GAO found that many school districts with high
concentrations ofl(imited English Proficient (LEP) students were 110t adequately providing
bi I ingual services. J11 one district with 21,000 identi fied LEP students, only 3 percent of the LEP
. I
~
students were bemg serv~d_50
_
. '
.
. -I
r
�1
,
I
Today, two primary strategies for instructihg LEP students are English as a Second Language
(ESL) and bilingual educ'ation. ESL is a teaching method in which instruction is almost
exclusively
I
'
.
.'
..
in English, In fact,1I it may ..be based upon a curriculum that incorporates little or no use of the
native
!
'\
'
'
'
language, and is t~ught only in specific school periods, after which students are placed under
regular instruction forthe rest,ofthe school day,60
According to Professor Josue Gonzalez of Columbia University Teachers' College:
Bilingual educLqnis,the,use of two languages, one of which 'is English, as a ,
means of instrubtion, It is:an educational tool priniarily'used with children of
.limited Englishl proficiency to provide them both English language instruction
1
. '
and access to o~her content areas of the curriculum ... The native language of
the child is used in bilingual programs to the extent necessary to teach basic
skills and insurb that children do not fall behind their peers in other subjects
while they learA English.61
I
Bilingual educatiol1 programs develop native-language proficiency in order
[0 enable LEP.
,I
studel1ts
,
11 E' I' h'
:,
1'1'
., ,
d ,.' b"
"
to ma ke a transition to a - ng IS ll1structlOn, w 11 e recelvll1g aca emlc su ~ect ll1structlOn 111
their
'I
. ,
native language. These programs emphasize the development of English-:language skills as well
~
.
.'
.
'1"
.
, , '
. . , '
..
grade promotion aJ1d graduation requirements,62
I '
,
In Lau v. Nichols ~1974),47 the Supreme Court rUled that students who are not fluent in English
have a right to con1prehensible instruction as a means of ensuring equal access to a public
education, Failure to provide supplemental language instruction, then, violates Title VI of the
Civil
.
I ·
.
~ights Act. From, 984 to 1994, the number of limited English propcient (LEP) students
ll1creased
I .
.
by almost 70 percent, yet, the corresponding numbers .of qualified bilingual teachers did not
increase. Currentl~, more than 2.3 rl1illion LEP students, representing different linguistic and
cultural backgroun~s,\attend public elementary and' secondary schools - ' and three-fourths of
'.
I
.
.
.
them are Spal1lsh speakers.
.
'.,
'
'.
.
l conv~ned in Washington, D':C:, in November of 1995, to address the
A panel of experts Iwas
,
issues affecting bilingual education, (A list of panelists can be fouri.d in Appendix E,) They
I ,', ."
..
. ,
agreed
.
th'at without effecti:ve bilingual education, a pattern of failure develops:
.
1
Students receiving no special language training inevitably fall behind in other subject matter
while they struggle to learn English;
Students may, 9ver time, become fluent' in oral English, but are not promoted with their
peers, because they have missed several years of instruction in content areas; and
�Students a~e rarely able to overcoine this and are, consequently, more likely to leave
school before higJ1 school graduation. The National Education Goals, Report 1992 round
thatLEP studentsl have one ~r the higbest dropout rates in the country.
, ,
Goal:TBD[IWithin 3 years ofentering public school} or [beforegraduatingfrom High
School.} [We need to get a better feel for where the -community is on this issue through Brian's
outreach meetings bJfore proceeding much further on this issue.} (Bethany Little/Andy:
-Rotherham)
,
I
'
I
College Entrance Examination Board,National Report on College BO,und Seniors, 1997.
�DRAFT
03/03/00
, I
'
,
InternalI Working Paper on the'Reducing the Hispanic Dropout Rate
Background
Since the 19705, the United States has witnessed increasing completion rate and a
reduction in the ~ropout rate for high school students across the country: In 1998, 85% of
all the 18 through 24 year,-olds had completed high schools, 11.8% of all 16 through 24
I,
'
'
year-olds had dropped out of school,and 4.8% percent of 15 through 24 year-olds had '
dropped out duri:ng the 1997-98 school year. These reflects an improvement, albeit slight,
over where we were thirty years ago.
) Those improveJents, however, belie the reality of the completion and dropout rates .
among HispaniClhigh school students, According to the Census Bureau, among 18
, through 24year-elds, 90.2% of non-Hispanic whites and 81.4% or non-Hispanic Blacks
had completed high school in 1998. For Hispanic youth, the figure stands at only 62.8%,
, During the 1997 IL school year,Hispanic students aged i5 though 24 dropped out of, '
98
school (the "eveht" dropout rate) aUwo and a halftimes the rate of non-Hispanic whites
(3.9% v. 9.4.%) ~nd nearly twice the rate of non-Hispanic Blacks. Among 16 through 24
year-olds, whileI7.7% of non-Hispanic Whites arid 13.8% ofri.cin-Hispanic Blacks are not
in school and have not earned a high school credential (the "status" dropout rate), the rate
for Hispanic students is 29.5%. "
',
'
There is an undJrlYing complexity, to the Hispanic dropout issue. Essentially, the dropout
, rate is told by tJ,o stories. The first story is that ofUS-boril Hispanic youth. For Hispanic
youth aged 16 tl~rough 24 with both par~nts also born in the US, the dropout rate is '
15.8%. The figu!re rises to 20.5% for youth b0111 iilthe US with at least one parent born
,
I "
,
outside the US. :The other story is of Hispanic youth, aged 16 through 24, born outside
the 50 states or the District of Columbia of whom 44.4% have dropped out. Data from
1995 shows tha~ ofthe dropouts born outside the US, half never enrolled in a US school
and 80% were r~ported as limited English proficient.
I
.
What these two !stories reveal is that Hispanic dropout r~te are partly attributable to the
relatively higher dropout rates among Hispanic immigrants. That said, the lowest dropout
rate for Hispanif youth (that of US born with US born parents) is stilt'iwice that ofthdr
non-Hispanic ,hitepeers and greater still than the rate for non-Hispanic Blacks. ,
'
In today's econ0my, dropping olit of high school is a passport to a low-wage future. Over
the last twe'nty ~ears, a farge gap has opened between those with education beyond high
school and thos~ with less education. For those who fail to complete their high school
education, oppdrtunities in the workforce diminish" greatly and access to high wage jobs
is virtually shut off. As the dropout rate for Hispanic youth reaches crisis proportiOlls, it
is imperative to de~elop a goal and strategy for reducing the dropout rate and improving
educational outcomes and opportunities for Hispanic youth.
�DRA'FT
03/03100
I
I
Goal for Reducing the. Hispanic Dropout Rate
The following tepresents four options for agoal for the National Strategy Meeting in
April. The firstl three are concerned with the measure we use to'countdropouts; the fourth
suggests turning the goal on its head and establishing a goal for increasing high school
.
completion rates rather than a goal of decreasing dropout rates.
Eliminate the gap in the event dropout rate between Hispanics
,and the national average by 201 O.
OPTION #1
~rop
This measures ihe share of students aged 15 through 24 who
out of grades 10-12 in
any given year.1 The goal would be to reduce the Hispanic dropout rate to the national
. average .. Altern'atively, we could calculate a non-Hispanic average and attempt to reduce
I
the rate to that figure: The event dropout rate in 1998 was 4.8% for the nation and 9.4%
for Hispanic yd,uth.
.
.
,
Pro: This goal ~ouJd focus on putting i~ place a stra'tegy to keep enr~lIed students in
.
I
.
schooL It woulcl be, unburdened by the fact that many young adults counted as a part of
the status dropdut data (16 through· 24 year-olds) are past school age or immigrate to the
.
I
.
country past the age when they can enter school.
Con: It focuses Isomewhat narrowly on kid; who dropped out of grades 10-12. In focusing
on keepii1g kids'in school, it would not also focus on bringing former dropouts back in,
which is an imRortant goal and better measured by the status dropout rate.
.
OPTION #2 .
.
.
Eliminate the gapin the status dropout rate between Hispanics
and the national average by 2010.
I
I
.
This measures the percentage share of students aged 16 through 24 that is not in school
and has not rec~ived a high school credentiaL The current status rate is 11.8% for the
I
nation and 29.5% for Hispanic youth.
r~cognizes
eff~rts
that
must be made to keep people from drop;ing out,
Pro: This goal
bring people batk into school, and help them earn high school diplomas or credentials. It
deals with the et1tirety of Hispanic youth, not just those of school age.
.
,
I
.
Con: It is a much larger gap to close and deals with Hispanic youth who are past school
age. It lumps together what are essentially two distinct groups within the Hispanic
.
dropout subgroJp: US born and immigrant Hispanlc youth.
I
I
OPTION #3
.
.
Eliminate the gap in the status dropout rate between the
national average and US-;born Hispanic youth and cut in half
the dropout rate for immigrant Hispanic youth.
This goal wpuld have us reduce the status dropout rate for US born Hispanic youth aged
16 through 24 (+i~h parents either US- or outside-the-US-born) from the current 20.5%
�I
I
.
DRAFT
I
03/03/00
I
,
rate to the nation,al average of 11.8%. The dropout rate for immigrant Hispanic youth is
44.4%. However:, the status dropout rate for non-Hispanic immigrant youth is only 7.2%. '
I
Pro'; Provides adual focus on US born and immigrant Hispanic youth alldrecognizes that
these groups req(!ire some different strategies. Commits us to a doable goal with the first,
group (US bom)land a 'still ambitious goal of cutting the rate in half for immigrant
" Hispanic youth.
I ''
.
,,"
",
'
, Con: This approach looks like we are tucking our tail in the face of a tough problem with
immigrant Hispdnic youth. Furthermqre, given that in 1998, non~Hispanic immigrants
had a
dropout rate than the, rate for non-Hispanic Whites, it might be a tough
ar I entto aRe that we need to establish dual goals.
- . "I
o
.
,
'
Eliminate the high s,chool completion gap between Hispanic
students and tI~e national average.
"
I"
"
This figure measures ,the share of 18 through 24 year-:-olds who have completed a high
, school diploma 6r received an equivalent ,credential. For 1998, 85% of all 18 through 24
year-qlds not enrolied in high school had con1pleted high ~chool. For Hispanic young
adults the completion rate is 62.8%.
'
,
I
,
Pro: A high sch~ol completion goal would be a positively-oriented goal for Hispanic
youth: "complet'e high school" versus "don't drop out." In addition to a primary focus on
,
I
'
,
keeping kids in high school to earn their diploma, this goal would also focus on getting
those youth pasf HS age credentialed (GED, 'etc),
, I,
'
,',
Con: The dropout rate is an issue with currency irithe education and-Hispanic
, communities an~ this might redirect too much. Could lead to a perception that we aren't.
addressing the dropout issue (though we wou.1d be).
General strateky for Reduci'ng the Dropout
Completion 'to the National Average
I
'
Rate/lncre~sing High School
J '
The federal govprnnie~t, state and local governments, 'the private sector, and community
based organizations all have a role to play in reducing the Hispanic dropout
rate/increasing the Hispanic high school completion rate.
.
gov~mment.is
hel~
The federal
committed to
build a {';undatlonfor school success by
increasing access for Hispanic students to Head Start, Title I, and after-school programs.
All of these programs have been shown to bolster literacy and. research shpws that
reading difficulties are'a key indicator for dropping out of school. The federal
government will also expand ~ccess for Hispanics to mentoring activities' such as the
Gear-UP progr~m and the TRIO programs, In addition; through a focus on sl11aller
schools, charteri schools, and reforn1ing the Ari1erican high school, the federal
government'wi\l ensure that there are high quality options availal')leto meet the varying
needs,of adolescent students.'
,
I
''
I
I
I
I
I
�DRAFT
03103/00 .
Across the Administration, executive branch agencies are also engaged in ongoing efforts
to address the drppout rate'and high.school completion. In addition, Departments such as
Education and Health and Human Services have identified action steps to be taken to
improve the accbss to and effectiveness. of programs for Hispanic youth that support this
I
goal. These Willtbe a~knO\~ledged in some fornl ~t the conferenc~..
.
Other general stFategies being undertaken by businesses, foundations and non-profit
groups to reducd the'dropol!t rate among Hispanic youth focus on the following issues:
. .
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I····
. .
.
parent involvement
"
standards and curricular refornl
I
.
.
school-to-work and other career awareness efforts
counseling nbeds imd social service access
I
teacher training with a focus on expectations
.
mentoring, t~toring and individualized instruction
language maktery assistance
!
I
Deliverables by business, nonprofits and others for the conference (discllssed below)
should be alignetl with those strategies that have proven most effective in retaining
Hispanic youth ill high school and encouraging high school completion.
I
. .
Conference Approach
..
'.
'.
I
The approach is heavily dependent upon the overall conference length (and fOffi1at)~
.
What follows an~ two possible approaches for addressing the goal of reducing the dropout
rate for Hispanid Youth contingent upon conference length.
Three-hour stJtegy Meeting with 'No Breakollts
ti~
If the conferenJ
a 3-hour riational
.
. .
strat~gy meeti~g in the East Room,wilere attendees
stay pu t, then th meeti ng can only Iend itsel f to a panel or dialogue 0 f some sorts.
.
The first option for a panel would be to have an academic- or foundation-type briefly lay
out what is' understood about what contributes to the high Hispanic dropout rate. The
panel would als9 include a representative from schools, b~siness, government and
nonprofits or foundations (depending on the first speaker) to respond and talk about what
has been done arid what needs to be done, including the commitments needed to be made.
l
We should allow time for Q&A with a group this small (scheduling request references
150 people).
The second optiQn for a panel would be to focus more explicitly on what has been done,
what has been done well and poorly and what needs·to be done still. Rather than a group
of respondents, .Jre would invite three people to deliver prepared comments on three
I
.
components of the problemlChallenge(components to be developed). A moderator could
then handle poseisome additional questions and allow Q~A.'
.'
.
.
�I
DRAFT
03/03/00
I
Six-hour StratJgy Meeting witlE Breakout Sessions
,
I
If the fornlat w~re expanded beyond the scope of the scheduling request, then we would'
have some time for a speaker Or panel and breakout sessions ,on component issues. The
panel for the WI,lO\e group c()uld be either option as described above, Breakout sessions
would follow ahd woulq either be organized along the goals and best practices or the
goals and strate1gy to move forward. For the dropout issue, there might be three
concurrent pandls focusing on major issues such as language barriers, workforce
I
'
,preparation, ami school and community partnerships.
'
Potential
DeliJerable~
ofth~
In addition to tiL continued commitment
Clinton Admini'stration, commitmerits
I
could be made by a variety of higher education, private sector and foundation entities.
I
Among the conlmitments/deliverables we might pursue are the following.
Business could commit to:
Mentoring by employees.'(by hours o'r peop Ie)
" .'
,
,'
• Establishin~ high school internships and school-to-work apprenticeships
• ,Funding a dampaign on,the importance of high school completion/not dropping out
• lmplementillg policies and advocating for parents to be involved in their children's
education
•
Foundations copld commit to:
• Funding commitment to grants illitiatives that target dropout red~ction/11igh school
, completion'
• Funding R&..D ,around this goal or a dissemination of best practices effort
I
I..
.
N 'on- ro fi or amzahons cou ld commit to:
It
• Partnership. betw~en schools and communities to address the goal
• Commitmeilts for mei1toring/tutoring
• Foclls on the language aspect of this issue (deliverable?)
Institutions of Bigher Education could commit to:
• 'ImPlementihg program's that develop college awareness among Hispanic youth and
.
Provide incbntives for finishing school.
" Government could commit to: ..,
, l'
.
Federal
• ContinUinglits HEAP expanding access and funding efforts·
... .
• Addressing1needs through programs development or modifications in relevant'
agencIes.
�I
. HIGHER EDUCATION GOAL
I
Improve Hispanic <College Completion Rates
i
Background:
In 1977, only 6.7% of Hispanic Americans aged 25 to,29 (compared to 25.3% of White
Americans and 12.6% of African Ameriqms) had completed four or more years of college.
Twerity years later il~ 1997, the rate for Hispanic Americans had improved to 11 %, while the rate
for White American~ rose to 28.9% and the rate for African Americans increased to 14%. The
1997 (ate for all races was 27.8%. While there has been steady improvement in the Hispanic
College Completion rate, the rate is still unacceptably low ..
,
I
What You Earn = WhatYou Learn:
99~,
• In 1
medi an IWeeklY eami ngs of full-time workers with a high schoo I diploma were $479,
compared with $j153 for those with a bachelor's degree, and $956 for those with an advanced
degree. Thus, a bachelor's degree provided an earnings premium of 57 percent and an
advanceddegre~ increased earnings 100 percent over a high school diploma. CI/rreu( PoplI/{((iOIi
Survey,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, (February 3, 1999)
.
.I
··1.
GOAL
comple~ion
Increase the cOllegJ
rate of Hispanic Americans to the national averagefor all races.
(As noted above, ,th6 1997 rate for Hispanic Americans was 11 % compared to the national '
average rate of27.8%)
I
.
'I
I
.
Federal Government Efforts to Address the Issue:
• IncreaSed
fU~diJg for Pell Grants and other financial aid programs
• Increased suppoh for the GEAR uP. early intervention college preparation. program...
• Increased suppoh for the TRIO college.support service programs'
Chall~nge
• The new cOllegl Completion
Grants Program: which provides increased grant,
aid, summer prdgrams and support services to students at risk of dropping out.
,
,
I
.
Private Sector EffJrts
'8'
·C
r ',1 F
d'
N
fi
"
'
uSll1ess ommul1Ity, oun atlons, on-pro It orgal1lzatlons ...
�i
'"
J.e
i
j
I
I
I
(
I
I
Victoria l. r.'alentine
03/03/200003:46:07 PM
I
Record Type:
To:
,
Record
I'
Reynaldo ValenciaIWHO/EOP@EOP
cc:
Subject: President Clinton Names Guillermo Linares as Chair of the President's Advisory Commission on
Educational E~cellence for Hispanic Americans.
Here you go in case Ju didnt get a copy of the release
I
.
I
Do you have a contact phone # for the commission so that I can get a photograph(s) of him.
------------------~--- Forwtde~
,
~'-r""''"-'F''''?'''''''''''''''"··'
I
I
by Victoria
"
L, ValentinelWHO/EOP on 03/03/200003:44 PM ---------------------------
,"
.
.
\
,
Christine U. Anderson
03/03/2000 03:27:42 PM
I
Record Type:
To:
Record.
See the distriLtion list at the bottom of this message
Clj~ton
cc:
Names Guillermo Linares a's Chair of the President's AdviSOry Commission on'
Subject: President
Educational E;xcellence for Hispanic Americans.
"
THE WHITE HOUSE
I
. I
Office of the Press Secretary
(San Jose; California)
I
I
I
I
For Immediate Release
March 3, 2000
PRESIDENT !CLlNTON NAMES GUILLERMO LINARES AS CHAIR OF THE
PRESIDENT'S AlDVISORY COMMISSION ON EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE FOR
I
. HISPANIC AMERICANS
)
The Preside~t today announced the appointment of Guillermo Linares as Chair of the
President's Advisoty Commission on Educatiol1al Excellence for Hispanic Americans.
I
Mr. Guillermo Linares, of New York, New York,' has served as a member of the
,
I
, i
.
. '
'
.
�....
,"
I
"
,
I
I
Commission since Jahuary, 1995.' He has been Vice Chair since 1998. Mr. Linares became
the first Dominican-American to be elected to public office in the United States when he was
elected to the New ybrk City Council in 1991. . He was re-elected in November, 1993 and
I
'
.
.
again in November, 1997. He continues to serve as a councilman. Previously, Mr. Linares
was president of Corrbunity School Board #6 in Northern Manhattan. His prior experience
includes positions as ~n Adjunct Professor and Project Director at the City College of New
York, an Adult Liter~cy Consultant/Instructor at the Hispanic Women's Center, a Project
Associate at Teached College, Columbia University, and as a Resource Specialist and
Curriculum Specialist at the New York City Board of Education. Mr. Linares was a founding
member of the Co~unity Association of Progressive Dominicans, where he served as
coordinator 'of educa~ional programs. He was a founding member and Co-President of the,
Parents Cqalition for Education, Inc, in New York City, served as President of the
.
Chancellors Commiskion on Bilingual Education and as a member of the Board of Directors of
Advocates for Childr~n of New York City, Inc. ,He was. elected Co-President of the Black and
Hispanic Caucus of the New York City Council in 1998. In addition,' he serves as a member
of the Executive Boatd of the National Council, of La Raza and asa member of the Board of
,
.
Directors of the National Association of Latino Appointed and Elected Officials.
Linares,L~ned
a B.A: in 1973 and a M.S. in 1979, from the City College of New
Mr.
I
'
York. He is currently an Ed.D. candidate at Teachers College, Columbia University.
I
The President's Advisory ,Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic
Americans has been bstablished in the Department of Education to advise the President and the
Secretary of Educati9n on the, progress of Hispanic Americans toward achievement of the
National Educational. Goals and other standards of educational accomplishment., The
Commission develop~, monitors, and coordinates federal efforts to promote high quality
I
'
education for Hispanic Americans. The Commission also examines ways to increase state,
.
private sector, and c~mmunity involvement in improving education.
, -30-30-30~
Message Sent'To:
�~~ {'1.......,. . ~
~ \<> 4<tAtl ~( rl~'
Hispanic Education National Meeting :v
t-o~~\ ~[ ~\ .. ~J
Friday, March 3, 2000
~~~ , ~. ') . ~roi'
Agenda
~ ~.,;~. <:.h. ~ \2. ~ \&A'
W'-
~rJ~
1.
Developments Since Last Meeting:
A. Efforts of stakeholders -- Initiative
B. Outreach plan/efforts - Brian . II\.~""~cA
-n
r
<
.
.
I,M.!I
l
C. Whitepaper -- Rey
6.v!.J
~~~'t~~~~
4:30 p.m.
~ ~~
I
tf.atJ
.flA/'
U'
tw..~ . L-z.h~
"-.,.'r.!(
v
n
~ <-; ~) ~ •
D. White House Operations will soon become involved -- Rey
.Y
1.1
...J..v\.cA. u ~f- vtll<....
)_
E. Language proficiency/acquisition goal meeting set for March 14, 2000 at 3:00 p.m.
Ez.<.J'"(WtN'C
F. Commissioner's meeting next week, new Commission Chair - Rey
- ~ Lt tI\':)l'U (
G. Secretary Riley's March 15, 2000 address at local high school -- Rey
L(l~ ,,"",1.\1 ~~
II.
Next Steps and Action Items
A.
SAVE FRIDAY 11:00 AM FOR AT LEAST NEXT FIVE WEEKS
B.
Status of Goals - Rey
C.
Structure and format of event
D.
Event date
E.
CommitInents and Deliverables
F.
Status of participant's list - Brian B.
G.
Department of Education "report card" (suggestion from NCLR)
\..,
vJ?N'or ~ fv~ ~ vK ). (f. ~ WI,)
'5 ~~,\~ ,' ~
~\fl~\n Q. ~V(\\(\
,.\
~~ · 1{ 1.
~
tI{\
~\"Zp. q~U~~
(,I~ t~ ~
1t1
NY
�Educating ALL of America - Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans
WHITEPAPER '
.
.
Since, 1993, improving educational opportunities and outcomes for all Americans has been a .
I
cornerstone of President <Clinton's Administration. Yet even as the effort to implement standards and
I
accountability takes root in states and communities across the country, weconfront the reality that
Hispanic Americans lag Hehind in academic achievement.
.
I
In August 1999, the Fjirst Lady hosted the first White House Convening on Latino youth, seeking to
draw attention to the needs of the Latino community and emphasizing the importance of ensuring that
eVery child meets his or ~er f~ll potential. Over 200 community leaders, foundation and private sector
representatives joined fe~eral agency petsonrtel to discuss pathways to achievement for Latino youth,
including the networks of support that promote such achievement, and the risk factors that impede that
progress. The event also Ifurthered an on-going discussion concerning how to expand effective
programs to address the rleeds of young Hispanic Americans.
I
To build on this effoJ, the White House is exploring the idea of hosting a national strategy session
in the spring of 2000 thatlwould bring together the various stakeholders, including public, private,
philanthropic, and other non-profit organizations and leaders. The strategy session would highlight the
I
importance of boosting Hispanic education achievement to our country's democracy and economic
success. It would take stbck of the progress achieved to date while addressing the need for more action
from every sector of soci~ty. We are interested in all areas of education, including the early childhood
•
I
years, elementary, seconiary, and higher education and lifelong learning.
At present, the m~eting's focus is anticipated to concentrate on the following five areas:
.
1°
•
Access to Early Ohildhood Education
•
.
Closing the AChiJvement Gap on State As;essments
I
• . HIspanic Dropout Rate
.
I
I
•
•
.
Language Proficiency
Higher EducatioJ
In developing this strltegy session we will work with stakeholders to help formulate and structure
the session, as well as to Isecure ~oncrete commitments for future investments' to address the
educational needs of Hispanic Americans. We are in the process of reaching out to various public,
private and community-}jased organizations and individuals to elicit their views and input about our
idea.
I
�Since 1993,presidlnt Clinton has been dedicated to expanding access to education and
training beyond high scho~1. New and expanded programs provide over $50 billion in student aid
annually - compared to $22 billion when he took office - and an additional $7 billion is available
through two college tax cr~dits. Students have saved an estima~ed $8.7 billion on loans over the last
five years while taxpayers Ihave saved over $5 billion through managerial improvements. And
program management has been strengthened, and customer service has improved. In his 2001 budget
request, President Clinton lwill seek to build upon these significant investments in American higher ' ,
education.
President Clinton'~ will build his effort of expanding access to education by creating more
affordable student loans. Students who borrowed student loans since 1993 will save $100 annually
for each $10,000 in outstahding loans - and a total of $5 billion -' due to lower interest rate
formula. Today's formula' is 1.55 percentage points lower than the 1993 formula during school and
0.95 percentage points 10J,er during repayment. The Administration also championed the lower
maximum rate paid by stu~ents, reduced from 10 percent to 8.25 percent, to protect them against
, interest rate hikes.
a
In 1993, the Administfation reduced ~oan origination fees from a maximum of7 percent of
,principal to a maximum of 4 percent, saving students nearly $3.7 billion to date. In 1999, in
recognition of widespreadIdiscounts available on guaranteed student loans, the Administration'
reduced direct loan fees td 3 percent.
"
student1~an
. Since 1993, borrower! have more flexibility in managing their
debt. Repayment
flexibility allows graduat~s to pursue jobs that pay lower salaries even though they may require an
expensive education. Thd income-contingent repayment plan allows direct loan borrowers to repay
their loans based upon th~ir income; after 25 years, any remaining loan balance is discharged.
EXPANDED STUDENT AID OPPORTUNITIES
att~~d
and graduate from
Throughout ,the years,!I student aid has increasingly enab{ed students to
"
affordable accredited academic institutions arourid the country. President Clinton plans on continuing
this achievement by expahding student aid opportunities to help a larger number of students receive
higher education experie9ces. When President Clinton took office in '1993, the Pell Grant maximum
award was $2,300, the same as it was when President Bush took office in 1989. The maximum award
has since increased by 561percent to $3,300. In 1995, the maximum Pell Grant paid for 86 percent of
tuition and fe~s at a four-:year public school; today, it pays for 92 percent. "
,
I
March 3, 2000
�I
~
I
I
In 1999, approximatel~ 13 million American taxpayers are eligible for the Hope and Lifetime
Learning tax credits for pdstsecondary training'and education, totaling $Tbillion in aid. In addition,
the, restored tax deduction Ifor student 10a,11 interest C01)ts during the first five years of repayment -,
, ' , !
,
eliminated by the Reagan-Bush Administrations.:... will. save borrowers $245 million.
~ho
graduate
,
The Clinton AdministJation plans on increasing the number low-income students
from college by utilizing Jarly intervention programs to heip these'students succeed in college. Based
on an Administration pro~osal, the new GEAR UP program funds partnerships between colleges and
, high-poverty middle sch06ls. This years proposed budget of $325 million would run'd mentoring,
t
"
tutoring, and college scholarships to an estimated 1.4 million low-income students. This is a 62.5%
'
,
increase from FY 2000, Jd will provide services to 1.4 m'illio~ students.
.
.
,
~
Work-study opportunities are incentives for students, to earn money toward their educatiori.
!
'
Spending for Federal W017k..Study increased by 41 percent from 1993 to 1999. The President has
requested a $77 million iricrease in fiscal 2000 to allow one million students to work their way
through college.
'
AmeriCorps is one ,final program that provides students with valuable educational experiences
through community servi6e projects. Since 1994, over 150,000 AmeriGorps volunteers have earned
up to $4,725 for college while serving local communities. '
I
I
STRENGTHENED STUDENT AID PROGRAMS
Students Aid prokams are a necessity for millions of students who depend on this funding to
In
help them receive their cdI , " diplom~. " order to expand access to higher education and training"
lIege
,
,
' ,
,
,these programs need to be stronger. A first step in this process is to create the Direct Loan program.
Under the Direct Loan program, students receive loans directly from the Education Department rather
than through governmentfguaranfeed lenders. Because the Direct Loan program is substantially less
expensive for taxpayers tHan the guaranteed loan program, taxpayers have saved over $4 billion over
the past five years. The Jrogram has pioneered the use of new technology, streamlined loan
processing and disburserrient, and improved customer service in both programs through competition.
seconds~ep improveme~~.Federal
to
subsidies
, Strengthening the gulanteed'loan program is a
for banks and guaranty agencies have been pared down, saving taxpayers $1:6 billion over the past
five years. Improved fimtncial management of the student loan programs helped the Department
receive an unqualified opinion fro~ its auditors on its fisca11997 financial statement, its first since
the Department was fountled in' 1980. Further improvements were m~de for the FY 1998 audit, in
I
which remaining student ~oan-related cost issues were resolved.
I
,
'
,
"
'
Reducing loan defaUlts isa priority of straightening the student aid programs. The nati~nal cohort
,default rate has been reduced from 22.4 percent five years ago to a record~low 8.8 percent. At the
same time, collections o~ defaulted loans have more than doubleQ, from $1 billiOli in fiscal 1993 to
$2,2 billion in fiscal 1998.
I
March 3, 2000
�I
I
Stude~t~
- The Admini'stratiol also plans on using technology to simplify aid.
can now apply_
for student aid through the: Department's web site and sign just one "master" promissory note for their
loans, rather than submitting a new note for each loan.
I
March 3,2000
�Conference/Strategy Session Format
I
I
I
Key Questions
.
.
I
1. What will the role of the Principals be?
We need an idea of what each Principal would like to do (i.e. speech~ panel discussion, 'open press,
etc.) We also need to consider what issues they would like to address, and in what context (i.e. a
.speech on the challenges hnd goals identified at the conference, a panel discussion on closing the.
Achievement Gap, an anriouncement of the results and efforts since the First Lady's convening, an
announcement of the corrimitments made by the public, private and nonprofit sectors, etc.) The
answers to these question~ will really shape the format of the event, but the following is im attempt to
layout possibilities for diiscussion.
!
2. Who will participate? •
'.'
.
How many people attend, who they are, and what sort of role they need to play (for example, speaking
roles for state and local e~ected officials) will greatly effect your format. This draft is designed to . .
accommodate anywhere from.50 to 200 people from diverse groups,. and allows for multiple .speaking
and leadership roles.
3. What is our venue?
This will also come out of the format, substance and roles of the Principals, but the following events
I
could take .place in a hotel, a combination of rooms in the White House Complex (including the White
.
I
•
House Conference CenteIi), or another government site such.as the Reagan Building or the State
Department.
. . , ' . ' .
4. What do we want the putcome to be? Will the're be any follow-up?
These questionsspeakmdre to logistics t~an message "outcome." Forexample, would we have some
sort of publication docum1enting the event? Or would the White House Initiative be tasked with
hosting a "check-in",everit every year to review progress on goals and commitments? Etc.
I
I
9:00 am - 10:00 am
.
Draft Agenda 1
'.
oJ-ning Session - Re-dedicaling Ourselves 10 Ihe Challenge
Wdlcome and Remarks by the First Lady .
'.
ProteI Discussion reviewing progress since the First Lady's convening
10: 15 am - 11: 15 am Brlak-out Session on Replicating Best Practices
t
,
.
.
pa~el Discussion/Plenary S~ssion, on 'Establishing National Goals
11: 15 am - 12: 15 pm
12:30 pm 1:30 pm . Luhch Session -Rising to the Challenge ·of Our N~tional Goals
.
Sp6ech by. Vice President Gore
1:45 pm - 3:00 pm
I
."
'
"
.
Panel Discussion/Plenary Session on the Roles of the Public, Private and
Nor-profit Sectors in Rising to the Ch~Jlenge of Our. National Goals
I
3:00 pm - 4:00 pm Break-out Session on Working Together to Achieve our National Goals
!
4:15 pm
'
Press Conference/Announcement of Commitments
Pre'sident Clinton
.
�Draft Agenda 2
9:00 am - 11 :00 am
St~ategy Session -
Working with the Public, Private and Non-Profit Sectors
to Meet our National Goals
Pr~sident and Mrs. Clinton, Vice President and Mrs. Gore
I
11:15am - 12:15 pm Pahel Discussion/Plenary Session on To be providedbythe
Pre-K Goal:
.
I
.
.
Office of the First Lady
.
I
12:30 pm - 1:30 pm Lu!nch -- SpeechlPresentation
I
Principal?
. Rekearcher? .
I.
Practitioner?
1:45 pm - 3:45 pm
4:00 pm
' .
.Brlak-out Session on Eliminating the Gap in the Dropout Rate Between
Hi$panic Students and Non-Hispanic Students by 2005, Eliminating the
Achievement Gap for Hispanic Students on State Assessments Within the
Ne~t Decade, and Ensuring that Hispanic Students Achieve English .
Language Proficiency
.
5:00 pm . . paLl
n~cussionIPlenary
.~~~
Session on Higher Education Goal to be provided
.
.
.
.'
I
I
Draft Agenda 3
Strategy Session - Setting and Meeting Meaningful National Goals
I
9:00 am
11 :00 am
Prdsident and Mrs. Clinton, Vice President and Mrs. Gore
I
.
11: 15 am - 12: 15 pm Pahel Discussion/Plenary Session on the Role of the Publ~c Sector in
MJeting our National Goals
I
12:30 pm
.'.
1:30 pm Lunch - Speech? Presentation?
1:45 pm - 2:45 pm
palel Discussion/Plenary Session on the Role of the Non-Profit Sector in
.
.
.
MJeting our National Goals
3:00 pm 4:00 pm
palel DiscussionlPlenary Session on the Role
MJeiing our National Goals
~fthe Private Sector in
.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Ruby Shamir - Subject Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
First Lady's Office
Ruby Shamir
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36351" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763277" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0565-S
Description
An account of the resource
Ruby Shamir held the position of Policy Advisor and Assistant to the Chief of Staff in the First Lady’s Office. Previously, she served as Assistant Director for Domestic Policy in the Domestic Policy Council. This series of Subject Files contains materials relating to domestic policy topics, especially on children’s issues such as health, education, child care and youth violence. The records include memorandum, faxes, letters, reports, schedules, and publications.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
236 folders in 15 boxes
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1999-2001
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Hispanic Education Conference [2]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
First Lady's Office
Ruby Shamir
Subject Files
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0565-S
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 8
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/2012-0565-S-Shamir.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763277" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
7/22/2013
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
2012-0565-S-hispanic-education-conference-2
7763277