1 / 19

Opportunities and Challenges in Creating a Bi-Lingual, Elementary Education Teacher Workforce in Rural Nebraska

Opportunities and Challenges in Creating a Bi-Lingual, Elementary Education Teacher Workforce in Rural Nebraska. Rochelle L. Dalla, Ph.D. and Catherine Huddleston-Casas, Ph.D., Department of Child, Youth and Family Studies University of Nebraska-Lincoln

minor
Download Presentation

Opportunities and Challenges in Creating a Bi-Lingual, Elementary Education Teacher Workforce in Rural Nebraska

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Opportunities and Challenges in Creating a Bi-Lingual, Elementary Education Teacher Workforce in Rural Nebraska Rochelle L. Dalla, Ph.D. and Catherine Huddleston-Casas, Ph.D., Department of Child, Youth and Family Studies University of Nebraska-Lincoln Presented at the 3rd Annual Cumbre of the Great Plains Conference, April 28th, 2007

  2. Background & Purpose • 1990-2000, number of LEP students in NE increased by 1,000% • Meeting LEP student needs acute in rural areas; • 10% of rural educator hold ESL endorsement • The Career Ladder (CL) Project: • Increase ESL endorsed elementary school teachers in rural NE school districts; teacher ed. & preparation • Federally funded 1.98 million dollar 5-year grant • Teaching certificates & ESL endorsement; • Distance-delivered courses (147 cr. hours) • Six rural NE Communities: Schuyler, Madison, Norfolk, Wayne, Wakefield, S. Sioux City

  3. Background & Purpose (continued) • 30 participants began CL (Jan., 2003); • By Jan. 2004, 9 had dropped-out. • Purpose: was to identify individual & familial factors that promote/challenge CL program completion.

  4. Methods: Procedure • All active & former CL participants contacted by CL coordinator • Data Collected by PI: • Quantitative: Self-report survey instruments (e.g., dep., social sup., lang., acculturation) • Qualitative: In-depth, tape-recorded Interviews (i.e., benefits/challenges, ways to improve) • Participants compensated $40.00

  5. Career Ladder Participation: Active (n = 20) Former (n = 6) Gender: F = 25; M = 1 Immigrant: 1st Generation (n = 15) 2nd Generation (n = 5) Home Country: Mexico (n = 17) Guatemala (n = 1) Peru (n = 1); Honduras (n = 1) Marital Status: Married (n = 21); Co (n = 2) Single (n = 3) Parents (n = 24; Total Kids = 64) M = 2.4 / R = 1 – 4 kids Child age: M = 10. 4 (R = 11 mo. - 28 yrs.) Education: GED (n = 4) / 1 in process M = 8.4 yrs public educ. R = 7 yrs. to 11 yrs College Experience: M = 2 yrs; (6 mo. - 4 yrs.) Methods: Sample

  6. Results: Quantitative/Survey Data • Depression: • M = 13.9 / (R = 0 – 38) / [Possible Range = 0–60] • Depressive symptoms not characteristic of entire group • Sub-sample (n = 9): Mean = 27.2 (*16 cutoff). • Two groups (n = 9; HIGH vs. 17 LOW) created: • Statistically significant difference b/w them: • (t (24) = 11.1, p < .001) • 2 of the 6 (33%) former participants in HIGH depressive group;

  7. Results: Survey Data (Continued) • Social Support: • Total Group Mean = 147.4 (R = 103 – 175) • Indicating perceptions of strong social support from informal (i.e., family/friends) network members • Comparisons b/w HIGH & LOW depression groups: • HIGH depressive group significantly LESS: • Total Support and all 3 sub-scales: Intimacy/Assistance, Social Integration, & Nurturance

  8. Results: Survey Data (Continued) • Active (n = 20) vs. Former (n = 6) CL Participants: • Active participants reported fewer children (M = 2.3 vs. 3.0; p = .08); • Active participants reported longer residence in their communities (M = 11.3 vs. 5.5 yrs.; p < .01)

  9. Results: Qualitative / Interview Data • Program Strengths: • Direct: • Economic benefits (tuition, books, computer) • Program flexibility: (e.g., registering; books) • Opportunity earn degree: “Dream come true”, “Fulfilling life-long goal,” • Indirect: • Children/families proud of them they were “Role Models” for children kids study more, imp. of education/doing homework

  10. Results: Qualitative Data (Continued) • Program Challenges: • Time / energy required (i.e., FT work, FT school, & maintain family), “Exhausted” • Guilt: neglecting family • Those adapting best were those with partners actively supported CL involvement (e.g., housework/childcare) • 4 partners not supportive; only if own lives NOT impacted: • “I’m always watching the clock during class, because I have to be home on time- before he [husband] get home or else he will be upset.” • Another reported doing homework late at night- after children & husband were asleep.

  11. Results: Qualitative Data (Continued) • Challenges (continued): • Financial Strain • Required to work FT as para professionals who earn very little (appx. $12,000/year). • Recognized $ status improve dramatically after graduation economic burden temporary & long-term goal worth it

  12. Conclusion • Differences b/w active & former minimal: • Child care assistance and community integration (proxy resources?) necessary • 35% group (n=9) elevated depression scores; • Mental health assessment & treatment for rural, ethnically diverse populations • Mental health access/availability notoriously scarce in rural areas (Doyle, 1998)

  13. Conclusion (Continued) • Social support & mental health; • Strengthening networks (formal & informal) • Relationships w/ intimates critical to mental & physical health • Include family members in various aspects of program increase their knowledge of and support for program involvement

  14. Policy Implications • Policy efforts to support the development of ESL teachers must approach the issue systemically • Success is more likely when interdependence is addressed • School • Work • Family

  15. School Maintain full-time student status to complete program within funding term Work Requires full-time employment as paraeducators Policy Implications: Current Efforts • Fails to recognize the important influence of family • Family economic needs when more lucrative employment is forgone • Critical role of spousal support for participant success • Additional constraints posed when parenting young children

  16. School Maintain full-time student status to complete program within funding term Work Requires full-time employment as paraeducators Family Family economic need, spousal support, parenting responsibilities Policy Implications: Incorporating Family

  17. Policy Implications: Incorporating Family • Address pressure to secure more lucrative employment • Larger stipends or special vouchers (e.g., child care) • Sponsorship successful in other para programs • Devise strategies to incorporate entire families, fostering spousal support • Periodic social gatherings • Family-based educational activities • Address parenting burden • Access to and availability of quality child care

  18. Additional Policy Implications • A funding stream that allows flexibility in the timeline of the program • Managing school, work, and family responsibilities eased if part-time student status were an option • Distance program is flexible, but can be isolating • Enhance informal support networks • Developing intensive mentoring relationships • Devising opportunities for greater personal contact among the para cohort

  19. Thank You!

More Related