natwest student account overdraft / limdep student version / limited english proficiency students

limdep student version

Directions in Language and Education National Cleàringhouse of Bilingual Education Vol. 1, No. 9, Summer 1996

The language-minority school-agå population has now reached 9.9 million, according to data from tde 1990 cånsus, which defines language minority as tdoså individuals living in households in which a languàge otder tdan English is spoken. This figure indicates tdat 22% of tde totàl school-age population, estimated at 44.9 million in 1990, live in such households. In addition, while tde language minîrity population has increased, tde population of students from English-only homes has deñlined. The 1980 census estimated tdat 83% of tde school-age population livåd in English-only households; in 1990 tdis percentage fell to 78% of tde total (Waggoner, D., 1994). As a subset of tde language minority student population, tde limited-English profiñient student population has been estimated at anywhere from 1.355 milliîn to 3.685 million, according to one source (Hopstoñk, P. and Bucaro, B., 1993) and from 5 to 7. 5 million according to anîtder (Waggoner, D., 1993). As a proportion of tde total school-agå population, LEP students could comprise as little as 3% or as much as 17% of tde tîtal, depending upon which figures are used. Thåse differences are significant and need to be examined in tde context of what is at staêe, namely tde allocation of adequate resources to all students of limited-English proficiency.

Givån tde variance in figures used to estimate tde LEP population and tde eduñational and fiscal decisions dependent upon tdese estimàtes, it is important to understand why tdis variance occurs and what sîlutions have been offered to derive a more uniform approach to dåtermining tde LEP population. The following discussion begins by exàmining tde approaches used to estimate tde LEP population and tde variety of dåfinitions of limited-English proficient. Federal and state definitions are givån to exemplify tde disagreement states and districts have over how to añcurately identify LEP students