DOCUMENT RESUME FL 015 067 Politzer, Robert L.

2y ago
34 Views
2 Downloads
900.91 KB
24 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Josiah Pursley
Transcription

DOCUMENT RESUMEFL 015 067ED 257 315AUTHORTITLEINSTITTSPANS AGENCYPUB DATENOTEPolitzer, Robert L.Social Class and Bilingual Education: Issues AndContradictions. Bilingual Education Paper Series,Vol. 5 No. 2.California State Univ., Los Angeles. Evaluation,Dissemination and Assessment Center.Office of Bilingual Education and Minority LanguagesAffairs (ED), Washington, DC.Sep 8124p.; Paper presented to the California TeachersAssociation Blue Ribbon Bilingual Commit ae (January1981)PUB TYPEViewpoints (120) -- Speeches/Conference Papers (150)EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSMF01/PC01 Plus Postage.*Bilingual Education; Bilingualism; EconomicallyDisadvantaged; Elementary Secondary Education;Federal Legislation; *Immersion Programs; LanguagePlanning; Limited English Speaking; *Low IncomeGroups; *Program Effectiveness; Public Policy; SecondLanguage Instruction; *Social Class; SocioeconomicStatus; *Underachievement; Upper ClassLau v NicholsIDENTIFIERSABSTRACTIssues concerning bilingual education are discussed,with a focus on the effect of social class on educational outcomes.while bilingualism tends to be associated with some educationaladvantages for the upper class, it often appears to result in anadditional handicap within the lower ranges. In many educationaloutcomes affecting bilinguals, social class rather than bilingualismper se may be the factor of primary importance. Two hypothesesconcerning the reason for educational underachievement of the poorare identified: the deficit and the difference hypotheses. During thewar on poverty, a frequent debate concerned the hypothesis thateducational failure of the poor was related to a mismatch of theirnative language and the language of school (i.e., the poor speak adifferent dialect or language distinct from middle class English).This linguistic mismatch hypothesis was applied in public schoolsthrough the Bilingual Education Act. Also considered are the effectsin the schools of the Lau decision (1974) and an Office of CivilRights' decision. Three possibly valid explanations of differenteffects of upper class and lower class bilingualism are alsoproposed. The effects of immersion of lower and middle/upper classchildren for the purposes of second language teaching is discussed insome depth. Additional topics include the effects of motivation,limited English speaking children, the threshold le 11 and additivevs. subtractive bilingualism hypotheses, and local f.sxibilityconcerning bilingual education policy. *************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original ******************************

ISSN 0161-3707Vol. 5 No. 2September 1981Bilingual EducationOPAPER SERIESEvaluation, Disseminationand Assessment CenterCalifornia State University, Los Angeles5151 State University DriveLos Angeles, CA. 90032SOCIAL CLASS AND BILINGUAL EDUCATION:ISSUES AND CONTRADICTIONSRobert L. PolitzerStanford University-PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BYU.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER IERIC)A This document has been reproducednAcTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)esreceived from the person or orgamiatortoripaw.ting itMinor changes have been mgde to improvereproduttion quablyPomtr. of vevv or op,morts stated in this documerit do not necesF.ardy represent official NIEposition or policyThe &Lbjec.t o6 thi4 pubtication wa4 oupponted in whaee oft. in pantThe opinion4 expAused hem.by the United State Education Vepattment.in do not necusaAiiq Aegect the pozition A po-eicy o6 the United StatesEducation VepaAxment; no olgiciae endo4oement by the United State6 Education DepaAtmentbe iniivfted.This pubiication waz ptinted with 6und4 ptovided by the BiZinguaithe EZementaAy and Sezondaty Education ActEducation Act, TW.e V1To6 1965, cu amended by PubLic Law 93.380.

SOCIAL CLASS AND BILINGUAL EDUCATION:ISSUES AND CONTRADICTIONS*Robert L.Poli zerBILINGUAL AND SOCIAL CLASSIn this brief paper, I should like to state my thoughts con-cerning some issues and questions related to the bilingual education controversy.Before entering any discussion of bilingualismand bilingual education, let me remind you of a phenomenon whichunder various headings, has become commonplace in pedagogical discussion:Bilingualism and bilingual education for the middle classor the rich must somehow be differentiated from the same phenomenonconcerning the poor.The overall impression left by a great dealof educational data and research concerning bilingualism and schoolachievement :Andersson, 1977) is that one of the mean determinantsof achievement is, in fact, social class,.Within this overall ef-fect, there seems to be an interaction with bilingualism:Withinthe upper ranges of socio-economic status, bilingualism tends tobe associated with some additional educational advantages; withinthe lower ranges, it often appears to result in an additional handi cap.*This article represents the text of an address, presented January,1981, to the California Teachers Association's Blue Ribbon Bilingual Committee formed for the purpose of making policy recommendations to the Board of Directors.

2SThis picture is, of course, not based on any specific researchstudy; butIbelieve it could be substantiated by the meta analysisof a large number of studies.Above all, it should not be inter-preted as any kind of explanation of educational achievement.Itshould, however, serve as a reminder of two important points:(1)I'i many educational outcomes affecting bilinguals, social classrather than bilingualism per se may be the factor of primary importance.(2) Findings concerning bilingualism and the effects ofbilingual education are not necessarily transferable across socialclass boundaries.The reasons why social class should affect educationalcomes are various.out-Educational research abounds with studies ex-plaining the relation between social class and educational outcome.The educational war on poverty, initiated in the 1960s, produced aplethora of hypotheses for why the poor fail to learn.Ido notintend to review all of these hypotheses and their potential validity.Hunareds of volumes have been filled with research and de-bate on the topic.However,Ishould like to mention just a fewof the hypotheses relating poverty to lower educational achieveRment simply because many or possibly uil of these hypotheses may,at least, have to be considered within any discussion relating tothe outcome of bilingual education in the United States.The hypotheses concerning the reason for educational underachievement of the poor are often grouped into two types:"deficit" and the "difference" hypotheses.theThe deficit hypothesessee the reason for educational failure of the poor in the poorthemselves and deal with variables like lack of stimulation in the

home environment, lack of certain types of verbal interaction, di111minished self-concept, lack of motivation, and a feeling of relative helplessness of powerlessness (assumption of an externalrather than an internal "locus of control").The difference hy-Spotheses tend to shift responsibility of educational failure ofthe poor to the educational institution and claim that the failureof the poor is related to the failure of the educational system totake into consideration that poor people in general (and membersof poor ethnic minority groups in particular) come from culturallydifferent environments.These differences may pertain to valuesystems, learning styles and, above all, differences in languageand/or social dialect.As a matter of fact, the strongest versionof the difference hypothesis simply assumes that the lower performance of children of the lower socio-economic class is basically akind of illusion created by cultural and linguistic differences.THE WAR ON POVERTY, THE LING. :TIC MISMATCH HYPOTHESIS,AND THE LAG uECISIONOne of the hypotheses most vigorously argued and debatedduring the war on poverty relates educational failure of the poorto their languagc:School language either is iLientical with orat least relatively close to the English of the middle class.Thepoor speak a dialect or, if they are not speakers of English, evena language quite distinct from middle class English.The greaterthe distance between language of the poor and the school's middleclass English, the greater the poor students' educational handicap(Wolfram and Fasold, 1974).The main reason for the ed'.,cational

4failure of the poor is the mismatch between the language of theirhome and the language of the school and the failure of the educational system to properly compensate for that mismatch.During the war on poverty, the mismatch hypothesis was arguedfirst primarily with reference to the educational failure of poorAppalachian Whites and, above all, urban Blacks and was never meantto be the only and exclusive explanation for relative academicunderachievement of certain groups.Certainly, with reference tospeakers of vernacular Black English, the linguistic mismatch hypothesis has never been proven as the exclusive explanation of educational failure.However, it has quite recently been revived bythe so-called "Ann Arbor Decision," (1980) in which a federaljudge found that the Ann Arbor School District and the teachersworking in it were denying equal educational opportunity to Blackchildren by their lack of knowledge of the Black vernacular.The Bilingual Education Act was part of the anti-poverty legislation and represents a rather clear-,ut and obvious applicationof the linguistic mismatch hypothesis,Children whose first lan-guage is not English must--initially at least--be instructed intheir first language in order to overcome the educational handicapcaused by the mismatch.At the same time, the Bilingual EducationAct, in its original formulation at least, did not imply that linguistic mismatcn was the only source of eaucational difficulty andof some ethnic minorities:Use of the home language of the minor-ity children was to be accompanied by acknowledgement of theirhome culture, a bridging of the home culture/school difference,and a resulting increase in self-concept.

5Then came the famous Lau decision (1?74) which stated thatschools had to provide special treatments in case of extremelinguistic mismatch, e. g., the child speaking a language otherthan English.The Lau decision was followed by a decision on thepart of the Office of Civil Rights that, under certain specificconditions, the only to compensate for linguistic mismatch was bilingual education.The main rationale that led to the Lau decision was, unquestionably, solid.At the same time, the marriage between the Bilin-gual Education Act and the ''au decision had some unfortunate sideeffects:Bilingual education constituted a new approach thatshould have been implemented gradually as programs could be developed and, above all, as teachers could be either trained or re6trained.The Lau decision and its enforcement made the newapproach mandatory and required, in principle at least, very speedycorm-Hance.A complex educational problem involving many variableswas suddenly redefined as a legal problem related almost exclusively to only one variable, namely, language.As a result of theLau decision and its implementation as envisaged by the Office ofCivil Rights, the bicultural aspect of bilingual/bicultural education has been de-emphasized in recent discussions.Legitimate con-cerns mentioned in the original Bilingual Education Act like home/school cultural difference of children's self-concept are rarelymentioned.Under the impact of legislative mandate and legal in-terpretation, the emphasis has instead been placed on discussionof relatively mechanical linguistic criteria relating to mandatory"entrance" to or "exit" from bilingual education programs.

6THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TYPE': OF BILINGUALISMWhy should upper class and lower class bilingualism have suchdifferent effects?To my knowledge, there are three possibly validexplanations, two that seem nearly identical.The first explanation lies in the distinction between additiveand subtractive bilingualism made by Lamert (1980).Upper classbilingualism is "additive"; the first language of the bilingualfirmly entrenched.isThere is no fear of ethnic/linguistic erosion.The second language is added as a desirable skill or tool.The bi-lingualism of the lower class is usually "subtractive"; the lowerclass pupil comes from a community that may be undergoing firstlanguage loss.The first language is being eroded, often consid-ered as being of lower prestige.The second language is not addedto the first but often becomes a replacement or at least a partialreplacement.A very similar explanation of the differential effect of upperand lower class bilingualism is the threshold hypothesis (Cummins,1979).In order for bilingualism to have beneficial rather thandetrimental effects, a certain threshold level of proficiency mustbe reached in the first and eventually also in the second language.If the proficiency in the first language falls below a specificthreshold level, bilingualism may leave negative results inlearning and cognition.Lower class bilinguals--for reasons thatseem implied in the subtractive nature of their bilingualism--tendto fall below the threshold level.

7A final explanation considers the relatively low performanceof lower social class bilinguals primarily as an effect producedby testing instruments.Tests used to measure the linguistic abil-ity and/or other school performance use standard language.Thelanguages of the lower social class bilingual are usually nonstandard dialects.What appears as the "below threshold" levelperformance and lower general academic performances of the lowerclass bilingual is primarily the effect of the already mentionedmismatch between school tests and school language on the one handand the child's home language or languages on the other.ally,IPerson-feel that these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.Certainly, there is an impressive amount of evidence behind boththe additive bilingualism and the threshold level hypothesis (Duncan and DeAvila, 1979; Cummins, 1980).THE EFFECTS OF IMMERSIONBoth the "threshold level" and the "additive vs. subtractivebilingualism" hypotheses explain the differences in outcome between immersion of lower class and of middle and upper class children for the purposes of second language teaching.Upper classchildren whose first language is firmly established above thethreshold level benefit from total immersion into a second language,e., a program in which the entire curriculum is presented in thesecond language.Lower class minority children who cannot buildon a solid background in their first language will not react tothis treatmert in the same positive way.In addition to thedifferences in levels of primary language, there are also other

8numerous differences between middle and lower class immersion program., that have been summarized by various authors (e. g., Cohenand Swain, 1976),Middle class immersion does not involve cultureconflict or potential self-concept damage; it is accompanied byhigh expectation, parental support, positive motivation, etc.addition, middle class immersion, at least in the context mostquoted in the United States, namely, the Canadian French programsfor English speakers, does not involve immersion and competitionwith a peer group speaking the second language natively.In connection with the above point, there is yet another thatshould be stressed.It has often been noted that immersion pro-grams in French work so well for the English middle class childrenin Canada while immersion into English in the United States doesnot seem to work at all.The differences between middle and lowerclass immersion mentioned above are usually adduced in order toaccount for the so-called "contradictory data" (Paulston, 1976).Closer inspection makes one wonder whether the data are in factall that contradictory.One of the main criteria used for evalu-ating the success of United States'programs for non-English pro-ficient (NEP) children is the proficiency level in English children.The criterion level that they are expected to reach is native flu-ency and proficiency equal to the one of monolingual Englishspeakers.By that particular criterion, the French immersion pro-grams of Canada are probably failures rather than successes.far asIAsknow, the children of Canadian immersion programs seldom,if ever, reach the same level of French proficiency as the mono-lingual French speaking controls (Lambert and Tucker, 1972).

9What makes the success of the middle class immersion practicedin Canada remarkable is not really the reaching of native Frenchproficiency but rather the attainment ofhigh" proficiency level,good academic progress while being taught in the language of immersion and, above all, the ability to transfer skills in writing andreading achieved in the second language (French) to the first language (English).But transfer of second language (English) to thefirst language (e. g., Spanish) skills is not an issue in theUnited States.Nobody is measuring, or even concerned with it.The data concerning middle class immersion in Canada and lowerclass immersion in the United States are not just "contradictory";to a large degree at least, they are not even comparable.The above comment does not mean to disparage immersion (including the lower class immersion involving contact and competitionwith a monolingual peer group in the second language)as probablythe fastest way of acquiring communication skills in a second language.Yet, when discussing bilingual education strategies, oneshould keep in mind that the rapidity of acquisition of Englishper se is not the main issue involved.The ultimate goal of alleducational interventions in the United States is, of course,among others, the acquisition of English.But the rationale be-hind bilingual education is not that it will lead to more rapidacquisition of English than alternative interventions.The maingoal of bilingual education is to avoid interference and damagein concept formation and academic development while English isbeing acquired.[It is therefore surprising that in the much dis-cussed AIR study (American Institutes for Research, 1978)) the

10main criterion on which bilingual and non-bilingual educationalprograms were compared were relatively short-term gains in Englishlanguage skills13This kind of damage may, of course, occur primarily in theinitial contact with schools and in the primary grades.It is evi-dently for that reason that the Office of Civil Rights advocatesbilingual education as the solution to 'linguistic mismatch" in theelementary grades but allows for other solutions like intensiveEnglish programs at higher levels of education.Whether, of course,any damage would occur during an English-only immersion phase evenat the elementary level may depend on various factors, above all,of course, the rapidity with which English is acquired.Fromwe know about how children acquire second languages, it is clearthat one of the main factors involved is the intensity and frequencyof contact with an English-speaking peer group.Children living ina minority language ghetto, having contact both out of schoolandwithin school primarily with other non-English speaking children,will take longer to acquire English than children who have a greatdeal of English peer contact and who often acquire English so rapidly that, at least from the point of view of avoiding academic andconcept formation lag, bilingual education may not be necessary.[The latter consideration is evidently the educational rationalebehind the Civil Rights Commission linking the elementary school"bilingual education requirement" to the presence of a sizable'umber of children of the same ethnic minority (United States Com-mission on Civil Rights, 1975).]

11THCEFFECTS OF MOTIVATIONThe amount of peer contact with English spea ers is, of course,only one factor influencing rapidity of acquisition of English communication skills.One factor often mentioned and widely researchedin second language acquisition studies (Gardner and Lambert, 1972),but seldom mentioned in bilingual education discussions in theUnited States, concerns attitudes and motivation.In situationsof large scale language group contacts, attitudes and motivationmake a tremendous difference.There are tremendous and importantdifferences in motivation and attitudes both between and withinethnic minority groups.These attitudes affect not only the rap-idity wit! which English is learned, they may in turn have a greatdeal to do with whether bilingual education or alternate treatmentsare more successful.Let me cite some studies related to my own research experience.Several years age, a student of mine conducted a study in San Francisco concerning acquisition of English skills, primarily readingskills of Chinese children (Tang, 197).She taught one group ex-clusively in English and the other group bilingually, switching between English and the children's Cantonese in the same classroom.The result of the experiment showed no significant difference between the treatments, but the treatments interacted at very highlevels of significance with a measure of the children's adherenceto values and language of their home culture a:d of their desireto integrate with the mainstream.The higher the adherence totheir home culture, the more effective the bilingual treatment;

12the greater their desire to integrate with the mainstream, themore successful the English immersion.In an experiment in East Palo Alto, a colleague and myself(Politzer and Hoover, 1974) confirmed a very similar phenomenonwith Black children being taught standard English.A treatmentthat used vernacular Black English and overt comparison of vernacular Black English with standard English was successful for children who valued vernacular Black language and Black culture.Forthose who did not, a treatment using only standard English languagedrills turned out to be more effective.In a study based on data collected for a Stanford dissertation, Ferris and Politzer (in press), examined the English composition skills of two groups of Spanish/English bilingual studentsin a junior high school in Ventura County, northeast of Los Angeles.One group was made up of students who had the first years of primary education (K-2, 3) in Spanish in Mexico; the other group wasentirely English and United States-educated.The two groups wereof nearly equal socio-economic status, although in terms of somesocio-economic indices, the Mexican-educated group was in factpoorer than the United States-educated bilinguals.In terms ofobjective measures of English composition skills (errors in Englishand evaluation of compositions by rating scales), the two groupswere about equal.In terms of progress in school, the Mexican-educated group easily surpassed the all English, United Stateseducated Mexican-Americans.They had better grades, higher aca-demic aspirations, and better and more frequent rapport with theirteachers.These findings are reminiscent of other research com-14

13paring recent immigrants educated in their first language with totally second language educated minority students of the same ethnic background (Skutnabb- Kangas, 1979).The results can be inter-preted as an indication of the beneficial results of a firmgrounding (reaching a "threshold level") in the primary language.Our findings, however, suggest that the nature of the differencesbetween the two groups, though perhaps associated with initialschooling in the primary language, are rather the direct outcomeof the higher motivation present in the group of recent immigrants.Their immersion into English has pulled up their Engliso skills atleast to the level of the totally English educated bilinguals andhas resulted in their moving ahead of them in academic records andaspiration because they like school better and they seem to be moremotivated to achieve."LIMITED ENGLISH PUPILS, ENGLISH SUPERIOR"Though I have no direct evidence in terms of relative English/Spanish proficiency measures,Isuspect that the group of UnitedStates-educated bilinguals who fell behind the Spanish-educatedgroup was comprised mainly of "Limited English Dominant" students.The fact that they were bilingual, entirely United States-educated,and had relatively very low grades in Englis'o makes it likely thatthey belonged to a much debated group of students who art' "limitedEnglish" speakers, but whose English appears to be equal or superior to their primary language (Dulay and Burt, 1980).Just howmany such students t4a,re are is debatable, and the exact number depends, of course, on th'e classification systems used.Yet there is

14no doubt that the number is great How can a student be limited in two languages?The kind oftest scores that result in this classification can be caused byanyone but most likely by a conjunction of various circumstances:(1) Students may perform badly in the testing situation for a variety of reasons like anxiety or lack of familiarity with the test;(2) Students may speak non-standard varieties of both languagesbeing tested and therefore perform badly in the standard languageof the tests; and (3) Students' total la!iguage proficiency, whileperfectly adequate within their cultural environment, may bea composite of too languages; but tested in either language, thestudent will appear deficient.Whatever the reason for the limited in two languages classification, students within this group are the subject of heated con-troversy and--mo e importntly from their point of viewprobablyrepresent one of the most problematic and difficult groups of students to serve adequately.The educatonal controversy centersprimarily un whether or not they should be served by bilingual education programs.Dulay and Burt (1980) argue that since their homelanguage is their weaker language, these students need neither bilingual education nor instruction in their home language.Whatthey need is to build up their English, p,Irhaps with some kind ofintensive remedial instruction.Curmins (1980) stresses that itis precisely this group of students whose primary language shouldbe reinforced and brought to the "threshold level."Teaching themexclusively in English merely advocates the continuation of an approach that has failed in the past.The crux of the problem of

15the limited English dominant bilingual may in fact not be linguistic but related to motivational and sociocultural factors.To thepoints made oy Cummins, one could also add that students whose total language competence is indeed a composite of two languagesshould, at least in their initial contact with school, have contactwith teachers who can utilize this total competence.I believethat of comments made by Cummins, the one related to motivationalsocial factcrs may, in fact, be the most essential.In the longran, the important issue may not be whether the students should betaught in English only or bilingually, but whether we can convey tothem and their families the conviction that they can and willsuc-ceed in school and in our society.LOCAL FLEXIBILITYIn my comments so far,Ihave generally avoided making spe-cific recommendations concerning bilingual education policy.reason for this is only partly ignorance.TheIt is primarily my con-viction that overall generalizations concerning the efficacy ofeducational interventions ara of doubtful value.Ibelieve thatit 1s possible to give valid advice in a specific situation inwhich many factors, usually not considered in overall policy consideration, may interact.The educational processes take place ata classroom and micro level in which teachers' competencies andattitudes interact in complex ways with individual studeit's characteristics like aptitudes or motivations.All of thesa interac-tions tend to be ignored when educational decisicnc dre made as aresult of governmental policy.

16In a recent address, the Dean of the School of Education atStanford University referred to governmental intervention in education as a "blunt instrument" (Atkin, 1980).whether I favor one policy over another,IWhenever I am askedoften wonder how an an-esthesiologist would feel if asked what kind of club should be usedfor the purpose of preparing patients for an operation.The above comment does, of course, imply a kind of recommendation, or at least a personal preference.I wish that decisionsconcerning education in general and bilingual education in particular could be taken less in response to state and federal level regulation and more in conformance with optimal solutions arrived atthrough study and research at the local level.But I also realizethat such a proposal may be unacceptable to many members of minority groups.The very fact that an ethnic group represents a minor-ity justifies the fear that, in many cases, decision-making at thelocal level may, on purpose or even unintentionally, result in solutions primarily favoring the majority group.Still, perhaps onecould think of ways that would combine local flexibility with anassurance of optimal solution for the education of minorities.BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND THE BILINGUAL STATEIn conclusion,I would like to emphasize that I amof bilingual education.fulIfavorbelieve in bilingual education as a use-tool for giving equal educational opportunity to some minoritygroups, and it is beneficial for the nation to have an increase inthe number of people able to function effectively in more than oneculture and in more than one language.

17At the same time,(asIshould make it clear that neithernorII can gather from personal conversations or publications) thevast majority of educators advocating bilingual education believein creating a multilingual society or state.As a matter of fact,multilingual or bilingual groups

DOCUMENT RESUME. FL 015 067. Politzer, Robert L. Social Class and Bilingual Education: Issues And . In this brief paper, I should like to state my thoughts con- . Above all, it should not be inter-preted as any kind of explanation of educational. achiev

Related Documents:

Clear aluminum Black anodized Item code Price Item code Price 1.34" SolarWorld SW230 015-09910 22 015-09911 27 1.4" Kyocera GX-LP 015-09916 22 015-09917 27 1.5" REC - PE 015-09951 22 015-09952 27 1.6" Evergreen ES-C 80/120 015-09920 22 015-09953 27 1.69" REC-AE-US 015-09925 22 015-09925 27

A Steam Temp. Sensor Harness 015-1680-00 B Water Level Sensor Harness 015-1552-00 C Air Solenoid Valve Harness 015-1638-00 D Main Harness 015-1554-00 E Hi Limit Sensor Jumper Wire 015-1640-00 F Heating Element Harness 015-1639-00 G Door Motor Harness 015-1672-00 H F

OLSAT8 Level E Test Administration Directions 015-8612-116 16.80 OLSAT8 Level E Practice Booklet 015-4611-794 0.92 OLSAT8 Level E Practice Test Directions 015-8612-167 6.72 Stanford 10 Intermediate 1/ OLSAT8 Level E Answer Document 015-4777-897 2.10 GRADE 5 (INTERMEDIATE 2) Pac

Commercial Lines; Business Property 48.30.015(8)(a) 48.30.015(1) 48.30.015(5), (a) through (f) 0035.21: 1/21/2021 1/19/2021: Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. Snohomish Electric, Inc. Cascade Bulit, LLC Lindsey M. Pflugrath Cairncross & Hempelmann 48.30.015 284-30-330, -360, -370, -380 0036.21 1/21/2021: 1/19/2021 Allstate Insurance Company Suzanne .

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 376 358 CE 067 666 AUTHOR Cooper, Richard TITLE Tic Tac Toe Math. Instructional Guide. INSTITUTION Center for Alternative Learning, Bryn Mawr, PA. SPONS AGENCY Pennsylvania State Dept. of Education, Harrisburg. Bureau of Adult Basic and Liter

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 477 832 SE 067 698 AUTHOR Coll, Richard K.; Tofield, Sara; Vyle, Brent; Bolstad, Rachel TITLE Free-Choice Learning at a Metropolitan Zoo. PUB DATE 2003-03-00 NOTE 13p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National. Association for Research in Science Teaching (Philadelphia, PA, March 23-26, 2003).

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 067 580 CG 007 459 AUTHOR Pedrini, D. T.; Pedrini, Bonnie C. TITLE Identification, Introjection, Incorporation, Internalization: A Bibliography.

Academic writing is a formal style of writing and is generally written in a more objective way, focussing on facts and not unduly influenced by personal opinions. It is used to meet the assessment requirements for a qualification; the publ ication requirements for academic literature such as books and journals; and documents prepared for conference presentations. Academic writing is structured .