More and more children enter the U.S. public school system without proficiency in English, the language in which most academic instruction takes place.    As the immigrant and native born, non-English speaking population increases, so does the need to examine the educational programs which serve the children whose English is not proficient.  In the age of accountability and high stakes testing, children who enter the public schools without the ability to participate in the curriculum are being required to meet challenging state standards.  School decision-makers must look at the program options for language acquisition available to them and choose an option which serves both the community and the needs of the language minority (LM) children.  They must also decide whether to choose a program, which will affirm a language minority student’s linguistic heritage, or a program which aims at assimilating the language minority child into the linguistic mainstream.
 
 

      Today the number of LM students in schools across the U.S. is more than 3 million, with 1.5 million in California.  The majority of these students speak Spanish (77%), live in urban areas and attend high poverty schools (Hodgkinson, 2001).   LM students are less likely to have attended pre-school or to have had any kind of early childhood education (Valdes, 2001).   According to Lau v. Nichols, schools are responsible for providing equal educational opportunities to students whose first language is not English and yet LM students generally lag behind other students on standardized tests in the elementary grades.  This academic achievement gap continues to increase through the high school years (Valdes, 2001).  Research done by the team of Collier and Thomas shows that in order for students to be proficient in the academic English needed for standardized tests, students need sustained language support programs for at least 5 or 6 years.   Some students need 7-10 years of language support (Thomas and Collier, 2002).  This research also shows that the majority of LM students who enter US schools in Kindergarten or first grade with no English receive only 2-3 years of language support (Collier, 1995).   In today’s world of high stakes testing, many states are legislating that students be barred from receiving a high school diploma unless and until they can pass standardized tests showing that they are proficient in academic English (Medina, 2002).  Now that the quality of education is being defined by standardized tests, and many LM students are not successful in passing them (Valdes, 2001), it is clear that some language minority students are not receiving an equal education.

              Recent trends in immigration, both legal and illegal, show that economic immigration has been on a steady increase for the past twenty years and continues to grow.  The birthrate of immigrants is higher than the national average (Hodgkinson, 2001; Banks & Banks, 2003) and non-English speaking children are entering the public school system in record numbers.   Conclusions from the Collier and Thomas report completed in 2002 predict that by 2030, 40% of school age children will be language minority.  Therefore schools will see an increased need to address the lack of English fluency in their language minority students.   The dropout rate for LM students continues to be very high, especially for Hispanics, the largest group of English language learners (Valdes, 2001).    Without a high school diploma this large group of students will face very limited career opportunities.  If these problems are not remedied as provided for under Lau v Nichols, then the U.S. will have a large underclass of students who can not rather than choose not to graduate from high school and therefore have no access to higher education or higher economic opportunities.  School systems must address the needs of all students, not just those who show proficiency in academic English.

      Lau v. Nichols ruled that language minority children had the right to an equal education. Lau v. Nichols did not tell the school systems how to provide it. Through the years, a number of language acquisition options have developed.  Some are based on an assimilationist approach which emphasizes English acquisition and does not deal with maintenance of the home language.   Some program options aim at teaching the home language and teaching English at the same time.  Language acquisition options range from research based, efficient, beneficial programs to sink-or-swim programs that lack special instruction for language minority children.  In the past, most of the English language support programs have been remedial in nature, designed to fix a language deficiency (Thomas and Collier, 1997).  In this paper, we will look at general categories of language support programs and examine the research for the one program that the data point to as the most efficient way for learning academic English.  Then we will look at why this program encounters strong opposition.

       Mainstream English, English as a Second Language (ESL), Bilingual Education or a combination of these three are what LM children encounter when entering the US public school system.  We will look at the programs in the order of effectiveness for learning English at the elementary level and of closing the achievement gap which exists between students who enter school fluent in English and those who enter with little or no English.

     Mainstream English is the absence of a special program designed to help students learn English.  The LM child is included in the regular classroom with native English speakers. Some children have been mainstreamed because the parents reject the language support program (Collier, 1995), and others because no program existed in the school.  Mainstreaming implies that the language minority children receive no extra help in the school to learn the language of instruction.  In some cases, mainstreaming is done because there is no one who speaks the new student’s home language or there is no special program to assist in learning English in the school.  When the non-English speaking child is the only one in the school who speaks that home language or there aren’t enough students in a school to require the hiring of a resource teacher, the child is mainstreamed.   The student is put in the regular education classroom with no special assistance provided by the school for learning English.
When a child is exited from a language support program such as ESL or Bilingual Education, they are also usually mainstreamed.  This means that their language support program has terminated and the student must function in the mainstream classroom and be responsible for the same content material as the native English speakers.
Research on students who have been mainstreamed, without language support, shows that their academic gains over a 6 year period are not as strong as students who participated in any kind of language support program.  The largest group of school dropouts comes from this group (Thomas and Collier, 2002).

     Another program option that has gained acceptance for political rather than academic reasons is “structured English immersion” as adapted by California, Arizona and more recently, Massachusetts. According to Cloud, Genesee and Hamayan (2000):

     Each of the mentioned states, in an effort to abolish all home language instruction and restrict instruction to English only, mandated one year of intense language instruction primarily in English.  After the one year, children from the structured English are mainstreamed (Gandara, 2002).  This program is based on the premise, which is not supported by research (Collier and Thomas, 2002; Gandara, 2000; Abella et al, 2003) that children need only one year to attain English fluency.  The Collier and Thomas research shows that students who had only one year of language support performed over the long run at or about the same level as students who were mainstreamed (Collier and Thomas, 2002).  The gains made in the one year of structured English were not maintained over the duration of their academic career.
 
 

Carlos Ovando, a specialist in bilingual and multicultural education, decries the passing of the “English Only” legislation:

     English as a Second Language (ESL) is another program approach to provide access to the curriculum for children who enter the school without fluency in English.  The goal of ESL programs is to develop English proficiency for language minority students (Ovando, 2003).  ESL can be a stand-alone program or part of a bilingual program.  The ESL teacher can go into the mainstream classroom and work with the classroom teacher (push-in) or the students can be taken out of the classroom to work in small groups with the ESL teacher (pull-out).  In some schools with large non-English speaking populations, the ESL program can be self-contained with all the English language learners  in  classes, homogeneously grouped by fluency level.

     Whether students are beginners with no comprehension skills in English, or are fluent and need to refine academic language skills, ESL classes aim to fill in the gaps in their English.  ESL classes can be generally divided into two main focuses; one concentrating on teaching language arts or English, so that the students can understand the content material in the classroom; and the other content-based ESL which teaches language arts through the concepts of science, social studies or math (Celce-Murcia, 2001).

      ESL programs are usually the program of choice in a school or school district that caters to a language diverse population which does not have one dominant language group.   Other reasons for choosing ESL programs over other program options are demographics, politics and the lack of qualified teachers to provide education in the home language (Ovando, 2003).  Entering the school system speaking a language other than English has been looked at as a deficiency which has to be remedied, and an ESL program with no home language support has been seen as the solution (Nieto, 1999).  A stand-alone ESL program fits the assimilationist attitude that the lack of English language will be ‘fixed’.  It also supports the long dispelled myth that use of the home language inhibits second language acquisition (Collier, 1995).

      With respect to the students’ native culture, in an ESL program that has a large number of language groups represented, it is impossible for the teacher to know everything about each culture.  However, the teacher does need to have a broad understanding of cultural similarities and differences.  This knowledge gives teachers the background needed to make sure that they treat students with respect and to show students that they recognize that the students are not all the same.  ESL programs do not usually have a cultural component.  It is up to the teachers to provide it (Ovando, 2003).  In ESL programs the emphasis is on getting the students acquainted with American culture so that they can assimilate and function outside the classroom.

      Students who enter the school system without fluency in English usually stay in an ESL program 2-3 years.  The focus of the program is to develop a conversational proficiency and basic literacy which allows students to communicate on a social level (Cummins, 2001; Collier, 1995).  When the students reach proficiency in social language, they are usually exited from ESL and mainstreamed.  The Collier and Thomas research shows that students exited from ESL programs after 2 or 3 years do not reach the same academic levels as native English speakers or students in developmental bilingual programs (Collier and Thomas, 2002).
 
 

     In all of the approaches mentioned above, ESL is an integral component (Genesse, 1999).  Bilingual education and ESL work together since the goal of both programs is to enable the student to access the curriculum.  As McGroarty (2001) explains:
 
 

      The constant in bilingual programs is the incorporation of English or ESL in the program design.  The difference comes in the degree of importance given to the home language.  For example, transitional bilingual programs emphasize the movement from instruction in the home language to instruction in English.  The program is called transitional bilingual or ‘early-exit’ because the aim of the program is to use both the home language along with English until the children are ready to receive all instruction in English.   This can happen in as few as 2 or 3 years.   The students are ‘transitioned’ from home language instruction and assimilated into mainstreamed classes (Genesee, 1999; McGroarty, 2001).
 Transitional bilingual programs are considered to be ‘subtractive’ because it does not encourage maintenance of the home language. They are also ‘subtractive’ in that they do not promote a positive attitude towards the home or first language.  The goal of transitional programs is to learn enough English to get out of the minority language class.  Cross cultural understanding or communication is not part of the curriculum unless the school decides to promote it (Cloud et al., 2001).

      In transitional programs home language development is officially stopped as the students learn to function in English.  A danger is that children may be mainstreamed before they have reached English language proficiency.  Social language proficiency, the ability to communicate socially, is often used as the benchmark for transitioning into mainstream classes (Cummins, 2001; Crawford, 1999).  Research by Collier and Thomas shows that transitional, early-exit bilingual programs are the least effective in terms of long lasting academic achievement results (1997, 2002)

      Developmental, late-exit or maintenance bilingual models strive to develop academic skills in both the home and the second language rather than using the home language simply as a vehicle for transitioning to instruction in English.  This approach aims at maintaining the home language and developing literacy skills in both languages.  Because the goal is to continue learning in the home language as well as English, these programs are usually long-term, lasting 5-6 years, therefore earning the name ‘late-exit’ bilingual programs (McGroarty, 2001).  They are also considered as ‘additive’ (Alaniz, 2000) because the goal is to maintain the home language when adding the dominant or majority language.  Another additive benefit to developmental bilingual programs is fostering a positive attitude towards the culture of the home language group.  By valuing instruction in the home language, validation of the culture behind it occurs naturally (Cloud, et al, 2000).

      Developmental bilingual programs provide instruction of the curriculum using the home language for at least 50% of the instructional time.  Students in this kind of program develop strong literacy skills in the home language.  They are able to transfer their knowledge about languages into English, using the base they have formed in their home language (Collier, 1997; Cummins, 1999).  Children are not transitioned into the mainstream classes because they continue learning not only in the home language but also about it.

     The Collier and Thomas research on long-range program effectiveness shows that developmental bilingual programs assist students to fully reach and maintain a high level of academic achievement throughout their school years (2002).  This achievement parity is based on the amount of time students have had to develop first language literacy.  One of the major findings in the Collier and Thomas report (2002) states:
 

     Developmental bilingual programs are an effective way for maintaining the first or home language, for providing access to the curriculum and for learning English (Collier, 1995; Cummins, 2001; Genesee, 1987; Krashen, 1999; Spangenberg-Urbschat, 1994; Tse, 2001; Valdes, 2001). Under the umbrella of developmental bilingual programs, one program design has shown that it is not only effective in helping the students learn in both languages but also in maintaining long-term academic achievement when compared to mainstreamed, English speaking students.  This is a two-way immersion program, also known as Dual language (DL).

     Dual language combines students from the minority and the majority language and culture groups.  It stresses the addition of a language for each group (the English speakers learn the home language of the other group and the language minority group learns English). An added benefit of DL programs is that they promote cross-cultural communication and cooperation between the two groups involved (Cummins, 1999; Cloud et al., 2000; Celce-Murcia, 2001).

      DL programs usually start in Kindergarten and continue through elementary school.   Instruction usually is divided either into a 90/10 or a 50/50 model.  The 90/10 model presents most of the instruction (90%) in the minority language and 10% in English.  After 2 or 3 years, the instruction becomes more equalized (50/50) as the students reach literacy in both languages (Celce-Murcia, 2001).  The students continue learning in both languages with the goal of becoming biliterate as well as bicultural.  One of the critical features of a successful DL program is parental involvement.  The two culture groups learn from each other and learn to cooperate as they work together with their children in after- school projects or class activities (Cloud et al., 2000).  This  cooperation between the language minority group and English speakers has had the positive benefit of helping the LM parents as well as their children integrate into the community.  It has served as a bridge for the recent immigrant to take part in the local community (Ovando, 2003).

      If dual language or two-way immersion programs help language minority students attain academic English and access to the curriculum, why don’t more school systems adapt this form of developmental bilingual program?  In this era of No Child Left Behind, legislation which mandates that English language learners must be tested annually in English, math and reading, a program exists which could boost test scores and yet school systems are not flocking to initiate dual language programs in the schools with high minority populations.  In fact, states with large percentages of non-English speakers, like California, Arizona and Massachusetts have outlawed bilingual education.

      More and more, research shows the benefits of developmental bilingual programs, and yet public opposition to these programs continues to grow (Crawford, 1999).  Teaching a group of immigrant children in a language other than English challenges the assimilationist view that all Americans must speak the same language.  Bilingual programs are looked upon as holding patterns while the language minority students wait to learn English.  The public view of education is that all non-English speakers should be assimilating into the culture of the community.  So, programs which keep a child from learning English are a waste of money (Nieto, 1999).  Nieto continues by saying:
 

     The law has established that children who speak a language other than English are entitled to an education equal to that which their English-speaking peers receive.  Through the years, from the 14th Amendment to the clarifications by the Supreme Court found in Lau v. Nichols, the framework has been put in place to provide for equal access to the curriculum in public schools.  Many programs have been developed to serve the needs of these children.  Bilingual education, ESL and bilingual education combined, and English Only are some of the options.

     In deciding how to comply with the law, school system decision-makers must look at research on language acquisition. Research shows that developmental bilingual education used in combination with ESL is the best option if the program continues for at least four years (Collier & Thomas, 2002).  When bilingual programs are not practical or acceptable for economic or political reasons, the next option for giving language minority children access to the curriculum is a high quality, content-based ESL program. Enrollment in the program should be maintained until the children perform on standardized tests at the same level as their English-speaking peers (Celce-Murcia, 2001; Tse,
2001).  The least favorable option is the English Only program passed in California, Arizona and recently in Massachusetts, which outlaws bilingual education and specifies one year of structured English for language minority students.  According to the Collier research, English Only has the same success rate as no ESL instruction at all.  Students taught under this option drop out at the highest rates and have the lowest standardized scores (Collier & Thomas, 2002).

         The options for effectively educating language minority students are known and researched.  Schools must take responsibility for educating all children, not just those who understand the language.  Not only are schools charged with educating all students, but now, with high stakes testing, the success or failure of language minority children will show how well they carried out their responsibility.  Educational leaders  must make schools take do what is best for language minority students by establishing language support programs which research show are academically sound.
 

     The public must be educated to see that the foundation of bilingual education is not just to provide home language education but rather to provide enough language support in the native language so that students can progress in English. Students can then receive the same access to the curriculum as their native English-speaking peers and maintain literacy in the home language.  According to Collier and Thomas, the best program option is a late-exit, two-way immersion program (2002). How can we get education decision-makers to focus on the best solution for educating those who don’t speak English?

     This is an important question to answer as we examine a pedagogical issue with political overtones (Arce, 1998; Crawford, 1999).   As researchers study ways to give language minority students equal access to the curriculum, they must keep the children in mind.  What is best for them?  Even though the law guarantees equal access to education, and the programs to facilitate the equal access exist, the discussion still goes on. Language minority students still have high dropout rates and high retention rates.  As standards rise and accountability increases, the decisions made for children leave the pedagogical realm and enter the political.  Educating a large group of language minority students in a way which gives them equal access to education and follows the guarantees of the law is a challenge for educators in the 21st century. This group of students is expected to constitute 40% of the student body in public schools by 2030, and educational decision-makers cannot ignore them or offer them programs which do not give them equal education.  Forty percent of the student population is too large a group to ignore.
 
 
 
 

(In the follow-up paper, I would like to look at the critical features of Dual language program design.  By looking at the goals of the DL program and by analyzing how the nine critical features of an effective DL program are put into effect, we can better understand how the program should work.  We can also see that if the goals of the program are not rigorously pursued then the outcomes can cause alarm and negative publicity for a DL program.)
 
 

Alanis, I. (2000) A Texas two-way bilingual program:  Its effects on linguistic and academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 24,3. Retrieved  May 28, 2002 from:
 http://brj.asu.edu/v243/articles/art2.html#intro
Arce, J. (1998). Cultural hegemony:  The politics of bilingual education. Multicultural Education, 6, 2, 10-16.

August, D. & Hakuta,K. (Eds.) (1997) Improving schooling for language minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved June 17, 2002 from

      http://books.nap.edu/books/0309054974/html114.html
 

Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. (2003).  Multicultural Education:  Issues & perspectives.  NY:  Wiley/Jossey-Bass.

Boyd, R., & Tashakkori, A. (1994, Nov.)  A comparison of the Hispanic dropout and non-dropout between the 8th and 10th grades.  Paper presented at the Annual  Meeting of the Midsouth Educational Research Association, Nashville, TN.

Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language  (3rd ed.) Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000).  Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched education. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Collier, V. (1995). Promoting academic success for ESL students: Understanding second language acquisition for school. Elizabeth, NJ: New Jersey Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages-Bilingual Education.

Collier, V. & Thomas, W. (2002). A National study of school effectiveness for language minority students; long-term academic achievement. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.  Retrieved June 17, 2002 from

       http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1/1es.html
 

Crawford, J. (1999) Language Legislation in the USA. Retrieved June 17, 2002 from

       http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwCrawford1999/langleg.htm
 

Cummins, J. (2001).  Language, Power and Pedagogy. Retrieved  April 15, 2002 from

           http://www.iteachilearn.com/cumming/lpp.html

Gandara, P. (2002), In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the Post-227 era.  Bilingual Research Journal 24 (1&2) Retrieved Oct. 1, 2002 from
           http://brj.asu.edu/v2412/articles/ar2.html

Genesee, F. (1987).  Learning through two languages:  Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Genesse, F. ed. (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. (Educational Practice Report #1)  Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence/Center for Applied Linguistics. Washington, DC.

Greene, J. (1998, March 2). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance.  Retrieved June 17, 2002 from
       http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jCrawford,1999/greene.html
 

Hodgkinson, H. (2001). Educational Demographics: What teachers should know.    Educational Leadership, 58(4).  Retrieved on May 24, 2002 from

       http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/0012/hodgkinson.html
 

Kozol, J. (1991).  Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Harper Perennial.

Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education.  Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates.

Krashen, S. (1997) Why Bilingual Education?  (Report No. BBB00899) Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC. (ERIC No. ED439186)
 

Krashen, S. (1999) Bilingual education: Arguments for and (bogus) arguments against. Paper presented at the Georgetown Roundtable on Languages and  Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. May 1999.

Krashen, S. (n.d.) The dropout argument.  Retrieved June 17, 2002 from the Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research Web site:

       http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~cmmr/krashen_dropouts.html

McGroarty, M. (2001).  Bilingual approaches to language learning. In Celce-Murcia (Ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language 3rd edition. Heinle & Heinle, Boston.

Medina, J. (2002, June 23). Critics say Regents English tests push immigrant students to drop out.  The New York Times.  Retrieved June 23, 2002 from

       http://www.nytimes/com/2002/06/23/education/23stud.html
 

Nieto, S. (1999).  The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nieto, S. (2000).  Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
 
 

Office of Civil Rights. (2001).  Testing guide: Legal Principles.  Retrieved June 12, 2002 from
                        http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/testing/chapter2.html#167

Ovando, C. (2003) Language diversity and education. In Banks & Banks. Multicultural education:  Issues & perspectives. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. NY.

Porter, R. (1999/2000). The benefits of English immersion. Educational Leadership, 57(4), 52-56.

Spangenberg-Urbschat, K.,  & Pritchard, R. (Eds.) (1994).  Kids come in all languages:  Reading instruction for ESL students.  Newark, DE: International Reading  Association.

Schulte, B.(2002, June 9). Non-English Speakers Neglected, Weast Says. Washington Post. Retrieved June 10, 2002 from

                       http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22274-2002Jun9?language
 

Schwartz, W. (2000).  New trends in language education for Hispanic students. (Report No. EDD00036) Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC).ERIC No. ED403101)

Tharpe, R. (1997).  From at-risk to excellence:  Research, theory and principles  for practice. Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence Retrieved February 19, 2002 from

 http://www.cal.org/crede/pubs/research/rr1/htm
 

Thomas, W. & Collier, V. 1998.  School effectiveness for language minority students.  Alexandria, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Tse, L. (2001).  Why don’t they learn English:  Separating fact from fallacy in the  US language debate.  New York:  Teachers College Press.

Valdes, G. (2001) Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American  schools.  New York:  Teachers College Press.