|
|
|
|
Program Options for Language Minority Students in Elementary Schools
EDUC 894
George Mason University
March 4, 2003
Virginia F. Doherty
Introduction
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.
Background
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.
Program options
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:
With the passage of Proposition 227 on June 2, 1998, Californians
voted to eliminate bilingual education. This draconian
initiative puts a very negative spin on biculturalism, bilingualism and
biliteracy in US society. It also denigrates the positive value that
first-language instruction can have on academic achievement for language-minority
students. Finally, it rejects the accumulated knowledge base for
the past 25 years by linguists, cognitive psychologists, and bilingual
educators: this knowledge supports the idea that quality-controlled bilingual
programs do yield positive outcomes. (as cited in Banks, p.287)
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).
Bilingual Education Programs
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:
There is no necessary opposition between the use of bilingual
instruction and English as a second language (ESL) instruction. Indeed,…
wherever the language of the dominant society is English, it is generally
expected that ESL should be a part of any good bilingual program because
a principal goal of any instructional program is the development of high-level
academic language skills in the languages used as the medium of instruction.
Such development does not come through simple exposure to a language; it
requires instruction that is well planned and carefully
sequenced. (p. 347) |
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:
The amount of formal primary language schooling that a student
has received is the strongest predictor of second language student achievement. That is, the greater the number of years of primary language grade-level schooling a student has received, the higher his/her English achievement is shown to be. (p.7) |
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:
Despite its proven effectiveness in promoting student learning, bilingual education has been accused of everything from serving as a jobs program for Latino and other language-minority professionals, to posing a terrorist threat to our survival as a nation. The very thought that children in schools in the United States could be using a language other than English to learn has enraged some citizens and politicians, as we have seen in recent attempts to impose “English Only” and to do away with bilingual education programs. The positive effect of bilingual education on student achievement has been largely overshadowed by these reactions. (p. 86) |
Summary
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).
Conclusions and Implications
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.)
References
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.