Category: ESL Education

Student Achievement and Multicultural Environments
The purpose of this post is to compare and contrast cultural factors that influence the academic performance of limited English proficient (LEP) students and fluent English speakers (FES) within multicultural learning environments; further, this work will offer some practical solutions for remedying typical challenges therein.

Challenges in the Multicultural Academic Environment

Students’ Challenges
Socioeconomic status (SES) is a factor that significantly affects any and all students’ motivation and ability to learn. In fact, socioeconomic background will inevitably affect the academic outcomes of English language learners and fluent English speakers alike. However, the socioeconomic status variable itself does not independently determine students’ success, but rather factors that are generally associated with high SES. For example, English learners whose families can afford private tutorial services can make extra assistance available for their children, giving them an extra advantage.

Also, parents with higher incomes and greater resources tend to have achieved higher education levels, which not only affects the parents’ earning potential, but also reinforces the value of education for their children. In addition, even students whose parents are simply financially stable enough to provide basic resources on a consistent basis – food, water, shelter, clean clothes, medicine, supplementary reading materials, to name a few – are able to focus their attention on academic success. The implications of students’ socioeconomic status are great and many and those implications are not limited to one demographic group or another.

Another impactful dynamic that applies to all learning environments is the issue of teachers’ perception of learners. Educators’ perception of students can largely contribute to students’ effort to attain academic success. This dynamic has no face, ethnic background, or color, as all students are bound to be perceived one way or another. When teachers exude confidence in their students’ ability, students tend to raise their own personal standards and make a more valiant effort toward academic success; conversely, the opposite is also true. This dynamic is very prevalent in inner-city schools, where students are generally perceived to be incompetent, unmotivated, and low-achieving, and students subsequently internalize and act on these beliefs, further reinforcing them. Thus, it is ever-important that educators maintain healthy, optimistic perspectives of their learners, regardless of their socioeconomic, racial, or ethnic background.

LEPs, like other student groups, are often socially disenfranchised in multicultural classrooms. LEP teachers’ typically low level of confidence in their students’ capacity for high academic achievement is a doubly reinforcing dynamic whereby teachers’ lack of confidence contributes to students’ own pessimism, which in turn causes them not to be as deeply engaged academically. Further, LEP students are often placed in lower levels and assigned less experienced teachers in their core subjects because of the language barrier, a dynamic that in most cases inevitably does not yield instances of high academic achievement.

Crawford (2004) identifies several variables that can also potentially impact LEP student achievement, including students’ socioeconomic status, prior attendance in bilingual schools or programs, and parents’ ideological perspectives about bilingualism, and bilingual instructional model design. One of the primary factors considered in bilingual instructional model design is the issue of how much time BLE students need to undergo bilingual instruction before being successfully introduced to mainstream classrooms. In Crawford’s (2004) delineation of ‘de facto bilingual education,’ he raises three critical questions regarding LEPs and their capacity for academic success. Crawford (2004) inquires:

• Why do some immigrants succeed without bilingual education?

• Why do some linguistic minorities (e.g., some Asian groups) make dramatic progress in school as compared to others (e.g. some Latino groups)?

• Why do some students in all-English immersion programs learn English faster than those in bilingual programs? (p. 229)

While bilingual education programs often carry stigmas for LEP students, these programs can, in fact, help students to acquire dual language skills and high academic achievement (depending on program design and a number of other factors). A gradual-exit model is ideal for most students in BLE programs as rushing students into mainstream classrooms before they have acquired sufficient levels of linguistic development can result in students’ acquisition of nothing more than basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS). Alternatively, Crawford asserts that smoothly transitioning students from BLE to mainstream classrooms is the desired goal, as this method is more likely to yield students with cognitive-academic language proficiency (CALP); however, the higher cost to implement BLE programs with gradual-exit models often results in increased pressure to choose the less-desired alternative.

Educators’ Challenges in Multicultural Classrooms
One of the factors that significantly affects the multicultural classroom experience is the manner in which challenges are perceived and addressed. Khong & Saito’s (2014) review of 60 research studies culminated in the identification of three categories of challenges that LEP instructors face in their classrooms: Social challenges, which relate to the growth and diversity of ELLs, societal attitudes, and educational policies; institutional challenges, which include teacher education, tools and resources, time, communication, school culture, achievement, and retention; and personal challenges, which encompasses instructors’ beliefs, attitudes, assumptions, and emotions. Multicultural classroom educators must remain flexible and open to the valuable contributions of students and their diverse mix of languages, experiences, beliefs, and practices.

Another factor that can significantly affect the multicultural classroom experience is the instructor’s ethnic and social background, which Ajayi (2011) found tends to directly influence instructors’ classroom mediation strategies. For example, while White ESL instructors stressed the importance of cultural and educational diversity, Black ESL instructors expressed a tendency to mediate their teaching through an emphasis on understanding students’ socioeconomic circumstances and establishing high standards.

Integrating Culture into the Curriculum
In multicultural academic settings, educators are faced with the task of determining the most efficient means to ensure that all students are actively learning. Several measures can be taken to foster an inclusive and effective multicultural classroom environment. Welch (2015) offers that, rather than adopting the ‘English-only’ approach that is largely serving to under-educate LEP students, bilingual students should be encouraged to utilize their primary language in new learning contexts in order to further their bilingual development and foster their positive self-image. Theorists (Crawford, 2004; Welch, 2015) agree that use of students’ native language in the classroom helps to create a viable, multicultural interactional space, and further, facilitates bilingualism and biliteralism.

Educators’ use of culturally responsive teaching (CRT) practices is also highly beneficial in the multicultural classroom environment. The culturally responsive teaching framework is one that is well-established among researchers and educators alike. This framework prioritizes the culture of the student, and as demonstrated in Rhodes’s (2013) work, is one of the most effective ways to address cultural diversity in ESL and BLE classrooms.

Similarly, after interviewing 57 junior high school teachers in Los Angeles, California about the ways in which their ethnic and social backgrounds influenced their teaching practices, Ajayi (2011) devised several recommendations toward the improvement of some of the structural and practice-related aspects of the ESL educational environment. First, Ajayi recommends teacher education programs and curriculums that factor the social and ethnic backgrounds of the teachers. Ajayi also proposes the implementation of a well-structured community-based immersion program for all prospective educators, serving to foster relationships between teachers and students and reduce social and cultural biases.

Practical Measures in Florida
Florida’s immigrant population represents the fourth largest in the U.S., with LEPs comprising 20% of the entire state population and 25% of the demographic of Florida’s K-12 classrooms. As a condition of Florida’s Consent Decree (1990; 2010), each K-12 educator in Florida is mandated to obtain an ELL endorsement with their teaching certification. This measure is taken to ensure that Florida’s educators are able to effectively communicate core content and material to the state’s sizeable ELL population; in essence, this measure raises standards, increases competency, and helps to ensure equal access for ELL students.

References
Ajayi, L. (2011). Exploring how ESL teachers related their ethnic and social backgrounds to practice. Race Ethnicity and Education, 14(2). doi:10.1080/13613324.2010.488900

Blanchard, S. & Muller, C. (2015). Gatekeepers of the American dream: How teachers’ perceptions shape the academic outcomes of immigrant and language-minority students. Social Science Research, 51, 262-275.

Coady, M., Harper, C., & De Jong, Ester. (2011). From preservice to practice: Mainstream elementary teacher beliefs of preparation and efficacy with English language learners in the state of Florida. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 223–239. doi:10.1080/15235882.2011.597823

Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services, Inc.

Florida Consent Decree, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) et al. v. State Board of Education Consent Decree, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, August 14, 1990; 2003.

Khong, T.D. H. & Saito, E. (2014). Challenges confronting teachers of English language learners. Educational Review, 66(2), 210–225. doi:10.1080/00131911.2013.769425

Rhodes, C.M. (2013). A study of culturally responsive teaching practices of adult ESOL and EAP teachers. Journal of Research and Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary, and Basic Education, 2(3), 170-183.

Welch, I. (2015). Building interactional space in an ESL classroom to foster bilingual identity and linguistic repertoires. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 14, 80–95. doi:10.1080/15348458.2015.1019784

 

Examination of the Florida ESL Handbook
The purpose of this post is to examine and discuss various policies, practices, procedures, and structures as they exist in the field of English language learner (ELL) education in the state of Florida. This paper will examine the contours of Florida’s ELL education policies by surveying Florida’s approach to critical areas. Additionally, this work aims to compare Florida’s ELL policies and procedures with federal policy and with those set forth by TESOL International Association, an authoritative body in ELL program standards and education. In accordance with the terminology used in Florida’s ELL Handbook (2013-2014), this work utilizes the terms ‘ELL’ and ‘limited English proficient’ (LEP) interchangeably to refer to students working towards the acquisition of proficiency in English.

Florida’s Legislative Works
The 2013-2014 Florida ELL Database and Program Handbook (hereafter referred to as ELL Handbook) is Florida’s authoritative work outlining the state’s mandates for P-12 ELL/LEP education. Florida’s ELL Handbook (2013-2014) provides information about the state’s processes, procedures, and policies related to registering, educating, and assessing English language learners. The Florida Consent Decree (1990; 2003) is a body of legislation supporting Florida’s ELL Handbook. The Consent Decree, signed in August of 1990 by a judge from the United States District Court (Southern District of Florida), is an agreement between the Florida Board of Education and eight civil rights and educational advocacy groups; the document sanctions the provision of services for students whose primary language is not English.

 

Examining the Contours of Florida’s ELL Education Policies

Labeling
Myriad terms have been used to define and identify students seeking to acquire English speaking, listening, and written communication skills: English language learner (ELL), limited English proficient (LEP), (speakers of other languages) SOL, potentially English proficient (PEP), primary home language speakers other than English (PHLOTE), English as a second language (ESL) student, and bilingual children, just to name a few. Although, the most frequently utilized term in most court decisions and federal and state education-related verbiage is ‘LEP’.

Florida’s ELL Handbook (2013-2014) refers to these students as both ‘English language learners’ and ‘limited English proficient’, while Florida’s Consent Decree (1990; 2003) consistently refers to this population as ‘LEP’ students throughout. This discrepancy is likely a result of the dated nature of Florida’s Consent Decree and the more recent edition of the ELL Handbook (2013-2014), which appears to reflect developments in the field of ESL education and evolution in the field’s terminology. The term limited English proficient has significantly waned in popularity because of its tendency to emphasize what the student lacks.

Conversely, the ‘English language learner’ label appears vague and too unspecific. The challenge to find an appropriate term for this unique group of learners is seemingly impossible; although, many scholars opt to utilize the terms LEP and ELL interchangeably to refer to this group.

Identification of ELLs/LEPs
Florida’s Consent Decree (1990; 2003) establishes that LEP students shall be classified as the following:

a. individuals who were not born in the United States and whose native language is a language other than English; or

b. individuals who come from home environments where a language other than English is spoken in the home; or

c. individuals who are American Indian or Alaskan natives and who come from environments where a language other than English has had a significant impact on their level of English language proficiency; and

d. individuals who, by reason thereof, have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or listening to the English language to deny such individuals the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English
(p. 5-6).

Florida’s ELL Handbook (2013-2014) bears similar verbiage in its definition of ‘English language learner’. Thus, Florida’s classification of ELL/LEP students encompasses immigrants as well as students whose primary language is not English for various reasons. However, it is important to consider the implications of such labels as they are applied to speakers of other languages. Defining LEP students as “individuals who come from home environments where a language other than English is spoken in the home” may prove to be problematic because “limited English proficiency” connotes a deficiency in either the written, oral, or aural aspects of English communication. Students who speak a language other than English in the home may be qualified bilinguals, and may not actually possess deficiencies in either language. Moreover, TESOL (2010) contains no verbiage establishing the grounds for classification of ELLs, LEPs, or ESOL candidates.

Further, students whose home language surveys (HLSs) contain all negative responses and students whose HLSs contain an affirmative response but score well on the resulting LEP assessment instruments are similarly coded (ELL Handbook, 2013-2014). It must also be noted that pre-kindergarten (PK) students are “not initially tested for English language proficiency, nor is an ELL Format submitted for PK ELLs (ELL Handbook, 2013, p. 10). Nonetheless, the state is required to provide PK students at all levels of English proficiency with age and level-appropriate material.

Accountability Measures
Until a critical policy change in 2014, Florida’s ELLs were required to undergo standardized testing and have their scores factored in the school’s overall testing data merely one year after being introduced to American classrooms. In 2014, Florida’s request to allow ELLs two years to matriculate in American schools before factoring their standardized test scores was approved. This provision permits ELLs additional time to become acclimated to the new sociocultural and institutional environments.

Florida’s request for this provision was a part of a waiver exempting the state from various terms set forth in the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Much controversy was sparked around Florida’s request for this policy change because, according to federal policy, all students’ data must be equally accounted for when states measure student progress via standardized testing procedures. The approval of Florida’s request is quite significant because the allowance marks the first and only time that the U.S. Department of Education has allowed a state to modify these particular accountability measures.

States across the U.S. began to implement structured English immersion programs as a part of the fallout from California’s Proposition 227, which aimed to teach students English in one school year or less. However, this proves to be an unrealistic objective as research suggests that five to seven years of instruction are needed before ELLs with no English skills can acquire proficiency in English. This modification in Florida’s accountability policy is a critical shift away from the one-year language acquisition expectation that served as the underlying premise for structured immersion programs.

Perspectives on L1 and C1
Generally, Florida’s statues and policies promote students’ use of native language (L1) and expression of their native cultural identities (C1). In accordance with the recommendations set forth by TESOL (2010), Florida’s Consent Decree (1990; 2003) encourages ELLs’ use and expansion of their L1 conversational and literacy skills. Similarly, the state of Florida advocates for ELLs’ expression of their native identities in and outside of the classroom, and ELL instructors are encouraged to serve as advocates for ELLs’ expression of their native identities (Florida Consent Decree, 1990; 2003). This measure helps to bolster students’ self-esteem and promote a healthy self-image, which ultimately leads to increased instances of student achievement (TESOL, 2010).

Equal Access and Mainstream Classrooms
The 1982 Supreme Court Case Plyer v. Doe established that immigrant students must be allotted free, equal, and unobstructed access to educational services. This case also established that it is unlawful to question students about their parents’ immigration or legal statuses and unlawful to report students to Immigration or Naturalization Services. Florida’s Consent Decree (1990; 2003) mandates that Florida comply with the terms outlined in this Supreme Court decision. As set forth in Florida’s Consent Decree (2013-2014), districts must provide ELLs with educational services that support their academic achievement.

Florida’s provisions consist of several areas of classification, and students are placed according to their LEP assessment scores and individual needs. A student’s classification and the availability of services in a given district generally determine the type of class in which an ELL is placed, and while they are not always readily available because of limited funding or qualified teachers, Florida’s ELL instructional models include sheltered, mainstream/inclusion, maintenance and/or developmental bilingual education, and dual language (two-way developmental bilingual education) (ELL Handbook, 2013-2014). Florida’s varied approach to the introduction of ELL students to mainstream classrooms is instructive, as the effort to rush this process is not supported by any pedagogically sound reasoning. This assertion is reflected in Florida’s flexible, gradual, assessment-based approach.

Parents of ELLs
Florida’s ELL legislation advocates heavily for parent involvement (Florida Consent Decree, 1990; 2003) as ELLs’ parent involvement is one of the primary factors contributing to student success (TESOL, 2010). Parents of ELL students may elect not to allow their children to participate in ELL or ESL program; however, districts are still responsible for ensuring that a student not participating in ELL programs has tools for academic success made readily available to him or her (Florida Consent Decree, 1990; 2003). According to Florida mandates, districts must make every effort to ensure that communications and correspondences from schools and districts to students’ homes are provided in parents’ primary languages (Florida Consent Decree, 1990; 2003). In addition, the Consent Decree establishes that parent leadership councils will be established in each district and that no LEP district plan will be submitted to the state without consulting with this council comprised of the parents of LEP students.

Conclusion
As of 2015, Florida has the third largest ELL/LEP population in the United States, and due to its sheer numbers and the necessity for concentrated efforts in this area, the state has emerged as one of the front-runners in ELL/LEP education. Florida’s successful attempt to modify its accountability provisions is one example of its leadership in the ELL arena. After conducting this perfunctory survey of some of the critical areas in Florida’s ELL education policies, one may conclude that the state is, in fact, making concerted efforts to comply with the ever-growing body of research supporting effective structures and procedures in ELL education. While it is essential to remain ever-mindful of discrepancies and disconnects between policy, theory, and practice, Florida’s ELL Handbook (2013-2014) and Consent Decree (1990; 2003) are, in many ways, consistent with TESOL (2010) standards and are reflective of some of the field’s best practices.

 

 

 

 

References
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services, Inc.

Florida Consent Decree, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) et al. v. State Board of Education Consent Decree, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, August 14, 1990; 2003.

English Language Learner (ELLs) Database and Program Handbook: English for Speakers of Other Languages (2013-2014). Florida Office of Education Information and Accountability Services (EIAS) and the Bureau of Student Achievement through Language Acquisition (SALA).

Mitchell, C. (2015, January). Fla. wins flexibility in accountability for English-learners. Education Week, 34 (15). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/01/05/fla-wins-flexibility-in-accountability-for-english-learners.html

TESOL International Association. (2010). Standards for the Recognition of Initial TESOL Program in P-12 ESL Teacher Education.

 

The purpose of this post is to present several pedagogical and research-based considerations that will aid in establishing theoretical and practice-based approaches to helping maintain English language learners’ identification with their native culture (C1) and language (L1). A primary goal of this work is to formulate viable means by which English language learners may be inspired to uphold a strong sense of native ethnic identification and cultural pride in and outside of the classroom.

Pedagogical and Standards-based Considerations
Before presenting emergent theories and recommended strategies for promoting native identification and cultural pride, it is essential that the pedagogical standards supporting said strategies be introduced. TESOL/CAEP (formerly NCATE) is the national authority on standards-based learning in the fields of ESOL and ESL. The selected standards presented in this section directly address and support the theory of native identification that shall be introduced thereafter. The TESOL (2010) document presents the following pedagogical standards and expectations for ESOL teachers:

• Standard 1.b.3. encourages candidates to “recognize the importance of ELLs’ L1s and language varieties and build on these skills as a foundation for learning English” (p. 35). In compliance with this standard, exceptional candidates will “provide regular opportunities for ELLs to read, learn, and express themselves in their L1 in class” and “use the L1 in the classroom to support literacy and content learning” (p. 35).

• Standard 2.a. states that candidates seeking to exceed standards shall “consistently design and deliver instruction that incorporates students’ cultural values and beliefs.” (p. 40).

• Standard 2.c. encourages exceptional teachers to “design and deliver instruction that allows students to participate in cross-cultural studies and cross-cultural extracurricular opportunities” as well as “integrate conflict resolution techniques into their instruction” (p. 40).

• Standard 2.d. implores that above-average ESOL teaching candidates “communicate in a culturally respectful and linguistically appropriate manner with students’ families,” “establish ongoing partnerships with the community’s adults and leaders by including them in curriculum and classroom activities” and “design and conduct classroom activities that encourage families to participate in their children’s education” (p.41).

• Standard 2.e. affirms that culturally competent ESOL teachers shall “design classroom activities that enhance the connection between home and school culture and language” and “act as advocates to support students’ home culture and heritage language” (p.41).

• Standard 2.g. encourages ESOL teacher candidates to “provide in-class opportunities for students and families to share and apply their cultural perspectives to learning objectives” (p. 42).

Theoretical Implications
Theoretical support for maintaining and extending students’ L1 language and identity include the notion that there exist potentially negative consequences for students’ losing L1 fluency, and further, learners’ L1 can serve as an invaluable tool from which to build L2 concepts and skills (TESOL, 2010). Moreover, learners’ L1 literacy skills and expertise can greatly assist them in acquiring L2 proficiency (TESOL, 2010). Maintenance and expansion of students’ L1 is cognitively, linguistically, and academically beneficial to the student (TESOL, 2010); thus, a viable theory of native identification and second language acquisition must factor the positive effects that building upon learners’ L1 skills will have on their learning outcomes.

Article II, Section A of Florida’s Consent Decree (1990; 2003) alludes to the positive correlation between students’ self-esteem and the fulfillment of their academic potential. This significant legislative work recognizes the value of learners maintaining high self-esteem, as it is not unusual for learners’ self-concept to be directly and negatively affected by hegemonic and reductionist approaches to L2 learning. TESOL (2010) concurs that students’ academic achievement is adversely affected by instructors’ failure to demonstrate respect for students’ cultural identities. Effective theories of educating diverse learners factor the importance of students preserving a healthy self-concept as they acquire additional language skills; this is best achieved by demonstrating ways that students’ L1 and C1 are assets in the classroom.

Practice-related Approaches
One critical aspect of ESL instruction involves approaching diverse learners and their L1 skills as assets to the language learning environment. Educators would be well-advised to avoid reductionist approaches to educating L2 learners; rather than perceiving L2 learners as students “assimilating into the host culture” or as “culturally deficient,” it would be instructive to view diverse learners and their L1 as invaluable contributions to academic settings (Roswell, Sztainbok, & Blaney, 2007, p. 142). Roswell, Sztainbok, & Blaney (2007) support the notion that students’ diversity should be openly addressed and celebrated in the ESL learning environment. Further, the “strangeness” that ESL students experience in new sociocultural environments can actually be used to foster inclusivity in the classroom by helping students recognize this common sentiment that exists among them (Roswell, Sztainbok, & Blaney, 2007).

The ESL student population is a unique one, and approaches to educating groups of diverse learners must factor that while these learners may understand the intellectual content of lessons, they may grapple with the structural or linguistic aspects of the material (TESOL, 2010). As a side note, Roswell, Sztainbok, & Blaney (2007) recommend scaffolding as an approach that helps educators to address the individual needs of learners.

Further Considerations
Roswell, Sztainbok, & Blaney (2007) confirm the positive correlation between parent involvement and ELL student achievement. Article III, Section J of Florida’s Consent Decree (1990; 2003) commits the Florida Department of Education to ensure that written and oral correspondences between the school districts and parents be made available in parents’ primary languages. This measure helps to achieve some of the aforementioned standards, as parents will most often respond positively to the institution’s efforts to be inclusive in their communication. A positive consequence of parents having equal access to information regarding their ELL children’s academic affairs is that they will be more inclined to participate in their children’s education, thus contributing to student achievement.

In short, there are various practical measures or approaches that may be undertaken to bridge theory and practice, foster inclusivity, promote cultural competence and intercultural awareness, and celebrate students’ native identities, cultures, and languages. Educators in the culturally and linguistically diverse setting of South Florida can look to provisions in documents such as Florida’s Consent Decree (1990; 2003) and TESOL (2010) for legislative and pedagogical provisions that can be viably implemented in ESL classrooms. Additionally, fostering relationships with parents and community members and encouraging their active involvement in ELL student success is paramount. Furthermore, helping students to maintain and expand their L1 and sense of pride in their native culture results in higher instances of ELL student achievement, and overall, more confident and competent learners.

 

 

Celebrating Diversity & Honoring Differences-21dq3gb

An Overview of Bilingual Education in the U.S.

America as it is known today was formally established – politically, educationally, and socially – by immigrants. Immigrant populations have, therefore, substantially contributed to the fabric of American identity, and issues relating to language have never ceased to be relevant factors associated with immigrants taking residence in America. The purpose of this post is to briefly discuss the political and social history of bilingual education (BLE) in the United States.

Early Political History and Legislation

Advocacy for bilingual education declined substantially from 1800 to 1900 due to popular interest in a national language. England asserts that in the early 1900s, one of the most significant political developments centering on bilingual education was the Supreme Court case Meyer v. Nebraska, in which an instructor defended his Fourteenth Amendment right to actively operate in his chosen profession as a foreign language instructor; the Supreme Court ultimately upheld that the instructor’s right to do so was, in fact, constitutionally protected.

After observing that instruction solely in English was preventing immigrant students from comprehending even the most basic academic material, Congress finally passed the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, a landmark piece of legislation that helped to create and endorse state bilingual programs. In 1974, however, this Act – whose terms and expectations were only vaguely defined, at best – was amended and assigned the more definitive objective of isolating students working to acquire English language proficiency until mastery in the target language (English) was acquired. This model was referred to as transitional bilingual education.

The 1974 Lau v. Nichols case – which originated within the San Francisco school system around unequal educational resources for Spanish-speaking students and Chinese-speaking students – upheld that equal educational opportunity must be provided for all students regardless of their native languages. This ruling essentially shifted the responsibility of limited-English-proficient (LEP) students’ success from the parents and students to the school boards.

Recent Political and Legislative Developments

Having realized that bilingualism could actually help Americans to more efficiently compete in the global marketplace, Congress enacted additional provisions for the Bilingual Education Act in 1974. These provisions further expanded the policy’s objective to include agendas that pointedly endorsed bilingualism and multiculturalism. This policy was proven effective, but met with strong political opposition. In addition, California’s Proposition 187 in 1996 imposed major restrictions on immigrants’ rights and ultimately contributed to increased advocacy for English as a national language.

The decline of bilingual programs and the formation of English immersion programs was expedited with the passing of Proposition 227 in California in 1998, Proposition 203 in Arizona in 2000 and similar legislation in Massachusetts in 2002.  Crawford (2011) asserts that the progress made via the Bilingual Education Act in 1968 toward transitional bilingual education was reversed with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002. Casellas & Shelby (2012) observe NCLB’s effect on one sector of the student population: “Research suggests that NCLB’s preferred methods of addressing low-achieving students do not promote the programs that most help Latino students to learn” (p. 263). The NCLB Act is perhaps one of the most significant legislative motions affecting student outcomes to date.  

Social History

One factor that influenced the social dynamics of bilingual education was the influx of immigrants from Cuba in 1959. After the Cuban Revolution, Cubans committed to conserving their cultural identity in a new land began populating Florida in droves; upon arrival, they established some of America’s most noteworthy bilingual programs. Following the implementation of more lenient immigration policies in 1965, the exponential growth of America’s immigrant population for the past half century has added to a perceived threat to nativist ideals.

The English-only movement is not only politically based; it is rife with social, racial, and ideological undertones. Because it is no longer appropriate to outwardly discriminate and show prejudice on the basis of race, language has instead become the target for those ascribing to nativist ideologies. Much of the debate and controversy that surrounds the topic of bilingual education is political and ideological. Americans fear that accommodating immigrant populations will ultimately result in the forfeiture of Anglo-American values and identity. In many cases, those that oppose bilingual education are not doing so because of factors directly related to pedagogy or student success; rather, they fear what the inclusion and accommodation of immigrant populations may mean for the future of America, socially.

Moving Forward

In recent times, political authorities, parents, and professionals alike are recognizing the increased need for bilingualism, and are thus supporting the current momentum towards dual immersion programs. Several studies have confirmed students’ ability to master two languages simultaneously, so the scientific grounds on which arguments for English-only instruction are formed are largely unfounded. Because English learners are so rapidly populating America’s classrooms, teachers will need to be better equipped to meet their needs. While Americans continue to take sides on this ever-present issue, the question of how to efficiently construct programs to ensure students’ proficiency and long-term success will continue to be one that is relevant and prevalent.

 

References

Casellas, J. & Shelly, B. (2012). No Latino left behind?: Determinants of support for education reform in the U.S. Congress. Journal of Latinos and Education, 11, 260-270.

Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services, Inc.

England, T. (2009). Bilingual education: Lessons from abroad for America’s pending crisis. Washington University Law Review, 86(5), 1211-1239.

Goldenberg, C. & Wagner, K. (2015). Bilingual education: Reviving an American tradition. American Educator, 28-32.

Roy-Campbell, Z. (2012). Meeting the needs of English learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 56(3). doi:10.1002/JAAL.000125