Bilingual Education vs Structured Immers

Slide 1: 

1 Bilingual Education versus Structured English Immersionin US public schools EDUC 246 Tanya Thomson The George Washington University Spring 2010

Slide 2: 

2 The Debate Complex Confusing Inaccessible

Slide 3: 

3 The General Public Needs access Has a right to know Has a responsibility to vote Is impacted through public education

Slide 4: 

4 Bilingual Education or Structured Immersion? Goals Legislaztion and Language Right Funding Role of L1 in L2 acquisition Effectiveness of programs L1 and cultural identity

Slide 5: 

5 DEFINITIONS in THE DEBATE Bilingual education in general terms involves learning in two languages and becoming proficient in both

Slide 6: 

6 Development of English language skills Focus on grammar, vocabulary, and communication rather than on subject-specific content Occurs on a pull-out basis or within mainstream classrooms English as a Second Language

Slide 7: 

7 Structured Immersion Utilizes mainly English as the medium of instruction for English language skills Some subject specific content Primary language may be used for clarification Structured English Immersion and Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) fall into this classification

Slide 8: 

8 Transitional Bilingual Education Some instruction in language skills and academic subjects in primary language Gradually decreased amount of primary language so that students can transition into mainstream English classrooms as soon as possible Maintenance bilingual programs are often classed with transitional due to maintenance of primary language

Slide 9: 

9 Dual Language or Two-way Bilingual Combine native English speakers with EL’s so that both groups acquire proficiency in both languages Also referred to as two-way immersion

Slide 10: 

10 Ma, J. (2002). What works for the children? What we know and don’t know about bilingual education. Retrieved from www.law.harvard.edu/civilrights/ Adapted from:

Slide 11: 

11 What the Proponents say… Goals Ensure educational and language rights of EL’s and native English speakers are met by public education systems Provide opportunities for all students enrolled in public schools to become proficient in two languages Why? Bilingualism and biliteracy are increasingly valued due to globalization Bilingual education is beneficial to English Learners and native English speakers

Slide 12: 

12 RIGHTS OF EL’S and THEIR FAMILIES To learn English at a pace suitable to their academic and social needs To receive support and instruction in L1 when reasonably possible To receive school communications in L1 when reasonably possible

Slide 13: 

13 “Any credible educator will agree that schools should build on the experience and knowledge that children bring to the classroom, and instruction should also promote children's abilities and talents. Whether we do it intentionally or inadvertently, when we destroy children's language and rupture their relationship with parents and grandparents, we are contradicting the very essence of education” (Dr. Jim Cummins, Full Professor, Modern Language Centre, department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, OISE/UT)

Slide 14: 

14 Jim Cummins Dr. Cummins has presented, on average, 12-15 keynote/invited plenary presentations and more than 40 workshops annually to educators on topics related to language learning, bilingual education, English as a second language, multicultural education, special education, technology and education, and educational reform. http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/

Slide 15: 

15 In addition to North America, keynote/plenary presentations have been given in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles (Curacao), Aruba, Mexico, Italy, Japan, Spain (Catalonia and the Basque Country), France, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Greece, and Switzerland.

Slide 16: 

16 Legislation The First and Fourteenth amendments to the US constitution are often cited by proponents of bilingual education, which uphold freedom of speech and equal protection under law to all people within their jurisdictions

Slide 17: 

17 The Civil Rights Act, Title VI (1964) The Bilingual Education Act (1968) The No Child Left Behind Act, Title III (2002) Legislation

Slide 18: 

18 Some English Language Learner advocates go so far as to equate all-English instruction propositions with discrimination “Language-restrictionist laws are never just about language. Inevitably they reflect attitudes toward – and authorize discrimination against – the speakers of certain languages” (James Crawford,former executive director of the National Association for Bilingual Education) Legislation

Slide 19: 

19 James Crawford is founder and president of the Institute for Language and Education Policy, a nonprofit organization that promotes research-based advocacy for English and heritage-language learners. Over the past 20 years, he has specialized in these issues as an independent writer, lecturer, and consultant. From 2004 to 2006, he served as executive director of the National Association for Bilingual Education. James Crawford http://www.elladvocates.org

Slide 20: 

20 Funding Proponents say bilingual education is a prudent investment Assistant Secretary of Education Melendez de Santa Ana underscores the importance of funding for bilingual education for EL’s as well as native English speakers in US public schools (Melendez de Santa Ana, in speech to NABE, February 3, 2010).

Slide 21: 

21 Funding Proponents hope for a re-enactment of the ESEA and congressional approval of an $800 million budgetary allocation for bilingual education in 2011(Melendez de Santa Ana, in speech to NABE, February 3, 2010).

Slide 22: 

22 Role of L1 in L2 acquisition Proponents cite a plethora of empirical studies supporting the notion that proficiency in L1 helps L2 acquisition and development (Cummins, 1996; Gabriele, Troseth, Martohodjono & Othoguy, 2009)

Slide 23: 

23 Role of L1 in L2 acquisition Code-switching: Bilingual education students use code-switching to transfer linguistic knowledge across languages (Maillat & Serra, 2009)

Slide 24: 

24 Role of L1 in L2 acquisition Meta-cognition and Meta-linguistic capacity are enhanced thus facilitating learning of another language (Cummins, 1992; Maillat & Serra, 2009)

Slide 25: 

25 Role of L1 in L2 acquisition Gains in L1 and L2 are shown amongst EL’s and native English speaking students in a bilingual learning environment (Merrill, Swain & Lapkin, 1981)

Slide 26: 

26 Role of L1 in L2 acquisition Proponents say this indicates that bilingual education is more effective than structured immersion or mainstream programs for all students in public schools

Slide 27: 

27 L1 as determinant of cultural identity Proponents of bilingual education say research supports the notion that a person’s primary language contributes to his/her cultural identity and self-concept/self-esteem (Beaudrie, Ducar & Relano-Pastor, 2009; Cummins 1992; Cummins, 2000)

Slide 28: 

28 L1 as determinant of cultural identity Bilingual education can serve as an important means to affirm L1 amongst EL’s thus affirming their cultural identity (Cummins, 1992; Cummins, 2000)

Slide 29: 

29 What the opponents say… THE GOALS: Ensure EL’s have equal access to high quality English instruction in US public schools Improve level of English proficiency amongst EL’s Provide EL’s with opportunity to acquire English as efficiently as possible through structured immersion programs WHY? English is the language most commonly used in mainstream American society so English proficiency is necessary to compete in this environment English proficiency contributes to national unity and thus seeks to eliminate ethnic bias and racist stereotypes

Slide 30: 

30 RIGHTS OF EL’S and THEIR FAMILIES To have equal opportunities and access to high quality English-acquisition programs To move to mainstream classrooms as soon as possible To be taught predominantly in English with minimal use of their native language so as to learn English as quickly as possible To receive school communications when reasonably possible in their native language

Slide 31: 

31 Proponents of structured immersion programs “oppose bilingual education, because it segregates students by national origin, encourages identity politics, and fails to teach children English--the single most important skill they can learn and the most important social glue holding our country together” (Retrieved from http://www.ceousa.org January 26, 2010)

Slide 32: 

32 That upholds English instruction, with a provision to allow a transitional year in a structured immersion classroom for new immigrant students with little or no knowledge of English, affords all EL’s the same opportunities as their English-speaking peers (Chavez, 2000, p.4) Legislation

Slide 33: 

33 Linda Chavez Linda Chavez is Chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity. She also writes a weekly syndicated column that appears in newspapers across the country and is a political analyst for FOX News Channel. Chavez authored Out of the Barrio: Toward a New Politics of Hispanic Assimilation (Basic Books 1991) http://www.ceousa.org

Slide 34: 

34 Chavez has held a number of appointed positions, among them Chairman, National Commission on Migrant Education (1988-1992); White House Director of Public Liaison (1985); Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1983-1985); and she was a member of the Administrative Conference of the United States (1984-1986).

Slide 35: 

35 Legislation To date, three states have passed legislation opposing bilingual education and supporting structured immersion programs: In 1998, California voted to enact Proposition 227 In 2000, Arizona voted to enact Proposition 203 In 2002, Massachusetts voted to enact Question 2

Slide 36: 

36 Funding The federal government reserves hundreds of millions of dollars annually to fund bilingual education programs (Retrieved from http://www.proenglish.org/issues/education/bestatus.html February 12, 2010) Opponents of bilingual education feel such funds could be better spent in other areas of education (Chavez, 2002)

Slide 37: 

37 Funding Dr. Keith Baker reasons that structured English immersion (SEI) programs should be easy to implement since bilingual education teachers already have classroom resources in English (1992, p. 12)

Slide 38: 

38 Funding Dr. Christine Rossell (2002) notes that programs requiring teachers with specialised qualifications, such as proficiency in a language other than English, ESL or ESOL, are more expensive than mainstream or bilingual programs

Slide 39: 

39 Funding By her line of reasoning it follows that the elimination of bilingual programs and the efficient mainstreaming of EL’s out of SEI classrooms is the most cost-effective measure for the federal government to support English Learners

Slide 40: 

40 Role of L1 in L2 acquisition Research shows L1 is at best of no consequence to L2 acquisition and at worst detrimental (Baker, 1992; Chamot & O’Malley, 1996; Gersten & Woodward, 1995, Ramirez, 1991)

Slide 41: 

41 Role of L1 in L2 acquisition Time on task is more important than primary language proficiency in second language acquisition (Porter, 1990; Rossell, 1996) For this reason EL’s should be given as much instruction in English as early as possible because this will yield the quickest results

Slide 42: 

42 Role of L1 in L2 acquisition SEI is characterized by at least 70% instruction in English while bilingual programs use a mere 50% (Baker, 1992) SEI is therefore, more effective than bilingual education

Slide 43: 

43 Role of L1 in L2 acquisition Evidence of the success of structured immersion programs, such as SEI, can be derived from studies on the Canadian model of French immersion (Baker, 1992)

Slide 44: 

44 “The Canadian Immersion program, first detailed by Lambert and Tucker [in 1972], is the examplar for SEI” (Baker, 1992, pp.3-4) Role of L1 in L2 acquisition

Slide 45: 

45 L1 as potential determinant of cultural identity Opponents of bilingual education say no connection exists between maintenance of L1 and self-esteem (Alexander & Baker, 1992)

Slide 46: 

46 “Research support for [the notion that]…instruction primarily through the ancestral language is essential to the self-esteem and subsequent educational success of language-minority children…is notably weak” (Glenn, 1999, p. 25) L1 as potential determinant of cultural identity

Slide 47: 

47 L1 as potential determinant of cultural identity Family and community are the most influential factors contributing to a person’s cultural identity

Slide 48: 

48 Language-maintenance efforts in schools should be undertaken only in conjunction with […] well-founded predictors; by themselves, they will fail and waste time that should be spent on equipping pupils to function effectively in the society and economy. Families and cultural groups will, outside school, maintain elements of language and culture which they value (Glenn, 1999, p.29). L1 as potential determinant of cultural identity

Slide 49: 

49 To Summarize The debate about bilingual education in US public schools is complex and at times confusing. It is important for the general public to have access to this discussion because they must vote on legislation affecting English Learners and native English speaking students alike.

Slide 50: 

50 Goals of language acquisition programs Language and education rights Legislation Funding Role of L1 in L2 acquisition L1 as potential determinant of cultural identity and self-esteem Considerations on both sides of the debate include:

Slide 51: 

51 References Alexander, S. & Baker, K. (1992). Some ethical issues in applied psychology: the case of bilingual education and self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(22), 1741-1757. Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C., & Relano-Pastor, A. (2009). Curricular perspectives in the heritage language context: assessing culture and identity. Language, Culture & Curriculum, 22(2), 157-174. Center for Equal Opportunity. (2010) http://www.ceousa.org Crawford, James. (2010). Frequently asked questions about official English. Retrieved from http://www.elladvocates.org Cummins, J. (1996). Bilingual children’s mother tongue: why is it important for education? Retrieved from http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/mother.htm Cummins, J. (1999). The ethics of doublethink: language rights and the bilingual education debate. TESOL Journal, 8(3), 13-17. EO13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency: testimony before the House Sub-Committee on Education Reform, 107th Cong. (2006, July 26) (testimony of James Crawford). Gabriele, A., Troseth, E., Martohodjono, G. & Otheguy, R. (2009). Emergent literacy skills in bilingual children: evidence for the role of L1 syntactic comprehension. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(5), 533-547.

Slide 52: 

52 Garcia, A. & Morgan, C. (1997). A 50-state survey of requirements for the education of language- minority children. READ Abstracts and Policy Brief, Nov. 1997. Glenn, L. (1998, October). Rethinking Bilingual Education. Paper presented at READ Institute Conference, Boston, MA. Retrieved from ERIC database ED 439 611. Holden, L. (1974). An experiment with bilingualism. Ottawa bulletin des anciens-alumni news, 24(4) Ma, J. (2002). What works best for the children? What we know and don’t know about bilingual education. Retrieved from http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/bilingual102/bilingual_paper02.pdf. Maillat, D. & Serra, . (2009). Immersion education and cognitive strategies: Can the obstacle be the advantage in a multilingual society? International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(2), 186-206. Rossell, C. (2002). Dismantling bilingual education Implementing english immersion: the california initiative. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/polisci/CROSSELL/Dismantling%20Bilingual%20Education,%20July%202002.pdf. References