|
As in sheltered English and content-based programs,
English is taught through the content areas. Structured immersion teachers have
strong receptive skills in their students' first language and have a bilingual
education or ESL teaching credential. The teacher's use of the children's first
language is limited primarily to clarification of English instruction. Most
students are mainstreamed after 2 or 3 years. Case Study: California Proposition
227 What do redesignation rates show about the success of Prop 227.
Redesignation occurs when a child knows enough English to participate in the
mainstream. All studies, whether done by advocates or opponents of bilingual
education, show that this takes about five years. When redesignation rates rose
in Los Angeles Unified School District recently, proponents of Proposition 227
claimed success. Redesignation rates in Los Angeles did in fact improve: A tenth
of a percent in 1999, and about two percent since 1998. Proposition 227 has been
in effect only two years, not enough time to show an effect. Redesignation rates
in Los Angeles Unified have been increasing for the last ten years, from about
four percent in 1990 to ten percent in 2000.
In the early 1990's, Los Angeles
Unified greatly improved its bilingual education program. It appears that
bilingual education deserves the credit for the improvement, not Proposition
227. If we accept that recent gains in redesignation rates are a valid indicator
of Proposition 227, data from other districts shows that 227 is a failure: Some
English-only districts had redesignation rates below the state average,
including Oceanside (6.6%, compared to the state average of 7.6%), while some
that kept bilingual education had higher redesignation rates. Proposition 227
indicated one year was enough time to acquire a sufficient level of English to
do well in the mainstream. Ramirez (1992) reported that after one year in an
all-English immersion program, only 3.9% of LEP children were redesignated and
only 1.3% were mainstreamed. Even after three years, these percentages were
still only 38% and 19%. - Mitchell, Destino, and Karan (1997) evaluated the
progress of limited English proficient children in the Santa Ana district in an
immersion program that was similar to what Proposition 227 requires. When they
entered school, the children had low intermediate proficiency in English (2.18
on a 1-5 scale, where 4 = sufficient proficiency to survive in the mainstream).
After one year, they showed some growth in English but were nowhere near what
was required to do academic work in the mainstream: They moved from 2.18 to 2.84
in English, on a five point scale. Even after a second year of immersion, their
mean English rating was only 3.24. - Krashen and McQuillan (1999) reanalyzed
data from Clark (1999), and concluded that one year/180 days was not sufficient
even to bring most students to the level where they could do well in special
sheltered subject matter instruction, and fell very very far short of bringing
students to the level where they would profit from being in the mainstream. -
Goldberg (1997) described an all-English program for LEP children in
Pennsylvania who received a language rich curriculum in English in kindergarten,
with 75 minutes daily of ESL. For those who started at beginner level, it took
three to three and a half years until they reached the level in which they are
able to understand main ideas appropriate to grade level even with additional
ESL support. After one year, most were still at the beginner level in oral
proficiency. This study was presented as evidence against bilingual education.
Arguments Against Bilingual Education The Little Hoover Commission published a
very hostile and critical review of bilingual education in 1993. They noted that
some experts believe that English can be academically comprehensible for
children in as little as two years, while others believe that six or more years
of assistance is necessary. Their minimum estimate is two years, twice the
amount that Prop 227 allows. The one-year time period is wildly optimistic. It
is contrary to the results of every study done in the field in which programs
very similar or identical to sheltered English immersion were used. Additionally
the primary language is seen as crutch, to be discarded when the students are
proficient enough in English. Although not geared for the creation and
maintainence of bilinguality, these programs still are far more acadmically
sound than the current return to immersion. English immersion (EI) refers to
programs in which students are taught a second language through content area
instruction in that language.
These programs generally emphasize contextual
clues and adjust grammar and vocabulary to student’s proficiency level.
Bilingual Education: Bilingual Education is defined as any school program that
uses two languages. In a more theoretical sense it isany educational program
whose ultimate goal is for the participants to be fully verse in all facets of
both languages, ie able to listen, speak , read, and write in both languages.
The definition of a coordinate bilingual is someone who is equally fluid in
bothlanguages. Realistically this has not been the goal for most K-12 bilingual
schools in theUnited States. More commonly in the United States we are using the
works bilingualprogram to describe a program that will provide literacy and
content in the primarylanguage, while building English fluency, to the point
where all instruction will occur in English. This programs are label
transitional bilingual programs as their ultimate goal is to transition all
students into an English only learning arena. One of the down sides of these
programs is that the product of a coordinate bilingual is not possible because
of the continuing dimunition of instruction in the primary language.
Additionally the primary language is seen as crutch, to be discarded when the
students are proficient enough in English. Although not geared for the creation
and maintainence of bilinguality, these programs still are far more acadmically
sound G. Arguments for Bilingual Programs H. Arguments Against Bilingual
Programs VI. Summary and Case Study: California Proposition 227 What do
redesignation rates show about the success of Prop 227. Redesignation occurs
when a child knows enough English to participate in the mainstream. All studies,
whether done by advocates or opponents of bilingual education, show that this
takes about five years. When redesignation rates rose in Los Angeles Unified
School District recently, proponents of Proposition 227 claimed success.
Redesignation rates in Los Angeles did in fact improve: A tenth of a percent in
1999, and about two percent since 1998. Proposition 227 has been in effect only
two years, not enough time to show an effect. Redesignation rates in Los Angeles
Unified have been increasing for the last ten years, from about four percent in
1990 to ten percent in 2000. In the early 1990's, Los Angeles Unified greatly
improved its bilingual education program. It appears that bilingual education
deserves the credit for the improvement, not Proposition 227. If we accept that
recent gains in redesignation rates are a valid indicator of Proposition 227,
data from other districts shows that 227 is a failure: Some English-only
districts had redesignation rates below the state average, including Oceanside
(6.6%, compared to the state average of 7.6%), while some that kept bilingual
education had higher redesignation rates. California Prosition 227 one year
would be a sufficient period of time for EI instruction to acquire a level of
English to do well in the mainstream. - Ramirez (1992) reported that after one
year in an all-English immersion program, only 3.9% of LEP children were
redesignated and only 1.3% were mainstreamed. Even after three years, these
percentages were still only 38% and 19%. - Mitchell, Destino, and Karan (1997)
evaluated the progress of limited English proficient children in the Santa Ana
district in an immersion program that was similar to what Proposition 227
requires. When they entered school, the children had low intermediate
proficiency in English (2.18 on a 1-5 scale, where 4 = sufficient proficiency to
survive in the mainstream). After one year, they showed some growth in English
but were nowhere near what was required to do academic work in the mainstream:
They moved from 2.18 to 2.84 in English, on a five point scale. Even after a
second year of immersion, their mean English rating was only 3.24. - Krashen and
McQuillan (1999) reanalyzed data from Clark (1999), and concluded that one
year/180 days was not sufficient even to bring most students to the level where
they could do well in special sheltered subject matter instruction, and fell
very very far short of bringing students to the level where they would profit
from being in the mainstream. - Goldberg (1997) described an all-English program
for LEP children in Pennsylvania who received a language rich curriculum in
English in kindergarten, with 75 minutes daily of ESL. For those who started at
beginner level, it took three to three and a half years until they reached the
level in which they are able to understand main ideas appropriate to grade level
even with additional ESL support. After one year, most were still at the
beginner level in oral proficiency. This study was presented as evidence against
bilingual education. Arguments Against Bilingual Education The Little Hoover
Commission published a very hostile and critical review of bilingual education
in 1993. They noted that some experts believe that English can be academically
comprehensible for children in as little as two years, while others believe that
six or more years of assistance is necessary. Their minimum estimate is two
years, twice the amount that Prop 227 allows. The one-year time period is wildly
optimistic.
It is contrary to the results of every study done in the field in
which programs very similar or identical to sheltered English immersion were
used. III. Working with Parents and Other Caretakers Free Voluntary Reading
Caretaker refers to those responsible for child rearing in the home. In addition
to the importance of the parental role in a child's language learning process,
various other persons including older siblings, relatives, and non-family
members acting as the primary caretakers may have a tremendous impact on the
child's language development. Their initial role will be in influencing the
development of the child's first language. An additional role may be their
influence on the child's attitudes and/or exposure to a second language. A
parent or primary caretaker, without second language skills can still influence
the second language learning processes. If the caretaker has a strong
attitudinal position on the role of the first language versus the second
language this can have long term effects on the child's development of a first
and second language. There have been instances where well-intentioned non-native
English speaking parents or parents with a very limited command of English have
been advised to work with their children exclusively in English. This practice
is detrimental to the child's development in both languages. The failure of the
parent to engage the child in the native language will result in the
extinguishment or limitation in the development of the heritage language.
Without eventual linguistic intervention the child will never reach an adult
level of fluency in the heritage language. Some of the consequences of this
practice are an inability to converse with relatives that are monolingual
heritage language speakers and a negative effect on the speaker's identity. The
non utilization of the heritage language with children has had detrimental
effects on intergenerational communication in many immigrant families.
Additionally many children of visible ethnolinguistic minority groups often
struggle as young adults in the area of identitly formation if they have become
monolingual English speakers. Often others of their heritage group will accuse
of the students of faking their lack of heritage language skills to fit in with
the dominant group or make the students explain what makes them of members of
their ethnic group if they can not converse in the heritage. If the parent or
caretaker has a flegling knowledge of English s/he may actually be a negative
role model in the English acquisition process.
|
