Julie Rapinat
Argument Paper
Professor Sieben
In recent decades, as immigration activity to developed countries has increased, greater numbers of students in the U.S. are coming from homes where the primary language spoken at home is not English (Slavin & Cheung p.247). Concurrently, English-language learners’ (ELLs) experiences in the classroom have transformed in accordance with the ever-changing trends in state and federal mandated educational policy. While researchers and other active members of education grapple with ways to successfully educate ELLs in the classroom, there is concern over whether the narrow skills demanded by current federal programs are creating negative effects on ELLs. The integral problem is that educators and policy makers fail to sincerely acknowledge or utilize a student’s native language while attempting to teach him/her English, which only inhibits efficient and substantial learning.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 created an educational environment that revolved specifically around student performance on English standardized tests, providing severe consequences to schools and districts if students, even those categorized as ELLs, fail to delineate progress (Pacheco, p. 292). Evidence delineates that schools directly depend on the success of ELLs and because of their lack of progressing skills in reading especially, these schools are unable to adequately meet their yearly progress goals (Slavin et al. p. 248). More importantly, Slavin et al. expresses that American society cannot provide “equal opportunity” for its students if the education of immigrants and the children of immigrants cannot be successfully accomplished (248). Initiated by policies such as NCLB, the current trend in educational policy reflects a response to fact that the United States is considered “at risk” educationally speaking. Initiatives such as Proposition 227 in California, which eliminated the few programs that offered ELLs instruction and support in their primary languages, completely transformed the landscape for education of ELLs. No Child Left Behind only intensified the demands for the “English-only” framework for ELLs in regards to the pressured testing environment (Pacheco, p. 294). While the phonics based skills accentuated in a standards driven classroom may adequately prepare ELLs for exams, they are certainly not adequate for long-term reading success. Moreover, this kind of approach to teaching and learning completely neglects their unique language in the classroom setting (Pacheco, p.294). All of these governmental changes and policies lead educators and researchers to question the role of the native language in English language learners’ instruction (Slavin et al. 248).
Legislation is consistently being altered in an effort to make up for the fact that schools across the U.S. are failing to meet the needs of their ELLs. As of October 2011, New York City passed new legislation that vows to better provide ELLs serious educational opportunities addressing not only academic and linguistic needs, but cultural needs as well (Rodriguez, “Corrective Action Plan”). This new plan also works to get parents involved in the education of ELLs by providing them with their legal right of choosing the program for their children: bilingual program or an English-only driven E.S.L. program. The plan’s forward initiatives also promise that 125 new bilingual programs will be created and developed over the next three years (Rodriguez, “Corrective Action Plan”).
Federal policies however still work to limit instruction in students’ native language (Slavin et al. p. 248). The standardized testing environment has pressured teachers to consistently use English regardless of the diverse needs of their students and their English language abilities (Adam, “The Changing Face…”). Yet research reveals that successful ELL practices revolve around giving students the choice to utilize their own language in writing activities, conversations about texts, and other literacy activities. Students that are given the opportunity to understand and make sense of what they are learning in their own native language significantly facilitates greater success (Adam, “The Changing Face…”).
Studies reveal how in bilingual reading groups, students were able to maintain qualitatively richer discussions as the bilingual teacher was able to utilize higher order discussion questions with the help of students’ native language (Pacheco, 295). When you compare this to English-only reading groups, it becomes obvious how simplified the discussions become as a result of the developing and limited English language skills ELL students maintain. Pacheco attests to the fact that,
This research raises concerns about the long-term consequences of ELL’s schooling circumstances. That is, their limited participation in deep meaning making potentially extends their construction as struggling readers since, in policy and practice, they are denied substantial opportunities to develop the sense-making capabilities they will need across their academic trajectories. (p.295)
The role of English versus native language in the education of ELLs has become an integral point of debate as schools and educators feel the pressure from curriculum standards and English standardized assessments. The mounting pressure of test performance has completely altered how educators determine the academic needs of ELLs.
Bilingual education opponents uphold the idea that ELLs should only receive education in English and believe that students’ L1 negatively affects second language acquisition (Lopez et al, p. 124). They argue that instruction that utilizes students’ native language will only interfere and delay English language acquisition; the more time educators spend on strictly English reading and writing, the more a student will learn English (Slavin et al. p. 249). However, the theory behind two-way bilingual education (TWBE) is “rooted in the interdependent relationship between the L1 and the L2,” in other words “the use of the L1 is not detrimental to the development of spoken English. In fact, it may even accelerate L2 acquisition and the development of academic skills in the L2” (Lopez et al, p.124). Programs that support TWBE assert that the establishment of the importance of both languages contributes to the cultural integrity students experience: developing L2 while simultaneously enhancing L1 skills. Without native language instruction, English language learners have potential to lose skills that can prove to be so economically and socially valuable in today’s globally connected society (Slavin et al. p.249). According to Lopez et al, proponents of this theory are in congruence with Cummins’ paradigm:
(a) there is a transfer of knowledge, skills, and processes across languages, (b) the development of L1 literacy skills facilitates the acquisition of academic skills in the L2, and, hence (c) proficiency in L2 is a function of the level of L1 proficiency at the time when instruction in L2 begins (124).
Furthermore, studies also indicate that students that are recipients of TWBE perform just as well as, or better than other groups of students who experience English-only or transitional bilingual education (TBE) programs (Lopez et al, p.124).
“Reading in a second language (L2) is not a monolingual event; L2 readers have access to their first language (L1) as they read, and many use it as a strategy to help comprehend an L2 text” (Upton et al. p.469). English language learners consistently utilize the L1 during reading comprehension activities. Cognitively speaking, the L2 user does not effectively tune out the L1 while processing the L2; it is instead constantly accessible (Upton et al. p. 470). Thus, Upton et al. delineates how a teacher cannot ignore the fact that the L2 learner is constantly accessing his/her L1 and any L2 knowledge attained is essentially completely connected with L1 knowledge (p. 470). It is clear how English language learners utilize their native language in that during their attempts to comprehend the L2, they directly access their L1. Learning an L2 is not a “monolingual event,” L2 learners use the L1 “to think about and process information they are receiving in the L2” (Upton et al. p. 487). Slavin et al. also attest to the fact that if teachers utilize the native language for reading instruction,
“rather than confusing children, as some have feared, reading instruction in a familiar language may serve as a bridge to success in English, as phonemic awareness, decoding, sound blending and generic comprehension strategies clearly transfer among languages that use phonetic orthographies such as Spanish, French, and English” (274).
Clearly, upon analyzing research focusing on second language development, the utilization of a student’s native language is arguably essential for substantial growth and development of the second language. However, recent educational policies and programs generally neglect to address the importance of the native language in the learning process of an English Language Learner. It is evident however that long-term reading success and literacy in English (an ELL’s L2) depends on the student’s ability to utilize his/her native language in an effort to simultaneously develop skills in both the L1 and the L2. We cannot continue to ignore these facts if we want to offer all of our students an opportunity to be adequately educated. Acknowledging the necessity of a student’s native language for L2 development should be more than just an educational priority, but a priority for a country that claims to value the significance of our diverse cultures and languages. Educational environments need to be more in congruence with this ideal and can be if we allow and promote the use of native languages with our ELL students.
