Northern Virginia School Leadership Center

ELL Research 1

Northern Virginia School Leadership Center

Research Brief

Best Practices for English Language Learners

Prepared for: Gail Kinsey, Principal Sangster Elementary School, Fairfax County Public Schools

Written by: Roger Baskin, Education Leadership doctoral student

Date: February 7, 2010

Abstract

This research brief will explore various approaches to educating English language learners. The approaches tend to fall into two major camps—English-only and bilingual. Although there is much debate over the benefit of either to student achievement, there are some innovative approaches beyond the classroom that may hold promise for student achievement. No research has been found to be absolutely conclusive regarding which approach is best. Context is a major determinant of the success of any program.

Best Practices for English Language Learners

Introduction

The perpetual debate in the education of English language learners (ELLs) is whether to emphasize bilingual or monolingual approaches to developing English proficiency (Minaya-Rowe, 2008). Some of the most prominent approaches in school districts either regard one strategy more favorably or attempt to balance the two. The purpose of this brief is to discuss four major approaches to developing English proficiency among ELLs: English immersion, English as a second language, transitional bilingual education, and two-way bilingual education. Although the debate continues as to which is most effective for students, none has proven to be conclusively better (Editorial Projects in Education, 2004). This brief will also give attention to some of the systemic concerns that give rise to the quality of education for ELLs in general. These factors may prove to be even more influential in the progress of ELLs in that they deal directly with issues of equity.

ELLs are a heterogeneous group with many distinct needs in English language acquisition. Complicating the acquisition of English can be the challenges of socioeconomic status and limited social and cultural capital within the English speaking context. In some cases, the availability of resources in the community in which the school is situated mirrors the degree of English proficiency success in the school program (Reese, Goldenberg, & Saunders, 2006).

Four Approaches

English immersion. In this model, instruction is entirely in English. Borrowed from the Canadian French immersion programs, teachers strive to deliver lessons in simplified English so that students learn English and academic subjects. Supporters of this approach, also known as structured English immersion (SEI), suggest that it is a much faster way to get students up to speed with their English-speaking counterparts. Additionally, success has been demonstrated in schools that boast an increase in test scores from students who were a part of the program and progress toward no longer needing ELL services (Clark, 2009). Supporters of this approach also suggest that it works best in early primary years (kindergarten or first grade) (Hibbeln, 2009). A policy issue voted upon in several states, California, Massachusetts, and Arizona have all experimented with this approach with mixed success (Smith, Coggins & Cardoso, 2008).

However, some researchers suggest that this may be the worst approach to English language instruction for ELLs. Deemed as a civil rights issue, some researchers suggest that most ELL dropouts come from this approach (Honingsfeld, 2009). One study also found that students in one program demonstrated higher levels of cortisol, a major stress hormone (Li, Chiou & Lee, 2007). Part of the concern with this approach is that it can impact students’ ability to keep up with grade-level content. Thus, it can by its very nature create gaps in achievement because students who may do well with some support in their native language are not given that opportunity.

English as a second language. In this approach, classes are comprised of students who speak many different languages but are not fluent in English. They may attend classes for only a period a day, to work strictly on English skills, or attend for a full day and focus both on academics and English. This can provide an environment to learn English at a slower pace than native English speakers, however, it can create a culture of very low content learning.

In Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), there are three approaches used in this model at the elementary level—pull-out, in-class, and monitoring. Pull-out is a targeted service that provides small-group instruction for approximately two hours a day. In-class incorporates the collaborative efforts of an ESOL teacher and a general education teacher in the standard classroom. Monitoring is a service provided for students who are close to exiting an ESOL program. An ESOL teacher is assigned to monitor their progress and offer instructional and assessment ideas and materials for general educators (QPAS Program Review: ESOL, 2003).

Transitional bilingual education. In this approach, students are taught in their native language and then transition into all-English instruction classrooms. A benefit is that students are initially given an opportunity to learn and excel in their first language. The programs within this approach are typically evaluated based on how quickly students can exit it and move onto all-English classrooms (Hakuta, 1987).

One concern of this strategy is that there can be a sharp decline in achievement during the transition to all English classes (Reese, Gallimore, & Guthrie, 2005). Another concern is that this approach can delay progress in English acquisition. One study of 534 Hispanic kindergarten and first-grade students refuted that claim by comparing students in a transitional bilingual education (TBE) program to students in SEI. The students in TBE developed language proficiency much faster than students in SEI (Tong, Lara-Alecio, Irby, Mathes, & Oi-man, 2008).

Two-way bilingual education. In this model, native English speakers share the same classroom as students who are learning English. In FCPS, for example, this model is seen in the two-way immersion programs (TWI) in four elementary schools. According to a recent evaluation of the FCPS TWI program conducted by the Office of Program Evaluation (OPE), students in the program met and exceeded expectations for demonstrated knowledge of English language skills. These students outperformed their counterparts in the same schools who did not participate in the program (Sockwell & Hruda, 2008). In the long run, fewer dropouts tend to come from these programs (Honingsfeld, 2009; Ramirez, Perez, Valdez & Hall, 2009).

A major concern in the education of ELLs is the amount of separation students experience apart from native English speaking students. The two-way approach is seen as an important way to bridge the cultural, linguistic, and social gap that can occur in strategies that require separate instructional environments. Although some see benefits in that two-way bilingual education can keep groups who had been segregated from continuing in a separate educational track, it does have some concerns when socio-economic class becomes a barrier (de Jong & Howard, 2009). Issues of class exist within these classes that tend to favor English speaking students when they are more affluent than their ELL counterparts (Palmer, 2009; Scanlan & Palmer, 2009). Within this context, teachers and administrators must be aware of potential inequities in instructional practice that could lead to disadvantages in both the rigor and delivery of instruction. According to the OPE report, for example, “classroom observations in Year Four indicated steady levels of quality English instruction and slightly decreased levels of quality Spanish instruction.” (Sockwell & Hruda, 2008, p. 4).

Innovative Efforts

Districts and states are also using innovative methods beyond in-class instruction such as creating translation centers to improve parent outreach and hiring teachers from other countries. Schools in Prince William County, Virginia hire former ELL students as classroom aides (Zehr, 2004a). The Grand Rapids, Michigan school district has formed an advisory committee of parents tasked with improving the involvement of parents of English-language learners (Zehr, 2004b). Additionally, districts in Colorado have opened schools with flexible schedules for immigrants who work during the day (Zehr, 2004c).

References

Clark, K. (2009). The case for structured English immersion. Educational Leadership,

66 (7), pp. 42-46.

de Jong, E. & Howard, E. (2009). Integration in two-way immersion education:

Equalising linguistic benefits for all students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12 (1), pp. 81-99.

Editorial Projects in Education (2004). English-language learners. Education Week,

www.edweek.org, accessed 9 Jan. 2010.

Hakuta, K. (1987). Degree of bilingualism and cognitive ability in mainland Puerto

Rican Children. Child Development, 58 (5), pp. 1372-1388.

Hibbeln, M. (2009). Using immersion education to instill global awareness in suburban

students. International Educator, 23 (3), p. 25.

Honingsfeld, A. (2009). ELL programs: Not one size fits all. Kappa Delta Pi Record,

45 (4), pp. 166-171.

Li, I., Chiou, H. & Lee, S. (2007). Kindergarteners’ temperament and cortisol response to

structured English immersion (sei) programs in Taiwan. Asian EFL Journal, 9 (3), pp. 7-21.

Minaya-Rowe, L. (2008). Options for English language learners. School Administrator,

65 (10), pp. 16-17.

Palmer, D. (2009). Middle-class English speakers in a two-way immersion bilingual

classroom: “Everybody should be listening to Jonathan right now …” TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 43 (2), pp. 177-202.

QPAS Program Review: ESOL. (2003, October 17). Retrieved from Fairfax County
Public Schools website: http://www.fcps.edu/accountability/off_prog_eval/
index.htm

Ramirez, M., Perez, M., Valdez, G. & Hall, B. (2009). Assessing the long-term effects of

an experimental bilingual-multicultural programme: Implications for drop-out prevention, multicultural development, and immigration policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12 (1), pp. 47-59.

Reese, L.; Gallimore, R; & Guthrie, D. (2005). Reading trajectories of immigrant Latino

students in transitional bilingual programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 29 (3), pp. 679-697.

Reese, L.; Goldenberg, C; & Saunders, W. (2006). Variations in reading achievement

among Spanish-speaking children in different language programs: Explanations and confounds. Elementary School Journal, 106 (4), pp. 363-385.

Scanlan, M. & Palmer, D. (2009). Race, power, and (in) equity within two-way

immersion settings. Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 41 (5), pp. 391-415.

Smith, J., Coggins, C. & Cardoso, J. (2008). Best practices for English language learners

in Massachusetts: Five years after the question 2 mandate. Equity and Excellence in Education, 41 (3), pp. 293-310.

Sockwell, R. V., & Hruda, L. Z. (2008, September). Two-way immersion program (Final

Evaluation Executive Summary). Retrieved from Office of Program Evaluation, Fairfax County Public Schools website: http://www.fcps.edu/‌accountability/‌off_prog_eval/‌index.htm

Tong, F., Lara-Alecio, R., Irby, B., Mathes, P. & Oi-man, K. (2008). Accelerating early

academic oral English development in transitional bilingual and structured English immersion programs. American Educational Research Journal, 45 (4), pp. 1011-1044.

Zehr, M.A. (2004a). Former ESL students tapped as class aides, Education Week, 23

(43), p. 12.

Zehr, MA. (2004b). Working immigrants get new school options, Education Week, 24

(4), p. 5.

Zehr, M.A. (2004c) Conference on English acquisition promotes parent-outreach

efforts. Education Week, 24 (7), p. 14.