The Bilingual Education Debate: The Case for a Sheltered English Immersion Program

The Bilingual Education Debate:

The Case for a Sheltered English Immersion Program

 

Abstract

 

            The teaching of English to immigrants or English students of other languages sparked the debate on the best strategy that should be adopted in order that the ESL students learn the language effectively and quickly. The literature shows that the approaches had ranged from Transitional Models, Maintenance Model, and Enrichment Models. Subsequently, these models had proposed varying approaches such as early-exit transitional bilingual education, late-exit transitional bilingual education, English as a second language pull-out, one-year structured English immersion, two-way or dual-language models and other approaches in development or maintenance approach.

This essay argues that the Sheltered English Immersion Program best exemplifies the goal of teaching ESL and immigrants on the English language for five reasons: (1) immersion programs proposes the idea that learning a language is best at a young age; (2) the role of the parents are revitalized in educating their children; (3) it improves academic achievement without damaging the structure of the public schools; (4) it is not anti-immigrant; and (5) it provides an equal opportunity for all children.

Thus, while other strategies may prove to be effective in teaching English, the Sheltered English Immersion Program is best and more effective than the others.

 

Introduction

Research in bilingual education has made an important impact on bilingual curricula and teaching practices. Unlike many other domains of educational research, research on bilingualism and bilingual education has impacted practitioners, forging a spirit of inclusion and promoting discussion between researchers and teachers. The intense in-service activity of the first decades of federally funded bilingual programs was underway as the field was building theories.

In general, research studies do not support the claim that immigrants resist learning English. Most studies show that immigrants do want to learn English when they arrive in the United States (Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco,1995). For example, research by Portes and Rumbault (1996) on children of immigrants found that the majority of them knew English and that the children who maintained both languages had higher self-esteem, higher educational aspirations, and higher test scores in both English and Math in junior high school.

Given that second language learners and English students of other languages confirms their need to study and learn the English language, the debate is elevated on the strategies that can best address the needs of the ESL students. The debate in the literature centered around several approaches and programs. This article argues that the Sheltered English Immersion Program remains to be the most effective strategy in teaching English to non-native speakers.

 

Searching for the Best Approach: The Debate

 

A review of the research literature finds a number of different bilingual education program models (Brisk, 1998; Moran and Hakuta,1995; Roberts, 1995). Simply put, how a school district interprets the purpose of bilingual education determines the structure of their bilingual education programs. Roberts (1995) classifies the various bilingual education programs into three categories: Transitional Models, Maintenance Model, and Enrichment Models. The purpose of transitional models is to teach students English as quickly as possible and once students have learned English, usually within a specific time limit, to ensure that students are exited or mainstreamed into regular English-only classes. Transitional bilingual education programs include the following examples: early-exit transitional bilingual education, late-exit transitional bilingual education, English as a second language pull-out, and one-year structured English immersion. Maintenance models are designed to provide instruction in academic subject areas in a student s native language while they also learn English for a specific amount of time during the school day. The goal of these programs is to transition bilingual students into mainstream English-only classes. Maintenance programs are also called developmental programs because they are long-term and generally have no time-limits. Enrichment models seek to promote cross-cultural understanding among students who learn their academic subjects in two languages. The models are unique because the student population also includes native English speakers. Examples of enrichment programs include: two-way or dual-language models where two languages are used in instruction. Because some enrichment bilingual programs are part of transitional bilingual education programs, they sometimes have time limits.

Studies suggest that two-way bilingual education programs are most effective for attaining academic success and that a “comprehensive” approach works best (August and Hakuta, 1997; Calderon et al., 1998). Students in two-way programs often out-perform their mainstream peers (Hakuta, 1986; Krashen, 1982). For example, Christian (1994) studied over 160 schools between 1991 and 1994, and found that two-way bilingual programs not only developed second-language skills, but also improved relationships among students and enhanced “cross-cultural understanding and appreciation” (p. 1). Colon, et al. (1990), argue that the two-way model “may be the only model that places both groups at the same starting point and this sensitizes English speakers to the complex process of learning a second language and becoming more aware of other systems of thought (p. 7).” Roberts (1995) finds that two-way programs face several obstacles including: their structure is more complicated and difficult to set up; they rely upon team-teaching, which has draw-backs; English tends to dominate in instructional activities; and, time is not used effectively because there is repetition in two languages.

There are conflicting findings regarding the success of transitional and sheltered immersion programs for bilingual students in the United States (Baker, 1998). The findings are contradictory as to how quickly students master English and how well they achieve in the long-term. A study by Ramirez (1991) compared English-only immersion and bilingual programs. He found that students in the bilingual programs learned as well or “better than” students in immersion programs . Studies show that such transitional models as sheltered immersion help bilingual students learn English, but do not improve their cognitive skills. For example, Snow (2001) argues that the intensive one-year immersion programs in California (resulting from Proposition 227) are not well-designed, resources are sorely lacking, and one year of English immersion is not enough to improve reading comprehension.

August and Hakuta (1997) suggest a need for more longitudinal studies that evaluate the long-term impacts of bilingual education. For example, Thomas and Collier (1997) argue that short-term studies often produce inconclusive results because they do not study the academic achievements of bilingual students once they transition to main-stream classes.

Looking for the Solution: The Sheltered English Immersion Program

When schools provide children quality education in their primary language, they give them two things: knowledge and literacy (Krashen, 1997). The knowledge that children get through their first language helps make the English they hear and read more comprehensible. Literacy developed in the primary language transfers to the second language. The reason is simple: Because we learn to read by reading–that is, by making sense of what is on the page (Smith, 1994)–it is easier to learn to read in a language we understand. Once we can read in one language, we can read in general.

Immersion is defined as a method of foreign language instruction in which the regular school curriculum is taught through the medium of the language in this case English. Total immersion is one program format among several that range on a continuum in terms of time spent in the foreign language. In total immersion, all schooling in the initial years is conducted in English so as to prepare the English student of other languages or second language speakers in the workforce. Proposition 227 in California Article 2: D defines Sheltered English immersion’ or ‘structured English immersion’ as an English language acquisition process for young children in which nearly all classroom instruction is in English but with the curriculum and presentation designed for children who are learning the language.”

Structured immersion programs use only English. 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.

While the literature had provided several contentions on the appropriateness and effectivity of the Sheltered English Immersion Program, their arguments lacks the merit that can negate the arguments for an immersion program. I argue that immersion programs are best for ESL and ESOL students for five reasons: (1) immersion programs proposes the idea that learning a language is best at a young age; (2) the role of the parents are revitalized in educating their children; (3) it improves academic achievement without damaging the structure of the public schools; (4) it is not anti-immigrant; and (5) it provides an equal opportunity for all children.

Structured Immersion works in conjunction with the well-accepted notion that learning a new language is easier the younger the child, and is easier if the child is immersed in that language. Research suggests that children who learn a second language at a younger age have less chance of a pronounced accent and learn more effectively.  By immediately immersing a child in English, he or she has the greatest chance for acquisition and success.

Moreover, structured immersion reinforces the role of the parents in educating their children.  No longer will school boards be able to put children in a failing program that the bureaucrats believe to be best. If parents choose to continue in traditional bilingual education programs, it is their right to do so, and the proposed laws provide for such a liberty. Structured Immersion relegates the teaching of one’s native tongue to the parents (where it belongs), and mandates that the schools follow what 75% percent of foreign born parents say the first priority of schools should be: to teach English quickly and effectively, even at the expense of other subjects.

It has been proven to raise academic standards in California upon the institution of the Proposition 227 mandating the use of immersion programs. More language minority students will graduate, with better grades and realistic chances for college attendance and success. This is because it will give students the language skills necessary for academic success. Furthermore, the best resources are in English: the textbooks, the learning aides, a wider choice in literature and curriculum.

Structured Immersion is not anti-immigrant. Sentencing non-affluent minority language students to always being behind and receiving an inferior education is anti-immigrant.  Immersion allows for an equal opportunity for success in academics, in college admission possibilities and in lifelong career pursuits. The economic advantages benefit not only immigrants, but the country as a whole by having a more educated labor force. Structured Immersion is a necessary step toward providing all children, regardless of the language they speak, with an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream.  Those who cannot speak, read, or write English are immediately injured socially and economically.  It is time for the American public to say “enough.”  

 

References

 

August, D. and Hakuta, K. (Eds.) (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

 

Baker, K. (1998). Structured English immersion: Breakthrough in teaching limited-English-proficient students. Phi Delta Kappan. 80 (3): 199-204.

 

Brisk, M. E. (1998). Bilingual education from compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

 

Calderon, M, Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. and Slavin, R. E. (1998). Effects of bilingual cooperative integrated reading and composition on students making the transition from Spanish to English reading. Elementary School Journal. 99 (2): 153-165.

 

Christian, D. (1994). Two-way bilingual education: Students learning through two languages. Washington, Dc: Center for Applied Linguistics.

 

Collier, V.( 1997). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly. v21:617 641.

 

Colon, J. Hidalgo, N., Nevarez, A., Garcia-Blanco, A.M. (1990). Entitlements of Latino students in the Massachusetts Public Educational School System: Some legal and policy considerations. Boston, MA: Gaston Institute, University of Massachusetts-Boston.

 

Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York, NYL Basic Books.

 

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

 

Krashen, S. (1997) Why bilingual education? ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools Charleston WV.

 

Moran, C.E. and Hakuta, K. (1995). Bilingual education: Broadening research perspectives. ERIC Reproduction Document ED382720. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

 

Portes, A. and Rumbault, R. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait (2nd Ed). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

 

Ramirez, D. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit, and late exit. Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language Minority Children. Washington, DC: Office of Bilingual Education.

 

Roberts, C.A. (1995). Bilingual education program models: A framework for understanding. The Bilingual Education Research Journal. 19(3/4): 369 378.

 

Suarez-Orozco, C. and Suarez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations: Migration, Family Life, and Achievement Motivation Among Latino and White Adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com