Over the next several weeks, Early Ed Watch will
zoom in on dual language learning in early childhood. We will be
looking at how different strategies are employed by different
organizations that serve young children and we'll scan the landscape for
information about how policymakers and educators can improve dual
language education. Today's post is the first in a four-part series.
Dramatic change may be on its way in America’s education system with
new federally funded grants and an emphasis on common standards likely
to affect how and what the next generation of Americans learn. These
shifts garner a lot of media attention. But another trend, no less
significant, is also emerging:
Every year, more and more kids are entering our public schools
speaking a language other than English.
The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 2030 Latino children will
constitute 25 percent of the total student population. As of 2007-2008, approximately
26 percent of children enrolled in Head Start Pre-K programs speak
Spanish and are classified as dual language learners. And, beyond the
booming Latino population in the United States, other immigrant
populations are growing too, posing a challenge to teachers in the early
grades who provide these students with their first exposure to school
and, sometimes, their first exposure to the English language as well.
As Early Ed Watch has reported, the conversation on how to
best educate young these students is arguably populated with more
preguntas than respuestas. Researchers have asked:
Are immigrant parents as likely to seek out preschool for their children
as native-born parents? Are these youngsters best educated in
classrooms where English is the only language spoken, or are they better
off in bilingual classrooms? If bilingual education is the best
approach, what methods work best? And how do states and districts begin
to train and recruit educators who can handle classrooms in which, say,
five students speak English, five speak Spanish, five speak Farsi and
five speak Mandarin Chinese?
Rife with our own questions about how to serve dual-language
learners, Early Ed Watch will take a closer look at the many
complex issues surrounding dual language learners, or DLLs for short. In
the coming week, we will bring you four posts that explore how these
demographic changes effect the primary grades (including pre-K), and how
schools and providers can bridge the language gap.
Here are three questions that propelled this series:
- What do we call students who arrive speaking another
language than English?
Early Ed Watch is hardly alone in asking this question. The
terms for students who are being taught in a different language than
their primary language are numerous, and debates continue on which
terminology is best. Three labels often heard today are English as a
Second Language (ESL), English Language Learner (ELL), and Dual Language
Learner (DLL). For this series at Early Ed Watch we will refer
to these students as Dual Language Learners -- students who are still
learning and developing strong language skills in their native language
in addition to learning how to speak, read and write in English. (It
also happens to be the term that Head Start uses.)
- Are DLLs really at risk of not performing well in school?
In a word? Yes. On the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), a long-term federally administered test
also known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” fourth graders who speak a
language other than English at home scored 36 points below their peers
in reading, and 25 points below their peers in math. (Students who take
the NAEP earn a score on a 0 to 500 scale. Nationally, the average
fourth-grade score is 218 in mathematics and 188 in reading.)
These gaps between native English speakers and non-native speakers
are larger than the respective gaps between white and non-white
students, as well as the gaps between students who are and are not
eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
- How does research say we should teach dual language
learners?
Research on how to teach dual language learners is often the
subject of controversy. There is a lot of conflicting research—not to
mention a lot of advocacy messages—on how to best instruct dual language
learners, making it hard to come to conclusions about which approaches
to dual language instruction work best.
“Currently, people are scrambling to figure out what is
appropriate” when it comes to best practices in teaching dual language
learners, said Michael Lopez, executive director and co-founder of the National Center for Latino
Child & Family Research. Sharon Yandian, the Language Specialist
at the Office of Head Start, made a similar comment to me over the
phone: “This is an area in serious need of research,” she said.
First, consider the general spectrum of approaches to dual language
instruction. On one end of the spectrum is English-only instruction,
whereby DLLs are immersed in a classroom where the teacher only speaks
English and the curricula is taught in English. On the other end are
fully bilingual approaches where lessons are taught in English and
another language at the same time, so the outcomes of a given lesson
(i.e. vocabulary words) are taught in both languages by the time the
lesson is over.
Then, there is everything in-between: Teaching DLLs only in English
but providing small group time with instructors to help support their
reading and vocabulary is one example. Another is teaching lessons in
one language in the morning and another in the afternoon, so that
students eventually learn a curriculum in both languages, but not by
simultaneously translating between one language and another.
Two studies, both published in 2006, have tried to synthesize what
is known so far about different approaches. One is by the National
Literacy Panel (NLP) and the other by the Center for Research on
Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE). For the NLP, 18
researchers reviewed over 3,000 studies, of which around 300 focused on
children ages 3 to 18. The CREDE report was produced by four researchers
who examined approximately 200 articles and reports. The findings and
recommendations of each study were extensive, but both concluded that
English language learners benefit from instruction that emphasizes the
key components of reading (such as phonics), and that students benefit
from having literacy and oral proficiency in their home languages.
In a
summer 2008 article published in American
Educator, a Stanford University education professor named
Claude Goldenberg looked closely at the NLP and CREDE reviews. He draws
some interesting classroom recommendations from the research. He found
that
- Teaching children in
their primary language helps promote their skills in English
reading. This may seem counterintuitive—wouldn’t immersing children in
as many hours of English instruction every day lead to the most
success?—but the likely explanation is that students benefit from
having solid knowledge of both languages so they can properly sort
which vowels, cognates, or other parts of language can be
transferred from their home language to English and (just as
importantly) which ones can’t.
- DLL students need a lot of
oral English language development to get their English up to speed.
Additionally, teachers should also not hesitate to help them
transfer that English knowledge back into their home language. Students
who realize that there are links between their two languages (such
as cognates or spelling skills) will learn English better, but
teachers need to be willing to help facilitate this process.
- Teaching
in students’ first and second languages can be approached
similarly, though those learning in a second language will need
modifications (often for several years) to help them familiarize
themselves with academic English.
In the report, Goldenberg concludes that policies that restrict the
use of a child’s home language in the classroom “are simply not based
on the best scientific evidence available. Moreover, these policies make
educators’ jobs more difficult.” (...)
Source: New America Foundation - http://tinyurl.com/ydsfamk