How to implement dual language programs in already established elementary schools - Dissertation Example

?First half of chapter one The global economy and the ubiquity of international travel and business have necessitated communications between people whose native languages are not the same. The number of Americans having fluency in a language other than English is quite small and unfortunately the schools in America do not teach in multiple languages. This shortcoming has both local and far-reaching effects ranging from immigrants who try to make themselves understood to the business person who must negotiate with foreign governments (Firoz, Maghrabi & Lee 2002). Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, stated, “To stay competitive in the global society, the U.S. needs more people with foreign language proficiency” (Picard, 2010, para. 3). Although the population of the United States has expanded through several generations of immigrants, command of foreign languages is not as prevalent in the United States as it is in other countries in the world. For Example, in the European Union, more than 50% of the population is functionally communicative in their native language plus one more (Hulstrand, 2008). Data from the 2007 American Community Survey captured information on language use by members of the US population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Less than half (42.7%) of 5- to 17-year-olds had English-only speaking ability. More (72.4%) 18- to 40-year-olds were English-only proficient, and even more (78.3%) of individuals ages 41 to 64 years were English-only proficient. Of those 65 years old or older, 32.6% spoke only English (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). There is a need to increase the numbers of students who are proficient in a second language in addition to English. Beginning with entrance into school at 5 years of age, and continuing through high school and beyond, students could benefit from a dual-language instruction (DLI) or two-way immersion (TWI) program. Lindholm-Leary and Borsato stated, “High school students who participated in the TWI program developed high levels of academic competence and motivation, ambitions to go to college, knowledge about how to apply to and get into college, and pride in bilingualism” (p. 1). Students who participate in TWI programs become proficient in more than one language into adulthood and are able to contribute a global society (Estrada, Gomez, & Ruiz-Escalante, 2009). Denver, Colorado, maintains a largely monolingual school district at the foot of the Rocky Mountains. The district is considered to have a high-mobility population; students in this school district have moved more than once, and up to three times or more in any given school year (Denver Public Schools [DPS], 2010). The Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP), implemented in 2002 to address the standards imposed by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ([NCLB] 2002), is the state-mandated test that all students from Grade 3 through Grade 12 must take. NCLB obligates every teacher to be highly qualified in their specialty subject(s), including reading. Fifth-grade English language learners (ELLs) and English language proficient (ELP students in largely monolingual public schools in Denver have consistently shown little to no progress in reading (DPS, 2010). What little progress has been reported by the CSAP since 2005—only a 9 percentage-point median growth for students across the district, regardless of ethnicity (Colorado Department of Education, 2011)—is cause for concern. From a starting level of 46 percentage points in 2005, students’ CSAP scores in reading have risen and fallen unpredictably. In 2006, scores for progress in reading rose to 49 percentage points. In 2007, scores for progress in reading plummeted to 42 percentage points. Scores rose to 53 percentage points in 2008 and fell again to 50 percentage points in 2009. Finally in 2010, reading across the district rose again to 55 percentage points (DPS, 2010). The DPS district is not the only one in the state or any other state with high numbers of ELLs who are experiencing reading problems (Goldenberg, 2008). Other large, urban districts in cities such as Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and Miami have a high number of Spanish-speaking ELLs. lLarge districts have tried to accommodate ELLs in their schools with various subtractive foreign language programs, all of which can be categorized under the umbrella of “bilingual” programs (Cobb, Vega & Kranaugh, 2006, p. 29). Part of the problem with instituting DLI or TWI programs is lack of funding. The $24 million set aside in 2005 for President George W. Bush’s language initiative was overshadowed by an overwhelming $206 million to fund sex education (Manna, 2005). NCLB (2002) includes a section addressing the need to expand foreign language education in school systems, but little was done to address this requirement until President Bush announced the National Security Language Initiative (NSLI) in January, 2006 (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Preliminary results of the initiative, documented two years after the NSLI was established included the following goals: NSLI is committed to making a long-term investment in the nation’s critical foreign language learning capabilities and competencies by accomplishing the following goals: Increase the number of U.S. residents studying critical-need languages and starting them at an earlier age; Increase the number of advanced-level speakers of foreign languages, with an emphasis on mastery of critical-need languages; and Increase the number of teachers of critical-need languages and providing resources for them. (U.S. Department of Education, 2008, p. 1) The population of the United States includes speakers of 381 different languages (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Yet school districts force students to learn onlyone language, English, because English is the official “unofficial” language of the United States (Cummins, 1997). This limitation of teaching only one language does not support the nation’s need for multilingualism to facilitate international security, diplomacy, or business (Picard, 2010). Senator Paul Simon (1980) stated, “In the 1950s when the U.S. was involved in the space race, Russian and German languages were offered in high schools and universities across the country” (p.17). Between the late 1950s and the late 1970s, federal funding for Russian language instruction in higher education declined by 40%, from $50,000 to $30,000 (Simon, 1980). As Simon explained, high interest in foreign languages tends to be tied to momentary crises; after the crises have passed, interest falters. The school district proposed for study has a large number of ELLs because of a large influx of Hispanic and other immigrants to the United States in general and this part of the country in particular. The U.S. Census Bureau (2010) reported that the Hispanic population throughout the United States especially in the South and the Midwest has increased by 43% since the 2000 census, and registration of the children of this immigrant population has resulted in school districts having high numbers of ELLs (Goldenberg, 2008). Some of the students in the US enter school with some knowledge of conversational English, but this level of knowledge is far from academic. (Sedita, 2005) Goldenberg (2008) notes that an ELL must “get used to being in a school where he has to learn what all the other students are learning, about a culture that he does not know, and on top of that, he has to learn English” (p. 8). The large numbers of ELLs needing to quickly achieve satisfactory levels of knowledge with academic subjects as well as English are the reason why scores on the CSAP have failed to improve consistently (Colorado Department of Education, 2011). Estrada, Gomez, and Ruiz-Escalante offered a solution to the problem of poor test scores by ELLs: “Dual language approaches represent ‘additive/enrichment’ models of bilingual education” (2009, p. 55). As a possible solution to improve standardized test scores, DLI or TWI programs should be introduced at the most elementary level (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). The American Educational Research Association has long advocated for foreign language instruction beginning early in children’s schooling to prepare “even very young children for life in a broad international community” (Zurawsky, 2006, p. 1) because “younger children absorb another language easier” (Strosahl and Robinson, 2008, p. 78). Picard (2010) recommended DLI programs should be continued through high school to prepare students to use foreign languages in the global market or in their university-level studies. The United States is culturally isolated (Garrett, 2006) and, as a nation, the United States cannot afford either an “isolationist education system . . . [or] an isolationist American public” (McGray, 2006, p. 48). School-aged children use language in school as well as at home and in society, and the language they use at school might not be the same one they use at home or in their community (Castellon, Burr, & Kitchen, 2011). A student’s native language supports his or her culture and is a vital and useful tool (Estrada et al., 2009); schools should take advantage of this useful tool. Teaching students in both their native language and in English will help them to learn their native language and the second language, all while improving their scores on mandated testing (Hulstrand, 2008) because, as students learn a second language, they become bilingual, bilateral, and bicultural. Lopez (2010) stated, “Programs promoting dual-language instruction in American schools could help bring America and its future graduating students and citizens up with the rest of the modernized world in foreign language ability” (p. ?). The tutor wants the page number but this reference has been taken from the paper and I do not know how to access it. I have highlighted it in green. DLIs, TWI programs, and dual-language schools are neither new nor unproven. One province in Canada is primarily bilingual and, on other continents where individual nations speak different languages, being bilingual or multilingual is not unusual because residents of those nations learn the languages of neighboring countries (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004, p. 139), whether in school or through social or business interactions. More than 70% of the world’s population is functional in at least two languages (Carroll & O’Connor, 2009) and more than 50% of the population in the European Union is proficient in at least two languages (Hulstrand, 2008). In the United States, the language primarily taught in schools is English, but proficiency in a foreign language “is increasingly important to the global workforce in today’s ‘flat’ world” (Hulstrand, 2008, p. 1). There are few DLI elementary schools in the United States but they are growing in popularity (Fortune, 2008). In Denver, there are two independent DLI schools and a few public schools in the district are experimenting with a DLI program (). cannot find reference Spanish-speaking students represent 40% of the ELL population in the district (DPS, 2010). Myriad bilingual programs are available to help the Spanish-speaking students remain somewhat bilingual and transition into the majority language. Transitional native language instruction (TNLI) is designed to transition students to the majority language of instruction (DPS, 2010) while teaching them in their native language. Elementary schools might teach literacy in students’ native language while teaching content in English. The English language acquisition program (ELA) is another popular model under which students are transitioned with full instruction in English and strategic support such as sheltering and limited use of native language (DPS, 2010). Transitional bilingual education (TBE) is another bilingual instructional model (Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005) similar to TNLI; under TBE, students are taught in their native language in reading, writing, and speaking, and academic content instruction in all other subjects is taught in English. A key difference between various models of bilingual education and instruction in English as a second language (ESL) is that ESL requires students to be taught exclusively in English without support of the native language (DPS, 2010). The ultimate goal of all these programs, whether bilingual or ESL, is proficiency in the majority language (Rolstad et al., 2005). Cobb et al. (2006) explained that bilingual programs are called subtractive “because the native language is sacrificed for assimilation into the majority language” (p. 29). Instead, Cobb et al. argued, the native language should be used as an aid to learn academics in that language at the same time as learning academic English. The terms DLI and TWI are often used interchangeably (Long and Noughty, 2011), as they are in the documentation related to the proposed study. In DLI and TWI programs, two modern languages are used simultaneously to teach academics. Bilingual classes, DLI programs, and TWI programs for English and various modern languages are available and have proven successful (Kubota & Catlett, 2006; Lindholm-Leary 2001, Thomas & Collier, 2003). Of the various approaches and models for teaching English to ELL students, scores for students in DLI and TWI programs have shown the most academic growth (Acosta -Hathaway, 2008, p. 154). Students who are in the DLI programs start at the beginning level of both languages upon enrollment in preschool or kindergarten. The classes consist of 50% native Spanish speakers and English-proficient speakers. Students who have been in these programs throughout their entire school career achieve near-native fluency in both languages (Anderson, 2005, p. 3). At the earliest ages, schoolchildren in DLI programs help each other in their native language during play and learning times. A Spanish and English immersion DLP was chosen to be the focus of this study. Spanish was chosen as the second language for this DLP because Spanish and English are the two most common languages spoken in the United States, and particularly so in the Denver area (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). It is likely that Spanish is one of the two most common languages in the United States because of the number of immigrants from Mexico; in the 1990s, more than two million immigrants came from Mexico alone (Edwards, 2006) and, in the first decade of the 2000, 4.2 million were reported to have come from Mexico (Pew Hispanic Center, 2011, p. 2). Of the 20 nations identified as country of origin, no other country was reported to have been the source of more than 500,000 immigrants to the United (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Rationale for the Problem The problem of students not being conversationally and academically fluent in English and a popular foreign language not only carries consequences for students’ academic and financial future, but also has an impact on the community and global stage. Proponents of English-only initiatives insist that implementing dual-language programs in schools is expensive and serves little to help students who are new to the minority/majority language (Kenner, Gregory, Ruby, & Al-Azami, 2008). The rationale for addressing this problem is to determine whether implementing a DLI or TWI program in established public elementary schools is effective and financially feasible. The DLI programs can be easily integrated in established elementary schools; however finding competent teachers who are fluent in both languages and well-trained to teach children is a bit of a problem. The material aid needed and the cost of training the teachers adds to the financing. Not only must the logistics of implementing a program be considered, but also the potential cost (Howard, Sugarman and Christian, 2003, p. 15) and effectiveness of the programs must be determined. Costs for these programs must be borne by the school district, which will likely need to compare the cost for these programs against the cost of not achieving satisfactory annual yearly performance results required under NCLB (2002). The proposed study will investigate the costs and feasibility of implementing DLI programs in incoming Pre-K and Kindergarten classes for a new school year at one school. The aspects important for effective implementation of the program at elementary schools include the population of the students as equal number of students from both the ethnic minority and the native English speaking families, program design, staffing, school environment and teaching methods (Howard, Sugarman, Christian, 2003, p. 15). Bilingual Education has shown benefits to the community as a whole resulting from students participating in dual-language classes because, in those classes, native English speakers and native Spanish speakers become biliterate, bilingual, and bicultural (Goldenberg, 2008). Students who start and continue in TWI programs from their earliest schooling through high school graduation will become part of a society that embraces workers and scholars who are bilingual (Hulstrand, 2008). Definitions A number of the terms used in this study have multiple connotations and definitions. Following are the definitions of these terms as they are intended to be used in this study. Bilingual education: A program of instruction in which students are taught in their native language (in the case of the proposed study, Spanish) but have additional instruction in the majority language (in this case, English). Students are eventually weaned from their native language, depending on the model of the particular bilingual program in which they are participating (Hasselbeck, 2010, p. 20). Dual-language instruction (DLI): A program in which students of the minority and majority languages are immersed in the two languages to learn both academic subjects and the languages (Estrada et al., 2009) English as a second language (ESL): A pull-out program in which students are taught in English only without the aid of their native language. Complete immersion into English is the goal (Cummins, 1997). English language learner: (ELL). Students who are limited in their knowledge of and skill with using English academic language Minority/majority language: Refers to the mastery of language of the speaker relative to those in the country of residence (Hornrberger, 1998; Tollefson, 1991). Transitional bilingual education (TBE): A program similar to traditional bilingual education that also weans students from their native language into English, but does so more gradually than traditional bilingual education (Lynd, 2007). Transitional native language instruction (TNLI): A program in which students who speak a language other than English are transitioned into the majority language (Slavin & Cheung, 2005). With the exception of DLI, all bilingual programs function in a subtractive manner (Hulstrand, 2008) for the student. Not being able to use the native language takes away some strategic tools already in place that the students can use to learn at a higher level. Significance of the Problem Demands for implementing dual language instruction when students begin school are increasing now because parents are requesting it (Giacchino-Baker & Piller, 2006), and because testing mandated by NCLB (2002) is an important factor in politicians’ decisions (Bao, Romeo & Harvey, 2010) regarding school funding. As proof of the increase in availability of these programs, whereas only 37 DLI programs were reported to have been operating in 1987, as of 2005, about 320 such programs were in force in 2005 (Lindholm-Leary, 2005). By 2011, 30 States will be offering 400 programs (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2011). The growing need for dual-language programs in elementary schools in the United States has prompted some charter, private, and public schools to implement DLI academic learning programs (Picard, 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010; U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Researchers (Cummins, 2007; Kubota & Catlett, 2008; Linholm-Leary, 1997; Linholm-Leary & Block, 2010; Slavin & Cheung, 2006; Thomas & Collier, 2003) showed that students involved in dual-language programs earn higher scores on mandated testing in reading, writing, and mathematics than do their mono-lingually taught counterparts regardless of students’ socioeconomic status. Students in some of these programs have achieved improvement to the 80th percentile of academic performance and maintained that level of performance from the third grade to the fifth grade (cite). SORRY CANNOT FIND A REFERENCE All students do better in a mediocre to well-established DLI program than they do in an English-only program (Alanis, 2005). Regardless of socioeconomic status, students from well-to-do districts to some of the poorest neighborhoods have benefited educationally from DLI programs (Flood et al (ed), 2003, p. 422). Researchers have found that students who participated in these programs have a better appreciation and greater sensitivity for other cultures and languages than do students who have had no exposure to these programs. Even though many bilingual, DLI, and TWI programs are available, there are not enough programs in the schools to “satisfy the growing need of parents asking for such programs” (Hulstrand, 2008). Research conducted by Alanis (2008) relative to dual language proficiency showed that high-stakes test scores of schools that have implemented DLI programs are superior to scores of students who received English-only and other bilingual education. Numbers of ELLs are increasing in schools every year (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), causing instructional challenges to teachers who seek to help these students achieve and excel because “the subtractive bilingual programs and English-only programs presently in place are not closing the achievement gap” References Acosta-Hathaway, O. (2008). Ethnic minority parent involvement and leadership in successful dual immersion programs. USA: ProQuest. Anderson, M. (2005). Meeting the Challenges of No Child Left Behind in U.S. Immersion Education. ACIE Newsletter - The Bridge 8 (3). Retrieved 12th February, 2012 from http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol8/bridge_vol8_no3.pdf Barron-Hauwaert S. (2004). Language Strategies for Bilingual Families: The One-Parent-One-Language Approach. UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Center for Applied Linguistics. (2011). Retrieved from 12th February, 2012 from http://www.cal.org/twi/directory/ Firoz, N, Maghrabi, A & Lee, K 2002, Think Globally Manage Culturally, International Journal of Commerce & Management 12 (3/4), p. 32. Flood, J., Lapp, D., Squire, J. R. & Jensen, J. M. (Eds.) (2003). Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fortune, T.W. (2008). Pathways to multilingualism: evolving perspectives on immersion education. UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Garrett, K. (ed.) (2006). Living in America: Challenges Facing New Immigrants and Refugees. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved 22 February, 2012 from http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/21623.pdf Hasselbeck, E. (2010). Instructing All Students as Language Learners. Senior Hons Thesis. Liberty University. Howard, E.R., Sugarman, J. & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in Two-Way Immersion Education: A Review of the Research. Report no. 63. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR). US Dept of Education. Retrieved 10th February, 2012 from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report63.pdf Long, M. H. & Noughty, C.J. (2011). The Handbook of Language Teaching. USA: John Wiley & Sons. Pew Hispanic Center. (2011, July): The Mexican American Boom: Births Overtake Immigration. Retrieved 15th February, 2012 from http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/144.pdf Sedita, J. (2005). Effective Vocabulary Instruction. Insights on Learning Disabilities 2 (1), pp. 33-45. Supportive learning environments for young English language learners (ELLs). Paper presented at the 34th Annual Statewide Conference for Teachers Serving Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students. Oak Brook, IL. Stroshal, K. & Robinson, P. (2008). The Mindfulness & Acceptance Workbook for Depression: Using Acceptance & Commitment Therapy to Move Through Depression & Create a Life Worth Living. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications. Read More