Bilinguals Learning in the School District of New London - Policies and Practices - Case Study Example

Bilinguals Learning in the School District of New London: Policies and Practices Introduction There has been much debate concerning schooling of bilingual learners and the medium of instruction that should be used. It is not clear whether the English language learners (ELLs) should be taught exclusively in English or through a bilingual approach. This debate may inform national policies to a given extent but it does nothing to improve our understanding of how schools and classrooms should be organized so that bilingual learners achieve academically, develop expertise in more than one language, and integrateinto the classroom, school and community (Hall et al 1995). Problems with language can sometimes be misinterpreted as indicative of deeper learning difficulties, resulting in inappropriate assessment or even exclusion. This misinterpretation may result from the fact that there is no explicit policy for the education of bilingual pupils in many authorities and schools. Even where there is reference in schools’ policies to the teaching of modern European languages, the language policies frequently ignore the existence of bilingual pupils who are using two languages in their everyday life (Alexander et al 2012). Mainstream teachers’ understanding of second language acquisition is not adequate for meeting the needs of bilingual pupils in most cases. Initial teacher education does not adequately address the need for mainstream teachers to understand second language acquisition and be equipped with strategies for teaching in multilingual classrooms (Garcia 2006). It is possible then that teachers’ practices in relation to bilingual children will be informed by existing practice for monolingual children, which could lead to a deficit view of bilingualism. The child’s ability in use of, or literacy in, their first language is therefore not considered (Sykes et al 2009). In England, the word bilingual is used to describe student to who use more than one language in school or at home. However, this is not a guarantee for fluency in the two or more languages. Teachers should not think that all the bilingual kids they may find in learning institutions are one homogenous group. The school District of New London has established some practices and policies to address the needs of bilingual students in schools (Gravelle 2000). This paper discusses these policies and practices, giving examples of specific case studies to help understand their application in learning. Practices and Policies in Bilingual Learning There are likely to be differing pressures, depending on the context in which the pupils need to acquire the new language, that will the students’ investment in learning. Bilingual students fall into different categories. The elite bilinguals are the children of those who travel to other countries from their own wish, for example commerce, education or other reasons. They are often children of upper and middle class professionals whose first language is not threatened and which are maintained at home through frequent visits (Hall et al). The linguistic majority bilinguals are pupils from a large grouping where they are taught an alternative language either due to the fact that the institutions offer a more prominent minority or world language like English in Hong Kong, or offer an immersion program such as French immersion in Canada. Children who come from families where one parent speaks a different language may also bebilingual. Linguistic minorities are those from refugee, immigrant or minority group families whose home language probably has low status in the society (Evertson and Weinstein 2006). These children are subjected to strong pressure to learn the community’s majority language and will need to become competent in speaking, reading and writing for economic survival. Even as they take advantage of better education opportunities, their parents are likely to pressurize them into retaining their first language and culture. For example, children from the Bangladeshi communities are expected to learn standard Bengali and mosque Arabic alongside learning English and retaining the spoken home language of Sylheti (Hall et al 1995). Some models have been developed to help in educating bilingual learners. One such model is the additive bilingual model, also referred to as dual language model. This model builds on the students’ existing language competencies and aims at adding linguistic repertoires in other languages. The maintenance bilingual or heritage language programs aim to develop, maintain and revitalize indigenous and minority languages. Additive models of bilingual education integrate majority and minority speakers, and aim for dual-language proficiency. The most developed integrated bilingual education system is the two-way immersion (Alexander et al 2012). Subtractive bilingual models aim at developing proficiency in the societal language, with limited or no development of the native language. Submersion is the placement of ELL students in a standard curriculum classroom designed for native speakers of the societal language, without any special accommodations. The transitional bilingual education is the bilingual approach for ethnic and immigrant languages. Here, the student’s native language is used only for an initial period of literacy development and content learning (2-3 years) to assist the pupil’s transition. The goal of this model is to provide access to the school’s language (Brutt-Giffler and Varghese 2004). Monolingual programs provide specialized support in second language development without native language development. These supports can be linked to a standard curriculum classroom or exist as separate services. Pull out second language classes are quite common around the world to meet the needs of immigrant children. Specialized teachers take second language learners out of their standard curriculum classroom for a specific period of time, which varies according to the proficiency level of the student, to teach the societal language (Flood 2003). It is necessary to choose the best model for bilingual teaching in schools. In evaluating these systems for the best model, contextual factors such as teacher quality, access to resources, and student demographics are considered. The tremendous variation within and among ELL populations makes it impossible to approach the schooling of ELLs with a one size fits all approach. Effective programs for ELLs must be developed in response to a community’s specific context (Hallinan 2006). For instance, when a region has multiple language groups, with few speakers of each language, it becomes difficult to implement a bilingual program. If much of the ELL population is from the same language background, bilingual education is a feasible option (Hall et al 1995). Similarly, students with strong first language literacy skills and highly educated parents have different needs than students with interrupted schooling or limited literacy skills. When different student populations exist side by side in the district, different programs need to be considered in recognition of these different needs (Hallinan 2006). Therefore, when selecting the best practices for ELLs, it is necessary tofind out about the strengths and needs of the students. This is achieved through a home language survey, language and literacy assignments and academic skills. After this analysis, it is possible to formulate a vision for the education of all students that reflects the linguistic and cultural diversity in the school (Flood 2003). To avoid conflicting and random language policies, district and school leaders should familiarize themselves with their ELL population and the community. They also need to be knowledgeable about common program options for ELLS and their theoretical underpinnings, strengths, outcomes and implementation challenges. Random decision-making may fragment the schooling experiences for students, send mix messages, and fail to provide opportunities for consistent cognitive, social and linguistic growth (Gravelle 2000). Administrators and teachers also need to consider how these programs should be implemented, regardless of the particular program model chosen. They need to know what factors make a difference in providing an effective learning environment for all students, including linguistically and culturally diverse students (Flood 2003). Effective classrooms, programs and schools point to a consistent picture of those policies, processes and practices that lead to positive linguistic, academic, and socio-cultural outcomes for ELLs. These can be grouped into three general principles: affirming identities, additive bilingualism, and integrated approaches. Together, these principles provide a useful background for making instructional and organizational decisions, including, but not limited to, the implementation of a particular program model (Smyth 2012). Integration recognizes that responses to linguistic and cultural diversity in schools are embedded in a wider sociopolitical context that affects decision-making processes and outcomes at the classroom, school and community levels. It refers to bringing together different parts, on an equal basis, to make a whole. When applied to schools, integration is a negotiated process involving all participants. Thus, newcomers are given opportunity to learn the norms of interaction and interpretation guiding behavior in their new school (Ashworth 2001). Established community members have opportunity to interact with and learn about these newcomers without stigmatizing their way of thinking, being, valuing, and interacting. Integration is fosteredequitably when the needs of all the students are an integral part of the school’s organizational structure and decision-making processes. This is achieved by building a strong knowledge base about bilingualism, ensuring strong and knowledgeable leadership, sharing responsibility for reaching socio-cultural, linguistic and academic goals, and establishing a sense of community in the schools (Gravelle 2000). It is not easy for bilingual children to learn a second language and compete favorably in schools. The pressures mounted on them make the learning exercise an uphill task. These children face different challenges in their learning experience that should be well noted by their teachers. Generally, children spend up to 2 years to master basic interpersonal communication skills but it takes longer to attain the full range of learning skills required to cope with the literacy demands of schools.While learning a new language in school, there can be a silent period in the first stages. This is not indicative of learning difficulties but it is a natural receptive period (Smyth 2012). There should be awareness by teachers and parents that a focus on the first language is a valuable channel to support learning and not a hindrance. Pupils should not be made to speak only English in schools and at home. It is the responsibility of close relatives to share language and knowledge through listening and speaking as well as writing and reading both English and the first language. Bilingualism should be considered as a special gain as it can be academically enriching and positively impacts intellectual performance. Where there are difficulties, teachers should first critically examine the teaching they are offering in terms of motivation and language use (Gravella 1996). Teachers should therefore develop practices and policies towards giving the best education to bilingual children in their schools. The National Curriculum presents a form of linguicism where all language development occurs in English and all other language provision is treated as foreign. This carries with it certain assumptions about range, content, purpose and pedagogy. This indicates that the attitude a school takes towards bilingual learners will need to be very carefully considered and clarified in its language policy. The main headings under which to consider language policy are; organization, management, staff approaches to language and curriculum concerns. A language policy will have to consider staff allocation, appointment and training (Garcia 1995). The role of the language coordinator may need to be considered and the job description discussed. In high schools, Heads of Modern Languages, English, Learning support and the pastoral curriculum will all be involved and their responsibilities discussed. Support teachers such as bilingual and special educators and assistants, primary helpers and outside agencies play an important role. Community and parental participation both formally, as on the Parents Teachers Association (PTA) and the governing body and informally offer support to bilingual pupils (Baker 2011). Translation and interpretation should be considered at the early stages of learning. Thought is also needed in matters of language policy about the nature of pupil involvement and how to elicit their views. Organizational aspects such as the placement of bilingual learners in particular classes or option groups and the deployment of support for them will need to be considered. The incorporation of collection, collation, storage and access to records and monitoring of pupil achievement into the policy is necessary (Gravelle 1996). One such practice is partnership teaching. This practice emphasizes changing practices to consider of the range of learning and language requirements within the classroom. The set of courses offered should be easily available and relevant to all students’ requirements and teachers should assess their practice in providing these necessities accordingly (Carder 2007). Partnership teaching requires commitment from the senior management of the school to a model of shared planning, and expertise of pairs or groups of teachers and other partners working together to access curriculum both inside and outside the classroom. The organization of the classroom to enable pupils work in groups alongside support assistants is highly beneficial to bilingual pupils (Garcia 1995) Oracy is an essential key to language acquisition and the active learning. Encouraging skills and versatility in speaking and listening is vital in developing understanding of ideas and experiences. Speech is the primary instrument of thought and argument although examination systems require pupils to produce written outcomes as evidence of the learning process. Expressive narrative, storytelling and writing are important links in learning to the production of transactional formal prose. It is a way of working on understanding. Pupils who express themselves orally are ultimately more likely to have a voice in democratic society (Tellez and Waxman 2006). Another practice is the use of first language in the classroom. Allowing bilingual pupils the opportunity to use their first language at school is a way of confirming language and meaning to support learning. Many bilingual pupils come from cultures with strong oral tradition. For example, the Somali language had no written form until 1972 and all religious, academic, and cultural learning was through oral communication (Liddicoat and Baldauf 2008). These oral literacy traditions rely on advanced skills of memory, speaking and listening, which are useful communication skills. Pupils must be encouraged to use their first language in the classroom, but they will be more prepared to support their learning and understanding in this way if their community language has a high status at school. Thus, pupils’ home languages and experiences should be valued, recognized, developed and utilized in schools (Cummins 2000). Parents need frequent help and reassurance to recognize the vital role that sustaining and developing oracy and literacy in the home language plays in learning. Children whose first language is not well established by school age are statistically likely to be at a severe disadvantage in acquiring a second language, as the underlying conceptual and linguistic proficiency will not be sufficiently developed to aid transfer (Hornberg 2003). Active and collaborative learning in small groups fosters sharing of skills among pupils. This enables the pupils to support each other. This practice emphasizes and actively encourages oral work that helps pupils to formulate and expand ideas. During the problem solving process, pupils use skills of negotiating, prioritizing, investigating, drafting, sequencing and matching (Tottelfson 2012). Using active learning strategies in the classroom frees teachers from the traditional role of instructor for some of the time. This enables them spend more time with small groups needing additional support. It also engenders a sense of personal involvement, self-esteem and ownership among pupils. These factors empower pupils to take responsibility for their own learning. The talk engendered by the group process maximizes opportunities for bilingual pupils to order, classify and transform information to experience, test, shape, and interpret meaning. Pupils learning English need to be put together with encouraging peers, especially if they have a common first language (Li et al 2010). Case Studies The above-mentioned policies and practices for bilingual learning in schools have been applied to different schools in the school district of New London at different levels. Several studies have been carried out to determine the applications of these models in different settings. To illustrate this, this paper presents a few case studies of situations where these practices have been applied in Britain. Many ethnic minority children in British society spend their time out of school in temples, churches, mosques, synagogues or community schools to learn how to read and write their heritage languages and the languages of their religions. A study by Conteh interviewed a group of young Bangladeshi heritage women who remembered how they learnt classical Arabic and Bengali in community schools at the same time as learning to read English in mainstream classrooms. The ways in which they were to develop all these literacies at the same time were vastly different. One of the women summed them as follows: Learning to read in English and Bengali was quite different. Bengali was more structured and you had to learn the alphabet and do strict spellings and do your homework, whereas in English school you would learn through play and activities and have different topics and areas (Conteh 2003). Conteh documents Gussin Paley’s experience in teaching classes of young children from diverse cultural backgrounds and her first experience of teaching African American children. Her personal difference was that she was Jewish. When she began working as a teacher, this was not she did not regard this as something significant. As she learnt from her pupils day by day about their different lives and experiences, she realized her own growing awareness of the importance to her of her Jewishness (Conteh 2003). This strong personal response helped her to see that it was impossible to treat the children as if they were all the same, that she had to recognize and respect the differences they represented. Just as she recognized her own need to be seen for whom she was, she realized that their differences could not be ignored. Each child needed to feel welcomed and valued for who they were. The sense of belonging that it created was reinforced and enriched by everything that went on in Paley’s classroom among all its members day by day. It was, essentially,everyone getting to know each other through stories, music, art, walks,visits and language. This is truly, what a multicultural ethos should be (Conteh 2003). Another case study is that of a recently qualified bilingual teacher working out her own priorities for her future professional role. In her four years of BA QTS course, SaiqaRiasat realized that her education in mainstream schools had taken her far but not entirely in the direction, she wanted to go. Her desire was to be rooted in her community members, but first, she wanted to test out all the lessons she learnt during her course about supporting bilingualism, and valuing children’s home experiences Conteh 2003). Therefore, for her final dissertation, she decided to examine the arguments for and against using mother tongues to support bilingual learning. In her introduction, she reported that it was only after embarking on her degree that she begun to challenge her personal attitude towards her mother tongue. She then started to make a conscious effort towards breaking down the language barrier, which years of schooling had created between her parents and her. When she realized that her mother tongue deserves the same respect as any other language, she began to respect her culture. She then felt a sense of belonging within her language community. The research she conducted convinced her that an additive bilingual approach was the most beneficial for children whose home languages differed from school (Gomez 2007). Working with a reception class, which included children from a range of language, cultural and religious backgrounds, Suzanne Aston decided to do some oral work. She noticed that some children were willing to speak out in front of the class while others were not. She also noticed that most of the talk was teacher-directed. The children did not find it easy to introduce and develop ideas on their own. The class was working towards the early learning goals for communication, language and literacy (Conteh 2003). To help achieve these objectives, Suzanne decided to introduce the topic of names and carried out a ‘Name Tree’ project. This was a simple and imaginative idea, which enhanced the children’s learning a great deal. Suzanne began by showing the children a photo of her own daughter and explaining how she had chosen her name.She then gave a letter asking for some information about the child’s name to each child to take home to the parents. These were available in Urdu as well as English (Conteh 2003). All the parents responded to this positively. Some sent notes to school and some spoke to her directly. As the information came in, each child had a turn to talk about their name to the whole class. They were then helped to write the information onto a paper leaf for the name tree that had been put up ready on the wall. When appropriate, names were written in their original language and script. The children then hung their own leaf on the name tree. This took two weeks to complete (Conteh 2003). While it was going on, Suzanne introduced discussions about the names for different family members, illustrated her own family tree on the white board and encouraged the children to talk about their families and to draw a family member. By the end of the project, every child had stood up in front of their peers and teachers to speak confidently and at length, listened carefully to their classmates and taken part in discussions about family. The class also had an impressive name tree on display which parents were invited to see (Conteh 2003). Suzanne followed up the vocabulary development in more structured literacy hour-type activities, encouraging the children to read many of the words by sight. She concluded that the learning gained fromthis valuable focused speaking and listening activity was firmly based in culture, religion, family and community. While children who spoke of their names did so with pride in front of their whole class, the children who listened did so with interest. In her project, Suzanne shows how diversity can be placed in a central position in the curriculum, providing a strong focus for children’s language learning, and potentially for other subject areas (Conteh 2003). The topic names she developed with young children could be adapted for use with older children. They could analyze the spellings of their names, research their histories, compare names in different languages, and consider different naming systems in different cultures. Suzanne’s work demonstrates how home languages and cultures can be brought into the centre of the curriculum and valued and respected as a natural and normal part of classroom life. Her work is underpinned by principles which enhance bilingual children’s learning through focusing on their distinctive knowledge and which demonstrate good pedagogic practice for all children (Conteh 2003). The first principle is that bilingual children need to feel that their teachers value their languages, cultural and religious experiences. Secondly, different languages and scripts should be evident in classroom displays, resources and signs as part of the ongoing, everyday work of the children. Thirdly, the teacher needs to be willing to identify himself personally with the content and learning processes involved (Valencia 2011). Further, parents should be encouraged to participate in curriculum activities and share their own knowledge and experience with the class as a whole. These statements make up a useful framework for curriculum planning which places language diversity at its centre and shows that we value and respect the languages and cultural practices that children bring from home to school (Conteh 2003). Conclusion Identifying a program model is an important first step for thinking about what schools need to do for ELLS. Clarity in terms of program goals and design helps to systemize language distribution, allows for shared goal settings as a community, and provides consistency in program delivery (Creese 2005). The choice of a program model must be considered in relationship to student population characteristics, available resources, and parent desires. One-size-fits-all approach will not work for the diverse group of ELL students (Garcia and Baker 2007). Rather, the best model will be a school wide approach that allows administrators and educators to reach language, academic, and socio-cultural goals for all students within the specifics of their local context (Gravelle 2000). The practices already put in place for bilingual learners can be effective through communication between the pupils and teachers, focused task delivery, high expectations and accountability, and reinforcement. ELLs programs include Transitional Bilingual Education, Dual Language and Immersion. Each program has different language goals, but the main difference is in the amount of first and second language used (Ofelia 1991). Some of these practices include students receiving instruction that builds on their previous education and cognitive abilities and that reflects their language proficiency levels. The students are evaluated with appropriate and valid assessments that are aligned to state and local standards and that take into account the language acquisition stages and cultural background of the students. The students should be held to the same expectations of learning established for all students. The students should develop full receptive and productive proficiencies in English in the domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, consistent with expectations for all students. (Potwiski and Rothman 2011). Use of student’s educational and personal experiences as a part of the curriculum, providing the students with long term support in developing academic proficiency in English, integrating students into the mainstream of the school’s social and academic life, recognizing all teachers as teachers of language, integrating the teaching of English with the teaching of content, and establishing parent-school partnerships (Menken and Garcia 2010). Some of the policies include adapting read aloud, alternating use of the first and second languages, infusing test protocols into classroom instruction, peer mediation, and scaffolding strategies. Teachers and schools that adopt these practices offer more opportunities for ELLs to move forward towards full linguistic and academic competence (Arias and Faltis 2012). These approaches have been used to help improve bilingual learning in the school district of New London. It has also sought to incorporate monolingual students into the acquisition of a second language. Parents and teachers’ cooperation has made the application of these policies easy and achievable (Hall et al 1995). Bibliography Alexander, Robin. Doddington, Christine. Gray, John. 2012. The Cambridge Primary Review Research Surveys. New York: Routledge Publishers. Arias, Beatriz. And Faltis, Christian. 2012. Implementing Educational Language Policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and Current Practices. Clevedon: Multilingual matters. Ashworth, Mary. 2001. Effective Teachers, Effective Schools: Second-Language Teaching in Schools. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, Colin.2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Brutt-Griffler, Janina and Varghese, Manka. 2004. Bilingualism and Language Pedagogy.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Carder, Maurice. 2007. Bilingualism in International Schools: A Model for Enriching Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Conteh, Jean. 2003. Succeeding in diversity: Culture, Language and Learning in Primary Clssrooms. London: Trentham Books. Creese, Angela. 2005. Teacher Collaboration and Task in Multilingual Classrooms (Bilingual Education and Bilingualism). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, Jim. 2000. Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Evertson, Carolyn and Weintein, Carol. 2006. Handbook of Classroom Management: Research Practice and Contemporary Issues. New York: Routledge. Flood, James. 2003. Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts. New York. Taylor and Francis Group. New York: Taylor &Francis. Garcia, Ofelia and Baker, Colin. 2007. Bilingual Education: An Introductory Reader. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Garcia, Ofelia. 1995. Policy and Practice in Bilingual Education: A Reader Extending the Foundations. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Gomez, Santos. 2007. Case Study in a School with High Numbers of Bilingual Students. New York: ProQuest Publishers. Gravelle, Maggie. 1996. Supporting Bilingual Learners in Schools. London: Trentham Books Gravelle, Maggie. 2000. Planning for Bilingual Learners: An Inclusive Curriculum. London: Trentham Books. Hall, Deryn. Griffiths, Dominic. Haslam, and Liz. Wilkin, Yvonne. 1995. Assessing the Needs of Bilingual Pupils: Living in Two Languages. New York: David Fulton Publishers. Hallinan, Maureen. 2006. Handbook of the Sociology of Education.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hornberger, Nancy. 2003. Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multlingual Settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Li, Guofang. Edwards, Patricia. andGunderson, Lee. 2010. Best Practices in ELL Instruction. London: Guilford Press. Liddicoat, Anthony and Baldauf, Richard. 2008. Language Planning and Policy: Language Planning in Local Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Menken, Kate and Garcia, Ofelia. 2010. Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policy Makers. New York: Taylor and Francis Publishers. Moore, Alex. 1999. Teaching Multicultured Students: Culturism and Anti-culturism in Schools.New York: Taylor and Francis Group. Ofelia, Garcia.1991. Bilingual Education: Focusschrift in Honour of Joshua A. Fishman on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. New Jersey: John Benjamins Publishing. Potowski, kim. Rothman, Jason. 2011. Bilingual Youth: Spanish in English-Speaking Societies. New Jersey: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Smyth, Geri. 2012. Helping Bilingual Pupils to Access the Curriculum. New York: Routledge Publishers. Sykes, Gary. Schneider, Barbara. And Plank, David. 2009. The AERA Handbook on Educational Policy Research. New York: Taylor & Francis Tellez, Kip. and Waxman, Hersh. 2006. Preparing Quality Educators for English Language Learners. New York: Taylor and Francis Publishers. Tollefson, James. 2012. Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues. New York: Routledge. Valencia, Richard. 2011. Chicano School Failure and Success: Past, Present, and Future. New York: Taylor & Francis. Read More