Questioning Research behind Arizonas Policies on English Learners - Essay Example

Questioning Research behind Arizona’s Policies on English Learners s affiliation Questioning Research behind Arizona’s Policies on English Learners Introduction In 2006, the Arizona legislature amended the bill 2064. By doing so, it came up with the ‘English Language Learner Task Force,’ whose basic goal was to create and adopt research on the Structured English programs. This program could be utilized by charter and districts schools. The stipulated bill concurred with proposition 203, which restricted the use and adoption on non- English in schools. The proposition 203 authorized the structured English Programs to lecture English to English students within a period of one year (Faltis & Arias, 2007). The English Language Learners Task Force constituted 9 members. 3 members were selected by the state Superintendent in-charge of instructions. 2 members were appointed by the governor, 2 by the state speaker and two by the head of the state senate. One member was a university researcher, with adequate experience in ESL and bilingual education. Another member was a highly respected superintendent, with vast experience in minority language. In addition, two members were former ESL teachers, and the chairman was an engineer without educational research or classroom experience. The remaining members had minimal classroom experience or had previously worked in schools that employed English Language Learners in their syllabus (MacSwan & Pray, 2005). It took a year for the task force to develop the Structured English Immersion program because two members passionately opposed the model that was adopted by the majority. The two members stated that the model lacked adequate evidence compared to the previously done and accepted theories. They further stated that the research was not pedagogically supported by the research carried out in the United States of America. More so, three experts from major Universities i.e., Faltis Christian, Norbert Francis and Ruiz Richard, ascertained that the SEI models lacked the essential and adequate research base (MacSwan & Pray, 2005). The task force members objected the University experts’ advice, and decided to adhere to the advice recommended by the school authorities and English consultants. The advice implied that English students who scored low marks were supposed to attend the ‘English language development classes’. Such students were supposed to undertake extra four hours a day learning English. The schedule was supposed to take one year so that student would be proficient in English or able pass the ‘Arizona English Language Learner Assessment’ test. The English learners’ development classes were supposed to teach English morphology, phonology, semantics and syntax. More so, such classes ought to involve students in activities that will enable them speak, learn, write and read English, other than being taught the theoretical aspect of English(MacSwan & Pray, 2005). According to the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, English learners’ program must be concur with educational research and theory that is viewed as sound by qualified professionals Therefore, it was unacceptable for the task force members to place into consideration advice given by the schools authorities and consultants, in the development of structured English Programs. More so, the advice given to the task force members was not appropriate because the model contradicted the sound educational theory. In addition, the Structured English Program varied from the immersion education utilized in Canada. Also, segregation of students with low grades wasn’t an appropriate technique of teaching English language. However, the Castaneda test found out that one year English immersion curriculum was an appropriate and successful technique (Haas, 2005). The Arizona’s SEI programs and Canadian Immersion programs are similar in some aspects. In the case of Structural English Immersion programs, academic performance and language proficiency are only evaluated by English language. On the other hand, in the Canadian Immersion programs, learners are expected to be highly literate and proficient in English language. In addition, their first language is evaluated and highly valued. Just the same way in which Arizona SEI programs value their culture, Canadian Immersion programs recognize and develop the socio- cultural aspects of learners. Major variations also exist between the two learning programs. In this case, teachers involved in Canadian immersion programs ought to be highly literate and bilingual in two major languages employed in the program. More so, bi-literacy is highly encouraged in the Canadian immersion programs. On the other hand, the Structural English Immersion programs emphasizes on English literacy. The Canadian immersion program teaches students second language for 6 years. This is in line with the established research that emphasizes on the time in which one should take in learning, so as to be proficient in English and be able to take part in academic teaching curriculum. On the other hand, the SEI programs takes an average of one year, or extend the period to 2 years, which is a short duration required to be proficient in English or per take other school curriculums (Faltis & Arias, 2007). According to August & Shanahan (2006), students who learn how to write and read in their primary language, and at the same time learn English, perform better than students who are taught English language only. These findings clearly show that bilingual teachers ought to support the development of literacy among English learners. For instance, Arizona State comprises of a large number of Spanish speakers. Therefore, teachers ought to support the development of literacy in Spanish, while at the same time students are learning English. This is essential because teachers are able to communicate to parents who speak native language only, about the performance of their children. In addition, the Arizona statute 15- 751 view Structural English Immersion as a process in which young children acquire or learn English language, since most classroom courses employ English language. However, the statute further states that teachers can utilize minimal native language to young children who are still in the learning English. The Structural English Immersion programs, which required low English performers to per take 4 hours a day to learn the language was not appropriate because it incurred extra costs. More so, the program focused on vocabulary and grammar, other than the academic content. This contrasts with the English Language Learners’ program, which focuses on the academic subject matter and learning the second language. As a result, students are not able to acquire essential aspects of English that are needed in studying the academic contexts. In return, the stated SEI aspect demoralizes public education and dissipates national resources. This is because government may spend lots of money in funding educational projects that turn out to be unsuccessful. The Arizona’s approach on Structural English Immersion programs brings about dullness in learning. This is because it employs the conventional grammatical syllabus and focuses on a given language. In this case, it focuses on specific vocabularies, grammar and forms. The repetition of the same syllabus denies student opportunity to come up creative language aspects, communication mode, among others. In conclusion, young children do not learn English language the same way they study subjects such as science, social studies or geography. The stated subjects focus on the content other than the language used. More so, young children are able to learn English language through socialization with peers, parents, and extensively reading story books that incorporate the language. Schools should utilize the task- based approach. In this case, students can learn a new language through involvement in intellectually motivating activities, which utilize English language. References August, D, & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second- language learners: Report of The national literacy panel on language – minority children and youth. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Faltis, C & Arias, B. (2007). 2 Research- based reform in Arizona: Whose evidence counts for Applying the Castaneda test to structured English Immersion Model? Phoenix: AZ Haas, E. (2005). “The equal education opportunity act 30 years later: Time to revisit ‘appropriate Action’ for assisting English language learners”. Journal of Law and Education, 34; 361- 387 MacSwan, J. & Pray, L. (2005). “Learning English bilingually: Age of onset of exposure and rate Of acquisition among English language learners in a bilingual education program”. Bilingual Research Journal 29, 653- 675 Read More