During my weekly coffee with a former colleague, I found was, at least initially, misunderstood. I am not against ESL ("English as a Second Language", aka E2L) provision, but the way it is designed and implemented. Let me explain.
Assignment to ESL is often bizarre, and unsupportable. I have read of cases where students who spoke English all through their infancy, preschool, elementary etc but who completed a form to say they spoke another language at home, perhaps with parents or grandparents, being assigned to ESL. I have read of students being assigned to ESL who did not want to be there, and of students being assigned because of their names. Meanwhile, every one of us has worked with colleagues who see ESL students as being intellectually inferior to mainstream students, by virtue of their being in ESL.
And of course, a single test taken once is wholly ineffective in evaluating performance, and absolutely cannot predict potential and growth. Yet, such high stakes tests which are frequently multiple-choice, are used in this way.
Secondly, far too often ESL programs are overtly political. While I did not and do not support California's or Arizona's "English only" legislative efforts, some of the evidence cited in their favor showed "social justice" over academics for example. In my personal experience, from attending many conferences and ESL-oriented meetings, I found debate centered more on political matters than on helping students perform academically.
My major complaint is over the perverse incentives which keep students in ESL. Quite apart from questions of program or teacher competence and effectiveness, funding and employment security models require keeping students in ESL. How can students taking ESL for 12 years be educationally justified? Or 8 years? Or 4 years?
One of my favorite stories concerns a high school and then college buddy who started school at age 7 speaking no English in the days before ESL. He speaks and writes English as well as anyone else, has a degree from a top college, has no accent or any linguistic signals that he spoke a non-English language at home and still does with parents and relatives overseas.
I once taught a G8 student who had just arrived and spoke zero English. This was a math class so it was not a huge problem and as US math is years behind that in his country of origin, he was not seeing new content. I also used some language acquisition approaches such as wordbanks.
I understand that these are anecdotal, and that exceptions do not a rule prove. However they do show that one-size-fits-all and sidetracking approaches are not appropriate.
My favorite argument against standard ESL approaches comes from the independent school world which is significant because the school is able to set its own policies to suit its educational mission and its student population and community. Firstly, this school assigned students to "ESL support" based on initial written and speaking assessments. Secondly, "ESL support" timetables shadowed mainstream timetables. Thirdly, the school had English thresholds for each subject with the lowest being PE, the next Art, the last English Language Arts. As the students hit each threshold, they then joined that subject class, ie going to PE with their classmates instead of to ESL.
Oh, and the program was one explicitly of language acquisition rather than of content which did mean some content remediation was required when students were mainstreamed, especially later in the year, requiring the cooperation of subject specialists. However, 30 hours of language development a week plus recess and lunch and extra-curricular activities with peers means a whole lotta English.
Finally, the ESL teachers did not lose employment or salary, or gain extra duties as their student numbers fell. Several of the these teachers would have no G7 or no G10 students by July because they were so effective and had gained the corresponding non-contact time. However they were still available, "office hours" as it were for when their former students needed help or guidance.
This latter approach addressed linguisitc evaluating deficiencies, recognised latest ability, and rewarded both student effort and achievement and teacher effectiveness.
Finally, I did not have ESL programs in any of the schools I led as a Principal. Nor did I have SSL (Spanish). I did have ESL support, specifically withdrawal during English Literature for example, and alternative tasks for some evaluations. Over time, none of these students were disadvantaged or performed worse then their peers because of language issues.
As I explained to my former colleague over that delicious expresso and blueberry muffin, I am not against ESL as a concept however I do not support what we see around us.
**Please leave your comments and questions below**
No comments :
Post a Comment