Unmasking the myths of structured English Immersion: why we still need bilingual educators, native language instruction, and incorporation of home culture.

Since November 2002, after a referendum vote referred to as Question 2 or "English for the Children," the education of English language learners (ELLs) (1) in Massachusetts has been caught up in a chaotic whirlwind. Question 2, an initiative led by Californian businessman Ron Unz, mandated Structured English Immersion as the only language program for ELLs and the legislation included a provision for bringing suit against schools and districts willfully refusing to implement its provisions. (2)

Born out of both ignorance and intent, the support that allowed for the passing of Question 2 paved the way for the rapid dismantling of bilingual programs. The referendum replaced the state law requiring Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) in districts with 20 or more limited-English proficient students from the same language group. These programs have used native language materials and instruction to support content knowledge while developing students' English as a second language skills in both oral communication and literacy, and eventually transitioning them into all-English instruction.

It's interesting to note that the school systems' prompt response to the new legislation, in terms of program implementation, professional development, and the acquisition of new materials, in no way resembled the foot dragging and resistance that occurred when bilingual education (native language instruction) became the law in Massachusetts back in 1971.

Structured English Immersion is vaguely defined as "nearly all classroom instruction is in English but with the curriculum and presentation designed for children who are learning the language" (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2003, p. 7). It's thus not surprising that many misconceptions of what the law allows and does not allow have arisen and work against the best interests of ELLs. In the political rhetoric of having immigrant children learn English as quickly as possible, general principles of the developmental process of second language acquisition and valuing of diverse backgrounds have disappeared. Furthermore, we believe that one key factor contributing to the confusion is the reality that mainstream, English monolingual educators lack the necessary knowledge base for planning and implementing effective educational programming for ELLs.

As educators of ELLs and providers of professional development, we found ourselves in the dilemma of advocating for quality programming that meets the academic, social, and emotional needs of this population, while implementing a law and the SEI program model that are fundamentally flawed for their lack of understanding of complexities of language learning and the acculturation process of immigrant children. The purpose of this article is to discuss some of the dominant myths and misconceptions held by educators and their impact on linguistically-diverse communities across the state as school districts struggle to implement this new law. Ultimately, our contention is that native language and culture need to be respected in schools and used as the foundation for second language acquisition in order to insure that ELLs receive a quality education. However, putting much of the debate over bilingual education aside for the moment, let's simply look at what has been put into place and what is problematic about its implementation.

STRUCTURED ENGLISH INSTRUCTION HAS BECOME THE EQUIVALENT OF "SINK OR SWIM" SUBMERSION 

The most common implementation of SEI has been to place students in mainstream classrooms where teachers do not modify their instruction to make it more comprehensible for ELLs. This type of instruction does not constitute Structured English Immersion. In fact, a mainstream classroom setting where the teacher instructs only in English without any special linguistic modifications constitutes what is known in the literature as "submersion" or "sink or swim". In this type of classroom, ELLs are left to their own devices to either quickly learn English and "swim" or fail to do so and thus "sink.".

SEI is not intended to be the equivalent of submersion or "sink or swim." Even supporters of efforts to dismantle TBE envisioned SEI as being substantially different from mainstream classrooms (Hayer, 2003; Porter, 1999). The original conceptualization of SEI treated it as an instructional approach reserved for ELLs at an intermediate English language proficiency level with native language used to support students at early proficiency levels so that content knowledge would be more comprehensible. It is important to note that bilingual teachers in their capacity of native language and ESL instructors were effective users of sheltered English instruction prior to the passing of Question 2. In its ideal form, SEI refers to a thoughtfully-designed language-sensitive instructional approach meant to assist ELLs in simultaneously acquiring English and grade-appropriate content area knowledge.

In the law, sheltered instruction is defined as classrooms where materials are in English and the curriculum is specifically design for ELLs (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71A). However, it is important to keep in mind that sheltered English instruction is an instructional methodology that simultaneously teaches English and content area knowledge and skills. In other words, SEI teachers develop their ELL students' English language abilities through linguistically modified instruction in the content areas such as math, science, and social studies. In SEI classrooms, teachers scaffold instruction using specific communication and text modification strategies to make English content comprehensible to ELL students with varying levels of English language proficiency.

The reality is that ELLs require a well-developed English language development curriculum and program. To expect a mainstream math teacher to teach arithmetic while helping a newcomer conquer English, become literate, learn the material at hand, and prepare for a high-stakes test in order to advance and graduate is not realistic or fair to both teacher and ELL student.

Despite the original design of SEI, where ELLs are placed together, the common sense belief that placing ELLs in classrooms with native English speakers will speed up the second language acquisition process continues to persist. In reality; when ELLs are placed in settings where teachers do not modify their instruction and practices, the results can be disastrous (DaSilva Iddlings, 2005; Gutierez, Baquedano-Lopez & Asato, 2001; Manyak, 2002), as ELLs are prevented from meaningful access to instruction and curriculum because they cannot comprehend the teacher or instructional materials and demonstrate their content knowledge. ELLs submersed in mainstream classrooms are also unable to communicate effectively with native English speaking peers in the classroom. As a result, they are often relegated to an inferior stares where they are placed in lower-level ability groups and taught through rote and discrete academic tasks that disregard the higher order thinking skills that native English speakers are taught (DaSilva Iddlings, 2005). Clearly, a submersion "sink or swim" approach should not be the intent of the federal law or the ELL profession.

THE SEI "MIRACLE": ONE YEAR IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ENGLISH PROFICIENCY

Despite the inappropriate wording of Question 2, stating that ELLs shall receive sheltered instruction for a temporary period "not normally intended to exceed one year", Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act does not permit time limitations placed on ELLs' English language acquisition (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2003, p. 10). Title VI requires that ELLs be provided language support services until they are proficient enough in English to participate meaningfully in the district's mainstream education program. However, even those districts that service ELLs through appropriate SEI often violate the civil rights of ELLs by prematurely withdrawing needed language support and transitioning them into mainstream classrooms before they are sufficiently proficient in English.

Within the recent translation of SEI theory into practice, there is a pervasive myth that one year of English instruction via the content areas for all ELLs is sufficient. Perhaps the hidden (or not so hidden) ideology underlying this belief is another popular myth--prior immigrants had to do without and yet managed quickly and effortlessly to master English and academic success. In reality; in the 1900s, immigrants did not become proficient in English, nor did they have successful academic experiences in the United States, as evident in the large dropout rates during that time (Krashen, 1999). Historically, the successive generations were the ones who became proficient English speakers.

Despite the potential effectiveness of SEI and its numerous implementations, it has failed to live up to English-only proponents' false claim that ELLs can reach full English language proficiency in one year's time. In fact, the magical accelerated language teaching attributes associated with SEI by its proponents are unsupported by statewide English proficiency test results for the 2004-2005 school year. The test results showed that after one year of SEI instruction, the majority of ELL students still remained at a beginning English proficiency level (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2005a). Similarly, the state standards-based assessment in English language arts and mathematics--the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)--showed that over the past four years there has been little improvement in the scores of ELLs. For example, one third of fourth grade ELLs failed the MCAS and one half fell into the "needs improvement" level (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2005b).

The touted "one-year SEI miracle" has also failed to materialize in California and Arizona where similar English-only mandates have been passed. In California, where SEI has been in effect since 1998, the reclassification of English language proficiency and academic performance of ELLs has remained relatively unchanged (Grissom, 2004). The same scenario is evident in Arizona, where in 2003, only 11% of ELLS were deemed proficient in English after one year of SEI (Mahoney et al., 2005). One might argue that English proficiency for ELLs will take even longer than under more effective bilingual programs that utilize students' native language to support their English development; so why implement it at the expense of nurturing the development of bilingual and biliterate children?

BILINGUAL TEACHERS ARE NO LONGER NEEDED IN THE SEI CLASSROOMS

The provisions of Question 2 undervalue the powerful role of a teacher who shares a common language and culture with an ELL. Since the law mandated that academic instruction be overwhelmingly in English, many districts felt that TBE teachers were no longer needed. As a consequence, most bilingual teachers were either reassigned or laid off as districts saw an opportunity to reconcile shrinking school budgets and/or get rid off teachers perceived as unnecessary and incapable of teaching in structured English classrooms. One argument that has been made is that the abolition of bilingual education and the dismissal of bilingual teachers effectively eliminated numerous minority power holders in school districts. The end result is that fewer minority educators hold positions of authority within districts across the state. Those who remained were placed in SEI classrooms and little effort has been made to capitalize on these teachers' expertise and strengths especially in the development of new SEI programs.

With the elimination of previously well prepared bilingual teachers, schools now have no additional resources to facilitate the needed communication with newly arrived students and their families. The powerful role played by the TBE teacher in facilitating the families' acculturation to the American educational system and supporting newcomers through the initial stages of cultural shock has been lost. Currently, teachers across the state scream for aid in communicating with non-English speaking families since the teachers are monolinguals and cannot speak a language other than English. Many parents consequently shy away from coming to school events and parent-teacher conferences even though they are invited. In California, English monolingual teachers of ELLs report the need to communicate and connect with families and students as one of their major concerns (Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly & Driscoll, 2005).

Despite the perception that Question 2 completely outlawed native language use, the law actually permits that native languages may be used for clarification purposes allowing for "minimal amount of the child's native language when necessary" (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71 A). But who is going to do this clarifying in the native language when bilingual teachers are no longer available?

In the end, it is the students who most feel the effects of the loss of these bilingual resources across the state. A story was recently shared by a mainstream English monolingual teacher about her fourth grade Haitian student, so desperate to find someone to speak with, so desperate to find someone to relate to, went around asking any student who appeared to be from his country, "Are you Haitian?"

This incident also points to the racial implications of this legislation given that most students in these programs are students of color--in Massachusetts the demographic is made up of primarily Latino, Cape Verdean, Haitian, Somali, and Southeast Asian youth. Unfortunately, there has always been a division between bilingual and other school personnel in many school systems in that many bilingual teachers are frequently people of color while the majority of mainstream teachers are white. This racial divide is compounded by the new English-only legislation, which makes it that much more difficult to reconcile the racial tensions and inequities that are prevalent in public schools--institutions that reflect the larger social order.

"ESL IS JUST GOOD TEACHING": MINIMAL TEACHER TRAINING FOR NEW SEI TEACHERS

Currently, the majority of ELLs in Massachusetts are now in mainstream classrooms and, as a result, all teachers have become responsible for the academic and linguistic achievement of ELLs. With the increased need to prepare English monolingual teachers, districts have responded by increasing minimal teacher training and inservice efforts. The belief is that with a little bit of training, teachers can effectively meet the needs of ELLs.

In the past, bilingual education and ESL licensure required a master's degree from programs that provided graduate students with training and expertise on topics such as linguistics, sociolinguistics, methodologies, first and second language acquisition theories, culturally relevant teaching, and use of culturally and linguistically appropriate assessments. Ironically, it is precisely at this moment in time when ELLs are being placed in classrooms with monolingual teachers lacking knowledge needed for working effectively with ELLs that the Massachusetts Department of Education has elected to reduce the teacher training knowledge base to four categories and approximately 75 hours of training. Instead of graduate-level courses on language acquisition and culture competence, the Massachusetts Department of Education now only requires 10 hours of preparation. In addition, only 20-25 hours is required for the teaching of reading and writing to ELLs (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2004b). A similar scenario is occurring in Arizona through the creation of an "SEI endorsement" that requires only 60 hours of training beyond the original teacher certification (Mahoney et al., 2005).

Even with some professional development, mainstream teachers still feel ill prepared to meet the needs of ELLS in their classrooms. Once teachers understand the complexities of second language learning and are introduced to the distinctions between social language and academic language, they realize the limitations of their knowledge base. As described by James Cummins (1991), ELLs can develop social language within 1-2 years. Social language includes the skills necessary to function in a variety of social contexts and includes many clues from gestures, expressions, and intonation. However, academic language can take up to 10 years to develop. Academic language is tied to literacy and all content area learning and includes abstract concepts, technical vocabulary, and precise understanding. Language proficiency is clearly much more complex than just speaking English on the playground and in the cafeteria.

A veteran first-grade English monolingual teacher recently commented that, although she had participated in extensive district training, she could not effectively meet the needs of her three ELLs. She found her students' social and oral skills developing, but they still struggled with academic language and content area knowledge. She added that the complexities of language and literacy acquisition tied with her lack of native language skills, overwhelmed and paralyzed her.

In addition, all the research indicates that in order for teachers to effectively incorporate new practices into their teaching, sustained professional development is needed. One step training without follow-up constitutes the least effective form of professional development. Ongoing training accompanied by coaching and modeling opportunities constitutes a much more effective model.

In California, five years after implementing the English-only mandate, most English monolingual teachers still reported having minimal and poor quality training while expressing the need for sustained forms of professional development that go beyond the "one-shot" deal (Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly & Driscoll, 2005).

ESL teachers are now being asked by their districts to assume leadership roles in providing professional development for their mainstream colleagues. While some ESL teachers will naturally take on these leadership roles, most became educators to teach children and not to prepare colleagues. It is a burden on the field given the skills needed to be an effective professional developer, the desperate need for qualified trainers, and the enormity of training all teachers throughout the state. In addition, prior to Question #2, districts had served the needs of these students with bilingual teachers. It makes no good sense why a concerted effort was not made to retain bilingual teachers as rich resources.

CONCLUSION

The promised silver-lining of Question 2--that all teachers would be appropriately prepared to effectively teach ELLs, and that linguistic-minority children would be positioned to succeed--has not been delivered. Instead, what seems to be occurring is the further deterioration of ELL education, all in the name of "English for the children." It's awful to think and yet necessary to contemplate the possibility that this was the goal in the first place--that Unz never intended his initiatives to work in the best interest of linguistic-minority children or their families. While we may never know the answer to this question, regardless, current efforts to water down the preparation of SEI teachers, to perpetuate the common myths/misconceptions about language acquisition and teaching, and the absolute misuse of SEI all point to the sad reality that the education of linguistic-minority students under current mandates is simply not a priority. If anything, the priority seems to be focused on accommodating English monolingual teachers who happen to work with ELL students. Every effort is being made for English monolingual teachers to teach as usual and have ELLs accommodate their teachers' lack of training and English monolingualism and not the other way around. This situation would be found to be absurd and intolerable if the students were considered to be high status students. But since they are not, it is perfectly acceptable to miseducate them both linguistically and academically.

Clearly, the matter of educating ELLs is not purely an objective educational undertaking. The dominant society's lack of tolerance toward speakers of other languages renders ELLs' education an ideological battle of sorts where ELLs are being forced to submit to English-only instruction they do not comprehend or benefit from. As districts struggle to implement a vague and misconstrued SEI model, the current research base continues to depict SEI as an inferior program compared to bilingual education (Krashen, 1999; Rolstad, Mahoney & Glass, 2005). Meanwhile, research findings regarding the superiority of native language instruction do not make much of a dent in the assimilationist ideologies of the dominant society.

The unfortunate reality is that SEI as it is currently implemented is a subtractive language program, where students lose their first language as it is replaced by English. What has replaced the use of native language instruction is a black hole in which large numbers of students, their families, and communities are being lost.

SEI in its current implementations not only needs to be radically revamped, but it needs to get hack to its original intention, which was to support other more humane and sound pedagogical models such as native language instruction, in order for it to be effective and work in the best interests of students. The needs of the ELLs in the state of Massachusetts are substantial. Further guidelines from the Massachusetts State Department of Education, including requirements for English language development and qualified teachers, will hopefully begin to rebuild resources and services that were unnecessarily eliminated by the school district's fast interpretations of the new law. The foundation for this rebuilding can be found in a valuable resource that exists in many of the state's former bilingual teachers.

Using quality research on second language acquisition, culture, and literacy development as well as on professional development, means that schools and their mainstream and SEI teachers have to work hard and think long-term to teach English without placing the responsibility solely on the ELLS. As educators, we have a responsibility to walk within the shoes of our students and wonder what the world would be like if only a small portion of your school day was actually comprehensible. You do not understand the directions for the homework. You do not have vocabulary to ask for assistance. You are unable to show all of the knowledge you bring to the classroom. As parents, we have to ask ourselves if we would tolerate such politics and poor educational practices to dictate the education of our children. AS taxpayers, we cannot afford to have generations of our children without the earning power of a high school diploma or a college education. AS citizens, the fundamental question is: Is it moral to leave behind the largest growing segment of our student population?

WORKS CITED

Cummins, James. "The Role of Primary Language Development in Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students. In (Ed. California Department of Education) Schooling for Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Los Angeles, CA: California State University, Los Angeles, 3-49, 1991.

DaSilva Iddlings, Anna Chistina. "Linguistic Access and Participation: English Language Learners in an English-dominant Community of Practice." Bilingual Research Journal 29 (1), 165-183, Spring, 2005. Retrieved August 26, 2005 from http://brj.asu.edu/art9.pdf

Gandara, Patricia, Maxwell-Jolly, Julie & Driscoll, Anne. Listening to Teachers of English Language Learners: A Survey of California Teachers" Challenges, Experiences, and Professional Development Needs. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, 2005.

Grissom, James B. Reclassification of English Learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives 12 (36), 2004. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n36/

Gutierez, Kris D., Baquedano-Lopez, Patricia & Asato, Jolynn. "English for the Children": The New Literacy of the Old Word Order, Language Policy, and Education Reform." Bilingual Research Journal 24 (1 & 2), 87-112, 2001.

Haver, Johanna J. Structured English Immersion: A Step-by-step Guide for K-6 Teachers and Administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2003.

Krashen, Steven. Condemned without a Trial: Bogus Arguments against Bilingual Education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1999.

Mahoney, Kate, Thompson, Marilyn, MacSwan, Jeff, Combs, Mary Carol & Reyhner, John. The Condition of English Language Learners in Arizona: 2004. Pheonix: Educational Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University, 2005. Retrieved September 29, 2005, from www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/AEPI/EPSL-0405-106-AEPI.pdf

Manyak, Patrick C. "Welcome to Salon 101": The Consequences of Hybrid Literacy Practices in a Primary-grade English Immersion Class." Bilingual Research Journal, 27(2), 421-442, 2002.

Massachusetts Genera Laws Chapter 71 A (2002). Retrieved on September 29, 2005 from www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/71a-2.htm

Massachusetts Department of Education. Biennial Evaluation Report (2004a, December). U.S. Department of Education Office of English Language Acquisition Washington, D.C. 20024-6510 Massachusetts Department of Education. Updated Guidance on Qualifications for Teachers in Sheltered English Immersion Classrooms (2004b, June 14). Retrieved November 1, 2005, from www.doe.mass.edu/ell/news04/0615qualifications.pdf

Massachusetts Department of Education. Questions and Answers Regarding Chapter 71A: English Language Education in Public Schools (June 2003). Retrieved August 26, 2005, from www.doe.mass.edu/ell/news03/FAQ._drft.pdf

Massachusetts Department of Education. Statewide Results: Fall 2005 and Spring 2005 Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPA) (2005a, June). Retrieved August 26, 2005, from www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/epa/2005/results/f04_s05state.doc

Massachusetts Department of Education. Spring 2005 MCAS Tests: Summary of State Results (2005b, September). Retrieved August 26, 2005, from www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/2005/results/summary.doc

Porter, Rosalie. P. "The Benefits of English Immersion." Educational Leadership, 57(4), 52-56, 2000.

Rolstad, Kellie, Mahoney, Kate & Glass, Gene V. "The Big Picture: A Meta-analysis of Program Effectiveness Research on English Language Learners." Educational Policy, 19 (4), 572-594, 2005, September.

NOTES

(1.) In English language learner is also referred to as limited English proficient (LEP) student. The federal definition of an LEP student is a student whose first language is one other than English and who cannot perform ordinary class work in English.

(2.) Parents can request waivers for Transitional Bilingual Education programs, though the process is much more cumbersome for children under the age of ten. In addition, school districts can choose whether to honor or deny the waiver.