|
Compiled by Peg Wallace
Download
in PDF format
Abstract
Statewide Percentile Ranking
Class Comparison
Grade 2-LEP and Non-LEP Results
These first two graphs show the growth in LEP and Non-LEP student
scores on the SAT-9 test in reading, language and math. The numbers
at the top of each bar graph indicate the average percentile score.
The dark line shows the 50th percentile. These are all grade two
results. The claim has been made that LEP students have shown a
dramatic increase from 1998 through 2001. The graph seems to bear
this out. The difference between the LEP and Non-LEP percentile
is most notable.
submitted for publication by Stephen
Krashen
In her commentary on Judd
(2001), Bengtson (2002) maintains that use of the heritage language
holds back English language development, that families that "refuse
to teach their native language to their children" are helping
their children acquire English, and that using the heritage language
"makes it harder for us to live and work together." None
of these claims are supported by research.
How the first language can
help the second in school
Properly organized bilingual
education programs use the first language in ways that accelerate
and facilitate second language development.
First, when teachers provide
students with solid subject matter in the first language, it gives
the students knowledge. This knowledge helps make the English children
hear and read much more comprehensible. A child who speaks little
English who is knowledgeable about history, thanks to education
in the first language, will understand more in a history class taught
in English than a limited English proficient child without this
knowledge. The child with a background in history will learn more
history, and will acquire more English, because the English heard
in class will be more comprehensible.
Second, developing literacy
in the first language is a short-cut to literacy in the second language.
It is easier to learn to read in a language you understand; once
you can read in one language, this knowledge transfers rapidly to
any other language you learn to read. Once you can read, you can
read. This phenomenon has been confirmed in many studies and is
well-known to many teachers (Krashen, 1996, 2002)
The published research on
bilingual education is consistent: Children in properly organized
bilingual education programs acquire English at least as well as,
and usually better than children in all-English programs. A recent
review of research on the effectiveness of bilingual education is
Greene (1997), who concluded that the use of the native language
in instructing English learners has beneficial effects and that
"efforts to eliminate the use of the native language in instruction
... harm children by denying them access to beneficial approaches."
The most recent study of the effectiveness of bilingual education
was done by a research team headed by D. K.Oller and Eilers (2002).
At grade five, students in a bilingual program (60% English, 40%
Spanish) did as well as comparisons in an all-English program (with
an optional 10% of the day in Spanish) on tests of English literacy,
and did far better on tests of Spanish.
The heritage language in
the home
Contrary to Bengston's claim,
there is clear evidence that home use of the language of the country
can actually accelerate second language acquisition. Dolson (1986)
examined school performance among fifth and sixth graders in one
Los Angeles school who came from families that spoke only Spanish
at home when the child entered elementary school. Children from
families that kept using Spanish at home significantly outperformed
children from families that switched to English at home on tests
of mathematics and had higher grade point averages. There was also
a tendency for those who kept using Spanish at home to excel in
English reading. A plausible explanation for this effect is that
use of the first language at home encourages more and higher quality
parent-child interaction, which has positive consequences for cognitive
and affective development.
Refusing to use the first
language may simply result in less parent-child communication, a
tragedy for everybody.
Does multilingualism make
it harder for us to get along?
Fishman (1990) analyzed
the impact of 230 possible predictors of civil strife and economic
well-being in 170 countries. His results suggest that multilingualism
is not to blame for political or economic problems.
In Fishman's study, civil
strife was defined as a combination of factors, such as "magnitude
and frequency of conspiracy against the established government ...
internal warfare ... (and) internal turmoil (riots, strikes and
protests)." Fishman found thirteen significant predictors of
civil strife, but linguistic heterogeneity was not one of them.
The simple correlation of linguistic heterogeneity and civil strife
was a low .21, which meant that it accounted for only 4% of the
variation in civil strife. When other factors were considered, it
had no predictive value at all.
Similarly, Fishman found
ten significant predictors of per capita gross national product.
Once again, linguistic heterogeneity was not among these predictors.
The simple correlation of linguistic heterogeneity and gross national
product was -.32, which means that it accounted for about 10% of
the variation in gross national product, but when other factors
were considered, it again had no predictive value.
There are, to be sure, multilingual
countries with problems; there are also monolingual countries with
problems. Fishman's study strongly suggests that multilingualism
cannot be blamed for civil strife or lack of economic development.
One can also argue that
encouraging the use and development of heritage languages is in
the national interest: Tse (2001) points out that, "learning
English while maintaining the heritage language is perhaps the easiest
and most efficient way to achieve bilingualism, and being bilingual
carries advantages in many domains" (p. 48). For the individual,
bilingualism improves school performance, provides access to wider
sources of information, and has career advantages. Bilingual citizens
contribute to society economically, through improved trade and improved
national security (Krashen, 1998; Tse, 2001).
No English crisis.
Immigrants are acquiring English rapidly and well. Mexican-Americans
are typically accused of not acquiring English, but according to
the most recent census, 74% of Spanish-speakers said they spoke
English "well" or better, and only 8% said they could
not speak English at all. This is nearly identical to the figures
for speakers of other languages. Among children of families that
spoke another language, only 2.3% spoke no English. These figures
are quite impressive and are even more impressive when one considers
that they include newcomers. (data available at http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/language/table5.txt
and http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/language/table2.txt).
According to a Rand Corporation
report (McCarthy and Valdez, 1985), over 90% of Mexican-Americans
born in the United States say they are proficient in English, and
among those born in Mexico who are permanent residents of the United
States, over 75% said they spoke some English and nearly half said
they spoke English well. The Rand researchers concluded that "the
transition to English begins almost immediately and proceeds very
rapidly." (See Tse, 2001, for additional evidence showing that
immigrants and their families are acquiring English.)
One does, of course, run into immigrants who don't speak English.
The Rand Corporation results suggest that these are usually new
arrivals or those who have not been able to find the time or opportunity
to acquire English.
Conclusion
Bengston and I (and I assume nearly all readers of this paper) agree
that acquiring the language of the country is essential and is a
key to understanding the morals and values of the people of that
country. Our disagreement is not about ends, it is about means.
References
Bengtson, B. (2002). Polarizing an issue: Response to "U.S.
Language policy: Before and after the tragedy," by Elliot L.
Judd. TESOL Matters.
Dolson, D. (1985) The effects of Spanish home language use on the
scholastic performance of Hispanic pupils. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development, 6 (2): 135-155.
Fishman, J. (1990). Empirical explorations of two popular assumptions:
Inter-polity perspective on the relationships between linguistic
heterogeneity, civil strife, and per capita gross national product.
In G. Imhoff (Ed.) Learning in Two Languages. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers. pp. 209-225.
Judd, E. (2001/2002). U.S. language policy: Before and after the
tragedy. TESOL Matters, 12(1), 11.Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack:
The case against bilingual education. Culver City: Language Education
Associates.
Krashen, S. (1998). Heritage language development: Some practical
arguments. In S. Krashen, L. Tse, and J. McQuillan (Eds.) Heritage
Language Development. Culver City: Language Education Associates.
pp. 3-13.
Krashen, S. (2002). Does transition really happen? Some case histories.
The Multilingual Educator, 3(1), 50-54.
McCarthy, K. and Valdez, R.B. (1985). Current and future effects
of Mexican immigration in California. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand
Corporation.
Oller, D.K. and R. E. Eilers, R.E. (2002). Language and Literacy
in Bilingual Children. Clevedon, England.
Tse, L. (2001). "Why don't they learn English?" Separating
fact from fallacy in the U.S. language debate. New York: Teachers
College Press.
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/nabe/brj/v16/16_12_ramirez.htm
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/nabe/brj/v16/16_12_ramirez.pdf
abstract
This longitudinal study followed over 2,000 elementary children
for four years. The comprehensive data collection documented an
array of child, family, classroom, teacher, school, district, and
community information. The study concluded that providing LEP students
with substantial instruction in their primary language does not
interfere with or delay their acquisition of English language skills,
but helps them to "catch-up" to their English-speaking
peers in English language arts, English reading, and math. In contrast,
providing LEP students with almost exclusive instruction in English
does not accelerate their acquisition of English language arts,
reading or math, i.e., they do not appear to be "catching-up."
The data suggest that by grade six, students provided with English-only
instruction may actually fall further behind their English-speaking
peers. Data also document that learning a second language will take
six or more years.
Marilyn S. Thompson
Kristen E. DiCerbo
Kate Mahoney
Jeff MacSwan
Arizona State University
Citation: Thompson, M.S., DiCerbo, K.E., Mahoney, K. and MacSwan,
J. (2002, January 25). ?Exito en California? A validity critique
of language program evaluations and analysis of English learner
test scores. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(7). Retrieved
[date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n7/
Abstract
Several states have recently faced ballot initiatives that propose
to functionally eliminate bilingual education in favor of English-only
approaches. Proponents of these initiatives have argued an overall
rise in standardized achievement scores of California's limited
English proficient (LEP) students is largely due to the implementation
of English immersion programs mandated by Proposition 227 in 1998,
hence, thay claim Exito en California (Success in California). However,
many such arguments presented in the media were based on flawed
summaries of these data. We first discuss the background, media
coverage, and previous research associated with California's Proposition
227. We then present a series of validity concerns regarding use
of Stanford-9 achievement data to address policy for educating LEP
students; these concerns include the language of the test, alternative
explanations, sample selection, and data analysis decisions. Finally,
we present a comprehensive summary of scaled-score achievement means
and trajectories for California's LEP and non-LEP students for 1998-2000.
Our analyses indicate that although scores have risen overall, the
achievement gap between LEP and EP students does not appear to be
narrowing.
http://brj.asu.edu/v2412/abstract.html#g
Kris D. Gutierrez
University of California, Los Angeles
Patricia Baquedano-Lopez
University of California, Berkeley
Jolynn Asato
University of California, Los Angeles
Abstract
Proposition 227 is perhaps the single
most important language policy decision
of this last century‹Xone that may have profound consequences
on schooling in the 21st century. Documenting the ways school districts,
the local schools,
teachers, and parents make sense of this new policy is central to
understanding its short- and long-term effects on the education
of English
language learners (ELLs). Using qualitative approaches to inquiry,
we have
studied how three different school districts in Southern California
interpreted and implemented the new law. A second concurrent strand
of
research examined how teachers interpreted and implemented the new
law in
classroom practice. Three case study classrooms were observed across
the
first academic year implementing Proposition 227: (a) one English
immersion
classroom, (b) one alternative bilingual classroom, and (c) one
structured
immersion classroom. Participant observation and interview methods
were used
to capture the evolution of classroom practices, literacy practices
in
particular.
Supplemental Declaration of
Kenji Hakuta
http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/UnzSupplementalDeclaration.html
Kenji
Hakuta's work analyzing California SAT9 scores over the years
http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/SAT9/index.htm
James
Crawford's webpage
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/
|
