Language Diversity

Until 1979, 9% of students in the United States were from families whose primary
language was other than English, also known as language minority students. By 2004,
the percentage of language minorities had risen to 19%, and projections estimate that
by 2026, 25% of students will come from families in which the primary home language
is not English (NCES, 2006). The number of school-age children who spoke English
with difficulty has also increased, from 3% in 1979 to 5% in 2004. Students whose
English proficiency level is lower than what it should be to succeed in English-only educational
programs have been called limited English proficient (LEP), English language
learners (ELLs), or considered to be learning English as a second language (ESL). The
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act gives states flexibility in defining the students who
constitute the LEP or ELL subgroup and makes state education agencies responsible
for increasing ELLs’ English language proficiency and core content knowledge.
Similarly, the law gives states, districts, and schools flexibility to implement any language
instruction program that is based on scientifically based research on teaching English
to LEP children. These programs may use both English and the student’s home language
and may include English-proficient students to allow all students to become language
proficient. Teaching language minority students to read and write well in English
is an urgent challenge because some language minority students are not faring well in
U.S. schools. For instance, whereas 10% of students who speak English at home fail to
complete high school, the percentage is five times as high (51%) for language minority
students who speak English with difficulty (August & Shanahan, 2006).

In Which Language Should ELLs Be Taught? The increasing number of ELLs presents
a dilemma to the education system. On one hand, many educators and policymakers
feel that the language of instruction should be English only, because English
skills are essential to achievement in every academic subject and to educational and
economic opportunities in the United States. On the other hand, many language
minority parents feel strongly about the need to instruct their children in their home
language as a way to maintain their cultural identity. Due to the political nature of
this question, it is difficult to come up with an unequivocal answer. In which language
do you think ELLs should be taught? Keep reading and you will find out about the
advantages and disadvantages of different English language learner programs.

English Language Learner Programs. Historically, the most common method used in
the United States for ELLs is immersion, where ELLs are immersed in an English-only classroom.
An alternative is structured English immersion (SEI) programs, which are carefully
designed to build students’ vocabulary and language skills (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000).
Specifically, SEI programs teach English at a level that is appropriate to the class of ELLs,
teachers try to maximize instruction in English over the first three years of instruction, and
classroom aides who speak a non-English language provide instructional support to children
having temporary difficulties following a lesson in English (Baker, 1998). SEI has been
successfully implemented in Canada (Genesee, Holobow, Lambert, & Chartrand, 1989),
Texas (El Paso Independent School District, 1992), and New York (Tobias, 1994). A third,
promising solution to help language minority students develop literacy in both their first
and second language is bilingual education, instructional programs where ELLs are provided
instruction in their first language while they learn English. Bilingual education comes
in many flavors. Each of these approaches is listed in Table 2.2.
The very idea of bilingual education, however, is very controversial. Its legislative foundation
comes from the 1968 Title VII Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which supported
bilingual education for all language minority students, especially for those of lower
SES (Crawford, 1991). This law was followed up by the 1974 Lau v. Nichols court decision,
which resulted in the Lau Remedies, a document including specific guidelines to meet the
needs of language minority students (Hakuta, 1986). Many Americans, however, believe
that English-only or English immersion programs, a “sink-or-swim” method, worked in the
past and should work now as well (Crawford, 1991; Hakuta, 1986). People who hold this
position have sponsored active political efforts to eradicate bilingual education through
state referendums and in some cases, such as in Arizona, California, and Massachusetts,
have succeeded. Before reading the next paragraph, take a few minutes to reflect on the
benefits of bilingual education from the standpoint of today’s classroom teacher.
Experts argue that the pros of bilingual education are to allow ELLs to keep up
with their peers in core academic topics while they develop proficient English skills. If
this support is not given, students will not be able to access their prior knowledge, which
is the foundation for interpreting new information (Cummins, 1996). Students’ home
language should never be sacrificed, since it is the only mechanism through which they make sense of their own world experiences (Macedo, 1991). Moreover, not providing
language minority students with a voice in the classroom can hinder their need to feel
accepted, which, as you will learn in Chapter 10, is one of the learner-based conditions
to become motivated to learn (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Additional arguments in favor of bilingual education come from research in language
development, which shows that the more proficient students are in their first
language, the easier it is to learn a second language (Bozzone, 1995), and that adding
English to a well-developed first language can enhance thinking skills and metalinguistic
skills, the ability to think about language itself (Bialystok, 2001; Bowey, 1986;
Diaz & Klinger, 1991). Furthermore, bilingualism can increase student interaction
in cases where students speak only one of two different languages (Doyle, 1982).

Evaluating ELL Programs. The arguments mentioned in the previous section suggest that
bilingual education programs can have positive results for both ELLs and native English
speakers (Snow, 1986). But do they actually show these benefits? Let’s take a look at what
the research says. On the one hand, total immersion helps English-speaking students who
live in their native country become proficient in a second language fairly quickly (Collier,
1992; Cunningham & Graham, 2000; Krashen, 1996; Thomas, Collier, & Abbott, 1993).
On the other hand, non-English-speaking students who have recently immigrated to an
English-speaking country show higher academic achievement, greater self-esteem, and a
more positive attitude toward school when taught with bilingual education (Marsh, Hau,
& Kong, 2002; Snow, 1990; Wright & Taylor, 1995). The different results for the two groups
seems to stem from the fact that English speakers who are learning a second language in
their native country still have many opportunities to keep developing their first language.
Recent immigrants, in contrast, only have the opportunity to use their native language
with their family; thus, they are likely to lose proficiency in their first language before developing
proficiency in English (Perez, 1998; Wright, Taylor, & Macarthur, 2000).
The benefits of bilingual education are also confirmed by a recent analysis of ELL
programs (Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005) and by a report from the National Literacy
Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (August & Shanahan, 2006). In both
studies, after reviewing the extant research on bilingualism, the researchers concluded
that bilingual education programs are effective in promoting academic achievement
as compared to English-only programs and transitional bilingual education programs.
A caveat, however, is that the programs that were compared may have differed in many
ways, such as the diversity of languages spoken by the students, the geographic location
of the school, the quality of instruction, the instructional materials used, and so
on. More controlled research (i.e., experimental, quasi-experimental) is needed to better
understand the effectiveness of bilingual education.
What are some known limitations of bilingual education? One limitation is the lack
of teachers who are fluent bilinguals (Carrier & Cohen, 2005; Flores, Keehn, & Perez,
2002). A second limitation is the difficulty of the transition from a bilingual to an Englishonly
program. Although it takes about two years to develop basic interpersonal
skills in a language, students may need an additional five to seven
years to develop academic language proficiency, a skill that allows students
to handle complex and abstract thinking (Cummins, 2000). Transitional
programs are often too short to prepare students to successfully learn in
English (Gersten & Woodward, 1995; Padilla, 2006). Third, the positive
effects of bilingual education seem to be modest, at best, and even bilingual
education advocates recognize that high-quality English-only instruction
can produce similar outcomes for ELLs (Hayes & Salazar, 2001;
Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). Also, remember that there is diversity within language
groups and that immigrant children will vary in their ability to learn
English, depending, among other factors, on their experiences with literacy
and schooling in their first language (Lessow-Hurley, 2005). For
instance, children from lower-case socioeconomic backgrounds have more
difficulty developing English proficiency than their more well-off counterparts
(Rueda & Yaden, 2006). For these children, bilingual education programs may need to be longer and focused on a combination of effective teaching strategies
and positive, warm encouragement (Chamot & O’Malley, 1996; Goldenberg, 1996).