ELL Advocates

Lance Izumi defines bilingual education as teaching core subjects in the first language. This certainly happens in early stages of bilingual education, but in bilingual programs students are taught subject matter in English as soon as it can be made comprehensible. Having some instruction in the first language helps this happen, as it gives students background knowledge. I prefer this definition of bilingual education: The use of the child’s first language to accelerate English language development.

Contrary to Izumi’s view, outlined in “Remembering Prop. 227 and the ‘End’ of Bilingual Education” (June 18), research has consistently shown that dropping bilingual education in California did not improve English language development. Also, controlled studies consistently show that bilingual programs are more effective than English immersion in helping children acquire the English they need for school.

I have reviewed this evidence in a professional paper, “Proposition 227 and Skyrocketing Test Scores: An Urban Legend from California,” published in Educational Leadership, 62(4).

Scholastic recently released a survey on how much and what children are reading these days, interviewing 501 children, ages 5 to 17, and their parents or guardians from 25 cities (Scholastic, 2008).

As is often the case, the Scholastic report was sent to newspaper reporters before it was released to the public. In other words, scholars had no chance to read it (or as they say these days, to vet it) before descriptions appeared in the press.

This is in stark contrast to the way scientific knowledge has been traditionally disseminated: Research is first submitted to professional journals, and will only be published if it passes review by other scholars. The reviewers make sure the study is done correctly, and that there is a full and competent review of previous research in the area, so that readers can determine how the results relate to previous research. Acceptance of the report can take several months, and it could be a year until the paper appears in print. At first, it is read only by professionals, those who read the journals, who often debate the results and may attempt to replicate the study.

(more…)

Some school administrators in Oregon are claiming that English learners are doing much better under a new teaching method that emphasizes grammar.

A recent article in the Oregonian proclaimed that “Oregon schools have dramatically changed the way they teach English to non-native speakers over the past two years, and the new methods are paying off with more students reaching proficiency.”

The “new method” is hardly new. It is grammar teaching: “Schools have begun explicitly teaching the grammar, rules and structure of English. And they are doing it in a carefully ordered way, making sure that students don’t miss any of the building blocks of how English verbs are conjugated, words are ordered, conversations are expected to proceed and sentences are constructed.”

Yes, test scores appear to be up. Not mentioned by those quoted in the Oregonian, however, is the fact that the measures used have changed: On its website, the Oregon State Department of Education announced that “In the past, schools were allowed to use a variety of tests, but this year we have standardized testing …”

(more…)