CHAPTER VI. ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Becoming fully literate in English, and more specifically, learning academic English at a level of proficiency that allows <strong>for</strong> successful academic experience in American schools is a critical challenge <strong>for</strong> English language learners and <strong>for</strong> the teachers, programs and schools that educate them. The task is as complex as the population of English language learners is diverse in its experience. In Boston, many ELLs are first generation immigrants but in all likelihood the majority are not, because of the vast representation of Puerto Ricans and of U.S. born ELLs who are children of recent immigrants. 1 As shown earlier, Boston’s ELLs speak over 50 languages, although the majority are Spanish speakers. Many immigrant ELLs arrive from their country of origin at different ages and, in some cases, with strong academic preparation and solid literacy skills in their own language while, in others, newcomers have experienced interrupted or little <strong>for</strong>mal education and arrive in Boston with very weak literacy in their native language. Some U.S. born ELLs may not be literate either in their own language or in English. Language-related differences are not the only ones that characterize the population of ELLs. They differ in race, in class background and current economic status, in their experience of racism in the U.S., in their immigrant status, in the age at which they arrived in the U.S. They may come with traumatic experiences in the transition from countries of origin at war or undergo serious economic disruptions in their settlement in Boston. The process of acquiring academic language proficiency –which is required <strong>for</strong> ELLs to be at a level of English language development akin to that of English proficient students – is also highly complex. Although there has been substantial attention to the characteristics and implementation of programs <strong>for</strong> English language learners, in many cases the process of acquiring a second language is not well understood; even when understood, it is not completely accepted. A case in point is the role of a child’s first language (L1) in the acquisition of a second one (L2). Researchers have described the linkages between oral capacity and literacy in the native tongue, the acquisition of oral language ability in a second language, and impact of both on the development of effective academic language proficiency (Cummins, 2000; Riches & Genesee, 2006; Saunders & O’Brien, 2006). They have concluded that a strong base of oral language development in L1 facilitates acquisition of L2 oral language and literacy and that both contribute to the development of academic language. 2 In turn, the development of academic language proficiency facilitates the access to academic content in English Language Arts, math, science, humanities, etc. (Collier, 1987; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006; Thomas & Collier, 1997, among many others). Of great concern <strong>for</strong> educational policy and practice is the length of time that students need in order to successfully make the transition from no or low proficiency in English to a level of proficiency that permits access to academic content that is comparable to that of English proficient students. Thomas and Collier (1997), in one of the largest and most comprehensive studies on this theme, found that age at arrival, native language proficiency, and type of schooling in the U.S. influenced the time required <strong>for</strong> students to attain academic English proficiency. For example, they report that students who immigrated at age 8-11 acquired English more expediently than other groups. Older students with good native language literacy and academic language also did well, but those who arrived without a good base in their own language did not have good outcomes. Specifically, Thomas and Collier write that: • it takes a typical bilingually schooled student who is achieving at grade level in L1 about 4-7 years to make it to grade level in L2. • it takes typical “advantaged” immigrants (those with 2-5 years of on-grade-level home country schooling in L1) from 5-7 years to reach grade level in L2,when schooled all in L2 in the U.S. • it takes the typical young immigrant schooled only in L2 in the U.S. 7-10 years or more to reach the grade level. The majority of these students do not ever make it to grade level without support <strong>for</strong> L1 academic and cognitive development. These findings held true regardless of the home language, country of origin, or socioeconomic status. Similarly, Hakuta, Butler, and Witt (2000), in a study of two Cali<strong>for</strong>nia districts considered successful in teaching English to ELLs, found that it takes three to five years to develop oral proficiency and four to seven years to acquire academic English proficiency. A similar time frame was reported by Cummins (2000), Pray and MacSwan (2002), and Suarez- Orozco, Suarez-Orozco, and Todorova (2008). Students in all-English instruction do not begin to show higher intermediate levels of English profi- Improving <strong>Education</strong>al Outcomes of English Language Learners in Schools and Programs in Boston Public Schools 39
- Page 1 and 2: Center for Collaborative Education
- Page 3 and 4: This report, Improving Educational
- Page 5 and 6: VII. DROPPING OUT 48 A. What Are th
- Page 7 and 8: CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
- Page 9 and 10: Language Learners (OELL) has attemp
- Page 11 and 12: CHAPTER II. THE STUDY
- Page 13 and 14: epresented by the blocks in differe
- Page 15 and 16: Table 2. Variables, Definitions, an
- Page 17 and 18: CHAPTER III. ENROLLMENT AND CHARACT
- Page 19 and 20: Figure 1. Change in Enrollment of S
- Page 21 and 22: Native speakers of Haitian Creole a
- Page 23 and 24: In Sum Following a swift decline in
- Page 25 and 26: One of the foci of this study is th
- Page 27 and 28: School Poverty Rate. Income status
- Page 29 and 30: ed a significantly smaller proporti
- Page 31 and 32: In Sum In this chapter we focused o
- Page 33 and 34: One of the deepest and most far-rea
- Page 35 and 36: the transfer of large numbers of LE
- Page 37 and 38: education. There are no studies of
- Page 39 and 40: IN DEPTH: Enrollment of English Lan
- Page 41 and 42: Table 14. Nature of Primary Disabil
- Page 43: choices. From the data gathered, it
- Page 47 and 48: Populations focused upon in this an
- Page 49 and 50: Table 19. English Proficiency Level
- Page 51 and 52: who attained the level of English p
- Page 53 and 54: ed among those LEP students scoring
- Page 55 and 56: High dropout rates among Boston Pub
- Page 57 and 58: B What Is the Annual High School Dr
- Page 59 and 60: C What Are the Rates of Attendance,
- Page 61 and 62: Table 26. Median Attendance Rates o
- Page 63 and 64: Table 29. Attendance, Out-of-School
- Page 65 and 66: Table 31. Annual High School Dropou
- Page 67 and 68: In Sum This chapter has focused on
- Page 69 and 70: The tests of the Massachusetts Comp
- Page 71 and 72: student achievement (Rumberger, 199
- Page 73 and 74: Table 34. MCAS Math Pass Rates of S
- Page 75 and 76: Table 36. MCAS ELA, Math, and Scien
- Page 77 and 78: Pass Rates in MCAS ELA, Math, and S
- Page 79 and 80: IN DEPTH: Attendance Rates of MCAS
- Page 81 and 82: portions of core academic courses t
- Page 83 and 84: D What are the MCAS ELA and Math Pa
- Page 85 and 86: LEP Students at MEPA Performance Le
- Page 87 and 88: school that they attend; if student
- Page 89 and 90: Results: English Language Arts In a
- Page 91 and 92: 1 Massachusetts meets the requireme
- Page 93 and 94: A Overall Findings and General Reco
- Page 95 and 96:
Designation as student with a disab
- Page 97 and 98:
B Specific Findings and Recommendat
- Page 99 and 100:
Recommendation 7: Parents of LEP st
- Page 101 and 102:
Recommendation 14: Monitor indicato
- Page 103 and 104:
(2) We found instances in which stu
- Page 105 and 106:
Recommendation 30: The quality of i
- Page 107 and 108:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (201
- Page 109 and 110:
Nathan, J., & Thao, S. (2007). Smal
- Page 111 and 112:
Vaznis, J. (2011, Sept. 18). US fin
- Page 113 and 114:
Overview The report sought to answe
- Page 115 and 116:
Table 1. Variables, Definitions and
- Page 117 and 118:
In TBE learn solely in English. In
- Page 119 and 120:
Table 2: Variables, Definitions and
- Page 121 and 122:
! ! ! 5. Limitations of the Data Wh
- Page 123 and 124:
Table 8: MCAS ELA Pass Rates of LEP
- Page 125 and 126:
Table 10. Variables Considered in H
- Page 127 and 128:
APPENDIX 2: Additional Tables and F
- Page 129 and 130:
! Table 3.2. Characteristics of Eng
- Page 131 and 132:
! ! Table 6.3. English Proficiency
- Page 133 and 134:
! Table 7.3. Attendance, Out-of-Sch
- Page 135 and 136:
! ! ! Figure 8.3. Science Pass Rate
- Page 137 and 138:
Table 8.2. MCAS Math Pass Rates for
- Page 139 and 140:
APPENDIX 3: Characteristics and Out
- Page 141 and 142:
! ! ! ! ! ! Table 4. MCAS ELA and M
- Page 143 and 144:
A discussion of our HLM analyses of
- Page 145 and 146:
ELA scores on average than LEP stud
- Page 147 and 148:
Improving Educational Outcomes of E