Teaching English as a second language to K-12 students should never become a one-size-fits-all proposal, according to an associate professor in the Multilingual/Multicultural Education Program at Florida State University.
In surveying and interviewing 29 administrators in Florida county school districts about the two most common approaches used in teaching English to speakers of other languages (ESOL), Elizabeth Platt of the FSU department of middle and secondary education, along with Candace Harper of the University of Florida and doctoral student Maria Beatriz Mendoza of FSU, found that both models have positive and negative points. She found that the administrators recognized the need to allow for flexibility in instruction to ensure the greatest equity in classroom learning, even though their districts' policies may be less flexible.
The researchers' findings have been published in the spring 2003 edition of TESOL Quarterly, the major research publication of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
"Right now, there is an inclusion trend in the teaching of ESOL students," Platt said. "The thinking is to include these students quickly into the mainstream of regular classroom activities so they can fully participate in the standard curriculum and ideally achieve educational equity with English speaking students. This is in contrast to the separation model, where ESOL students periodically meet with an ESOL specialist for more intensive instruction and evaluation but might not move fully into the mainstream as quickly."
However, the reality is that the inclusion model - sometimes touted as the better of the two - can compromise that equity.
Lack of proper staff support or teacher training to properly monitor students could hinder their progress. This is especially true among students who have a limited literacy background, such as those from migrant homes, impoverished circumstances or war-torn countries. These students not only have to learn English, but also must catch up with the general subject matter being taught.
Students from wealthier families and countries with high quality schooling, however, would generally do better in the inclusion model because they would only be lacking a command of English, having been adequately educated in general subject matter.
However, by including ESOL students, rather than pulling them out of the classroom, the ESOL specialists who used to have regularly scheduled time with them now are increasingly being used by school districts to conduct staff development, act as resource teachers or even become regular classroom teachers.
"The specialists have less direct contact with individual ESOL students and less time to evaluate a student's needs," Platt said. "The opportunities for participation by the ESOL student are therefore lessened and educational equity is compromised if the student is too far behind the instructional level of the mainstream classroom setting to be able to comprehend and take full advantage of what is being taught."
Platt pointed out that a reading program heavily emphasizing phonics, for instance, is not an appropriate starting place for a student who doesn't know either the sounds or the meanings of a language. English language learners would be better served using more oral- and meaning-based approaches to reading English.
Platt stressed that the research didn't turn her against inclusion in every circumstance, but she is concerned when inclusion is touted as the best system when support for the student in the classroom remains precarious.
Standardized testing and homogenized curricula that don't have the flexibility to accommodate the needs of an English language learner make it even more difficult to help such learners with their specific language development needs, Platt added. Â
The researchers have been studying inclusion of English language learners since 1995. Their current research focusing on the changing role of the ESOL specialist has been presented at conferences, but has not yet been published.
RSS