Introduction
"English-only policies have always been a topic of interest for me. This became more evident as I started teaching ELL. The elementary school I went to had an English-only policy. The first place I taught at, a Conversational English program had an English-only policy. The language school downtown I did my practicum at had an English-only policy. The high school I did my practicum at had an English-only policy. The lengths that people and institutions went to ensure English and only English was used has always intrigued me.
In elementary school, using a language other than English meant a note on your report card. At the schools I taught at, getting caught speaking a language other than English meant a trip to the office or even worse, a trip home. However, what intrigued me more than the lengths people went to was the impracticality of the policies. One of the teachers I observed once told me a story. There was a time when she instituted a rule in her class, where every time she caught a student speaking in a language other than English, they would have to put a dollar into the jar at the front of the class. This lasted all of two classes, when she realized that her class would go broke within the week.
It is not that I do not believe in policies which encourage students to speak English. I believe that the speaking of English is imperative to the learning of the language. It was the rigidity that is implied and built into English-only policies that had me wondering about them. In my own experiences, there are times when using the student’s first language to explain a concept is more effective and efficient than doing so in English. I’ve once spent 20 minutes explaining an object in English to a student. After 20 minutes, the student still did not grasp what I was talking about. It wasn’t until I translated the word into their own language that they understood it. After translating, it took all of half a minute for the student to understand, and we moved on from there. The use of a non-English language would’ve saved 19 minutes. 19 minutes that could’ve been better spent learning other vocabulary. And in academia, this view is supported. In a keynote speech, deputy head of the University of British Columbia’s Department of Language & Literacy Education spoke on the topic of English-only policies and strongly supported the use of L1 in ELL instruction. He states the rationale behind English-only policies and then goes on to discuss why each point is invalid. When asking my professors for resources regarding this topic, the research they directed me towards have been overwhelmingly dubious towards English-only instruction. In my own personal experiences, flexibility that is neglected in an English-only policy allows for more efficient and effective learning.
However, people with more experience than I have appear to believe otherwise, as English-only policies appear to be on the rise. In the past 15 years, multiple states have put into place policies which enforced the exclusive use of English for instruction within classrooms. Schools and institutions have almost universally adapted these policies. And I wonder, where is the discrepancy in views? What is the rationale behind them? What does the research say about these two sides? And so I inquire…"
Why this is Important
The study of ELL and English-only policies is important because of both the vast number of those within its categorization and the effects poor language education has on its recipients. According to Lee Gunderson in his book English-Only Instruction and Immigrant Students in Secondary Schools, “students who speak a language other than English at home are less likely to succeed in schools” (4). This is evident throughout the world, where language learners in New Zealand score 70 points below their English-speaking classmates (Gunderson 13) while those in the United States scores 61 points below their peers (Gunderson 13). While the gap in British Columbia is significantly lower (14 points), the gap is still present. In Batalova, Fix and Murray’s report titled Measures of Change, grade 8 ELL students were categorized into 4 categories (Advanced, Proficient, Basic and Below Basic) (36). In their study, Batalova et al. reported that in California, 74% of these grade 8 ELL students classified as “below basic”, meaning they had less than “partial mastery” of the language. As a whole, the United States has 71% of these students classified as below basic. Meanwhile in Western Canada, 80% of ELL students were more than 2.5 years behind in reading after 3 years of learning English (Gunderson 13).
Lower achievement is not the only difficulty that immigrant students face, as they are also more likely to drop out of secondary school. Hispanic students in the United States have dropout rates varying from 14% to 30% (Zehr 12) while closer to home, a 1987 report showed that 53% of ESL students left high school early (Gunderson 4) while a 2001 report showed that ELL students in Alberta had a 73% dropout rate (Gunderson 4). Vancouver’s statistics reflect the numbers given in these provinces as 60% of ELL students in the Lower mainland and 54% of ELL students in Vancouver experience academic failure and early school-leaving. All this compared to 6% in BC amongst non-ELL students.
Perhaps more important than the results are the number of students affected by this. In Boston, 46% of the population speaks a language other than English and their public school system has 17,000 English Learners (Boston Globe). In Vancouver, 58,000 students are enrolled in 18 secondary schools and 90 elementary schools and annexes (Gunderson 64). According to a report in June 2005, 55.5% of these elementary school students are ESL and 47% of those in secondary schools are also ESL.
While the number of ESL/ELL students in the Vancouver school system is high, signs indicate that the number is on the rise. According to Dr. Steven Talmy, there were 34,179 ESL students in BC schools in 1990. This number nearly doubled in 2011, when statistics showed that there were 62,080 ESL students in the school system. In addition to this, Canada’s per-capita immigration rate is among the highest of any country in the world according to Citizenship and Immigration Canada in 2013 and 250,000 new immigrants are admitted annually. This number is expected to increase, as the government plans for 240,000 to 265,000 new immigrants this year.
History of Bilingual Education and English-only Policies
The United States is different from Canada in the policies which it has in place regarding ELL students. This difference is found in the right to bilingual education, which, passed in 1968, gave students the right to education in their L1 as well as in English (Proposition 227). According to Dr. Patricia Gándara, bilingual education guaranteed English learners “access to an equivalent curriculum as that offered to English speakers” (Colorín Colorado). However, English-only advocates pushed against bilingual education, and the government commissioned two national studies on the topic. According to Gándara, the first report, the American Institutes for Research report in 1978, concluded that there was no significant continuing impact in bilingual programs on student outcomes. Meanwhile, the second study, the “Immersion Sudy” of 1991, showed that those in late-exit bilingual programs scored above the norm on standardized testing. However, there were too many variables in place, calling into the question the validity of the results. Overall, research on the topic has been very disorganized and chaotic. According to Lee Gunderson, who quotes a 1996 review of 300 studies of bilingual education, only 72 of the 300 were “methodologically acceptable studies” (16). The review goes on to state that “Seven perent of the studies show transitional bilingual education to be superior, 64% sow it to be inferior, and 29% show it to be no different from submersion – doing nothing”.
This led up to 1998 and California’s Proposition 227, which sought to “require all public school instruction to be conducted in English” (Proposition 227). According to the analysis of the proposition, California’s public schools serve 5.6 million students from K-12. 1.4 million, or 25% of these students are LEP (Limited English Proficient, or students who cannot understand English well enough to keep up). It was found that 88% of state schools had at least 1 LEP student and 71% of them had at least 20. The claim of bilingual education was that it made lessons understandable for LEP students while making LEP students fluent in English.
Built on the premise that learning a new language was easier at a young age and easier when immersed in it, Proposition 227 was presented in attempts to abolish bilingual education in favor of an English-only policy. Those in favor of this proposition felt that bilingual was merely a politically correct way of saying “monolingual” or “Spanish-only” and that children do not need to learn through their L1 because they already know it. The supporters also claimed that bilingual education produced little result, as only 6.7% of limited-English students learned enough English to be moved onto mainstream classes. Finally, these supporters felt that there were too many languages spoken in California (140) for each and every one of them to receive bilingual treatment.
Meanwhile, those against the proposition acknowledged that some of the bilingual programs in the state were not being executed as well as they should. However, these programs were improving, and Proposition 227 would wipe out even the good programs also. They also stated that the English-only method was untested and that parents should have a choice/say in the manner in which their children were educated. Those against Proposition 227 wanted the flexibility and freedom which came with bilingual education and stated that most EL students were already in English-only programs, even before this proposition was passed. In the end, the bill was passed 61% to 39%, and Arizona and Massachusetts quickly followed suit in passing similar propositions.
The Results
The government commissioned Thomas B. Parrish to research the results of Proposition 227, and he found after the first year that many of the schools had difficulty implementing the proposition, as the instructions they were given were vague and unclear. Parrish’s second year report quoted Amselle and Allison, who also studied the results of Proposition 227 by examining the results of SAT-9 scores of select districts (Year 2 Report III-1). They found that students made “significant gains in reading and writing in English as well as in math (Report III-1) and also found that greater gains were found in those who had “fully implemented the initiative” (eliminating bilingual programs as opposed to slowly fazing them out) (Report III-2). However, a study by California Together found that improvement was not limited to LEP students, as achievement had increased universally across the board in both English-only schools and those maintaining bilingual programs (Report III-2). The study also found that while the performance gap narrowed slightly, a significant gap still persisted (Report III-13) and that “there is no clear pattern favoring one instructional model” (Report III-18).
Laura McCloskey came to similar findings when she did a similar research 10 years after the implementation of Proposition 227 in 2008. In her study, she found that English learners have “shown increases in standardized test scores since Prop 227’s passage” (15). However, she also notes that, like in the year 2 report, the changes were across the board, as all students in California showed improvement in scores. In addition to this, McCloskey also claims that there are “many factors, besides any possible effects of Prop 227” which could influence the change in scores. Most notable of the possible factors is the implementation of the “No Child Left Behind” policy (smaller class sizes) and California’s accountability system, which put sanctions on schools and districts if scores do not improve each year. However, McCloskey did come to some conclusions in her report. She comments that “while definitive statements about the impact of Prop 227 remain elusive, it is clear that current and former English learners are not achieving the same levels of academic success as their peers who enter school already knowing English” (18) and that she does not “see a clear association between the implementation of Prop 227 and consistent achievement gains for English learners relative to English-only students” (19).
Academic results aside, Proposition 227 has had other effects on language education in the United States. According to Gándara, many credentialed bilingual teachers left these three states and went elsewhere for work, meaning that those who still required the help got even less help. California, Arizona and Massachusetts all saw similar declines of 50% in bilingual teachers. Additionally, in Boston, the non-English dropout rate increased from 6.5% in 2003 to 9.8% in 2006 and after years of implementation, still only 56% of English Language Learners graduate in Massachusetts (Boston Globe).
An Alternative Study
In Richard Miles’ dissertation titled “Evaluating the use of L1 in the English Language Classroom”, Miles observes three English classes for first-year Japanese students at the University of Kent in England. Miles took the three lowest achieving classes (codenamed MG8, MG9 and MG10) and observed their results on the placement test (KET test) after 5 months of instruction in different scenarios (19). One class was forbidden from using their L1, one class was allowed to use it while the third class utilized the L1 for learning.
Miles’ results showed that the class where L1 was utilized showed “significantly higher improvement in the area of speaking” (39). He suggests that this is related to confidence, as he hypothesizes that L1 use helped to “foster confidence”. He concludes that L1 use in the English classroom “does not hinder the learning of L2, and can actually facilitate it” (40). Miles’ study, using fewer variables, appears to support bilingual education, as he suggests that there is a place for L1 usage within the classroom.
10 Reasons ELLs should not use their L1’s
According to Richard K. Merton, a scientist looking at The Matthew Effect in Science, “the rich get richer at a rate which makes the poor relatively poorer” (6). Though initially used to discuss Merton’s observation that credit is usually given to those who are already famous than those who are unknown, the Matthew Effect has been applied to other meanings, where the rich (those who are good at something) will continue to improve while the poor (those who are not on the same level as “the rich”) will fall further and further behind. This idea has been applied to ELL classrooms, as there is a belief that the more a student uses English, the quicker and more proficient the student will become in comparison to their peers. Meanwhile, these peers who use English less will fall further and further behind.
In a keynote speech given by Dr. Steven Talmy at the ELL PSA conference last October, Talmy discussed the 10 reasons behind many English-only policies. In addition to the claims that the use of L1 is often viewed “in a negative light” (Yough 27) and that the home language has often become an image of someone “who lacks something, in this case sufficient knowledge of English to participate academically (Liu 27), Talmy takes a look into other reasons as to why the use of L1 is considered problematic. His list of 10 states:
1. L1 is an impediment to L2 learning
2. More exposure to L2 = more L2 learning
3. Students need English to succeed in school and society
4. Teachers should teach language of power (English) not the L1
5. This is Canada!
6. A common language promotes social cohesion
7. Teachers can’t realistically speak all the students’ L1s
8. L1 use leads to off-task behavior
9. Students can use L1 to abuse or bully other students
10. Parental pressure
Talmy also looks into how these rules are implemented, where classroom language policies such as the explicit “please only speak English” or the implicit “seating charts in which students from the same language background are not seated next to each other” are used along with “carrots” such as prizes, awards, praise and better marks and “sticks” such as public shaming, worse marks, “three strikes” or pushups to reinforce such policies.
Talmy uses this as the introduction to his topic of “language ideologies”, or the “commonsense notions about the nature of language in the world” (Woolard 4). Language ideologies are the characteristics of all languages and the process of the acquisition of them and how they disprove these 10 reasons.
To counter the belief that L1 is an impediment to L2 learning, Talmy states that L2 learners of different L1 backgrounds make similar errors, meaning that errors are endemic to L2 learning. In regards to the alleged direct relationship between L2 exposure and L2 learning, Talmy states that languages are not separately stored, but rather commonly stored with underlying proficiency.
For the next four, Talmy looks at language ideologies of linguistic nationalism. He contrasts this with the expectancy of monolingualism and counters the claim that a common language promotes social cohesion by countering that there are 5,000-6,000 languages but only roughly 200 nation-states. Through this, he proves that multilingualism, not monolingualism, is the norm. While he does not necessarily cast doubts on the necessity of English, he emphasizes the importance of L1 as well.
For the final few, Talmy looks at language ideologies of L1 use and users and states that the use of L1 can actually lead to more classroom participation and that linguicism can be excavated rather than allowing it to go undetected. Talmy concludes that there is “little ‘reason’ to exclude the L1s of ELLs” and that there is “much evidence concerning the value of incorporating them into instruction”.
The Value of Incorporating L1 into Instruction
Michael S. Yough and Min Fang writes an article about the uses of native languages within the classroom. Their article, titled Keeping Native Languages in ESL Class: Accounting for the Role Beliefs Play toward Mastery, discusses many of the beliefs that L1 hinders TL acquisition and looks at how L1 can be used productively within a classroom setting looking at articles by Cook and Turnbull. Yough and Fang state that while Cook and Turnbull place “a different emphasis on the role of L1 in their arguments”, they are not seen as “standing at the two extreme poles” as they both “agree on the need for judicious use of L1” (28). Yough and Fang look at what these judicious uses are in their paper.
Yough and Fang place great importance on self-efficacy and the perception of one’s ability to “achieve a given task” (28). They state that “a student who believes that s/he is capable of performing a specific task is more likely to make an attempt than a similarly capable peer who casts self-doubts” (28). Yough and Fang also state that mastery experiences are the “most effective way to increase self-efficacy” since they provide “the most authentic evidence for self-assessment of task competence”. This view is echoed by Andrea Dyrness, an associate professor of educational studie at Trinity College in Hartford. Dyrness states that, when compared with English-only, “the benefits of bilingualism for immigrant children are even greater – including family cohesion, increased self-esteem and stronger cultural identity.”
According to Yough and Fang, the use of L1 greatly aids the “understanding of the overall meaning of a passage” as well as can “facilitate vocabulary growth” (29). Yough and Fang also suggest that L1 can be used as a stepping stone in scaffolding under Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” theory, as it allowed students to “engage and maintain one another’s interest in a task, develop strategies for making tasks more manageable, and maintain focus on the goals of the task” (29). According to Yough and Fang, L1 also allowed students to “discuss the important elements of the task before undertaking them, discussing how to approach specific problems,and build upon one another’s partial solutions” (29). L1 use here is useful and justifiable, as it allows students to arrive at a more holistic understanding of the content, giving them access to information they would have otherwise not understood. The use of L1 gives greater opportunities for collaboration and learning through the process. And in studying writing, Yough and Fang found that self-regulated learners were able to “control their language switching and used their L1 as a tool” (29), indicating that the use of L1 is not being abused by students; instead, it is used as a supplement. Finally, the use of L1 allowed for easy instruction transfer, so that full attention can be focused on the task instead (30).
Yough and Fang also encourage the use of L1 by ESL instructors as it provides “vicarious experiences” (30). Yough and Fang state that the use of L1 by an ESL instructor gives students “a real-life example of foreign language use as a means of communication”. Additionally, it can “decrease anxiety” (31) through influencing physiological and affective states. Yough and Fang state that there are situations where the use of L1 can be of help within a classroom and learning setting, and these uses help to enhance the process of acquiring a language. In such situations under the right circumstances, L1 can be used to enhance learning without detracting from the process.
The Lack of Judiciousness
Anne Edstrom does research on L1 use from the perspective of a teacher in her report L1 Use in the L2 Classroom: One Teacher’s Self-Evaluation. In the article, Edstrom looks at the use of L1 (in this case, English is L1) in a first-year Spanish course and documents her quantity of use throughout the semester. Using audio recordings of her lectures, Edstrom documented both the frequency and purposes of her usage of the L1 within the classroom. She hypothesized that her recordings would show that she spoke roughly 5-10% English during the classes and noted that her use of English increased as the semester progressed. Reflecting on her journal entry, she noted that she was very “free” with her English use (Edstrom 280) and that when she was tired, she would explain concepts in English that she “probably could have explained without” (Edstrom 281). Additionally, Edstrom realized that she relied on translation “more than [she] needs to” (Edstrom 281). In the end, her recordings showed that she spoke English “23% of the time”. At the end of her research, Edstrom noted that her use of English in the classroom was primarily for “grammar instruction, for classroom management, and to compensate for a lack of comprehension” (Edstrom 283).
Edstrom’s study provides an interesting commentary on the use of L1 in the classroom, as while her reasons for using the native language are legitimate, her choice of when to use it is dubious as she admits that there were times when such use was unnecessary. Edstrom’s study highlights an often-uncovered element of English-only policies: if L1-use is allowed, what are the circumstances surrounding it, and how are such circumstances determined or decided? There are circumstances when its use makes sense. However, when are they, and how can the prevention of the abuse of the L1 be accomplished?
Where the Research has Led Me
Through my research, I have found myself acknowledging that both sides have very valid points. I believe that in an ideal world, English should be the language of use in the classroom. However, for optimal learning that is most beneficial to the students, there is also a necessity of L1 usage. And when L1 is permissible, it should be used in moderation and only when necessary. In Dr. Steven Talmy’s keynote speech, he brings up the point that “ELLs are not just learning English. ELLs are learning content” and states that the formula of “ELL + English = regular student. Therefore, content learning can commence” is far from the truth. He concludes that the ideal instruction for learning content for ELLs is to offer them “high-challenge, high-support, language/content integrated instruction that utilizes the L1”. In the end, I find myself agreeing with Dr. Talmy’s findings. I also find myself agreeing with the uses of the L1 suggested by Yough and Fang. And at the same time, I acknowledge the pitfalls that are brought up in Edstrom’s study. As the Alliance for Excellent Education has said in their report Double the Work, in learning English at the same time they are studying content, English Language Learners must do “double the work of native English speakers in the country’s middle and high schools” (1). This report states that each ELL student is different and that each student requires different instruction to help them succeed. For some of these students, an English-only policy might be most effective for them. However, this might not be the case for other students. Because of this, a 100% inflexible English-only policy which eliminates creativity and flexibility is not the ideal solution to the problem that is the lack of success in ESL/ELL students.
Works Cited
Batalova, Jeanne, et al. The Demography and Literacy of Adolescent English Learners. New
York: Carnegie Corporation, 2007. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.
Dyrness, Andrea. “English-Only Teaching Ignores Bilingual Benefits.” The Courant. Hartford
Courant, 2012. Web. 18 Jan. 2014
Edstrom, Anne. “L1 Use in the L2 Classroom: One Teacher’s Self-Evaluation.” The Canadian
Modern Language Review 63.2 (2006): 275-292. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.
Garcia, Marcela. “Sinking in an English-Only Classroom.” Boston Globe. Boston Globe, 2013.
Web. 14 Jan. 2014
Gándara, Patricia. “The Impact of English-Only Instructional Policies on English Learners.”
Colorín Colorado. Reading Rockets, 2012. Web. 18 Jan. 2014.
Liu, Changing. “Home Language: A Stigma or a Vehicle to Literacy?” Literacy Learning: the
Middle Years 18.1 (2010): 26-40. Web. 16 Jan. 2014
McCloskey, Laura, et al. Proposition 227 in California: A Long-term Appraisal of Its Impact on
Language Minority Student Achievement. California: The University of California Press, 2008. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Merton, Robert K. “The Matthew Effect in Science.” Science 159.3810 (1968): 56-63. Web. 13.
Dec. 2013.
Miles, Richard. Evaluating the Use of L1 in the English Language Classroom. Birmingham:
University of Birmingham Press, 2004. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.
Parrish, Thomas B. Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English
Learners, K – 12 Year 1 Report. 3 Jul. 2001. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Parrish, Thomas B., et al. Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of
English Learners, K – 12 Year 2 Report. 28 Jun. 2002. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Proposition 227. California Secretary of State, 1998. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Short, Deborah J., and Shannon Fitzsimmons. Double the Work. New York: Carnegie
Corporation, 2007. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.
Talmy, Steven. “Elevating their Voices, Connecting Communities.” ELL PSA. North
Vancouver Secondary, North Vancouver. 26 Oct. 2013. Keynote Speech.
Yough, Michael S., and Ming Fang. “Keeping Native Languages in ESL Class: Accounting for
the Role Beliefs Play Toward Mastery.” Mid-Western Educational Researcher 23.2 (2010): 27-32. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.
"English-only policies have always been a topic of interest for me. This became more evident as I started teaching ELL. The elementary school I went to had an English-only policy. The first place I taught at, a Conversational English program had an English-only policy. The language school downtown I did my practicum at had an English-only policy. The high school I did my practicum at had an English-only policy. The lengths that people and institutions went to ensure English and only English was used has always intrigued me.
In elementary school, using a language other than English meant a note on your report card. At the schools I taught at, getting caught speaking a language other than English meant a trip to the office or even worse, a trip home. However, what intrigued me more than the lengths people went to was the impracticality of the policies. One of the teachers I observed once told me a story. There was a time when she instituted a rule in her class, where every time she caught a student speaking in a language other than English, they would have to put a dollar into the jar at the front of the class. This lasted all of two classes, when she realized that her class would go broke within the week.
It is not that I do not believe in policies which encourage students to speak English. I believe that the speaking of English is imperative to the learning of the language. It was the rigidity that is implied and built into English-only policies that had me wondering about them. In my own experiences, there are times when using the student’s first language to explain a concept is more effective and efficient than doing so in English. I’ve once spent 20 minutes explaining an object in English to a student. After 20 minutes, the student still did not grasp what I was talking about. It wasn’t until I translated the word into their own language that they understood it. After translating, it took all of half a minute for the student to understand, and we moved on from there. The use of a non-English language would’ve saved 19 minutes. 19 minutes that could’ve been better spent learning other vocabulary. And in academia, this view is supported. In a keynote speech, deputy head of the University of British Columbia’s Department of Language & Literacy Education spoke on the topic of English-only policies and strongly supported the use of L1 in ELL instruction. He states the rationale behind English-only policies and then goes on to discuss why each point is invalid. When asking my professors for resources regarding this topic, the research they directed me towards have been overwhelmingly dubious towards English-only instruction. In my own personal experiences, flexibility that is neglected in an English-only policy allows for more efficient and effective learning.
However, people with more experience than I have appear to believe otherwise, as English-only policies appear to be on the rise. In the past 15 years, multiple states have put into place policies which enforced the exclusive use of English for instruction within classrooms. Schools and institutions have almost universally adapted these policies. And I wonder, where is the discrepancy in views? What is the rationale behind them? What does the research say about these two sides? And so I inquire…"
Why this is Important
The study of ELL and English-only policies is important because of both the vast number of those within its categorization and the effects poor language education has on its recipients. According to Lee Gunderson in his book English-Only Instruction and Immigrant Students in Secondary Schools, “students who speak a language other than English at home are less likely to succeed in schools” (4). This is evident throughout the world, where language learners in New Zealand score 70 points below their English-speaking classmates (Gunderson 13) while those in the United States scores 61 points below their peers (Gunderson 13). While the gap in British Columbia is significantly lower (14 points), the gap is still present. In Batalova, Fix and Murray’s report titled Measures of Change, grade 8 ELL students were categorized into 4 categories (Advanced, Proficient, Basic and Below Basic) (36). In their study, Batalova et al. reported that in California, 74% of these grade 8 ELL students classified as “below basic”, meaning they had less than “partial mastery” of the language. As a whole, the United States has 71% of these students classified as below basic. Meanwhile in Western Canada, 80% of ELL students were more than 2.5 years behind in reading after 3 years of learning English (Gunderson 13).
Lower achievement is not the only difficulty that immigrant students face, as they are also more likely to drop out of secondary school. Hispanic students in the United States have dropout rates varying from 14% to 30% (Zehr 12) while closer to home, a 1987 report showed that 53% of ESL students left high school early (Gunderson 4) while a 2001 report showed that ELL students in Alberta had a 73% dropout rate (Gunderson 4). Vancouver’s statistics reflect the numbers given in these provinces as 60% of ELL students in the Lower mainland and 54% of ELL students in Vancouver experience academic failure and early school-leaving. All this compared to 6% in BC amongst non-ELL students.
Perhaps more important than the results are the number of students affected by this. In Boston, 46% of the population speaks a language other than English and their public school system has 17,000 English Learners (Boston Globe). In Vancouver, 58,000 students are enrolled in 18 secondary schools and 90 elementary schools and annexes (Gunderson 64). According to a report in June 2005, 55.5% of these elementary school students are ESL and 47% of those in secondary schools are also ESL.
While the number of ESL/ELL students in the Vancouver school system is high, signs indicate that the number is on the rise. According to Dr. Steven Talmy, there were 34,179 ESL students in BC schools in 1990. This number nearly doubled in 2011, when statistics showed that there were 62,080 ESL students in the school system. In addition to this, Canada’s per-capita immigration rate is among the highest of any country in the world according to Citizenship and Immigration Canada in 2013 and 250,000 new immigrants are admitted annually. This number is expected to increase, as the government plans for 240,000 to 265,000 new immigrants this year.
History of Bilingual Education and English-only Policies
The United States is different from Canada in the policies which it has in place regarding ELL students. This difference is found in the right to bilingual education, which, passed in 1968, gave students the right to education in their L1 as well as in English (Proposition 227). According to Dr. Patricia Gándara, bilingual education guaranteed English learners “access to an equivalent curriculum as that offered to English speakers” (Colorín Colorado). However, English-only advocates pushed against bilingual education, and the government commissioned two national studies on the topic. According to Gándara, the first report, the American Institutes for Research report in 1978, concluded that there was no significant continuing impact in bilingual programs on student outcomes. Meanwhile, the second study, the “Immersion Sudy” of 1991, showed that those in late-exit bilingual programs scored above the norm on standardized testing. However, there were too many variables in place, calling into the question the validity of the results. Overall, research on the topic has been very disorganized and chaotic. According to Lee Gunderson, who quotes a 1996 review of 300 studies of bilingual education, only 72 of the 300 were “methodologically acceptable studies” (16). The review goes on to state that “Seven perent of the studies show transitional bilingual education to be superior, 64% sow it to be inferior, and 29% show it to be no different from submersion – doing nothing”.
This led up to 1998 and California’s Proposition 227, which sought to “require all public school instruction to be conducted in English” (Proposition 227). According to the analysis of the proposition, California’s public schools serve 5.6 million students from K-12. 1.4 million, or 25% of these students are LEP (Limited English Proficient, or students who cannot understand English well enough to keep up). It was found that 88% of state schools had at least 1 LEP student and 71% of them had at least 20. The claim of bilingual education was that it made lessons understandable for LEP students while making LEP students fluent in English.
Built on the premise that learning a new language was easier at a young age and easier when immersed in it, Proposition 227 was presented in attempts to abolish bilingual education in favor of an English-only policy. Those in favor of this proposition felt that bilingual was merely a politically correct way of saying “monolingual” or “Spanish-only” and that children do not need to learn through their L1 because they already know it. The supporters also claimed that bilingual education produced little result, as only 6.7% of limited-English students learned enough English to be moved onto mainstream classes. Finally, these supporters felt that there were too many languages spoken in California (140) for each and every one of them to receive bilingual treatment.
Meanwhile, those against the proposition acknowledged that some of the bilingual programs in the state were not being executed as well as they should. However, these programs were improving, and Proposition 227 would wipe out even the good programs also. They also stated that the English-only method was untested and that parents should have a choice/say in the manner in which their children were educated. Those against Proposition 227 wanted the flexibility and freedom which came with bilingual education and stated that most EL students were already in English-only programs, even before this proposition was passed. In the end, the bill was passed 61% to 39%, and Arizona and Massachusetts quickly followed suit in passing similar propositions.
The Results
The government commissioned Thomas B. Parrish to research the results of Proposition 227, and he found after the first year that many of the schools had difficulty implementing the proposition, as the instructions they were given were vague and unclear. Parrish’s second year report quoted Amselle and Allison, who also studied the results of Proposition 227 by examining the results of SAT-9 scores of select districts (Year 2 Report III-1). They found that students made “significant gains in reading and writing in English as well as in math (Report III-1) and also found that greater gains were found in those who had “fully implemented the initiative” (eliminating bilingual programs as opposed to slowly fazing them out) (Report III-2). However, a study by California Together found that improvement was not limited to LEP students, as achievement had increased universally across the board in both English-only schools and those maintaining bilingual programs (Report III-2). The study also found that while the performance gap narrowed slightly, a significant gap still persisted (Report III-13) and that “there is no clear pattern favoring one instructional model” (Report III-18).
Laura McCloskey came to similar findings when she did a similar research 10 years after the implementation of Proposition 227 in 2008. In her study, she found that English learners have “shown increases in standardized test scores since Prop 227’s passage” (15). However, she also notes that, like in the year 2 report, the changes were across the board, as all students in California showed improvement in scores. In addition to this, McCloskey also claims that there are “many factors, besides any possible effects of Prop 227” which could influence the change in scores. Most notable of the possible factors is the implementation of the “No Child Left Behind” policy (smaller class sizes) and California’s accountability system, which put sanctions on schools and districts if scores do not improve each year. However, McCloskey did come to some conclusions in her report. She comments that “while definitive statements about the impact of Prop 227 remain elusive, it is clear that current and former English learners are not achieving the same levels of academic success as their peers who enter school already knowing English” (18) and that she does not “see a clear association between the implementation of Prop 227 and consistent achievement gains for English learners relative to English-only students” (19).
Academic results aside, Proposition 227 has had other effects on language education in the United States. According to Gándara, many credentialed bilingual teachers left these three states and went elsewhere for work, meaning that those who still required the help got even less help. California, Arizona and Massachusetts all saw similar declines of 50% in bilingual teachers. Additionally, in Boston, the non-English dropout rate increased from 6.5% in 2003 to 9.8% in 2006 and after years of implementation, still only 56% of English Language Learners graduate in Massachusetts (Boston Globe).
An Alternative Study
In Richard Miles’ dissertation titled “Evaluating the use of L1 in the English Language Classroom”, Miles observes three English classes for first-year Japanese students at the University of Kent in England. Miles took the three lowest achieving classes (codenamed MG8, MG9 and MG10) and observed their results on the placement test (KET test) after 5 months of instruction in different scenarios (19). One class was forbidden from using their L1, one class was allowed to use it while the third class utilized the L1 for learning.
Miles’ results showed that the class where L1 was utilized showed “significantly higher improvement in the area of speaking” (39). He suggests that this is related to confidence, as he hypothesizes that L1 use helped to “foster confidence”. He concludes that L1 use in the English classroom “does not hinder the learning of L2, and can actually facilitate it” (40). Miles’ study, using fewer variables, appears to support bilingual education, as he suggests that there is a place for L1 usage within the classroom.
10 Reasons ELLs should not use their L1’s
According to Richard K. Merton, a scientist looking at The Matthew Effect in Science, “the rich get richer at a rate which makes the poor relatively poorer” (6). Though initially used to discuss Merton’s observation that credit is usually given to those who are already famous than those who are unknown, the Matthew Effect has been applied to other meanings, where the rich (those who are good at something) will continue to improve while the poor (those who are not on the same level as “the rich”) will fall further and further behind. This idea has been applied to ELL classrooms, as there is a belief that the more a student uses English, the quicker and more proficient the student will become in comparison to their peers. Meanwhile, these peers who use English less will fall further and further behind.
In a keynote speech given by Dr. Steven Talmy at the ELL PSA conference last October, Talmy discussed the 10 reasons behind many English-only policies. In addition to the claims that the use of L1 is often viewed “in a negative light” (Yough 27) and that the home language has often become an image of someone “who lacks something, in this case sufficient knowledge of English to participate academically (Liu 27), Talmy takes a look into other reasons as to why the use of L1 is considered problematic. His list of 10 states:
1. L1 is an impediment to L2 learning
2. More exposure to L2 = more L2 learning
3. Students need English to succeed in school and society
4. Teachers should teach language of power (English) not the L1
5. This is Canada!
6. A common language promotes social cohesion
7. Teachers can’t realistically speak all the students’ L1s
8. L1 use leads to off-task behavior
9. Students can use L1 to abuse or bully other students
10. Parental pressure
Talmy also looks into how these rules are implemented, where classroom language policies such as the explicit “please only speak English” or the implicit “seating charts in which students from the same language background are not seated next to each other” are used along with “carrots” such as prizes, awards, praise and better marks and “sticks” such as public shaming, worse marks, “three strikes” or pushups to reinforce such policies.
Talmy uses this as the introduction to his topic of “language ideologies”, or the “commonsense notions about the nature of language in the world” (Woolard 4). Language ideologies are the characteristics of all languages and the process of the acquisition of them and how they disprove these 10 reasons.
To counter the belief that L1 is an impediment to L2 learning, Talmy states that L2 learners of different L1 backgrounds make similar errors, meaning that errors are endemic to L2 learning. In regards to the alleged direct relationship between L2 exposure and L2 learning, Talmy states that languages are not separately stored, but rather commonly stored with underlying proficiency.
For the next four, Talmy looks at language ideologies of linguistic nationalism. He contrasts this with the expectancy of monolingualism and counters the claim that a common language promotes social cohesion by countering that there are 5,000-6,000 languages but only roughly 200 nation-states. Through this, he proves that multilingualism, not monolingualism, is the norm. While he does not necessarily cast doubts on the necessity of English, he emphasizes the importance of L1 as well.
For the final few, Talmy looks at language ideologies of L1 use and users and states that the use of L1 can actually lead to more classroom participation and that linguicism can be excavated rather than allowing it to go undetected. Talmy concludes that there is “little ‘reason’ to exclude the L1s of ELLs” and that there is “much evidence concerning the value of incorporating them into instruction”.
The Value of Incorporating L1 into Instruction
Michael S. Yough and Min Fang writes an article about the uses of native languages within the classroom. Their article, titled Keeping Native Languages in ESL Class: Accounting for the Role Beliefs Play toward Mastery, discusses many of the beliefs that L1 hinders TL acquisition and looks at how L1 can be used productively within a classroom setting looking at articles by Cook and Turnbull. Yough and Fang state that while Cook and Turnbull place “a different emphasis on the role of L1 in their arguments”, they are not seen as “standing at the two extreme poles” as they both “agree on the need for judicious use of L1” (28). Yough and Fang look at what these judicious uses are in their paper.
Yough and Fang place great importance on self-efficacy and the perception of one’s ability to “achieve a given task” (28). They state that “a student who believes that s/he is capable of performing a specific task is more likely to make an attempt than a similarly capable peer who casts self-doubts” (28). Yough and Fang also state that mastery experiences are the “most effective way to increase self-efficacy” since they provide “the most authentic evidence for self-assessment of task competence”. This view is echoed by Andrea Dyrness, an associate professor of educational studie at Trinity College in Hartford. Dyrness states that, when compared with English-only, “the benefits of bilingualism for immigrant children are even greater – including family cohesion, increased self-esteem and stronger cultural identity.”
According to Yough and Fang, the use of L1 greatly aids the “understanding of the overall meaning of a passage” as well as can “facilitate vocabulary growth” (29). Yough and Fang also suggest that L1 can be used as a stepping stone in scaffolding under Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” theory, as it allowed students to “engage and maintain one another’s interest in a task, develop strategies for making tasks more manageable, and maintain focus on the goals of the task” (29). According to Yough and Fang, L1 also allowed students to “discuss the important elements of the task before undertaking them, discussing how to approach specific problems,and build upon one another’s partial solutions” (29). L1 use here is useful and justifiable, as it allows students to arrive at a more holistic understanding of the content, giving them access to information they would have otherwise not understood. The use of L1 gives greater opportunities for collaboration and learning through the process. And in studying writing, Yough and Fang found that self-regulated learners were able to “control their language switching and used their L1 as a tool” (29), indicating that the use of L1 is not being abused by students; instead, it is used as a supplement. Finally, the use of L1 allowed for easy instruction transfer, so that full attention can be focused on the task instead (30).
Yough and Fang also encourage the use of L1 by ESL instructors as it provides “vicarious experiences” (30). Yough and Fang state that the use of L1 by an ESL instructor gives students “a real-life example of foreign language use as a means of communication”. Additionally, it can “decrease anxiety” (31) through influencing physiological and affective states. Yough and Fang state that there are situations where the use of L1 can be of help within a classroom and learning setting, and these uses help to enhance the process of acquiring a language. In such situations under the right circumstances, L1 can be used to enhance learning without detracting from the process.
The Lack of Judiciousness
Anne Edstrom does research on L1 use from the perspective of a teacher in her report L1 Use in the L2 Classroom: One Teacher’s Self-Evaluation. In the article, Edstrom looks at the use of L1 (in this case, English is L1) in a first-year Spanish course and documents her quantity of use throughout the semester. Using audio recordings of her lectures, Edstrom documented both the frequency and purposes of her usage of the L1 within the classroom. She hypothesized that her recordings would show that she spoke roughly 5-10% English during the classes and noted that her use of English increased as the semester progressed. Reflecting on her journal entry, she noted that she was very “free” with her English use (Edstrom 280) and that when she was tired, she would explain concepts in English that she “probably could have explained without” (Edstrom 281). Additionally, Edstrom realized that she relied on translation “more than [she] needs to” (Edstrom 281). In the end, her recordings showed that she spoke English “23% of the time”. At the end of her research, Edstrom noted that her use of English in the classroom was primarily for “grammar instruction, for classroom management, and to compensate for a lack of comprehension” (Edstrom 283).
Edstrom’s study provides an interesting commentary on the use of L1 in the classroom, as while her reasons for using the native language are legitimate, her choice of when to use it is dubious as she admits that there were times when such use was unnecessary. Edstrom’s study highlights an often-uncovered element of English-only policies: if L1-use is allowed, what are the circumstances surrounding it, and how are such circumstances determined or decided? There are circumstances when its use makes sense. However, when are they, and how can the prevention of the abuse of the L1 be accomplished?
Where the Research has Led Me
Through my research, I have found myself acknowledging that both sides have very valid points. I believe that in an ideal world, English should be the language of use in the classroom. However, for optimal learning that is most beneficial to the students, there is also a necessity of L1 usage. And when L1 is permissible, it should be used in moderation and only when necessary. In Dr. Steven Talmy’s keynote speech, he brings up the point that “ELLs are not just learning English. ELLs are learning content” and states that the formula of “ELL + English = regular student. Therefore, content learning can commence” is far from the truth. He concludes that the ideal instruction for learning content for ELLs is to offer them “high-challenge, high-support, language/content integrated instruction that utilizes the L1”. In the end, I find myself agreeing with Dr. Talmy’s findings. I also find myself agreeing with the uses of the L1 suggested by Yough and Fang. And at the same time, I acknowledge the pitfalls that are brought up in Edstrom’s study. As the Alliance for Excellent Education has said in their report Double the Work, in learning English at the same time they are studying content, English Language Learners must do “double the work of native English speakers in the country’s middle and high schools” (1). This report states that each ELL student is different and that each student requires different instruction to help them succeed. For some of these students, an English-only policy might be most effective for them. However, this might not be the case for other students. Because of this, a 100% inflexible English-only policy which eliminates creativity and flexibility is not the ideal solution to the problem that is the lack of success in ESL/ELL students.
Works Cited
Batalova, Jeanne, et al. The Demography and Literacy of Adolescent English Learners. New
York: Carnegie Corporation, 2007. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.
Dyrness, Andrea. “English-Only Teaching Ignores Bilingual Benefits.” The Courant. Hartford
Courant, 2012. Web. 18 Jan. 2014
Edstrom, Anne. “L1 Use in the L2 Classroom: One Teacher’s Self-Evaluation.” The Canadian
Modern Language Review 63.2 (2006): 275-292. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.
Garcia, Marcela. “Sinking in an English-Only Classroom.” Boston Globe. Boston Globe, 2013.
Web. 14 Jan. 2014
Gándara, Patricia. “The Impact of English-Only Instructional Policies on English Learners.”
Colorín Colorado. Reading Rockets, 2012. Web. 18 Jan. 2014.
Liu, Changing. “Home Language: A Stigma or a Vehicle to Literacy?” Literacy Learning: the
Middle Years 18.1 (2010): 26-40. Web. 16 Jan. 2014
McCloskey, Laura, et al. Proposition 227 in California: A Long-term Appraisal of Its Impact on
Language Minority Student Achievement. California: The University of California Press, 2008. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Merton, Robert K. “The Matthew Effect in Science.” Science 159.3810 (1968): 56-63. Web. 13.
Dec. 2013.
Miles, Richard. Evaluating the Use of L1 in the English Language Classroom. Birmingham:
University of Birmingham Press, 2004. Web. 12 Jan. 2014.
Parrish, Thomas B. Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English
Learners, K – 12 Year 1 Report. 3 Jul. 2001. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Parrish, Thomas B., et al. Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of
English Learners, K – 12 Year 2 Report. 28 Jun. 2002. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Proposition 227. California Secretary of State, 1998. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Short, Deborah J., and Shannon Fitzsimmons. Double the Work. New York: Carnegie
Corporation, 2007. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.
Talmy, Steven. “Elevating their Voices, Connecting Communities.” ELL PSA. North
Vancouver Secondary, North Vancouver. 26 Oct. 2013. Keynote Speech.
Yough, Michael S., and Ming Fang. “Keeping Native Languages in ESL Class: Accounting for
the Role Beliefs Play Toward Mastery.” Mid-Western Educational Researcher 23.2 (2010): 27-32. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.