This article examines the primary assumption underlying the recent passage of propositions aimed at meeting the need of English language learners (ELLs). The assumption is that English language learners normally need only one year of intensive structured English immersion to learn English well enough to be academically successful in an all-English instructional environment. This assumption is examined by engaging in an analysis of the learners’characteristics, the nature of academic language, and the conditions under which the learners are expected to acquire academic English. No theoretical or empirical evidence was found to support the central assumption underlying such propositions. It seems that the only support for the propositions stems from an uninformed voting public and the propositions’ authors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amselle, J. (Ed.). (1996). The failure of bilingual education. Washington, DC: Center for Equal Opportunity.
2.
Amselle, J.,& Allison, A. (2000). Two years of success: An analysis of California test scores after Proposition 227. READ Abstract. Washington, DC: Institute for Research in English Acquisition and Development.
3.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
Baker, C. (1996). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism(2nd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
6.
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism(3rd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
7.
Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1994). In other words: The science and psychology of second language acquisition. New York: Basic Books.
8.
California State Department of Education. (n.d.). Language census summary statistics, 1998-1999. Retrieved June 1, 2001, from http://www.cde.ca.gov
9.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched education. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
11.
Collier, V. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641.
12.
Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse of Bilingual Education.
13.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children(pp. 70-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Cummins, J. (1994). The acquisition of English as a second language. In K. Spangenberg-Urbschat& R. Pritchard (Eds.), Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction for ESL students(pp. 36-62). Washington, DC: International Reading Association.
15.
Durgunoglu, A.,& Verhoeven, L. (Eds.) (1998). Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Echeverria, J., Vogt, M.,& Short, D. (1998). The sheltered instruction observation protocol. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Excellence and Diversity of Education.
17.
Gandara, P. (2000). In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the post-227 era. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1-2). Retrieved May 15, 2001, from http://brj.asu.edu/
18.
Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., Garcia, E., Asato, J., Gutierrez, K., Stritikus, T., et al. (2000). The initial impact of Proposition 227 on the instruction of English learners. Davis: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
19.
Garcia, E. (2000a). Editor’s introduction: Implementation of California’s Proposition 227: 1998-2000. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1-2). Retrieved May 15, 2001, from http://brj.asu.edu/
20.
Garcia, E.,& Wiese, A. (2002). Language, public policy, and schooling: A focus on Chicano English language learners. In R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future(2nd ed., pp. 149-169). London: Routledge Falmer Press.
21.
Garcia, G. (2000b). Lessons from research: What is the length of time it takes limited English proficient students to acquire English and succeed in an all English classroom? Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
22.
Glenn, C. (1996). Educating immigrant children: Schools and language minorities in twelve nations. New York: Garland.
23.
Greene, J. (1997). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21. Retrieved May 15, 2001, from http://brj.asu.edu/
24.
Guerrero, M. (2002). Research in bilingual education: Moving beyond the effectiveness debate. In R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future(2nd ed., pp. 170-192). London: Routledge Falmer Press.
25.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency?Davis: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
26.
Hornberger, N. (1989). Continua of biliteracy. Review of Educational Research, 59, 3, 271-296.
27.
Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
Khisty, L. (1995). Making inequality: Issues of language and meanings in mathematics teaching with Hispanic students. In W. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. Adajain (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics education(pp. 279-297). New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. (1998, May). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12-21.
30.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
31.
McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second language acquisition in childhood: Preschool children(2nd ed., Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Oller, J. W. (Ed.). (1989). Language and experience: Classic pragmatism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
35.
Oller, J.,& Damico, J. (1991). Theoretical considerations in the assessment of LEP students. In E. Hamayan& J. Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 77-110). Austin, TX: Proed.
36.
Olsen, L. (2000). Learning English and learning America: Immigrants in the center of astorm. Theory into Practice, 39(4), 196-202.
37.
One Nation. (n.d.-a) English language education for children in public schools. Retrieved February 1, 2001, from http://www.onenation.org
38.
One Nation. (n.d.-b). English language in public schools. Initiative statute. Argument in favor of Proposition227. Retrieved February 1, 2001, from http://primary98.ss.ca.gov
39.
One Nation. (n.d.-c) MALDEF questions & answers on the Unz initiative (response). Retrieved February 1, 2001, from http://www.onenation.org
40.
One Nation. (n.d.-d). International methods of language instruction. Retrieved February 1, 2001, from http://www.onenation.org
41.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
Ramirez, D., Yuen, S., Ramey, D., Pasta, D., & Billings, D. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language minority children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.
43.
Salazar, J. (1998). A longitudinal model for interpreting thirty years of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 22. Retrieved May 15, 2001, from http://brj.asu.edu/
44.
Schifini, A., & Tinajero, J. (2000). Into English. Carmel, CA: Hampton-Brown Books.
45.
Schleppegrell, M. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12(4), 431-459.
46.
Snow, C. (1987). Beyond conversation: Second language learner’s acquisition of description and explanation. In J. P. Lantolf& A. Labarca (Eds.), Research in second language learning: Focus on the classroom(pp. 3-16). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
47.
Solomon, J., & Rhodes, N. (1995). Conceptualizing academic language. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
48.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
Thomas, W.,& Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Alexandria, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
50.
Tompkins, G. (2001). Literacy for the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
51.
Waggoner, D. (2000). The demographics of diversity in the United States. InR. Dueñas Gonzalez (Ed.), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the Official English Movement(pp. 5-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1989). Language learning in social context: The view from research in second language learning. In R. Dietrich& C. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context(pp. 277-302). New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
53.
Wong Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory into Practice, 39(4), 203-210.
