In the past 20 years, U.S. schools have experienced a tremendous influx of students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Every state has experienced this increase, and California, which has the most diverse schools in the nation, has become a bellwether for education policy. In this climate of diversity, the Golden State is spearheading accountability measures and standards-based reform for all students. As the push for accountability, standards, and reform intensifies, however, we must carefully analyze policies that dictate a one-size-fits-all solution. This analysis is especially important when the proposed solutions seek to increase the literacy development of diverse learners in a highly politicized educational environment.
The political debate about how best to educate limited-English proficient (LEP) students is far from new. In the midst of this debate and the tremendous educational challenge facing California schools, Proposition 227 passed on June 2, 1998. This new law mandated the virtual elimination of bilingual education programs and called for instruction "overwhelmingly" in English (California Education Code, Section 300). For the two months after its passage, school districts worked feverishly to institute the sheltered English-immersion programs outlined in the Proposition 227 legislation and subsequently delineated by the State Board of Education. Sheltered, or structured, English-immersion programs are taught primarily in English and are based on the notion that students can learn English and then catch up on academic content.
Before Proposition 227 was enacted, fewer than 25 percent of the 1.4 million limited-English proficient students in California actually received some form of instruction in their primary language. For some school districts, the new regulations changed their programs very little. For school districts with successful bilingual education programs, however, the changes were far more challenging and difficult.
Demographic Realities of California Schools
California's student population, the most diverse in the United States, is an indicator for educational challenges yet to unfold throughout the nation. From 1997 to 2007, the percentage of white students in California is expected to decline by 16 percent, while other groups will increase by the following percentages: Hispanic (+35%), Pacific Islander (+30%), and Asian (+15%). By 2000, no ethnic group will constitute a majority of California's population (CDE, 1999). Today, one out of five California students was born outside the United States. Approximately 1.4 million of the 5.7 million students in California are identified as limited English proficient (LEP).
Many California students live in poverty, a significant indicator of academic risk. Approximately 2.7 million (47%) of the state's 5.7 million students come from low-income backgrounds (CDE, 1999). Nearly half (48%) of California's students were receiving free or reduced price meals in 1996–97. Only Louisiana, Mississippi, and the District of Columbia had higher percentages of poor children (NCES data for 1996–97).
California State Department of Education (CDE). (1999). Education in California: Looking through the prism. Sacramento, CA: Author.
The Crisis of Inequitable Achievement
Too many language-minority students are failing in schools today, and there is no question that literacy programs for diverse student populations need reform. Yet, will current national and state reform agendas for the promotion of literacy address the needs of at-risk students in linguistically, culturally, ethnically, and racially diverse settings? The 1998 NAEP data point to a serious concern: the persistence of differential performance among ethnic and racial groups (NCES, 1999).
NAEP data on reading achievement for blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans indicate that on the basis of 4th, 8th, and 12th grade comparisons, the performance of these groups continues to lag behind that of whites (NCES, 1999). And the reading performance of California students across all ethnic and linguistic groups continues to lag behind that of most states. Similarly, when California's 1998 Stanford-9 achievement results are disaggregated, the results are comparable to the NAEP findings: Students of color consistently score lower than white students. Moreover, the California data also clearly document that LEP students consistently are the lowest achieving of all students (Hakuta, 1999).
Diverse Learners Require Diverse Approaches
The persistence of serious inequities in the performance of LEP students, speakers of standard English as a second dialect, and other students at risk of failure continues to be the major litmus test for contemporary literacy reform initiatives. We must ask, Are all students reading on grade level? Can schools put together literacy programs that address the linguistic needs of all students?
The debate in California can be reduced to two arguments. Some policy leaders and educators argue that one approach to literacy instruction fits all students. In contrast, others contend that the problems of diverse learners result from an unequal chance to learn (Kozol, 1991; Weinberg, 1995)—and from a failure to accommodate their needs. Many students at risk of failure, particularly recent immigrants and ethnic and racial minorities, attend schools with unequal resources and poorly prepared teachers (McDonnell & Hill, 1993).
In an effort to address both the literacy problems and the more fundamental problem of inequitable achievement across diverse groups, many states, including California, have launched major reform initiatives, including class-size reduction, standards-based reform, and technology-assisted instruction. These reform efforts, although well motivated, share a common limitation: They prescribe a one-size-fits-all approach (Rethinking Schools, 1999).
Consider class-size reduction, for example. This reform has exacerbated the severe shortage of qualified bilingual education teachers in California; it has hardly benefited LEP students. Standards-based reform aids only students who fully understand and have access to high academic content. Past experience and research indicate that reforms are bound to fall far short of their lofty goals when they fail to consider the special needs of LEP students, speakers of nonstandard dialects of English, and other students at risk of failure.
Education policymakers are ignoring best practices for learners of English as a second language and students for whom standard English is a second dialect. For example, research clearly indicates that language learning is developmental and takes more than just a year or two. Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey (1991) concluded that students take from four to seven years to attain proficiency levels at which they can learn academic content as well as native speakers of English can.
Yet for LEP students, policymakers most frequently call for sheltered English immersion—an approach that is problematic because it leads to academic deficits. For example, if a 7th grade LEP student tests at the 4th grade reading level on a standardized test, such as the Stanford-9, that student would need to increase 1.6 grade levels each year to catch up with a native English speaker who needs to improve only 1.0 grade level annually. Meanwhile, the LEP student loses academic content while focusing on improving English reading abilities.
To grant local control and flexibility, Proposition 227 left districts to define what sheltered English immersion means in practice—and to decide when students begin literacy instruction in an English-only program. These English-only programs seek to give students survival English skills so that they can transition to a mainstream English classroom after being in the sheltered English-immersion classroom for only one school year. The California legislation asserts that in this short period, students will have attained "reasonable fluency in English."
The lack of clear, consistent guidelines on how to determine "reasonable fluency in English" and on how to address the literacy needs of students has left California educators in a quagmire, seeking quick solutions. The push for accountability compounds this chaos. The focus on accountability dictates that LEP students meet the same standards and take the same standardized assessments as native English-speaking students—even though they do not have access to the type of instruction that would allow them to meet these standards. In response to state policies, districts have implemented programs that vary greatly in quality (Ramirez, 1999).
Approaches That Value Language and Culture
Constructivist theorists, sociocognitive researchers, and experts on language minority education (Hiebert, 1991) generally agree that any approach that builds on a student's prior knowledge, including home language and culture, is better than instruction that fails to recognize it. Researchers make similar arguments for speakers of standard English as a second dialect (Wolfram, Adger, and Christian, 1999). Unfortunately, California policymakers are approaching the education of language-minority students as if the language background of these children does not matter. They assume that the only question about developing literacy is, In an English-only program, which method works better, phonics or something else? The post–Proposition 227 climate no longer recognizes the value of native language instruction.
Aside from the dismissal of native language instruction, many literacy experts do not approach the debate between advocates of skills-based or phonics-only methods and literature-based methods as an either-or issue. For example, the Learning First Alliance (1998), a coalition of national education organizations, has concluded that all children need systematic instruction in phonics and exposure to rich literature. Likewise, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that because reading is such a complex and multifaceted activity, no single method is the answer (August & Hakuta, 1997).
Skills- or phonics-based approaches often ignore important differences between native English-speaking learners and LEP students. Chamot and O'Malley (1994) have noted that native English speakers learn to read words and grammatical structures that they already understand orally. Second-language learners, in contrast, learn to read English by transferring reading skills learned in the native language—and they encounter an inordinate amount of unfamiliar language, even in beginning texts. Moreover, beginning readers who are native English speakers expect to understand the text once they have managed to decode it, but readers who are learning English may not comprehend texts even when they can decode them (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994).
Other potential problems occur when educators use the dominant approaches to teaching literacy. For example, one problem with a skills- or phonics-based approach for LEP students is that even if a student can sound out a word accurately, he or she may not recognize the word because it is not a part of his or her oral vocabulary.
Also, an LEP student who is trying to sound out a word in English may base his or her pronunciation on the same or similar phonemes in the native language. The student is trying to map the language of the text to his or her own speech—something all readers attempt to do. Teachers may try to correct this problem, but the problem often persists as students rely on their prior knowledge about sound-symbol correspondences. When this happens, the reading lesson becomes a pronunciation lesson and neglects comprehension. The teacher attempts to correct the student's pronunciation, assuming that "correct pronunciation," that is, sounding like the teacher, is a prerequisite for students to decode the text (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994, p. 89). Similar problems occur for second-dialect speakers (Wolfram, Adger, & Christian, 1999).
Meeting the Literacy Needs of Diverse Students
Proposition 227 may have changed the way that California schools deliver instruction to students learning English. The law did not, however, change the students in California. They still present the same challenges and opportunities. When the dust settles, we will not be surprised to find that one-size-fits-all programs and practices are not appropriate for diverse students, because they were politically motivated and enacted without empirical research.
These programs ignore a basic premise of learning theory—that instruction needs to recognize that students learn more when they make connections with content. Literacy programs for diverse students that are structured to include only one part of the total reading process, such as phonics, fail to give these students the context for understanding and deriving meaning from what they are reading. These programs seriously hamper their ability to learn the content needed for full literacy and academic achievement. Educators, therefore, must reflect on their basic assumptions, values, and beliefs about how best to address the linguistic and literacy needs of diverse student populations and not be guided by political gurus or divisive policies.
In the United States, we need to re-examine the views that we have about students who come to school with languages other than English. In our global society, there is certainly value in being literate in languages other than English. We need to know that tapping into students' primary language skills gives us a vehicle for meaningful instruction in content areas while developing their English-language skills. Research about well-implemented bilingual education and dual language-immersion programs (Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991; Lindholm, 1991, 1992) consistently shows increased student achievement for students who participate in these programs. Even those opposed to bilingual education programs acknowledge the effectiveness of these programs. Glenn, for example, supports Canadian and European approaches to bilingual education that feature heritage-language education for minority students (Glenn, 1990; Glenn & LaLyre, 1991). Students can gain literacy in other languages while learning English (Cummins, 1985). If we continue to assume that we should use only English in our classrooms, we will limit educational opportunities for all students instead of expanding them.
If standards and curricular reforms are to spur high and equitable achievement for all students, they need to reflect an understanding of the specific linguistic and cultural resources that students bring with them to school, as well as their need to acquire standard English and to learn English language arts. By mandating a one-size-fits-all approach, policies such as Proposition 227 shortchange students who are most at risk of school failure and low levels of literacy development. These students will continue to do poorly—until we base policies on an informed understanding of their needs.
