Blom 1 Kristin Blom Mrs.

Warneke English 12 20 October 2013 Addressing the Achievement Gap of English Language Learners Most young kids walk into school on the first day worrying about the clothes they are wearing, who they will sit by at lunch, and cooties they will catch from their classmates. On Esra Ileris first day of 4th grade, he had much more on his mind. He was entering school in America for the first time at age nine with hardly any knowledge of the English language. He grew up in Turkey, and when Esra came to the United States, he was classified as an English language learner (ELL) (Pongracz 4). Esra and other ELLs are recognized as individuals who are in the process of transitioning from a home or native language to English (Herrera and Murry 8). This classification helps schools determine what steps need to be taken in order for the students to learn effectively (Herrera and Murry 7). The problem is that many schools do not have the innovative programs, resources, or funding necessary to meet the real needs of Esra and other ELL students. The result is what is known as an achievement gap between ELL students and native English-speaking students. When comparing scores on standardized tests, ELL students earn much lower scores than their English-speaking peers. For example, in 2009, just 25% of 8th graders who were classified as ELLs nationwide passed the basic proficiency levels in reading. On the other hand, 76% of non-ELL 8th graders passed the reading proficiency exam, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Bohrquez 1). This is one statistic of many that represents the struggle ELLs are facing everyday in the classroom. The achievement gap of English language learners clearly demonstrates that the American education system has failed to provide equal opportunities for all students to succeed (Ortiz and Pagan v-viii). Before solutions to this growing problem are proposed, it is important to first gain a better understanding of the ELL populations in Americas schools. In 2009, about 11% of

Blom 2 students in the United States were classified as ELLs (Ortiz and Pagan v). According to an article sponsored by the National Education Association, 79% of these students native language is Spanish. After Hispanic, Asian is the next highest decent of ELL students (McKeon). As Hispanic, Asian, and other immigrant populations continue to increase in America, the number of ELL students is bound to increase. In fact, by 2030, it is estimated that English language learners will make up 40% of the K-12 student population (Herrera and Murry 4). As the number of ELL students in schools continues to rise, something needs to be done to address the learning obstacles they encounter (McKeon). To make an educated decision regarding the best solution, it is important to analyze not only who is affected by the achievement gap, but also the cause of it. There is one main cause that schools can address to close the growing achievement gap between ELL students and native English-speaking students. Schools have a lack of innovative programs to address ELL students needs. Because the ELL population in most schools has just recently become notable, many schools have not had time to equip themselves with the resources they need to address the problem in an effective way (Ortiz and Pagan vi). As a result, many schools have not implemented programs that are tailored to the needs of ELL students. The lack of programs is a problem now, and if the projected statistic of two in five students being classified as English language learners becomes a reality, schools will find themselves in an even worse position. Therefore, schools need to address how to meet the needs of ELL students so the achievement gap can be brought to a close before it expands (Herrera and Murray 4) (Ortiz and Pagan vi). One way to address this flaw in the education system for ELL students is through a program called the two-way bilingual immersion (TWI) program, or the dual language immersion program. Most commonly used by elementary schools, this method of teaching is

Blom 3 becoming increasingly popular because it promotes multilingualism among students (Hunemorder). The concept behind the TWI program is simple: teach students the academic curriculum in English and a second language (commonly Spanish). This program benefits ELL students as well as native English-speaking students because it promotes proficiency in two languages. This results in students of many backgrounds going to schools that use the TWI method. The only difference for students is that some of them are learning English in addition to the curriculum while others are learning Spanish. Two-way bilingual immersion is a great way to enhance language proficiency of students of all backgrounds (Bohrquez 5-8) (Herrera and Murry 123). When looking at the feasibility of dual language immersion, it is evident that this method is very innovative but complex. To begin with, this method is unique because it fosters proficiency in two languages. This is extremely beneficial because research has shown that students most effectively learn a new language after their first language is firmly established (Herrera and Murry 123). In addition to language development, TWI promotes academic success because lessons are taught using a combination of two languages (Bohrquez 5). Another positive aspect of this method is that it keeps ELL students immersed in a traditional classroom setting while providing a specialized education. This is valuable because ELL students are not segregated from native English-speaking students, so all students have the opportunity to learn about other languages and cultures from their peers. However, in some cases, ELLs become isolated from their English-speaking peers as non-ELL students may acquire a privileged status as the program progresses (Herrera and Murry 125). This creates an obvious division in the classroom, a negative outcome of the TWI program. Another disadvantage of two-way immersion is the lack of qualified teachers to implement this style of instruction. In fact, the

Blom 4 National Center for Education Statistics found that just 2.5 percent of teachers who instruct English language learners possess a degree in ESL or bilingual education (McKeon). Overall, this method uses very effective techniques but can be difficult to successfully implement in schools (Herrera and Murry 123-125). Another instruction model that schools use to address inequality in the education of English language learners is called the push-in method (PI). In this program, ELL students are immersed in a traditional classroom setting. Two teachers, a curriculum specialist and an English as a Second Language (ESL) specialist, co-teach all students in the class. Because both teachers provide instruction in the academic lessons, the teachers must plan and schedule a routine together. This collaboration of an academic content expert and a language proficiency expert allows all students to learn the structured academic lessons and gives ELL students the extra instruction they need to be successful (Herrera and Murry 286) (Reynolds et al. 9). The push-in method of instruction is an effective way to approach teaching ELL students, but it does not come without its downsides. Similar to the TWI method, the PI instruction model keeps ELLs integrated in a mainstream classroom setting. This is an advantage to ELL students because there is less stigma associated with their unique learning situation (Herrera and Murry 286). In addition, ELL students will interact with their native English-speaking peers, so they will be able to enhance their proficiency in the English language through conversation. Another benefit of the PI method is that ELLs are learning the same curriculum as their peers while getting help to break the language barrier that exists. The team teaching method that makes this type of specialized instruction possible can also become a weakness in the PI method. In some cases, the content specialist and the ESL specialist do not share equal roles and responsibilities in the class. Some grade level teachers view the ESL teachers as assistants, which may cause these

Blom 5 qualified professionals to feel degraded. This unhealthy relationship between a teaching team can create an unstable learning environment for students (Reynolds et al. 11). A second negative aspect of the push-in model results from ELLs being mainstreamed into an English-speaking class. While there are many positives to this, the development of their native language and the celebration of their culture are left at the door when they walk into school each day. When each of these pros and cons is analyzed, it is evident that if an effective co-teaching system is implemented, PI instruction is a useful way to integrate ELL students into English-speaking society (Herrera and Murry 286). Another program model schools often use to try to address ELL students needs is called the pull-out method (PO). ELL students are taken out of the traditional classroom for part of the day to participate in supplemental language classes. Most PO classes last anywhere from 15 to 90 minutes per day. ESL specialists have their own room to teach ELL students in groups or on an individual basis. The decision of whether group or individual instruction is used is often based on the needs and abilities of each ELL student. The time and resources allotted for this additional instruction may also play a factor into the setting of PO classes (Reynolds et al. 11-12). PO classes are implemented in all levels K-12 and may include students who are different ages or speak different languages (Hunemorder). Overall, a large amount of flexibility exists within the pull-out instruction method (Reynolds et al. 11-13). Like the other two programs, the pull-out instruction method has both pros and cons associated with it. PO classes are positive because they create a camaraderie between ELL students, so they feel comfortable taking risks with their new language and asking questions (Reynolds et al. 11-12). The other benefit of the PO model is that it can provide very individualized programs for ELL students, which will help them advance at a faster pace. Yet

Blom 6 schools can also implement PO programs where students needs are not met because the instruction is too broad. Therefore, the flexibility of program implementation can also be a negative aspect of the PO method. This model also puts ELL students at a disadvantage to succeed in the academic curriculum. Because language aid and academic lessons are not paired together, ELLs struggle to understand basic lessons taught by their primary teachers. They also miss out on lessons during the day due to the pull-out classes they attend. Additionally, ELL students face the stigma that comes with the need of outside aid. While the pull-out instruction method may be the easiest for schools to implement, it clearly has many disadvantages that would need to be addressed for ELL students to learn effectively (Herrera and Murry 286) (Hunemorder) (Reynolds et al. 11-13). After reviewing the feasibility of each solution, it is evident that the best method to close the achievement gap of ELL students is the two-way bilingual immersion program. The TWI program is extremely beneficial for ELL students because they are immersed in a traditional classroom setting that promotes bilingualism. They can continue to learn in their native language while improving their English skills in the classroom and through conversation with native English-speaking students. The classroom could become divided if non-ELL students advance at a faster pace, but this is an issue ELL students will have to face regardless of what program schools implement. The other negative aspect of this option is the lack of qualified teachers needed to instruct bilingual learning. While it would be impossible to train unilingual teachers to become proficient in a second language, schools could attract bilingual teachers by finding ways to provide them with all of the resources necessary to teach in such a diverse classroom. Schools could also offer professional development throughout the year, so all staff is trained in the most innovative methods of instruction. None of the programs that schools choose to implement will

Blom 7 be flawless, but two-way immersion has minimal issues and provides the most long term benefits for ELL students. For instance, a study done on Monteverde K-8 Spanish TWI School, where 40% of students were classified as ELLs, found that 99% of students were bilingually proficient after fifth grade (Bohrquez 35). Two-way bilingual immersion creates a learning environment that will eliminate the achievement gap of ELL students, so all students truly have equal opportunities to learn and succeed (Herrera and Murry 123-125) (Hunemorder).

Blom 8 Works Cited Bohrquez, Felipe. Two-Way Immersion Programs in the United States. Social Science Research Network. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. Herrera, Socorro, and Kevin Murry. Mastering ESL and Bilingual Methods: Differentiated Instruction for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students. 2nd ed. Ed. Aurora Martinez Ramos. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2011. Print. Hunemorder, Rebecca. ELL in Elementary Schools. Rebecca Hunemorder, 2005. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. McKeon, Denise. Research Talking Points on English Language Learners. National Education Association. National Education Association, Jun. 2005. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. Ortiz, Tomasita, and Maggie Pagan. Closing the ELL Achievement Gap: A Leaders Guide to Making Schools Effective for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. Rexford: International Center for Leadership in Education, 2009. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. Pongracz, Marilyn. ESL Student Success Stories. NJTESOL/NJBE Voices 39.4 (2010): 4. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. Reynolds, Kate et al. Teachers Perceptions of Push-In or Pull-Out Model Effectiveness and Learning Outcomes. Diss. U of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2013.