A family member sent me
this article today. As a new member to the teaching English profession, I thought I might comment on Oregon's Measure 58. According to the article, Measure 58, "would prohibit schools from teaching English learners in their native language after one year in elementary school or two years in high school."
The research presented in the article is absolutely correct. Prominent second language acquisition researchers have found that students who do not become literate in their first language have a very difficult time learning a second language. Much of this work was done in Canada, particularly with Canada's First Peoples not being able to learn English despite being put in English-only schools. There is something about developing the ability to read and write in one's first language that helps the brain fully develop the capacity for language. This is especially true in children. One year is not always enough.
For high school students there is also the question of confidence. If they are bright, good kids, but can't show their progress because of the language, how is that a good education? What will that do to their desire to learn? It can be incredibly demotivating to have a desire to show the teacher what you know but not be able to because of the language. Students need to be able to work on both content and language at the same time. There are several ways to do this - from normal subject teachers teaching both English skills and the content, to the ESL teacher incorporating the content from courses into the ESL classes, to simply putting students in mainstream classes and offering ESL as additional class. In any case, two years may not be enough time depending on the level of literacy a student already has in their first language.
This measure is directly related to everything I am studying and working on. Language learning is complicated and much about it is still unknown. To arbitrarily put a time limit on a person's learning is irresponsible. Many studies have shown that immersion doesn't produce competant language learners, especially if the goal is academic language use.
If Mr. Sizemore thinks that schools keep students in ESL programs for the extra monetary support, perhaps he should promote some kind of annual language assessment program for ESL learners rather than putting a time limit to someone's learning. I find it hard to believe that any responsible and ethical teacher would hold a learner back on purpose.
