"I, too, am America."

~ Langston Hughes

"I am entirely certain that twenty years from now we will look back at education as it is practiced in most schools today and wonder that we could have tolerated anything so primitive."

~ John W. Gardner

       According to the 2000 U.S. census, there are 9,779,766 Americans aged five to seventeen who speak languages other than English in their homes. This number has increased by 118 percent in the last twenty years. 6,286,648 of these Americans speak English very well; 2,171,142 speak English well; 1,090,925 do not speak English well; and 231,051 do not speak English at all. The number of Americans in this age bracket who speak English with difficulty has increased by 110 percent from 1979 to 1999. In addition, "Forty-two percent of all public school teachers have at least one LEP (limited English proficiency) student in their classes" (National Center for Educational Statistics web site). According to these figures provided by the U.S. 2000 census and the National Center for Educational Statistics, English Language Learners (ELLs) represent almost twenty percent of the student population in our nations public education system. How are we working to meet the needs of ELLs in our schools?

       The Brown Case in 1954 led the U.S. Supreme court to declare racial segregation in schools to be unconstitutional , according to Gloria Stewner-Manzanares in The Bilingual Education Act: Twenty Years Later (1988). Fourteen years later, the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 encouraged the teaching of Spanish and Latin American culture to Hispanic students in Texas. The English only laws present in some states conflicted with the act. To add to the disorder, to teach Spanish only to students of Hispanic decent, some students would have to be singled out or in other words, segregated. Hence, the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 contradicted with the Brown Case of 1954. School districts were mandated with these newly made and clashing laws with no instruction as to how to execute them.

       In the 1974 case of Lau v. Nichols, a lawyer in San Francisco filed a suit against the San Francisco school district for failing the son of a client for his inability to speak English (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). The suit claimed, "1,800 Chinese students were being denied an equal education because of their limited English skills. Although the lower courts disagreed that equal education was being denied, in 1974 the Supreme Court overruled the lower courts, arguing that the same faculties, textbooks, teachers, and curricula do not constitute equal education" (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). On May 25, 1970, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) put out a memorandum requiring school districts to make greater efforts to educate students equally (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). This was a good beginning in providing schools with the kind of guidance they needed. The guidelines created by the HEW memorandum extended to all school districts with the onset of the Equal Educational Opportunity Act in 1974, making it the responsibility of schools to overcome language obstacles. The act permitted the use of the native language as a medium for English instruction. Needless to say, the Act of 1968 was voided due to its conflicting objectives (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988).

       A problem arose with the Lau Remedies. To save on costs, schools began lumping large groups of students together who spoke the same native languages. However, it had been previously ordained that up to 40 percent of the students in every classroom be native English speakers. To accommodate a variety of students with a limited budget, the Bilingual Education Act of 1984 made amendments to allow schools more freedom to experiment with English Language Teaching (ELT) methods. The Lau remedies were abandoned and schools were no longer required to conduct ESL classes in the native languages (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988).

       Although no particular program was required, schools were given grants for adhering to some of the former Lau requirements. Some of which were: maintaining a 40 percent level of native English speakers, bilingual instruction, and immersion techniques. "School districts could apply for grants for any of these programs, depending upon their needs" (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988).

In 1988 schools were awarded yet more freedom in way of the methods they could choose to most effectively teach English to LEP students. William Bennett, the Secretary of Education coined this method the "pluralistic approach," meaning that "local flexibility, creativity, and innovation" should be used to meet the needs of the students (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). This parallels Chomsky's advice to teachers in the 70's to think for themselves and follow their intuition to serve the needs of their students as they see fit (Diller, 1975). The aim to move students into mainstream classrooms as quickly as possible remained constant. "Current legislation reflects the belief that school districts need to provide a variety of alternatives to enable their LEP students to reach proficiency in English and to be academically successful in mainstream classes" (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988).

       In Preparing ESL Students to Meet the New Standards, by Carol Wertheimer and Andrea Honigsfeld (2000), Collier (1987) stated that it could take four to eight years for ELLs to reach the fiftieth percentile on standardized tests. According to Cummins (1980), "Most of our (ESL) students quickly and easily acquire the basic interpersonal communication skills needed in everyday communicative situations; they are confident and fluent in their informal language use" (Wertheimer, 2000). Clearly the problem lies in the manner in which ELLs are academically prepared for the expectations they are to meet.

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress of 1986, Hispanics students in grades 4, 8, and 11 did not meet the national standards and in fact fell far below the average (Rueda, 1991). In his article, Characteristics of Literacy Programs for Language-Minority Students, Robert Rueda (1991) states that one explanation of the high failure rate of non-native speakers is "inactive teaching."

       Rueda (1991) suggests that teaching becomes "inactive" when activities fail to stimulate cognitive processes. Students learn when they are engaged in activities that stimulate problem-solving skills. Banal reading or writing exercises from a textbook typically do not incite motivation in students. In agreement, Kagan (1986) claimed, "Minority students may lack motivation to learn, but only when they are placed in traditional, competitive/individualistic classroom structures. As demonstrated so clearly by the . . . [research], in a relatively short time what appears to be a long term minority student deficiency in basic language skills can be overcome by transforming the social organization of the classroom" (Rueda, 1991). Clearly, there is ample room for change in our public schools.

       What is the best way to teach ESL students in a public school setting where there are more native speakers than non-native? In the past, schools have used the "pull-out," or structured immersion method, in which ELLs are removed from their regular classrooms for a portion of the day to receive special language instruction. The problem with this method, according to Grant, Meeler, and Misak, is that students are isolated from native English speakers therefore losing the opportunity to learn language skills through daily interaction.

       Wertheimer (2000) adds that "the problem is that ESL students were pulled out of the mainstream classrooms for 45 minutes, losing valuable instructional time in the transporting process, and then thrown back to "sink-or-swim" for the rest of the day." Additionally, if students do not learn English quickly enough they may be held back. Fortunately, there are other alternatives to teaching English in public schools.

       Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is a method that is taking many innovative forms. TLBT emerged in the early 70's, according to Howatt (1997), when the focal point of the Council of Europe was on language in use. "This framework was based on what became known as the notional-functional approach to language, and was seen as a counter-weight to the structurally-based syllabuses that had existed up to then" (Howatt, 1997). In order to get a sense of what ELT trends have evolved from, lets take a brief look at an excerpt taken from Clarkes article, On Bandwagons, Tyranny, and Common Sense:

"First was the Grammar-Translation period which emphasized the literary value of foreign language education, in which instruction relied heavily on explicit grammar explanation and translation exercises. The Structural/Audio-lingual era followed, with a heavy reliance on contrastive analysis, pattern practice for habit formation and the strict sequencing of listening, speaking, reading and writing skills. In reaction to the dehumanizing nature of language drills, teachers began to search for more student-oriented activities giving rise to the third methodological development of the century, the Interactional/Humanistic orientation. A number of influential methodologies developed within this tradition, including Counseling-Learning, [the] Silent Way, and Suggestopedia. Finally, the fourth professional movement is the recent emergence of National-Functional analysis of instruction, in which language is emphasized as a vehicle for the expression of functional needs, such as requesting, denying, apologizing, etc." (Clarke 1982).

       Nunan (1991) suggests that TBLT began taking the shape of what we know it as today in the 80's. TBLT places emphasis on the use of communicative tasks to make connections with language content as well as the real-life experiences of the learners. It serves as an answer to the question, "What are the psycholinguistic mechanisms underlying second language acquisition, and how can these be activated in the classroom?" (Nunan, 1991). Learners are employed by activities that require them to solve problems and make cognitive decisions in a communicative environment. Prior to TBLT, tasks were secondary to grammar and lexical training. TBLT, according to Nunan (1991), puts process before content.

       Maria De La Luz Reyes (1991) suggests two process-centered activities in her article, A Process Approach to Literacy Instruction for Spanish-Speaking Students: In Search of a Best Fit. According to Reyes, dialogue journals and literature logs " . . . emphasize process rather than product (and) increase students control over writing conventions like grammar and spelling and helps them develop a sense of audience, voice, and fluency" (1991). In dialogue journals, students choose topics to write about openly. Teachers do not "grade" or correct them, rather they respond casually, encouraging open interaction. This is a great activity for ELLs because it creates a comfortable atmosphere in which they can experiment with the language. Literature logs allow students to makes connections between what they read in class and their real-life experiences.

       Dialogue journals and literature logs fall into the category of "Whole Language," which assumes that activities such as these can incorporate all levels of learners in a mainstream classroom with a single activity. According to Goodman (1986), "Whole language programs get it all together: the language, the culture, the community, the learner, and the teacher," (Reyes, 1991). However, programs such as these may not be as practical for ELLs as they appear. Reyes argues that non-native speakers need more instruction than their native-speaking peers and additional help making connections between the exercises and the implied lesson (1991).

       In 1997, the City of New York adopted the New Standards Performance Standards, originally designed by the University of Pittsburgh (Wertheimer, 2000). The program was an adaptation of the English Language Arts program taught to native English speakers. The New Standards took a different approach from that of "Whole Language" in that special care is taken to provide added instruction and extra guidance for ELLs (Wertheimer, 2000).

According to Wertheimer, an important feature of the New Standards curriculum was co-teaching. An ESL specialist and a mainstream teacher shared a classroom. The partnering teachers could benefit from the each others strengths. It was also easier for the ESL teacher to enforce the mainstream curriculum with it being so close at hand. Another feature that made the New Standards successful were large doses of support from the entire school, particularly the administration (Wertheimer, 2000).

       The Cognitive Academic Learning Approach (CALLA) by Chamot and OMalley shares goals similar to that of the New Standards in that it incorporates cognitive skills with content. It also emphasizes learning through peer interaction as does task-based learning and (as we will see later) Complex Instruction. A feature unique to CALLA is that it incorporates individual learning styles and preferences such as visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (Wertheimer, 2000).

       In Beyond Sheltered Instruction: Rethinking Conditions for Academic Language Development, by George C. Bunch and others, he introduces Sustained-Content Language Teaching (SCLT) as an alternative to the Structure (or Shelter) Immersion method (2001). In SCLT, language is taught through core subjects such as math, social studies, or science. This method remedies teacher-training issues, provides challenging curricula for ELLs as well as native speakers, and encourages students to work together and learn from each other (Bunch, 2001).

       An effective SCLT program is Complex Instruction (CI), developed over the last twenty years by Elizabeth Cohen and Rachel Lotan (Bunch, 2001). CI fosters motivation and critical-thinking skills by allocating students to work together in groups toward the completion of tasks centered around academic subjects (CI web site). According to Cohen, " . . . group activities of a CI unit are organized around a big idea or a central concept of a discipline. As groups of students rotate through the activities, they have multiple opportunities to grapple with the concept, to understand the idea in different settings, and to recognize its multiple representations" (1997, p. 22). An exciting feature of CI is that within each problem-solving peer group, every student develops a role suited to his strengths (CI web site). This allows students from all abilities and language-proficiency levels to contribute to the production of a successful product. Peer-participation also promotes conversation, an important growth opportunity for ELLs in mainstream classrooms.

       According to Cohen and Lotan in Working for Equity in Heterogeneous Classrooms, "In the 1970's and 1980's, researchers . . . began to focus on issues such as native speaker interaction frequency, native speaker/nonnative speaker interaction (children and adults), and instruction as a medium of communication. Their findings indicate that the input to which a learner is exposed is an important variable that influences second language acquisition" (1997, p.182.). In addition, research by Wong-Fillmore (1976) indicated that "the successful learner gained access to the needed input by seeking out interaction with English speakers and maintaining contact once it was established" (Cohen, 1997, p.182).

       If we were to take a peek inside a typical CI classroom, we would see groups of four or five students working independently, each on a different task. Students would be travelling to and from various stations, depending on the information they needed for their project at hand. Learners in CI classrooms help each other learn and seek out answers for themselves. The role of the teacher is to monitor the groups as they work and assist them as needed (Cohen, 1997, pp. 15-27.) ELLs could potentially benefit greatly from participation in mainstream classrooms structured such as this one.

We have considered several exploratory methods of teaching ELLs within the realm of public elementary and secondary education. Clarke (1982) reminds us in his article, On Bandwagons, Tyranny, and Common Sense, that it is important to avoid the pit and the pendulum syndrome in the field of language teaching. Clarke (1982) describes ESL teachers as those who " . . . are toiling in the trenches trying not to get hit by the pendulum of linguistic and pedagogical theory, swinging from one extreme to the other." We are reminded of Chomsky's advice to foreign language teachers in the 1970's not to get caught up in the trends of the moment but to cater instead to the needs of our learners and decide for ourselves how we want to teach them (Diller, 1975).

I close with a quote from a Korean practicum student who participated in a study presented in Multiple-Site Practicum: Opportunities for Diverse Learning and Teaching Experiences by Dilin Liu. In her observation she wrote,

[T]here were three teacher assistants who were Vietnamese, Mexican, and Chinese. They continuously interpreted the class to the students who had a low level of English so that they could follow the class. This is a unique scene of a multicultural American school and it is also impressive because America gives every student the same chance to learn. In fact, this was my first experience in an American public school, and it made me think about the problems that America has and her positive attitude in solving them (Liu, 2000).