Structured English Immersion in ESL Instruction

Structured English Immersion (SEI) is a method of teaching English as a second language. Several states have passed legislation mandating the use of Structured English immersion in service of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students unless otherwise exempted by waivers. This paper briefly introduces the concept of LEP and Federal LEP program expectations and educational access rights as they apply to SEI and all LEP programs. The bilingual Canadian concept of language immersion, upon which the original concept of structured English immersion was based, is introduced with the varying definitions of what SEI is or is not. Diverse applications of SEI in the states of California, Massachusetts, and Arizona are presented.

Keywords Bilingual Education; English Immersion; English Language Development (ELD); English Language Learners (ELL); English as a Second Language (ESL); Immersion Education; Primary Language (L1); Second Language (L2); Limited English Proficient (LEP); No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); Structured English Immersion (SEI)

English as a Second Language > Structured English Immersion in ESL Instruction

Overview

According to the US Department of Education (2004), there are 5.5 million limited English proficient (LEP) students whose first language is other than English. While, eighty percent of LEP children have the ability to speak Spanish, over four hundred first languages exist for the US LEP population as a whole. All of these children face the challenge of learning academic skills and content, and most often not in their first language (Collier & Thomas, 2007) in addition to developing proficiency in the English language.

In the US, educational programs for LEP students can be categorized into two categories: ESL and Bilingual Education. Most programs include parts of both. While English Immersion falls under the category of ESL (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs, 2007), in its original conception Baker and de Kanter (as cited in Baker, 1999) suggested that it include some instruction in students' first languages. The subject is further complicated as immersion, as it relates to learning a second language, has traditionally been a concept in bilingual education (Mora, 2002). The approaches and goals of both types of immersion are vastly different.

LEP Students

The term Limited English Proficient describes the English as a second language learner as having a deficit in English (Cummins & Davison, 2007). LEP children are diverse in age, formal educational backgrounds, first languages and cultures, socio-economic status, first and second language development. They also have diverse program options, based on where they live. Some LEP children enter the US formal education system at the secondary level and others at the primary level. For some, it will be the first time (often due to war) that they have had the opportunity to sit in a classroom, handle a pencil, or use a book. Others will have had seamless first language and content instruction in their countries of origin, and will possess literacy and academic content knowledge and skills to transfer into their new learning environment (Collier & Thomas, 2007).

The educational options available to LEP students in the United States are a function of the state, district and school boundaries in which they live. There are federal protections for LEP students. Because of the Supreme Court's 1974 ruling in Lau vs. Nichols, it is not legal to place a child in a mainstream English class before he or she can "participate meaningfully" (Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy, 2007, page 4). Providing the same education to language minority students as to native English speakers is a violation of the language minority children's civil rights (LoBianco, 2007) as protected under Title Six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (United States Department of Education, 2005a and 2005b). The Court offered ESL and Bilingual education as adequate remedies but also stated that additional remedies might be acceptable.

English as a Second Language (ESL)

In the US, ESL or English as a Second Language has as its goal, the development of social and academic language proficiency (Linquanti, 1999a). It is often perceived as remedial instruction. What constitutes an ESL program depends on the social, political, and cultural environment in which it exists (Candlin, Mohan, Leung, and Davison, 2001). All ESL programs are provided in English. Some ESL programs address English language learning in isolation of the mainstream content that English proficient peers continually receive. Others address English language learning concurrently with content and cognitive learning (Collier and Thomas, 2007).

The three areas of ESL instructional focus are grammar, communicative use of the language, and learning the language through often-simplified academic content skills and concepts (Linquanti, 1999a).

Bilingual Education

As in ESL, there are varieties of bilingual programs that reflect the social, political, and cultural values in which they exist. Bilingual education programs are more easily implemented in learning contexts where there are a substantial number of learners from the same first language background (Vialpando, Yedlin, Linse, Harrington, and Cannon, 2005).

Bilingual education uses the first language of the learner, as well as English, to teach English proficiency in all models. In some forms it allows the learners to develop full academic proficiency in both the first and second language while learning academic content(Linquanti, 1999) while in others it has as its goal of academic proficiency in English only while learning academic content (Collier and Thomas, 2007). Each bilingual program has an ESL component to it (NCELA, 2005).

Bilingual Immersion

A great variety exists in conceptual use of bilingual terminology. Collier and Thomas (2007) for example equate two-way bilingual immersion with two-way enrichment dual language education. Linquanti (1999a, 1999b) makes a distinction between bilingual immersion and dual language bilingual immersion. Linquanti (1999c) defines bilingual immersion as a two to four year transitional program with the goal of L2 development. In bilingual immersion, students of a common first language group receive one hour of literacy and academic concept instruction in their first language each day. This is followed by content instruction in Sheltered English for the rest of the day.

The term immersion education, from a second language learning and teaching standpoint, is most properly understood as a category within bilingual education (Mora, 2000). Johnson and Swain (as cited by Mora, 2000) state that immersion has been excessively extended from its original meaning. They contend that its current misuse to describe English-only instructional programs for language minority students in the United States makes it difficult to discuss issues and problems in immersion education.

However, within in the field of bilingual education there are different concepts of what bilingual immersion is (Cummins, 1998; Linquanti, 1999a, 1999c; Thomas and Collier, 2007). For example, two-way dual language/ developmental bilingual education, which offers biliteracy and mainstream content to both language minority and language majority groups, is also called bilingual immersion. However, one-way dual language/developmental bilingual education, which offers biliteracy and mainstream content to LEP learners of a common first language, is not (Thomas and Collier, 2007). Furthermore, one-way dual language/developmental bilingual education for majority (English) language background students learning French, is called immersion (Cummins, 1998).

Both the US and Canada have implemented second language immersion programs under different social and linguistic contexts. Cummins (1998) explains that much of what is known about using a second language as a medium of instruction is based on the Canadian French immersion programs; for these programs were the first to have been studied long-term. The French immersion programs were designed for students of the majority language (English speakers) to learn the less dominant French language and culture (Genessee and Gándara, 1999).

Attributes of Immersion Programs

Johnson and Swain (as cited in Cummins, 1998) identified several attributes common to immersion programs:

• All programs used the second language as a medium of instruction and teachers were bilingual.

• The programs sought to add a second language to the first rather than replace the first with the second.

• All students entered the immersion programs with a similar and limited proficiency in the second language and their only exposure to the second language was while they were at school.

• The curriculum followed the mainstream curriculum of the L1 community, classroom culture was based on the culture of the L1 community, and L1 development was supported.

Cummins (1998) notes that consistent research findings on French immersion programs show that in all models of the program, there is no long-term slowdown of content mastery taught in the second language. In addition, students were found to be developing high levels of fluency and literacy in both languages. Because there seems to be no relationship to the instructional time in L1 and academic achievement in L1, Cummins suggests that the academic or literacy skills in one language transfer to the other. In Cummins' 1981, work (as cited in Cummins, 1998) this interdependence principle states that instruction in one language can be effective in promoting proficiency in another language when the learner has enough exposure to the other language and enough motivation to learn the other language. The implication of this principle in promoting literacy development in a second language is that if a child is slow in learning to read in the second language, literacy in the first or stronger language should be promoted and then, after literacy is achieved in the stronger language, it can be transferred to the second (Cummins,1998).

Applications

Bilingual Immersion in the U.S.

American bilingual immersion programs exist in two contexts: one-way developmental bilingual education and two-way/dual immersion Thomas and Collier, 2007). In addition, bilingual immersion programs in the bilingual context are claimed to produce the best English and academic outcomes for LEP students (Thomas and Collier, 2007; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005).

One-Way Developmental Bilingual Education (DBE)

In one-way developmental bilingual education, Collier and Thomas (cited in Collier & Thomas, 2007) state that LEP students with one common language background are instructed in two languages and academic content for six to twelve years. The goal is for students of varying levels of language proficiency to learn together with uninterrupted cognitive development and accelerated achievement in academic content areas (Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence, 2001). Boals (2001) explains that in comparison to two-way DBE, one-way DBE programs are designed for minority language speakers and often have less support than two-way DBE programs who serve language majority and language minority groups. Nieto (as cited in Boals, 2001) also adds that one-way DBE programs exist mostly at the elementary rather than secondary level. In academic classes, students of higher language proficiency levels are function as peer tutors to others. A DBE program needs enough language minority students for at least one class at any specific grade level and planning must be done to make sure enrollment is adequate for future maintenance of the program (CREDE, 2001).

Dual Language Developmental Bilingual Education (DBE)

In two-way immersion, also know as dual language/ developmental bilingual education, LEP students close the academic achievement gap with non-LEP students by the end of the six to twelve year long program (Thomas and Collier, 2007). Christian (as cited in Howard and Sugarman, 2001) explains that in two-way immersion programs the goal is to promote academic language proficiency in two languages in addition to grade-level academic achievement in the mainstream curriculum. In this setting, language minority and language majority students are integrated for most or all of the day.

English Immersion/Structured English Immersion (SEI)

The term English Immersion is often partially defined by what it is not: bilingual education. It refers to a variety of English-only programs for LEP students (Torrance, 2005). Torrance (2005) and Noonan (2002) state that contrary to what some critics claim, it is not done in a sink or swim, or submersion, context where LEP students are left to survive on their own in mainstream classes. Rather, it is an approach to LEP education that uses English as a means of instruction and has as its goal the development of proficiency in one language: English (Torrance, 2005). Baker (1999) explains that there are several versions of Structured English Immersion (SEI) but that all are characterized by extensive use of English and ESL methodology.

SEI was originally recommended by Baker and de Kanter (as cited in Baker, 1999) based on the success of the Canadian immersion models used to teach French to English speakers. They proposed that the Canadian Immersion model could be adapted to teaching LEP students English in the United States. Furthermore, SEI would share the bilingual education feature of teaching content and a second language simultaneously. According to Baker (1999), SEI does not mean English-only instruction. Baker and Rossell and Baker (as cited in Baker, 1999) state that the use of a child's native language in an SEI setting can help with student motivation, emotional comfort level, self-esteem and in rapid student teacher communication.

In the original form of SEI, LEP students with beginning levels of English proficiency were to have native language support in understanding content (Adams & Jones, 2006). Vialpando, Yedlin, Linse, Harrington, and Cannon (2005) define Structured English Immersion as an English-only ESL program with no overt teaching of English. In their definition of SEI, language is taught through content area instruction and students are mainstreamed after two to three years. They recommend that teachers possess adequate second language skills to be able to clarify English instruction in the first languages of the students when necessary.

Linquanti (1999c) defines three models of English Immersion. The first is called English Language Development (ELD) or ESL pull-out. In this model, LEP students are partially integrated with English proficient peers. LEP students are taught away from the mainstream classroom for a specified amount of time. During the pull-out time they receive instruction with Grammar-based ESL, Communication-based ESL and sometimes, Content-based ESL. The second English Immersion model is the Structured Immersion model in which LEP students are segregated from the mainstream. In this model, LEP students receive sheltered content-based instruction in all subjects, mostly in English. The third English Immersion model is Submersion and is when LEP students are integrated into mainstream classes that offer the mainstream curriculum with some tutoring in their first languages.

The federal government defines Structured Immersion as a program in which all instruction is in English, the class consists of only LEP students, preferably of one L1, and instruction is modified according to students' proficiency levels. It further recommends in its definition that teachers should be able to understand the first language(s) of the students (NCELA, 2007). In the federal definition, LEP access to grade level academic content is not mentioned.

Developing SEI Programs

In developing an SEI program, Baker (1999) has several recommendations for LEP program providers. First, program providers should take the ESL component of current LEP instruction and extend it through the whole day. He specifies that this ESL component is understood to be one that teaches English through academic instruction. In addition, as LEP students have a higher learning demand than English proficient students who only have to learn mainstream content rather than mainstream content and an additional language, Baker (1999) suggests extending the day or school year for LEP students.

Second, instructional use of the native language should be reduced to between 5% and 30% of total instruction. He adds that students' use of their native language should be allowed as once motivated by their teacher's use of the English language and comfortable in using English, they will make the change from native language to English production. As some LEP students may speak their first languages for a while, he suggests that it would be helpful but not necessary to have an adult in the class who understands the native language(s).

Third, Baker (1999) further recommends that the English used by teachers and reading materials must be at the LEP students' level of English. He further advises that those teachers who have been certified in bilingual education or who have bilingual education degrees be monitored to ensure that they use English at least seventy percent of the time.

Fourth, to mainstream LEP students in one year's time, as most will still lack English proficiency, it is recommended to have classroom support given in the form of ESL push-in or pull-out models and a teacher or aide in the mainstream class who can communicate in the children's L1 (Baker, 1999).

One of the unknowns in SEI program development is the question as to what percentage of instruction in English is most effective for LEP students (Baker, 1999). According to Ramirez et al., Baker, and Baker and Rossell (as cited in Baker, 1999) LEP instruction should never be just English-only.

Examples of SEI Programs in Three States

In legislation mandating English immersion education in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, the programs have as a stated goal, mainstream instruction of LEP learners after one year (Mora, 2000; Maguire et al., 2007; and Guerrero, 2004). Each state has a different concept of English immersion, of how to identify an LEP, and of English proficiency.

California

California's 1998 Proposition 227 mandated that all current LEP programs in the state be replaced by a program of Sheltered Immersion that would give LEP children a practical knowledge of English. If an extension of time in the program was needed, it would be granted. However, it was expected that LEP children would be taking mainstream classes after the first year of Sheltered Immersion (Mora, 2000). In designing the implementation rules for Proposition 227, the California State Education Department further specified that additional LEP services were to be provided to LEP children until they had reached the same English proficiency and academic achievement as English L1 peers (Mora, 2000).

The criteria to be used in reclassifying students from a limited English proficient child to a Fluent English Proficient child are:

• An English proficiency test for LEP students,

• Evaluation of the child's performance in academics,

• Parent opinion, and

• Comparison of basic skills as measured by a California English language arts test (California Department of Education, 2007).

In their 2006, report Parrish et al. estimated that the chance of a California LEP being re-designated as Fluent English Proficient after 10 years in the state was less than forty percent. Yet, the authors of the proposition claimed that LEP students normally needed one year to gain English proficiency (Guerrero, 2004).

Arizona

Arizona's SEI law requires that English be taught and that instruction and materials be only in English. It requires that LEP students, as identified by Arizona's English language proficiency assessment tool, be grouped together and provided four hours of English language development instruction. The programs provided must be research based, cost-efficient, and compliant with Federal law (Maguire et al., 2007).

Arizona has an explicit statewide program description for children of varying levels of English proficiency levels in each level of k12 education. In the Arizona model of SEI, all four domains of English skills are tested with the Arizona-specific proficiency test. Based on the child's grade and proficiency levels, a specific English language development curriculum is proscribed. All LEP students, regardless of proficiency level or grade, are to receive four hours of English Language Development instruction (Macquire et al., 2007). One 2012 study of the program concluded that students' English language skills were developed but at the cost of core academic subject areas (Rios.-Aguilar, Canche, & Moll, 2012).

In addition, to the provision of a detailed SEI program description; Arizona is requiring that teachers who work with LEP students, district administrators, and councilors undergo a three part-training program in SEI. Mainstream teachers are not required to participate (Macguire et al., 2007).

Massachusetts

In 2002, Massachusetts mandated Structured English immersion as the method of instruction to most LEP students with the passage of Question 2 (Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy, 2007). The Massachusetts Department of Education (as cited by Adams & Jones, 2006) defined SEI as using primarily English as the language of instruction while modifying curriculum and presentation for English language learners.

In the five years since the passage of law mandating instructional adherence to a concept lacking definition, the Massachusetts Department of Education has developed tools and provided guidance as to how to implement the law. It defined the attributes of its structured immersion program, created its own state-specific assessment tools to measure the English proficiency of LEP students, and defined the criteria to be used in transitioning LEP students to the mainstream. In addition, it provided training to teachers. However, many districts are not certain as to how to best serve the needs of LEP students under Question 2 (Rennie Center, 2007).

SEI in Massachusetts has two components: sheltered content instruction and ESL (Rennie Center, 2007). Sheltered content instruction is designed for LEP students at intermediate levels of English proficiency and is extremely challenging for LEP students at beginning or early intermediate levels (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2005). However, the Rennie Center (2007) report states LEP students with lower English proficiencies can still benefit. It combines the language aspects of content to be taught with content objectives based on the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. Sheltered content instruction classes make academic content comprehensible to LEP students and are typified by active content learning involvement of LEP students (Rennie Center, 2007). The ESL or English language development component of SEI is explicit instruction about the English language. English is the medium of instruction. (Rennie Center, 2007).

LEP students' proficiency in English is measured by two Massachusetts-specific proficiency assessment tools. The first is the Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment R/W (MEPA R/W) which measures reading and writing skills and the second is the MEPA O which measures speaking and listening skills. The results of the two assessments are combined to give an overall English proficiency score on a scale of one to seven. Students who score at level one or two are considered to have beginning English proficiency. Students who score at levels three or four are at the early intermediate proficiency level. To achieve intermediate proficiency status, students must score a five or six. Students who receive a score of seven are considered to have a level of English proficiency adequate for transition to mainstream classes and that level is called the transitional level (Rennie Center, 2007).

The MDE (2005) states that the MEPA scores are one criterion to be used in mainstreaming students. Each LEP is to be transitioned based on the evaluation of a building team and additional criteria in addition to the MEPA score are to be used in changing a student's LEP status. The Rennie Center (2007) report found that some districts reclassified 100% of all students that scored a seven on the MEPA as non-ELL. In other districts, 16 % of all students who scored a seven were re-classified as non-ELL.

In light of the reading and aural comprehension difficulties resulting from mainstream academic content and instructional practices, the state recommends that specific support be provided to students at the transitional level of English proficiency. It is recommended that instruction provide assignment to a LEP qualified teacher; small group learning opportunities during the school day, after the school day and during the summer; a two-year program of academic progress monitoring, and additional learning activities. Furthermore, if, during the first 3-6 months after losing LEP status, academic progress is not being made, and if a school-based team familiar with the student feels the lack of academic progress is due to a lack of English proficiency, then the student may be re-labeled LEP and instruction adjusted accordingly (MDE, 2005) .

Issues

In all of the SEI programs mentioned, LEP students do not receive uniform access to mainstream curriculum during the time they are learning English. In addition, no mention is made of providing remedial academic content instruction available to make up for mainstream content time lost while receiving English instruction. The assumption appears to be that LEP students, upon eventually accessing the mainstream, will not need the prior background of content specific skills and knowledge that their non-LEP peers have been developing for years. Social and instructional segregation from non-LEP peers exists for at least 50 % of the day while students are receiving English language services.

LEP students continue to achieve significantly lower scores on standardized academic achievement tests than their English proficient peers. For this reason, they are considered a disadvantaged group by the federal government. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 seeks to hold states, local districts and individual schools accountable in the educational attainment of disadvantaged groups (Meyer, 2007). It specifies that educational providers are to have flexibility in choosing what programs they will have for LEP students. However, it requires that whatever the program, it be based on scientific research (NCLB, 2002, Section 3102).

In the field of LEP education, scientific research is a problematic. According to Parrish et al. (2007), few research studies on LEP programs meet the definition for scientific. The methods or statistics may not be sound. Furthermore, the National Council of Research (NCR) (as cited in Parrish et al., 2007) has also noticed the limitations of research conducted in the field. Two of the obstacles the NCR found were the influence of politics on the field and the lack of consistent terminology related to program models. The research limitations influence the validity of arguments in support of, or in opposition to, the effectiveness of SEI or any other program designed to bring equal academic access to LEP students.

In their research on long-term academic achievement of LEP students, Collier and Thomas (2007) were able to identify the variables that influenced academic success and synthesize their findings into what they named the Prism Model. This model can be applied to any child learning another language and in predicting school and program factors that will be useful, based on research, in closing the achievement gap between LEP students and their English proficient peers. Of all Bilingual and ESL programs evaluated, the one-year intensive English only instruction as proposed by California, addressed the fewest variables needed for academic success. Socio-cultural support was not addressed in the program. In addition, the program, as originally specified by law, denied children cognitive, academic and linguistic development in their first language, all of which Collier and Thomas (2007) found to be important program variables for a LEP student's long-term success.

For all three states that have implemented what they consider SEI, there exist only short-term data on LEP outcomes. The Rennie Center (2007) report on Massachusetts found that after one year of SEI, most students were not at the transitional level of proficiency. Additionally, of students who had been in the Massachusetts public school system for five or more years, fifty-five percent were at the transitional level of proficiency. The others, forty-five percent, after five or more years, were still not at the transitional level of proficiency. No mention is made as to how or if the state will provide remediation to current or former LEP students due to missed academic content instructional time.

In Parrish et al.'s (2007) report on the effectiveness of Proposition 227 they found that the academic gap in most subject areas between LEP students and non-LEP students had remained consistent. However, they also found that students of all language classifications had made gains in academic improvement as measured by state achievement tests. Additionally, they also found that state data limitations made it impossible to say if one LEP program model was better than another for California LEP students.

As Arizona just developed a program model for the English immersion law passed seven years ago, it will be a while before assessment results of program effectiveness are available. However, as the model currently stands, it does look like LEP students will lose considerable time in the mainstream academic content instruction while they develop English proficiency. At some point, they will be measured on the same academic playing field with the same tests as non-LEP students who have continued to receive uninterrupted cognitive and academic development through the mainstream curriculum (Collier and Thomas, 2007).

Terms & Concepts

Bilingual Education: In the US, provides English language instruction in the child's first language as well as in English.

English Immersion: Now primarily English-only instruction with the goal of rapid transfer of LEP students to mainstream classes. Most English immersion policies state the intended duration of English immersion before mainstream transfer as one year.

English Language Development (ELD): Sometimes used synonymously with ESL.

English Language Learners (ELL): Used in the US by many to refer to English language learners who are not native speakers of English.

Immersion Education: Can refer to Canadian French bilingual programs or English-only programs.

L1: First language

L2: Second language

Limited English Proficient (LEP): Refers to English language learners with limited mastery of English. Definition varies by state and assessment tools used.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): As it relates to Limited English Proficient students it is the federal law requiring that state, district and local educational providers close the academic achievement gap between LEP students and English proficient children, as measured on standardized tests in English, within 12 years of the 2001-2002 school year.

Structured English Immersion (SEI): An ESL model that can involve English language instruction and access to mainstream content, access to English language instruction and sheltered content or access to English language instruction only. It may or may not permit use of student L1 in instruction. Variations of definition and application exist among researchers, states, and the federal government.

Bibliography

Adams, M. & Jones, K. (2006, Spring). Unmasking the myths of structured English immersion. Radical Teacher, 75, 16-21. Retrieved October 13, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20970864&site=ehost-live

Baker, K. (1998). Structured English immersion: Breakthrough in teaching limited-English-proficient students. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 , 199-204. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbak9811.htm

Baker, K. (1999). Basics of structured English immersion for language minority students. Washington, DC: Center for Equal Opportunity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED432928). Retrieved November 2, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/15/d2/d7.pdf

Boals, T. (2001). Ensuring academic success: The real issue in educating English language learners. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium http://wida.us/resources/BOALS%20article.pdf

California Department of Education. (2006). File structure - EL services by type & school 1999. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from the California Department of Education http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/lc/fslc99p2.asp

California Department of Education. (2007). Section V reclassification of English learners to fluent English proficient. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from the California Department of Education http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/documents/section5astpkt.doc

Candlin, C., Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Davison, C. (2001). English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity. Pearson Education Limited: Edinburgh Gate, England.

Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. (2001). Some program alternatives for English language learners. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from the Center for Research on Education http://www.cal.org/crede/pubs/PracBrief3.htm

Collier, V., & Thomas, W. (2007). Predicting second language academic success in English using the prism model. In J. Cummins & C. Davidson (Ed.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part One (pp. 333-348). New York: Springer.

Cummins, J. (1998). Immersion education for the millennium: What we have learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from the University of Minnesota's Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/strategies/immersion2000.html

Cummins, J., & Davison, C. (Eds.). (2007). International handbook of English language teaching: Part One. New York: Springer.

Cummins, J., & Davison, C. (2007). The global scope and politics of ELT: Critiquing current policies and programs. In J. Cummins & C. Davidson (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part One (pp.3-11). New York: Springer.

Freeman, Y., & Freeman, D. (2007). Four keys for school success for elementary English learners. In J. Cummins & C. Davidson (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part One (pp. 349-364). New York: Springer.

Genesse, F. & Gándara, P. (1999). Bilingual education programs: A cross-national perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 55 , 665-685. Retrieved October 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3067675&site=ehost-live

González, D. (2000, November 20). Arizona win encourages bilingual-ed opponents. Arizona Republic. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from the OneNation http://www.onenation.org/0011/112000a.htm

Guerrero, M. D. (2004). Acquiring academic English in one year. Urban Education, 39 , 172-199. Retrieved October 13, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12750169&site=ehost-live

Howard, E., & Sugarman, J. (2001). Two-way immersion programs: Features and statistics. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from the Center for Applied Linguistics http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0101twi.html

Johnson, E. J. (2011). Peerlingual education: A socioeducational reaction to structured english immersion. Journal of Latinos & Education, 10, 127-145. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=59702931&site=ehost-live

Lazarín, M. (2006). Improving assessment and accountability for English language learners in the No Child Left Behind Act. National Council of La Raza Issue Brief, 16, 1-27. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from the National Council of La Raza http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/detail/37365/

Leung, C. (2007). Integrating school-aged ESL learners into the mainstream curriculum. In J. Cummins & C. Davidson (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part One (pp. 249-270). New York: Springer.

Linquanti, R. (1999a). Definitions and terms. In Fostering academic success for English language learners: What do we know (section 1)? Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Wested http://www.wested.org/policy/pubs/fostering/definitions.htm

Linquanti, R. (1999b). Inventory of bilingual and immersion educational models. In Fostering academic success for English language learners: What do we know (section 2)? Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Wested http://www.wested.org/policy/pubs/fostering/inventory.htm

Linquanti, R. (1999c). Types of instructional program models. In Fostering academic success for English language learners: What do we know (section 3)? Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Wested http://www.wested.org/policy/pubs/fostering/models.htm

Lo Bianco, J. (2007). Protecting English in an Anglophone age. In J. Cummins & C. Davidson (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part One (pp.169-183). New York: Springer.

Maguire, A., DiCello, J., Garcia, E., Garcia Dugan, M., Haver, J., Klein, E., et al. (2007). Structured English immersion models of the Arizona English Language Learners Task Force. Retrieved October 27, 2007, from the Arizona Department of Education's Office of English Language Acquisition Services http://www.ade.az.gov/ELLTaskForce/SEIModels9-15-07.pdf

Massachusetts Department of Education. (2005). Guidelines for using MEPA results to plan sheltered English immersion (SEI) instructional programming and make classification decisions for limited English proficient (LEP) students. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from the Massachusetts Department of Education http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/sei/MEPA_guidelines.doc

Meyer, L. (2007). Methods, meanings and education policy in the United States. In J. Cummins & C. Davidson (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part One (pp.211-228). New York: Springer.

Mora, J. (2000). Staying the course in times of change: Preparing teachers for language minority education. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 , 345-357. Retrieved October 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3675794&site=ehost-live

Mora, J. (2002). Sheltered immersion: contrasts and controversy. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from San Diego State University, School of Education http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Pages/SEIvCanadian.htm

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs. (2007). NCELA FAQ: What program models exist to serve English language learners? Retrieved October 27, 2007, from National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/22models.html

No Child Left Behind Act 2001. (2002). Title III Part A Section 3102 of the 2002 reauthorized version. Retrieved October 27, 2007, from U.S. Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

Noonan, K. (2002). English Immersion: A convert speaks out. Retrieved Oct. 18, 2007, from National Association of Elementary School Principals http://www.naesp.org/ContentLoad.do?contentId=835

Parrish, T., Perez, M., Merickel, A., & Linquanti, R. (2006). Effects of the implementation of proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12 findings from a five-year evaluation: Final report. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from Wested http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/804

Pascopella, A. (2011). Successful strategies for English Language Learners. District Administration, 47, 29-44. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=59175374&site=ehost-live

Pedalino Porter, R. (n.d.) Educating English language learners in U.S. schools: Agenda for a new millennium. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://digital.georgetown.edu/gurt/1999/gurt_1999_11.pdf

Reed, B., & Railsback, J. (2003). Strategies and resources for mainstream teachers of English language learners. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory http://www.nwrel.org/request/2003may/ell.pdf

Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy. (2007). Seeking effective policies and practices for English language learners. Retrieved November 4, 2007, from the Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy http://www.renniecenter.org/research_docs/ELLReport-final.pdf

Rios.-Aguilar, C., Canche, M., & Moll, L. C. (2012). Implementing Structured English Immersion in Arizona: benefits, challenges, and opportunities. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-18. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=80242119&site=ehost-live

Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19 , 592-594. Retrieved October 14, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18086413&site=ehost-live

Rossell, C. (2002). Dismantling bilingual education implementing English immersion: The California initiative. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://www.bu.edu/polisci/people/faculty/rossell/papers/DismantlingBilingualEducationJuly2002.pdf

Torrance, K. (2005). Immersion not submersion converting English learner programs from bilingual education to structured English immersion in California and elsewhere. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from Lexington Institute http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/707.pdf

United States Department of Education. (2004). Stronger accountability fact sheet: NCLB provisions ensure flexibility and accountability for limited English proficient students. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from the United States Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/schools/factsheet-english.html

United States Department of Education. (2005a). Developing programs for English language learners: Glossary. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from United States Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/glossary.html

United States Department of Education. (2005b). Developing programs for English language learners: Guidance document. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from the United States Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/december3.html

United States Department of Education. (2005c). Developing programs for English language learners: Legal background. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from the United States Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/legal.html

United States Department of Education. (2006). New No Child Left Behind regulations: Flexibility and accountability for limited English proficient students. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from the United States Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/lepfactsheet.html

United States General Accounting Office. (2001). Report to Congressional requesters: Meeting the needs of students with limited English proficiency. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from United States General Accounting Office http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01226.pdf

Vialpando, J., Yedlin, J., & Linse, C. (2005). Educating English language learners: Understanding and using assessment. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from National Council of La Raze http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/download/32971

Vialpando, J., Yedlin, J., Linse, C., Harrington, M., & Cannon, G. (2005). Educating English language learners: Implementing instructional practices. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from National Council of La Raze http://www.nclr.org/content/publications/detail/36199/

Suggested Reading

Bourne, J. (2007). Focus on literacy: ELT and educational attainment in England. In J. Cummins & C. Davidson (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part One (pp. 199-210). New York: Springer.

Davison, C. (2001). Current policies, programs and practices in school ESL. In B. Mohan, C. Leung, C. Davison, & C. Candlin (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity (pp.30-50). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Echevarria, J., Short, D. & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for English-language learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99 , 195-210. Retrieved November 5, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20417613&site=ehost-live

Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1990). The development of second language proficiency. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hopstock, P., & Stephenson, T. (2003). Special topic report #2: Analysis of Office for Civil Rights (OCR) data related to LEP students. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/resabout/research/descriptivestudyfiles/OCR2.pdf

Keller-Allen. (2006). English language learners with disabilities: Identification and other state policies and issues. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from the Project Forum National Association of State Directors of Special Education http://www.projectforum.org/docs/EnglishLanguageLearnerswithDisabilities-IdentificationandOtherStatePoliciesandIssues.pdf

Kindler, A. (2003). Survey of the states' limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services 2000-2001 summary report. Retrieved October 25, 2007, from the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/policy/states/reports/seareports/0001/sea0001.pdf

Lightbrown, P. & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.