Reading all of the pieces regarding English Language Learners I began to reflect on an experience I had with such students this summer that seems to contradict all of the positive strategies that the readings espoused. This past summer I worked on the residential staff at a summer boarding school with a student body of roughly 200. A large number of these students were ELL. I had three ELL students under my direct supervision, one from China and two from South Korea. Additionally there were massive Arabic and Spanish speaking populations among the students at this school. Looking back on that experience what really strikes me is how oppressive the school was of these students using their first language among themselves in conversation. As a member of the residential staff I was told to both monitor and stop any and all conversations taking place in any language other than English. The idea was that these students were here to learn English and speaking their native language was nothing but detrimental. It seems that the school felt a greater responsibility to the parents’ paid tuitions than to the students themselves.
Unlike what was suggested in the readings, these students were not able to use their primary language as a scaffold for learning English. They were discouraged from speaking in a language that made them comfortable when many of them were thousands of miles from home in a strange place. How alienated they must have felt and the school’s policy of oppressing primary language use did nothing but enforce this alienation. Following these readings I am frankly disgusted and very concerned by the oppressive policies I was tasked with enforcing. Why not allow a student to use any tool at their disposal when trying to learn an unfamiliar language? This response may have become more of a rant but I believe it gets to the point that there is absolutely no reason to discourage primary language use by ELL students, as literacy arises from any language not only from English.
“Drew High’s overall message to the students struck me as highly contradictory. On the one hand, the creation of “Cohort Achieve” suggested that students were valued, but like other schools serving low-income minority students, the school exercised strict control over space and students’ bodies.”
I think the camp you discussed is definitely an extreme example of this dichotomy Rubinstein discusses. But I think that cutting off students’ access to their available tools (in this case their L1) is only half the issue here.
The ‘security’ measures mentioned in the article are highly reminiscent of my high school. So I myself and my friends definitely felt that oppression from the school and that level of mistrust. Now that was happening to everyone. But some of my friends were also treated the way Yanira was treated by her parents in their free time: not allowed any real independence and certainly not defiance or interest in boys (at least until they were older). I just don’t understand how anyone can develop self-confidence and learn to be independent when it seems like no one in your life will let you. And if you can’t be confident, how are you supposed to be confident about learning a new language? Confident about reading aloud in class? Confident about anything?
I totally agree that cutting kids off from useful tools will not help them. But I also think they need to develop a little trust in themselves in order to really take risks when they try something as difficult (and potentially embarrassing) as learning a new language. Most of Yanira’s teachers thought that her timidity signaled disinterest–which I’m sure negatively impacted how much they were willing to help her improve–even though she couldn’t have been more eager and determined to learn! While adolescence can be a tough time and everyone can feel shy, I think a big source of her timidity was a lack of self-confidence because she’d never had the chance to be trusted much independently. Schools and parents need to loosen the reigns a bit.
While Rubenstein-Avile describes Drew High School as an ominous, high-security environment, I would agree with Joe that the boarding school he describes seems more oppressive. There may not have been security guards and police officers guarding the bathrooms and entrances at Joe’s school, but it sounds more socially oppressive. Nevertheless, I think the no-nonsense attitude that Joe describes was well intentioned. Unlike the teachers at Drew High School, who categorized Yanira as a reticent and disinterested ELL student, the teachers at this boarding school seem to have very high standards. Rather than giving up on apprehensive English learners, these teachers are pushing their foreign students to strive for fluency. There is definitely something to be said for that kind of dedication to student achievement, especially when compared to the attitudes of teachers in the reading.
Furthermore, while I am a proponent of culturally-relevant teaching, I think it would be really difficult to implement culturally relevant teaching strategies in this kind of a multi-national environment. It would be very interesting to learn more about how multi-cultural schools support ELL’s through culturally-relevant teaching.