Education Theories: ESL History, Essay Example

Summary of court cases

English as a Second Language (ESL) hasgained prominence in United States of America and across the globe through legislations after strong court battles. This presentation offers some examples of cases contested in the courts and legislations, which facilitated the process of ESL education becoming a recognized discipline in the twenty-first century.

 1974 case Lau v. Nichols

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), is listed as a classic civil rights case occurring in 1974. The case came to the American court by a group of Chinese students studying in the country. They resided in San Francisco, California, a fluent English speaking community. Incidentally, they were limited in English fluency. Their contention  related  to inadequate instructions at school created difficulty in articulating the language. Besides, there were no facilities within the school curriculum addressing this discrepancy peculiar to their language challenges. However, according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act Title 1V, due to a ban that was placed on educational institutions’ discrimination of students based on their national origin, these Chinese students felt entitled to special attention regarding their need to articulate English and improve learning abilities(Legal History of Bilingual Education, 2012).

Precisely, in failing to accommodate Chinese students, indicated a violation of their civil rights towards being offered equal opportunities to progress as students who were fluent in the English Language. Importantly, it seemed a deliberate attempt to discriminate against Chinese students due to their ethnicity and disregard/ disrespect  forthe limitations of their cultural identity, pertaining to the language difference (Legal History of Bilingual Education, 2012).

As such, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students declaring that they have a right to equal educational opportunities as any other fluent English speaking  student in  the United States of America.  This Lau ruling reflected the importance of English proficiency in learning within United States and any other country where instruction is given in English and students use another language as their first tongue. It was also advanced that a person’s language must be perceived as a fundamental feature of his/her nationality. Disregard for this aspect of the character denotes discrimination within the educational intuition. Lau has continued to feature as a very important criterion in ESL adaptions across the country. It has since informed policies regarding the accessibility of English learning not limited to Chinese students, but all students from a country where English is not their first language. Currently, San Francisco Unified School district continues to comply with Lau and many other states have adhered to this regulation within the educational arena (Legal History of Bilingual Education, 2012).

1981 Castan?eda v. Pickard, and NCLB

Castañeda v. Pickard was a case tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 1978.  It drew much attention because it was filed against Texas Raymondville Independent School District (RISD) by Roy Castañeda. The Plaintiff is the father of two Mexican- American children. He claimed that his children were discriminated against by theRaymondville Independent School District (RISD) because of their Mexican cultural identity.The father contended that his children were given instructions in a segregated classroom (Temple, 2005).

More importantly, they were grouped into classrooms he, claimed because of their difference from other students in the educational institution/school. This strategy the father perceived as being ethically discriminatory. Consequently, it was articulated by the father that Raymondville Independent School District did not adequately address language differences among students who were not fluent in English. Bilingual education programs were not established addressing this discrepancy within the system. As a result of this action his children did not have equal opportunities as others, in successful participating in activities planned by the school since they were segregated through language barriers (Temple, 2005)

Further, the Lau v. Nichols, 1974 case ruling was used as a criterion for establishing discrimination within the educational system o these children due to their ethnicity, which was a significant language difference. Mr. Castañeda profoundly advanced that there was no clarity in the Raymondville Independent School District‘scurriculum that the issue of language difference was adequately addressed. Consequently, this school district was guilty of violating the students’ civil rights (Temple, 2005).

After an August 17^th 1978 trial, the Supreme Court ruled in favor ofRaymondville Independent School District under the jurisdiction that they did not violate the children’s civil rights in any way. Subsequently, Mr. Castañeda appealed the decision of the FederalCourt. After deliberations, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1981 ruled in favor of Mr.Castañeda, claiming that the Federal Court made a mistake in executing justice. In compliance with justice a three part assessment for establishing criteria of bilingual education programs developed. School districts were then mandated to follow those requirements in alignment with the   1974 Equal Educational Opportunities Act (Temple, 2005).

The mandatory program criteria included a policy requiring bilingual education programs to emerge from profound theoretical foundations. The implementation process must thereafter be effectively executed with relevant resources for teacher/learning to occur efficiently. The resources encompassedteachers beingequipped with relevant skills of imparting the new language; an appropriateness of instructional materials and comfortable classroom environment. The program must be evaluated for efficacy after a specified period and the appropriate adjustments made to address language barriers and handicaps (Temple, 2005).

Legislation summary

No Child Left Behind (2001)

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 2001 legislation was enacted by United States Congress reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It includes Title I, the government’s flagship aid polices and disadvantaged students’ programs. This legislation is  an enhanced standards-based education reform, such as ELLs and ESL program regulations. The focus is on developing higher educational standardsand measurable goals that improved individual as well as collective learning outcomes. Essentially, the Act created guidelines for establishing assessment in basic skills applicable to ESL teaching and learning strategies.(Pederson, 2007).

While its focus  wasnot exclusively to ELLs, the criteria allowedESL students more access to accountability for learning by instructors and the educational system than, before its enactment. For example, ESL students were offered tests in a language, which they did not master and were expected to perform at a very high level.When this did not happen, these students were considered below average. In reality this classification was a misrepresentation of their ability due to the language barrier, which was inadequately addressed by educators(Menken, 2010).

As such, they can benefit remarkably from NCLB programs. The act does not mandate national polices. States have the option  ofdesigning programs applicable to their peculiar educational environment and executing them according the state regulations. However, they must encompass alignment with Federal educational goals, annual testing polices, academic progress evaluations, report card polices; teaching qualifications and ethics along with funding stipulations(Pederson, 2007).

Explanation of how ESL teaching methods have evolved historically

Evolution of ESL teaching methods could be explained from three perspectives;structural whereby the second language is conceived as a system of structurally related elements for   coding of meanings. These include creating grammatically correct speech and sentences when writing. Next is the functional method, whereby the second language becomes a medium of expression in accomplishing basic tasks such as writing a document or understanding how to perform a procedure from the second language instruction. Third, is the interactive method whereby the second language facilitator uses the learning experience to create and maintain social interaction. This could occur either within the group; wider society at work or among bilingualcolleagues. Here the instructor focuses on interpreting movement patterns in dramatization, conversational exchanges, and negotiations. This method became very popular during the 1980s(Bell, 2003).

Brief time line of ESL teaching/ Communicative Language teaching

1900s: Direct method – reflection of first language into second language expression.

1950s: Audiolingual Method:  This is a combination of linguistic and psychological theory. Memorization is the focus and dialogues are used as instructive strategies emphasizing pronunciation through conversational interaction.

1966: Cognitive code learning empathizing compliance with the language rules such as grammar phonics language dynamics.

1970s: Communicative language teaching.A method designed to for students to practice communication in the second language.

1977: Total physical response. The learner is expected to combine physical activity with language in demonstratingfull understanding of the communication.

1979: Sugestopedia. Students are required to relax as passive learning is initiated by the instructor.

1984: Silent Way. In this method learners are instructed to discover the content and method to be leant. For example, some student will consultant English dictionary to improve their English vocabulary.

1997: Natural approach. Students are not forced to respond when spoken to, but are allowed to relax and when the expression could be easily articulated it is voices verbally.

Knowledge of ESL teaching methods and influence on instructional decisions

Knowledge of ESL teaching methods have greatly influenced my teaching strategies. According to my teaching objectives and the level of students, they are very useful in effective lesson planning. Importantly, while modern methods with the impact of technology are gaining momentum in ESL teaching, in my opinion some traditional techniques are still applicable. For example, in themethod whereby the second language is conceived as a system of structurally related elements for coding of meanings and the focus is on grammar and pronunciation, this is a method adopted by me inteaching beginners. Essentially, one could be able to repeat expressions heard from someone speaking the second language, but they might not be grammatically correct. There are many idiomatic expressions in English language along with irregular verbs. In order for a bilingual person to be correctly fluent, the instructor must teach grammar and phonics according to basic language structure for appropriate usage.

Therefore, if there is a student in my class who speaks some English because he/she was able to pick up the language from the environment, it is vital that language structure be imparted first for alignment. After this segment has been mastered then, students could be engaged in extensive communicative interaction activities. My reason behind this decision, especially, for youngerstudents, is that they have to write qualifying examinations, which require mastering language structure. Younger children have been failing nationalstandardised tests due to   second language dynamics incompetence.

References

Bell, D. (2003). Method and Postmethod: Are They Really So Incompatible?TESOL Quarterly 37 (2): 315–328.

Legal History of Bilingual Education. (2012). History of bilingual education. Retrieved October 13^th,  2014, from http://moramodules.com/Pages/HistoryBE.htm

Menken, K. (2010).NCLB and English Language Learners: Challenges and Consequences. Theory into Practice, 49( 2); 121 — 128

Pederson, P. (2007). What Is Measured Is Treasured: The Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on Nonassessed Subjects. Clearing House, 80(6), 287–291

Temple, C. (2005). Bilingual Education: All Children Read: Teaching for Literacy in today’s Diverse Classrooms. Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall