Structured English Immersion Breakthrough in Teaching Limited-English- Proficient Students

Abstract

A few English programs have been developed and tested in the past two decades. The experience of these programs can provide much-needed guidance to California's schools and to others interested in the reform of bilingual education programs, Mr. Baker says. By POPULAR referendum in June 1998, California's voters replaced the country's most extensive bilingual education program for limited- English-proficient (LEP) students with a program of Structured English Immersion (SEI). Adriana de Kanter and I were the first to name and describe such a program when we recommended that schools teaching English to students with limited proficiency try the impressive Canadian method of teaching second languages.1 In the nearly two decades since our suggestion, a few SEI programs have been developed and tested. The experience of these programs, especially Seattle's, can provide much-needed guidance to California's schools -- and to others interested in the reform of bilingual education programs. What Is SEI? J. David Ramirez and his colleagues offer the most extensive discussion of the characteristics of SEI. As the first step in a longitudinal study comparing SEI to two types of bilingual education programs, Ramirez' group reviewed the literature to determine the theoretical and instructional differences among the three programs. Next they conducted extensive classroom observations over a period of four years to verify the presence of these hypothesized differences. But the differences posited by academic theorists were not apparent in actual practice. The only hypothesized difference found to occur in actual practice was the percentage of instructional time teachers taught in English as opposed to Spanish.2 In all likelihood, classroom teachers are exercising their good judgment by ignoring a lot of academic mumbo jumbo that has no practical application. It seems sufficient to define an SEI program as one in which 1) English is used and taught at a level appropriate to the class of English learners (that's different from the way English is used in the mainstream classroom), and 2) teachers are oriented toward maximizing instruction in English and use English for 70% to 90% of instructional time, averaged over the first three years of instruction.3 Ramirez also reviewed the literature on second-language learning in general to identify the properties of a good setting for such learning. He then looked for these properties in actual classroom practice. Again, there was no difference among the three programs: all were really bad places in which to learn a second language. The common problem seemed to be the instructional constraints imposed by large classes. The optimal setting for learning a second language is one that allows for extensive dialogue between teacher and learner, which is impossible in classes with more than eight students. Drastic reductions in class size may be the most productive step that could be taken to improve the instruction of LEP students.4 Is SEI Effective? Over the last 18 years, I have identified the following programs as effective examples of SEI.5 The Canadian program, first detailed by Wallace Lambert and Richard Tucker, is the exemplar for SEI.6 Advocates of bilingual education programs argue that this instructional method, although very successful in Canada, will not generalize to LEP students in the U.S. However, the program evaluations that I am about to discuss show that this fear is baseless. Russell Gersten and his colleagues found SEI superior to bilingual education for Vietnamese immigrants in California and for Hispanics in Texas. An SEI program for Hispanics in Uvalde, Texas, was found to have improved high school graduation rates and lowered retention throughout the grades compared to a prior, ill-defined program.7 The Uvalde program and the one Gersten and John Woodward studied in a California district were all-English direct instruction programs (Distar) used with LEP students. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.