English Language Learner Representation in Teacher Education Textbooks: A Null Curriculum?.

Abstract

At present, 18% of the US population does not speak English at home, an increase of 50% in the last two decades (United States Census Bureau, 2003). During the 1999-2000 school year English Language Learners (ELLs) made up nine percent of the United States (pre-K through grade 12) public school population--a total of 4.4 million students. This number represents an increase of 27 percentage points over the previous year (The Urban Teacher Challenge Report, 2002). The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) (2003) reported that forty-five states noted a growth in the ELL population in the year 2003. Several states' growth was truly phenomenal: Georgia (671%), North Carolina (652%), Nebraska (571%), South Carolina (378%) and Tennessee (371%). By the year 2050, it is highly probable that every teacher in the United States will have English Language Learners (ELLs) as (Samway & McKeon, 1999). With the growth in numbers of English Language Learners comes the crucial need for adequate preparation of teachers to serve these students. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2002), 41% of current teachers in the United States have had English Language Learners as in their classrooms, but only 13% of those teachers reported receiving any instruction or professional development on the education of ELLs. Clair (2000) states that teachers are not well prepared to help culturally diverse children succeed academically and socially, because pre-service teacher preparation programs have not offered sufficient opportunities for learning to teach culturally diverse students (p. 1). Meskill and Chen (2002) note core curricula for educators in training too often fall short of the depth and detail needed to successfully serve English language learner populations (p. 1). They further note that although issues of diversity and multiculturalism are often addressed in university curricula, the curricula often lacks systematic treatment of practical issues concerning (p. 1). The research accentuates an alarming disparity between the number of English Language Learners in classrooms and the percentage of teachers sufficiently qualified to teach them. The stakes are high for schools not meeting the challenge of the rapid influx of refugee and immigrant populations. According to Walker, Shafer, and Iiams (2004), the standards of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and new Title III legislation: ... require schools for the first time ever to segregate and disclose both the academic achievement progress and the English acquisition rates of their limited English proficient (LEP) students. Schools that cannot demonstrate adequate annual progress among their LEP student population face stiff punitive consequences. (p. 133) Purpose of the Present Study The trends described above show an expanding population of ELLs and schools that are generally unprepared for coping with their unique needs. Simultaneously schools are experiencing higher levels of accountability that are placing great emphasis upon the successful educational experience of every child. Meeting the challenges poised in these trends will be daunting and will require innovative pedagogical actions. Clearly teachers in training must be made aware of these issues and appropriate instructional actions as they move through training and licensure programs. How this training might optimally be accomplished may be an issue requiring years for resolution. But, because most teachers are now first introduced to the profession through colleges of education in universities and because many preparation classes utilize textbooks as the basic source material, several important issues emerge: How well are the current textbooks reflecting the growth of the ELL? How well are teachers being introduced to the ELL? Are teachers receiving textbook instruction that will allow them to effectively cope with this expanding population? …

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 — 13 citations exist upstream.