Contradictions, tensions, & inconsistencies in so-called bilingual instruction

My initial reaction after reading the Palmer and Lynch article was that the bilingual situation on the secondary level is even more complex. It would be interesting to emulate this type of study with 11^th grade teachers. I was most struck by their findings on the salient themes: 1. TAKS affects teaching in terms of curriculum and pedagogy. 2. TAKS drives the language of instruction and complicates teachers’ complex process of helping students through the Spanish to English transition. 3. Students get moved into English testing ASAP because teachers regard English at a higher standard than Spanish. So my question is why do we keep allowing this test alone get to determine the way we teach our ELLs?

Issues around campus leadership also deserve attention, especially in regards to the question of how teachers made decisions about which language to instruct their ELLs in. Doesn’t this basically depend on the principal of each school and the instructional coaches? Is has been my experience, both in AISD and in HCISD that the management of LPACs and instruction/testing for ELLs varies depending on the administration and their philosophy on language acquisition. From Metz Elementary, to Martin Middle School, to Wallace Middle School, and now EMHS – so that’s four principals, each with completely different approaches to the bilingual education. Some believed in dual-language instruction, others in gradual transitioning (which led to an “audit”), and two who support the complete English emersion model. Each school I have taught in for the last ten years had a different “method” of handling their ELL dilemma. Could that be a good thing? I suppose not because, ultimately, TAKS was always the first and final factor. It’s no wonder one of the most problematic consequences of TAKSing our ELLs is that teachers end up teaching to the test!

Another horrible consequence is that curriculum then gets morphed into subjects that are tested and then the rest of their content is basically eliminated. Again, I argue that if this is the case in elementary school, then you should see the panic in high schools. For instance, I have students from The Republic of Congo who speak French/Swahili, students from Cuba, Mexico, El Salvador who speak different types of Spanish (many of whom skipped middle school), my students from Libya, who speak Arabic at home. What language am I supposed to teach in? Those students have to pass the exit level ELA test this upcoming April, so I have to teach in English. I try my best to celebrate their culture by honoring their language, but the assessment issue prevails.

Last Monday, AISD had a PD day and the Eastside Memorial Vertical Team gathered at our campus. All the elementary and middle school teachers of students who feed into our school were encouraged to choose from a variety of workshops. I went to the only secondary ELL “strategies” workshop offered. It was all around technology integration (started and ended with helpful websites). I got a lot out of free dictionary links, translators, audio books, but no advice on literacy practice –activities and materials are still left up to the teachers. I left confused. Why not take the opportunity to host discussions around this major issue? It takes me back to my underlying belief that the problems revolving around this socio-political-economic dilemma have many variables: PD does not reflect the attention to our growing ELL population because we can’t decide if want to equalize the playing field or continue to quietly and obediently marginalized cultures that threaten our American autonomy. How are TAKS-oppressed campuses expected to” succeed” without a clear vision? Why is there no coherent direction in our school district on how to educate our immigrants? Everyone knows rich immigrants send their kids to private schools. Why is that? The study mentioned how the” outcomes resulting from teacher’ decisions, both for instruction and testing, are vitally important to the life-chances of ELLs.” How true! Yet the way teachers are “trained” in this process rarely reflects that importance. Why? We know that in wealthier schools, teachers get more freedom to do what they believe is right for students, while teachers of low SES students have to follow instructional mandates more strictly. Why does this conundrum still linger at the heart of all that is unjust and unreasonable in our public education system?

Advertisement