Language Proficiency and Support

“The second misconception is in many respects the converse of the first. In this case, children’s adequate control over the surface features of English (i.e. their ability to converse fluently in English) is taken as an indication that all aspects of their ‘English proficiency’ have been mastered to the same extent as native speakers of the language. In other words, conversational skills are interpreted as a valid index of overall proficiency in the language.” (p. 61)

In chapter 3 of Negotiating Identities, Cummins shows that an English learner’s ability to use conversational English is not indicative of his or her ability to use academic English or his or her mastery of language conventions. Yet often, their conversational skills are extrapolated to indicate just that. The implications of this are vast: students can be moved out of bilingual education too soon, they can stop receiving language scaffolding and support, they can be seen as having a lower intelligence because they are not performing at grade level on standardized tests.

I have seen this to be true in my own experience in the classroom as well. One of my third grade students, an English learner, received an overall score of Early Advanced on last year’s CELDT test. While a score of either Early Advanced or Advanced is enough to “FEP out” (be reclassified as Fluent English Proficient), a student cannot do so if he or she receives a score of Intermediate on more than one of the four areas tested – speaking, reading, writing, and listening. My student scored in the Advanced range in speaking, but only Intermediate in the other three areas. From her conversational skills, one likely would not be able to tell that she is an English learner. She sounds like an average third grade student. However, her use of pronouns and prepositions in writing is less developed than most of her English-only peers. Although she likes reading and has good decoding skills, her comprehension is lacking. This student will be one of my focus students for my ethnographic study. I am hoping to provide her with meaningful instruction that supports her language learning but also celebrates her current language abilities, namely being bilingual. Many students are like her – seemingly completely proficient, but yet still needing support. I believe it is our job as educators to provide that support while maintaining a high value for what that student offers to the class as a bilingual individual.

What seems to happen, at least at the school I am teaching at, is that there is so much material that needs to be taught that ELD gets pushed aside. The English learners seem about on level with their English-only peers, especially by third grade. Perhaps, however, this is a false assumption based on their conversational and colloquial English proficiency.

The new ELD standards we have been studying recently seem to address this issue. They seem to integrate content standards with the ELD expectations and include new frameworks for the support English learners need at varying stages of language development. These standards point out that language learners need support based on their mastery of the content, prior knowledge, and language skills. For example, a student at the Bridging level (the most developed level according to these standards) might need “light linguistic support” when working with cognitively demanding and complex academic language (2012, p. 9). When the content involves familiar topics or common, conversational English, support might not be needed at all. But support should not be removed entirely. The document states that, following the Bridging stage, English learners transition to a stage of “Lifelong Language Learning” (2012, p. 9). Even in that stage, occasional support might be necessary. It should not be done away with completely based on the assumption that language learners either are not as able as their monolingual peers or have mastered every element of the English language. Both of these assumptions are often hasty and unfounded.

Another way that these new standards address Cummins’ argument in this chapter is in the way they address context-embedded and out-of-context language use. In addition, when combined with the Common Core State Standards, the ELD standards specify language development within both cognitively undemanding and demanding situations. For example, a student at the Emerging level should be able to have a simple face-to-face conversation with a peer. This is a context-embedded and low cognitive challenge task, what Cummins defines as a Quadrant A task. But the standards also address Quadrant B, a context-embedded but cognitively challenging task: at the Expanding stage, students should be able to read about familiar and unfamiliar topics in a contextualized setting. The standards hold students to a high degree of rigor, content knowledge, and language skills; they are also written in such a way that explains the support language learners need.

Anther point that Cummins made that resonated with me was the idea that there is more to English fluency than conversational English (BICS) and academic language (CALP). In addition, he identifies “discrete language skills” which include specific grammatical and phonological skills (p. 65). These are language structures that need to be taught directly or acquired through practice, such as through reading. Students whose first language is English, I believe, acquire many of these skills somewhat automatically. However, English learners need to be explicitly taught these language structures. The danger is teaching them only in isolation, such as through drills and worksheets. According to Cummins, out-of-context and cognitively undemanding activities (Quadrant C tasks) such as these fail to provide students with instruction that fosters their identity and creativity and that challenges them intellectually. I would also guess that these types of language reinforcements are somewhat ineffective.

Why are all of these language issues relevant? Not only do I have nine English language learners in my third grade class, but also the discussion about classifying English learners into proficiency levels and supporting their unique linguistic needs points to a deeper issue, as Cummins shows: students’ identities. In education of bilingual students, or students from socioeconomically disadvantages households, or students of color, the assumption is all too often made that these students have less _____. Less knowledge. Less parental support. Less ability, even. But in regards to language, Cummins cites Gee (2001), who writes,

“almost all children regardless of home income level have impressive language abilities and enter school with ‘large vocabularies, complex grammar, and deep understandings of experiences and stories’…Children who experience difficulties in school lack, not these general language abilities, but rather ‘specific abilities tied to school practice and school-based knowledge.’” (Cummins, p. 70).

Undervaluing or devaluing their language abilities undermines their identities and their potential identities. Accountability and placement tests can reflect this as well. On the speaking portion of the third grade language proficiency test, students are shown a picture of a compass and asked to identify it. Does their inability to come up with the word “compass” mean that they are not skilled at speaking English? Or does it show what they have and haven’t been exposed to? This is not a post about high-stakes testing, but the example points to the bias inherent in many measures used to determine levels of proficiency of English learners. It is not that classifying English learners is unnecessary. But there must be a way both to value the students’ first language and the identity that is already being formed, and to support their English learning appropriately (not assuming they are proficient overall or assuming they are intellectually incapable) while opening up positive identity options. With the English learners in my ethnographic study, I can also explore ways of assessing their content knowledge apart from their  language abilities. These are big tasks, but important ones for the many English learners I will teach in the years to come.