The question that is frequently asked about second language learners-English in particular- is the extent to which learning opportunities like bilingual education and English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) should be offered to them and how extensive (Cummins, 1981). This question, interestingly, does not draw much attention in Philippine education as it does in other countries especially in the United States.
The United States, in the beginning of 21st century, espoused the multiculturalistic approach to education by confronting the fact that second language learners occupy a peculiar place in their educational system. In fact, when the United States Supreme Court came up with a resolution offering an interpretation of the Civil Rights Act, they obligated local school districts and states to furnish limited-English-proficient students (LEP, also referred to English language-learners and in California as English learners or ELs) with services appropriate to their needs as second language learners (Krashen, 1991). In other words, the highest court of the United States, by way of logic, appreciates the especial place in which second language learners are situated along with the mainstream society.
Unaware perhaps of their educational needs, the US Supreme Court for sure acknowledges the differences between native speakers and second language learners. However, lawmakers have a longstanding debate on whether educational services will be offered to second language learners for a long period of time. Specifically, the argument revolves around the duration with which the services will be rendered. In fact, during the times of reauthorization, the recommendation of putting a duration limit to services under the funding of Bilingual Education of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has been repeatedly been a topic of hot debates (Crawford, 2004). In offering his view to this issue, Epstein (1981) earlier argued that “actually, it can take anywhere from a matter of weeks to six years for a student in a bilingual program to acquire a basic proficiency in English. This depends largely on whether English is introduced slowly or quickly” (p. 25).
While it could be argued that the educational setting of the United States is much different from ours, the point of consideration is the status of second language learners in both educational setting. By realizing this similarity in the context of language acquisition, a unifying theme exists. Studies like Collier (1995) and Mitchell, Destino and Karam (1997), for example, argued that it would be approximately ten years before second language learners acquire full competence and proficiency in English. By full competence and proficiency, they mean the stage or point by which second language learners have already acquired a competitive skill in using English both in the academic and social setting. In other words, they have already attained the two main goals of language acquisition, that is, educational and communicative aims. This finding also implies that in the early stages of learning the English language, second language learners must have been experiencing tremendous difficulty. It could be noticed that this implication serves as the springboard for policy makers to come up with resolutions concerning services that could be offered to second language learners to assuage that difficulty. This is also the same springboard from which this paper braces its assumption that difficulties, at least in the Philippine Educational System, are experienced by pupils both in the elementary and secondary levels.
According to Dulay and Burt (1973), second language acquisition is only a recapitulation of the first language acquisition, that is, of the vernacular. Because vernacular acquisition happens at a very early age and in a very naturalistic environment (thus the term Mother Tongue Approach), Dulay and Burt (1973) argued that the acquisition of conversational language is much different from the acquisition of a second language which usually takes place in a controlled environment like formal schooling. Interestingly, second language acquisition in the formal school setting involves the learner in developing an understanding of the fundamental aspects of the English language such as phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and syntactic. These fundamental domains of the English language are not learned in the acquisition of that language in the vernacular setting. Because the environment is highly naturalistic, details as such would not only be irrelevant but absurd as well. This is understood when one recognizes the process by which conversational language is acquired.
It is high time that that these principles be given great weight in our education system. The question about second language learners and English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) should be considered a pressing issue.
References
Collier, V. P. (1995).Acquiring a second language for school(p. 19). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Crawford, J. (2004). Language choices in the foreign language classroom: Target language or the learners’ first language?.RELC Journal,35(1), 5-20.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students.Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework, 3-49.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax?.Language learning,23(2), 245-258.
Epstein, J. L. (1981). Patterns of classroom participation, student attitudes, and achievements.The quality of school life, 81-115.
Krashen, S. D. (1991).Bilingual education: A focus on current research(No. 3). National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Mitchell, D., Destino, T., & Karan, R. (1997). Evaluation of English Language Development Programs in the Santa Ana Unified School District.Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative, University of California, Riverside.
By: Jerald C. Calma