the international journal of learner diversity and …_li__grineva_2016.pdf · the international...

The International Journal of

Learner Diversity and Identities

TheLearner.com

VOLUME 23 ISSUE 4

_________________________________________________________________________

Issues in Newcomer Education

in Smaller Centers

Toward Understanding Educators’ Perspectives

ANTOINETTE DOYLE, XUEMEI LI, AND MARINA GRINEVA

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNER DIVERSITY AND IDENTITIES www.thelearner.com ISSN: 2327-0128 (Print) ISSN: 2327-2627 (Online) doi:10.18848/2327-0128/CGP (Journal) First published by Common Ground Publishing in 2016 University of Illinois Research Park 2001 South First Street, Suite 202 Champaign, IL 61820 USA Ph: +1-217-328-0405 www.commongroundpublishing.com The International Journal of Learner Diversity and Identities is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal. COPYRIGHT © 2016 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2016 (selection and editorial matter), Common Ground Publishing All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact [email protected].

Common Ground Publishing is a member of Crossref.

EDITORS Bill Cope, University of Illinois, USA Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, USA COMMUNITY EDITOR McCall Macomber, Common Ground Publishing, USA ADVISORY BOARD Michael Apple, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA David Barton, Lancaster University, UK Bill Cope, University of Illinois, USA Daniel Madrid Fernandez, University of Granada, Spain Ruth Finnegan, Open University, UK James Paul Gee, Arizona State University, USA Juana M. Sancho Gil, University of Barcelona, Spain Kris Gutierrez, University of California, USA Roz Ivanic, Lancaster University, UK Carey Jewitt, University of London, UK Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, USA Peter Kell, Charles Darwin University, Australia Michele Knobel, Montclair State University, USA Gunther Kress, University of London, UK Colin Lankshear, James Cook University, Australia Kimberly Lawless, University of Illinois, USA Pierpaolo Limone, University of Foggia, Italy Sarah Michaels, Clark University, USA Denise Newfield, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa José-Luis Ortega, University of Granada, Spain Francisco Fernandez Palomares, University of Granada, Spain Ambigapathy Pandian, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia Brian Street, King's College, UK Gella Varnava-Skoura, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece Yingjie Wang, Beijing Normal University, China Nicola Yelland, Victoria University, Australia ASSOCIATE EDITORS Articles published in The International Journal of Learner Diversity and Identities are peer reviewed by scholars who are active participants of The Learner Knowledge Community or a thematically related Knowledge Community. Reviewers are acknowledged as Associate Editors in the corresponding volume of the journal. For a full list, of past and current Associate Editors please visit www.thelearner.com/journals/editors. ARTICLE SUBMISSION The International Journal of Learner Diversity and Identities publishes quarterly (March, June, September, December). To find out more about the submission process, please visit www.thelearner.com/journals/call-for-papers. ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING For a full list of databases in which this journal is indexed, please visit http://thelearner.com/journals/collection. KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY MEMBERSHIP Authors in The International Journal of Learner Diversity and Identities are members of The Learner Knowledge Community or a thematically related Knowledge Community. Members receive access to journal content. To find out more, visit www.thelearner.com/about/become-a-member. SUBSCRIPTIONS The International Journal of Learner Diversity and Identities is available in electronic and print formats. Subscribe to gain access to content from the current year and the entire backlist. Contact us at [email protected]. ORDERING Single articles and issues are available from the journal bookstore at www.ijldi.cgpublisher.com. HYBRID OPEN ACCESS The International Journal of Learner Diversity and Identities is Hybrid Open Access, meaning authors can choose to make their articles open access. This allows their work to reach an even wider audience, broadening the dissemination of their research. To find out more, please visit www.thelearner.com/journals/hybrid-open-access. DISCLAIMER The authors, editors, and publisher will not accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have been made in this publication. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.

mailto:[email protected]

The International Journal of Learner Diversity and Identities Volume 23, Issue 4, 2016, www.thelearner.com © Common Ground Publishing, Antoinette Doyle, Xuemei Li, Marina Grineva, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected] ISSN: 2327-0128 (Print), ISSN: 2327-2627 (Online)

Issues in Newcomer Education in Smaller Centers: Toward Understanding Educators’ Perspectives

Antoinette Doyle, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada Xuemei Li, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada

Marina Grineva, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada

Abstract: In Canada and other countries, newcomers have typically settled in large cities; however, in recent years, smaller centers are seeing growth in their newcomer populations. As smaller centers become increasingly diverse, educators in these areas must be ready to respond to the needs of newcomers. This study, conducted in one eastern Canadian province with an emerging population of newcomers, examined the perspectives of a variety of educators regarding issues in the education of newcomers. Classroom teachers, ESL teachers, and school administrators in elementary schools, as well as staff from the Department of Education responsible for overseeing the jurisdiction, were interviewed. The findings point to a number of issues important to educators for professional development and support. These include the need for pedagogical guidance and support to teachers to better meet the needs of students with limited English proficiency or lack of prior education and guidance in the assessment of student progress, especially for those who may have special needs.

Keywords: Linguistic and Cultural Diversities, Inclusive Education, Supporting Teaching and Learning in Diverse Classrooms

Background and Review of the Literature

istorically, in Canada and the United States, newcomers have flocked to large cities; however, in recent years smaller centers are seeing growth in their newcomer populations. In the Atlantic Provinces in Canada, for example, there were 2,653

newcomers in 2003 (Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2013) and 6,442 in 2013 (Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2014). Increasingly, these newcomers are from countries in which English is not widely spoken as a first language (Statistics Canada 2010). Changes in the cultural and linguistic make-up of the population have implications for community organizations and institutions. As smaller centers become increasingly diverse, it is essential that education systems and those who work within them be able to respond to the needs of students and their families.

The term “newcomer” can mean different things, including immigrants, refugees, and those moving into a region from elsewhere within a country. Most newcomers referred to in this study are refugees who are English Language Learners (ELLs), although some newcomers may speak English. In this paper, the broader term, newcomer, is used to refer to these students. Specialist teachers who work with them are referred to as English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers, as is customary in the schools.

All families, regardless of newcomer status, share many of the same needs upon children’s entry into the school system—familiarity with the schools’ routines, curriculum-related practices and procedures, and expectations about the roles and responsibilities of educators, parents, and children. Families also need to be familiar with opportunities for communication with the school and must feel welcome in doing so. Such conditions are important for developing supportive home-school relationships (Epstein 1987; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1995; Jeynes 2003). Carter and Welner (2013) have argued that it is imperative that the opportunity gap for diverse children, including those with cultural and linguistic differences, is closed. The studies discussed in this review of the literature aim to address the gap by identifying in- and out-of-school human and contextual factors.

H

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNER DIVERSITY AND IDENTITIES

Research on families from diverse backgrounds identifies potential challenges to the development of such relations. Limited facility with English language proficiency may inhibit parents’ sense of power to fully participate in their children’s education (Trueba 2004). Conflicting home-school cultures and stereotypical assumptions may also impede parents’ involvement if they do not feel valued. Crozier and Davies (2005), for example, found that some immigrant parents believed it was their role to provide a supportive home environment, but not to directly be involved in school activities or in regular contact with educators. As Hamilton (2013) has suggested, numerous factors, including a mismatch between home and school understandings of each other’s roles, may inhibit the establishment of parent-educator relationships and communication.

The unique academic needs of newcomer children must also be considered. Goldenberg’s (2008) review of the research on teaching English language learners noted several factors for supporting students academically. One factor is the provision of an explicit block of time for learning about English, in addition to the language art instruction that all children receive. Another factor cited, based on the broader literature on teaching all children to read, but especially relevant to newcomers, is the explicit teaching of the components of reading instruction to develop proficiency in words reading. Additionally, the development of academic vocabulary is critical beyond the early grades, for success with reading and the broader curriculum. As Goldenberg (2008, 9) explains: “Academic English involves such things as relating an event or a series of events to someone who was not present, being able to make comparisons between alternatives and justify a choice, knowing different forms and inflections of words and their appropriate use, and possessing and using content-specific vocabulary and modes of expression in different academic disciplines such as mathematics and social studies.”

Cummins (2012) argued that teachers also need to take into account the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the children and draw upon these to bridge the learning of English and the curriculum. Thus, in aiming to respond to the needs of their students and families, educators encounter numerous challenges. Frequently cited issues identified by classroom teachers’ include difficulties in communicating with newcomers and their parents, lack of appropriate curriculum materials, and inadequate teacher preparation for meeting the needs of the students (Batt 2008; Griffin 2008; Penfield 1987). Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, and Driscoll (2005) found that while teachers wanted to foster better communication with newcomer parents and include them in the school community in meaningful ways, they were frustrated by a lack of resources and support to help them do so.

Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge are core factors in their preparedness to teach children with widely-ranging needs (Guskey 2004). Gersten et al. (2005, 204) found that, “Students who reached performance levels similar to native English-speaking children received instruction that was rated higher in quality than that in classrooms with poorer student outcomes.” The general instructional qualities that seemed to most differentiate these higher-performing classrooms were explicit teaching and differentiating instruction for low performers. This aligns with the key findings from Goldenberg’s (2008) review of the literature as well as Moats’ (2009) findings that strong knowledge of the structure of the English language was critical for effective language arts teaching.

Challenges to effective collaboration among classroom teachers and ESL teachers have also been examined. Davison (2006) found distinct stages of collaboration ranging from pseudo-compliance or passive resistance to creative co-construction, with only the last stage being truly effective. Others have found that for collaboration to be effective, teachers needed to clarify their roles and develop trusting relationships to improve communication and the sharing of authority and workload (Norton 2013; Pawan and Craig 2011; Penfield 1987). Other research (Walker-Dalhouse and Dalhouse 2009) emphasizes both the importance of culturally-sensitive curriculum adaptations and the establishment of strong relationships with parents for supporting children’s

2

DOYLE ET AL.: ISSUES IN NEWCOMER EDUCATION IN SMALLER CENTERS

learning. Clearly, professional development for the teaching of newcomer students goes far beyond teaching English and curriculum content.

In the context of discussions of teacher preparedness, Brown, Miller, and Mitchell (2006, 161) call attention to the delicate balance teachers must strive to achieve in making pedagogical decisions: “For teachers working with students in these contexts this poses an incredible tension as they struggle to create conditions in which students can participate in mainstream classrooms, and at the same time meet these students’ particular academic, social, and linguistic needs in ways that are not underpinned by deficit assumptions.”

Recently, research has focused on demographic changes in smaller centers (Apedaile and Whitelaw 2012; Lucas, Villegas, and Freedson-Gonzales 2008; Luttrell 2011; O’Neal, Ringler, and Rodriguez 2008; Zehler 2008). Some of these studies highlight challenges for educators who previously had little experience in teaching newcomer students and point to the need to enhance teacher education programs and professional development (Lucas, Villegas, and Freedson-Gonzales 2008; Luttrell 2011; O’Neal, Ringler, and Rodriguez 2008; Zehler 2008). Others emphasize the need for educational responses that highlight sensitivity to students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Apedaile and Whitelaw 2012; Teckle and James 2014). These studies suggest that, more than ever, educators in smaller centers must be prepared for the increasingly-diverse students and their families. This preparedness is multi-faceted and complex.

The overarching aim of the studies cited is to better understand how newcomers can be fully supported and engaged in learning. Shealey and Callins (2007) referred to such diverse efforts as inclusive education that is culturally responsive. Framed within the context of an inclusionary perspective, the purpose of this study was to explore, in one smaller center, the perspectives of a range of educators across the education system, on their efforts to support newcomer children entering school and their families.

Method

General Procedures

Information about the study was sent to the Department of Education in the province in which the research was conducted (hereafter referred to as the Department), which is the provincial ministry responsible for overseeing public education, and to the school district (hereafter referred to as the District) covering the greater metropolitan area in which the majority of the province’s newcomer families reside. The information explained the scope and procedures of the study and requested the participation of Department and District personnel through interviews. Following District permission being granted, principals in six elementary schools with newcomer children were also invited to participate in the study. They were also asked to inform their classroom teachers and ESL teachers about the study by distributing the information to teachers. Interviews with principals, classroom teachers, and ESL teachers were conducted at the schools, or elsewhere, at the discretion of the participants.

Participants

The sixteen interview participants were two staff at the Department, six school principals, two school administrators who held dual roles as assistant principals and classroom teachers, three classroom teachers, and three ESL teachers. School-based educators’ experience ranged from a few years of teaching to over twenty-five years of experience.

Data Source

Interviews were semi-structured. Questions focused on educators’ roles and activities, training and supports for working with newcomer students, benefits and challenges in teaching ESL

3


students, policy and practice issues, student evaluation and progress, and educators’ suggestions for directions for future policy and practice. Via the information sent to the Department and schools, the interviewees had advance knowledge of the questions to be asked, and thus, had time to reflect on these before the interview. Interviews ranged from thirty to sixty minutes. A copy of the interview questions for classroom teachers is appended. There was minor variation in the wording of some questions depending on the participant. For example, wording of the question about “challenges in teaching these students” posed to classroom teachers, was changed to “challenges in supporting the education of these students,” and posed to school administrators, to more appropriately reflect their role. A few additional questions posed to Department staff are also included in the appendix.

Data Analysis

The interviews, conducted by two members of the research team, were recorded and transcribed. Using codes developed a priori, from the research questions, and those that emerged from the data, content analysis was used to uncover patterns in the data (Patton 2002). First, the interview transcripts were read and preliminary codes were assigned to the data by two members of the research team. The codes reflected key concepts in the data. The transcripts were read multiple times to ensure that all key concepts were coded, and to revise, create, or discard codes. Discussions were held to consider how the coded data could be categorized into major themes. As Merriam (2009) has stated the use of multiple data collectors and multiple perspectives in data analysis aid in increasing the validity of the findings. Four categories emerged around which the findings are presented—1) training and supports for teaching newcomer students, 2) benefits and challenges in teaching these students including policy and practice issues, 3) student evaluation and progress, and 4) educators’ suggestions for directions for future policy and practice.

Findings

Training and Supports for Educators Teaching Newcomer Students

The Department staff person was asked about the preparedness of teachers to teach newcomer students. With regard to ESL teachers, he stated that “A vast majority who engage in significant populations of ESL…would have backgrounds in language instruction, certificates certifying them in this area. Some are very specialized.” He also indicated that the Department provides funding for training for ESL teachers. “Most of the ESL teachers have some background in second language education. They should have a program degree.” With regard to classroom teachers and principals, he indicated that, “It would vary from teacher to teacher,” noting that a handbook, PowerPoint presentations, and strategy pamphlets have been prepared for administrators as well as for classroom teachers.

School administrators. School administrators generally indicated minimal formalized education for working with newcomer students. When asked about preparedness for working with newcomer children and families, two principals stated that they had none. A few administrators referenced attending a half-day workshop and receiving a handout and noted that the topic [of newcomer students] is on the agenda at principals’ meetings from time to time. One administrator stated, “I do think that’s a huge need.” Two administrators referenced the ESL teachers working in their schools as sources of support. Two also noted the supports of the settlement worker in the schools (SWIS) from the community organization whose mandate is to support newcomers. One principal noted that there was, “not so much [support] on a district level or on a department level,” and that educators, “need somebody in the district to guide the ESL process.” One principal noted, “There are student support services [Special Education], but for many years we were not to use student support services for students that were ESL.”

4


Classroom teachers. All classroom teachers cited minimal formal preparation for teaching newcomer students. One recalled a workshop offered by the District. Another teacher indicated that she drew upon her special education background, “You take what you do now and you adapt to meet the needs of the children that you work with.” When further queried about supports they receive for teaching their newcomer students, two teachers indicated that they rely on the ESL teacher. One noted, “She takes a lead role.” Two teachers referenced the support from the Itinerant Resource Teacher (Special Education Teacher) and another noted support of the SWIS person from the community organization. All classroom teachers indicated that more support is needed.

ESL teachers. Not surprisingly, the ESL teachers indicated that they had specialized education in teaching newcomer students. All had a minimum of a certificate level program in teaching ESL and had attended related workshops and seminars. Some ESL teachers indicated a desire for more support in planning instruction and for locating or developing curriculum materials for the diverse needs of the children they work with.

Benefits in Teaching Newcomers

Participants were asked about potential benefits in working with newcomer children and their families.

School administrators. All school administrators cited the importance of the presence of newcomer children for providing an opportunity for the other children to develop an understanding of the diversity of the larger world outside the school neighbourhood. One administrator noted that through opportunities brought about by the presence of newcomers, such as exposure to guest speakers and new foods, children would develop greater multicultural understanding. Another administrator suggested that the benefits to children were reciprocal—the newcomer child learned from being included in the classroom context while the other children benefitted in their learning from the newcomer child, for example, by modeling themselves on the work ethic of the newcomer.

Classroom teachers. Classroom teachers’ perspectives largely echoed those of the administrators. All talked about the opportunity for themselves and the other students to learn about new cultures and, therefore, learn to respect people from these cultures. One teacher stated, “These children have a lot to offer and a lot to share, and we learn from them a lot. I think it teaches my other children about... well, what the world is like. You know, there’s more to this world than just little [name of city].”

ESL teachers. In responding to the question of benefits, ESL teachers focused on their feelings of satisfaction in working with their students. One said: “It is a small group that you are teaching….the students are very motivated, and it’s very rewarding for a teacher.” Another summarized the tone of the ESL teachers, stating, “The benefits are the relationships that you make and the progress that you see the children making—it’s very rewarding.”

Challenges in Teaching Newcomers

Participants were asked about potential challenges in supporting newcomer children and their families.

The Department. From the perspective of the Department, the greatest challenge was in responding to the recognition of the gap between the emerging needs and the policy and programs available. An ESL consultant position was created, and, as one Department staff person indicated: “A major role for the consultant in the early beginnings…was about organizing everybody, getting everybody on the same page, realizing that there is an issue with programs and resources, with policy on ESL, with support for teachers, and then… basically a work plan was devised...Compared to five or six years ago we’ve come a long, long way. First of all, we

5


have a program LEARN, so that’s a big step in itself and we build some supports…for principals, teachers, itinerants, and… policies around ESL.”

It should be noted for clarification that the LEARN program (Literacy Enrichment and Academic Readiness for Newcomers) is a program for students with little or no prior schooling. There is a Level 1 component for mathematics and language arts. The mathematics program is suitable for students who are age-appropriate for grade three or higher and is aimed to bring students to a grade six reading level (Department of Education n.d.). The language arts program aims to bring students to a transitional reading level. At least one hour per day on each of these subjects is recommended for instruction (Department of Education 2011). LEARN Level 2 is a series of non-credit preparatory courses for intermediate and senior high students in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.

The Department staff person indicated that he did not feel that, currently, there are any outstanding issues, but did indicate that evaluation of programs was a future goal. With respect to issues raised by educators or newcomer families, the Department views these as largely district-level matters to which they offer support when requested.

School administrators. School administrators’ main challenge with respect to working with newcomer parents was, not surprisingly, related to difficulties in communicating due to language barriers. All administrators cited this issue with respect to either general communication for sharing information about school policies and practices, or for the purposes of communicating about the child, especially at parent-child conferences during reporting periods. Administrators noted that interpreters are not always available to help facilitate discussions about these and other issues including understanding of cultural differences or expectations of the school and parents’ roles. One administrator also noted that, depending on the background of the parents, there may also be issues of trust in establishing home-school relationships, “In some countries they [officials] are… dangerous and difficult people and they are not there for the service of people, but for the opposite.” The forging of relationships, therefore, can be complicated by numerous factors.

In discussing issues in the “delivery” of education of the children, school administrators cited the difficulties posed by the language barrier in terms of both assessing what children know and teaching English and the curriculum. Some administrators referenced the policy of typically placing students with their age-matched peers regardless of prior education. A number of administrators noted the problem of assessing learning difficulties in newcomer students, citing complications of language proficiency and cultural bias in testing and the question of whether language or a learning disability was at the root of the difficulties of some students. One administrator indicated being told not to look for exceptionalities in newcomer students. Several administrators stated that there was not enough ESL teacher time. Regarding support for administrators and teachers, another administrator said: “[There is] not so much on a district level or on a department-based level. Its other organizations that get involved—Association for New Canadians and these other organizations help out an awful lot…. there is definitely a need for somebody in the district to guide the ESL process.”

Another administrator stated that the district needed to work more closely with the ESL teachers to support them in their work.

Classroom teachers. Classroom teachers recognized the importance of establishing communication, especially for helping parents understand classroom routines and how they can contribute to the children’s learning at home. However, they also cited difficulty in communicating with parents due to language barriers. Some of the teachers also mentioned the workload in trying to help children who have significant gaps in their education.

All classroom teachers stated that the ESL teacher support time was not adequate to meet the needs of the children. Some also suggested that children need an intense, early intervention to develop the language skills needed to achieve maximum benefit from instruction in the regular classroom. For children who have minimal language and prior education one teacher suggested

6


that the children “need to go somewhere else before they are taken and put directly into the classroom …where they learn just basic English and basic skills and kind of the rules and expectations of what does happen in the school here.” Some teachers also talked about the need to identify children with learning difficulties and give them the attention from the itinerant resource teacher in addition to ESL teacher supports.

ESL teachers. The ESL teachers also noted the challenges that language differences create for communicating with parents. One said, “That can be an issue when you have to communicate something with a family, and you can’t do that, or you don’t know something about a student’s background, and you either can’t contact the parents or they don’t understand you.” Some appreciated the role that the community association for newcomers plays in helping to facilitate communication, sometimes using interpreters, when available. It was also noted, however, that not all newcomer families come to school via affiliation with the association; therefore, services such as interpreters may not be available. The ESL teachers also emphasized how multi-faceted the issues of adjustment are for students—that the cultural context in which the newcomer children are placed is truly foreign to the children and their families in many respects and that educators require a lot of support to understand the newcomers’ perspectives and respond accordingly. One ESL teacher stated that she believed that the settlement worker program run by the community organization was a good idea, but that staff turnover seemed to be high. She felt that the retention of qualified staff would aid schools in the development of longer-term relationships with the staff and thus enhance program delivery.

Workload demands were noted by one of the ESL teachers. “You have to be independent and create your own materials and curriculum…. I don’t have a lot of support.” The availability of appropriate workspace was also identified by one ESL teacher. “Sometimes you are working in a corridor…because there is nowhere else in the school to work…The place you work in can vary very much from school to school.”

Student Evaluation and Progress

The Department. The Department staff stated that currently any tracking of the evaluation and progress of newcomer students is done at the district or school level. The Department does not request information from schools for monitoring the newcomer students’ progress. The Department staff stated that when the ESL programs were newly developed six or seven years ago, the consultant was in contact with the schools about the implementation of the programs and the children’s progress in them: “it’s a small population of teachers, a small population of kids, so [she] would certainly use…formal and informal communication with the phone and email, things like how they are doing…what students are transitioning to a regular program…And [the consultant] could tell you exactly how well everybody was doing.”

The Department staff person did indicate that within the Department, “All the directors of K-to twelve are assessing what we did, what we are going to do in the future, and how we are going to do it.”

School administrators. School administrators reported that after the initial period of adjustment to school routines and cultural differences, the primary and elementary children generally make good progress socially. Much of this success is attributed to the other children, “the [locally-born] children—they are so welcoming…We’ve found that they are absolutely so welcoming in their own way.”

All of the school administrators indicated that, based on observations and assessments, how students were progressing with the curriculum varied greatly: “There is a variety because the children come with a variety of backgrounds, a variety of skills. Sometimes…we can perform the running records in the same reading informal and formal assessments…In other cases we are not able to because the students aren’t ready for that so we’ve got to often go back ages and grade levels from where they would normally be with their peers.”

7


All administrators expressed concern about the children who experienced substantial difficulties. One administrator said: “Academically we track them pretty rigorously though the primary…We know how our kids are doing…We have some kids who are really succeeding, have come a huge way…But we also have students who have completely disengaged from the curriculum…they’ve found that they just did not achieve any success; and, so…they’ve backed away and that’s a challenge to work with that.”

Classroom teachers. Classroom teachers had varying perspectives on children’s social progress. One stated, “They don’t fit with the group that they have. And that is the evidence that you do see.” Another said, “Sometimes there are issues about skin color and we address that. We talk about that—how everybody is special and everybody is different and everybody’s skin color is a different color.” A third teacher said: “I think socially they do fit in over time...sometimes at the beginning, they do stand out for various reasons, but they do realize that, you know, this is not appropriate or this is not the way we do things, whatever it is. It does come after a while, but for some of them it takes longer.”

In terms of academic progress, teachers also reported varying levels of progress. One teacher observed, “I had great improvement this year. My children do see the ESL [teacher] consistently; so I find that really helps, and the [IRT] support within the classroom. I’ve had a numeracy support teacher in as well.” Another teacher said: “I think for some of them the gap continues to widen—I do. And I also think it depends on home support. I mean I know some of them…have moms and dads who are capable of helping out at home…There are some who really do try to help, but there are others who really can’t. They don’t have it themselves. And that’s a lot of the problem.”

Some teachers expressed concern about the potential for widening gaps over time, since children in the province rarely repeat grades. One stated: “The gap in [this grade] was big, so they are pushed on to [the next grade], and the gap is bigger. I kind of wonder, are we doing justice to this child? Are we really helping them as much as we think we are? I don’t know… Now, I do see improvement—I do…but to me, that gap hasn’t closed enough, but yet he has to go to [the next grade].”

ESL teachers. Like the other educators, the ESL teachers judged the children’s social progress through observation and classroom teachers’ comments. One teacher indicated that she mainly relied on the classroom teacher’s reporting of social progress, since she saw the children less often than the classroom teacher. ESL teachers’ perceptions of children’s social progress varied, explaining it in terms of the children’s skills at the time of placement and their past experiences. One teacher explained: “especially with the younger students who don’t have any [English] language, you would notice that they get very frustrated when they can’t express themselves…. Some of them definitely have more problems with adjusting than others depending on what they’ve experienced before in their life. For example…if they grew up in a refugee camp, and have seen things that they should not see at this age…they can show that behavior sometimes.”

To assess academic progress, the ESL teachers indicated that they rely on their own assessments of students—informal reading inventories such as running records and vocabulary lists—and observations of the children’s progress with the curriculum in the ESL setting and the verbal and written reports from the regular classroom teacher. One teacher said: “They are often compared to the other classmates, which sometimes is not fair. But they [the classroom teachers] tell us that somebody either needs ESL services or don’t need them anymore. Academically…depending on their background again, some of them are doing great; some of them are behind, and it takes them a long time to catch up.”

Another ESL teacher said: “I feel a lot of mine are doing very well academically. You can tell from assessments. “A lot of times it starts when their teachers are like, ‘Ok, you can take them.’ And then as it progresses, a lot of times teachers are like, ‘I’d rather they stay.’ That’s

8


kind of a really good indicator that the teacher feels, ‘No that it would be better for them to do this, because if not, they’ll miss it.’”

Educators’ Suggestions for Future Policy and Practice

Looking toward the future of policy and practice, participants were asked if they had suggestions for improving newcomer education. Staff at the Department indicated that there were no outstanding issues or areas of concern that were not being addressed. It was stated that the directors of the department divisions were reflecting on what had been done for future planning; however, no specific information about future directions could be provided at the time of the interview. The responses of all of the school-based educators in different positions in the education system were quite similar; thus, these are not presented by “type” of educator, but by topic.

More ESL teacher allocations. All groups of school-based educators called for more ESL-teacher support—more teachers in the system to provide more time to work with newcomer children and the educators in the schools in which they work. As one school administrator stated: “I think the most important thing is that early investment when the students first arrive. Our early investment…rather than doing ESL once a week or once every seven days. It needs to happen hard and fast and really give the kids a rigorous understanding, so that they’re...in the class and they are able to function early and then you don’t get students who are disengaged and [have] damaging behaviors.”

One ESL teacher suggested:

I think it would be good to have a teacher in one school…I understand it’s sometimes not feasible... just for one student or just a handful of students, but even a couple of schools for one teacher…the students...need…the ESL instruction, but they also need help in the regular classroom. And as a teacher I would like to be there more for them but I can’t because I don’t have enough time to be there for the student in the classroom, in their normal regular classroom. I would like to see students...our teachers placed in just a couple of schools instead of several.

Implementation of a LEARN-type program for primary/elementary students. As noted in the comments throughout the paper, many of the educators argued that for newcomer children, the magnitude of change on several fronts—language, customs, school routines, and expectations—can be overwhelming. Several educators suggested a transition program for them—particularly the elementary-age students—partly modeled on the LEARN program available to junior and senior high school students. As one educator stated: “I think ESL students, especially if they had not been in school for a long time or before, they would need some kind of orientation before they start in the Canadian school because usually the experience is very different from they’ve been used to. The routines, the schedules, everything is different. I think there should be some kind of period at the beginning when they could just get used to the routines before they start everything else.”

It was suggested that this program should focus on English language proficiency, building academic knowledge needed for placement in their age and grade level, and for helping children learn and establish the practices of Canadian schools. A number of educators also suggested that including the newcomer parents in such a program and resourcing it properly with interpreters and information printed in the first language of the parents would help children and families make a smoother transition to school. One suggested that a program for parents would be beneficial: “[A program would] start them off on the right foot…I guess it’s overwhelming for them too to be plucked out of their own country and put down here...where you are expected to get here at 8:30 and make sure your child has lunch…recess, and money for swimming.”

9


More teacher education and professional development opportunities. One educator argued that the time was right to expand university programs for teachers working with newcomer families so that educators are well prepared to understand the needs of newcomer children and their families and respond effectively as educators and advocates: “because people aren’t leaving. We are getting more immigrants, and…sometimes I think that immigrants don’t have the same voice…You get some parents who...they want something, they are going to get it, but a lot of the ESL parents aren’t like that. They are so pleased with Canada that they accept what they have, whereas some other parents would push, and push, make it known. I think the ESL parents don’t do that. So I don’t think they would get the results like the other parents would.”

In a similar vein one school administrator argued for the importance of professional development but also support to schools to ensure the necessary programming takes place: “because really all our job [as school administrators] is to try to make sure that the program is in place for the students…. So, again, you almost need to have somebody available to support the teacher and I think that’s how we could best ensure the students are supported and our teachers are supported.”

Clarification of the policy on the assessment of ESL children for learning disabilities or other cognitive contributors to learning difficulties. Several educators expressed uncertainty about responding to the question of learning difficulties that may be due to factors other than language learning. One administrator stated that there had been a no-assessment policy for the newcomer students. One teacher said that children may receive either ESL or Special Education services, but not both. Another classroom teacher, however, cited the availability of both for her students. Differences of opinion existed on how to address struggling ESL students who may have underlying difficulties not due to language learning. This suggests conflicting understandings of what the policies are regarding assessment and support eligibility, and thus, clarification is required.

The development of more support for working with families. Educators noted language barriers and differences in cultural norms and expectations as challenges in supporting parents in helping their children adjust to the school environment. They valued the services of interpreters for communicating with parents. These were sometimes arranged through the settlement workers from the community agency. Other supports offered by the community organization that educators identified as valuable were the provision of homework clubs and summer learning programs for children. Some educators commented that more support like these were needed and suggested that the school district do more in this area since such support did not seem to be as prevalent as they once were. One administrator indicated that they have “disappeared” from her school and wondered if there may have been cutbacks within the organization that provides these services.

One ESL teacher noted the large volume of school information that is handed to parents and suggested that translation of these materials or explanation of them to families by a translator would be a good investment that would have a long-term payoff.

It was also noted by a number of educators that some newcomer parents had experienced trauma. As one stated, “Some of these parents are working so hard that they don’t have time for therapy and treatment.” These educators look to the school district to play a greater role in the area of working with newcomer families directly and in helping schools to help families.

Department- and District-level leadership for enhancing the connection within the education system and across community group for supporting newcomer families. All educators were aware of the community organization working to support newcomer families, and some of the services that they provide in and outside of school. The educators were aware of few other organizations working with newcomer families and how these organizations might be supporting the families, but saw that it could be valuable to work together. One administrator said, “We need time to sit down and talk and plan and share what’s going on and work together.” But, as another argued, without sustained leadership it could be just another one-shot effort:

10


It has to be coordinated effort, it cannot be seen as separate entities where no one is connecting everybody, and that’s one of the big problems…It has to come from the top, it has to come from the Department…It has to be articulated through the school board [school district], has to be revisited and given prominence in our actions, because, yes, it’s one thing to go and have a workshop and hear about, you know, that you should put up signs in your entrance way, but, you know, you have to revisit that…So, somebody has to be behind that to keep it front and center.

Another educator said: “the inter-agencies—they have to have a practical approach; they can’t be so large and philosophical and unrealistic…It has to be workable on the ground. The agencies can talk; they can share information. Families [would] feel like they are not isolated. We need to have all agencies working together and agencies need to have a better understanding of our education system, so that they can support the families.”

Discussion and Implications for Practice

Benefits and Challenges in Teaching Newcomer Students

Across groups, educators believed that newcomer children provided numerous benefits to the classroom context. This is perhaps partly due to the fact that until recently, there has been very little visible diversity across the local population, including the population of teachers. Educators recognize the importance of fostering in students the beginnings of a meaningful understanding of the diversity of the human experience. Their comments also indicated that, given the historically-dominant cultural background of the province (Ango-Irish) and the limited opportunities for children to interact with children from other linguistic and cultural groups, the teachers saw learning opportunities for the other children and themselves. This finding reflect that of other studies (Gándara et al. 2005) suggesting that teachers perceived that these children were willing to learn and had important contributions to offer to the learning environment.

The differing perspectives among Department staff and school-based educators on challenges in the implementation of educational programming for newcomers are noteworthy. Department staff indicated that while there were major challenges about five years ago, policy and programs were put in place in response and there were no outstanding issues currently of concern. School-based educators, however, identified several areas of challenge in working with newcomer students. In addition to preparedness and supports for teaching newcomer children, these educators also identified language barriers in communicating with students and parents and the placement and teaching of children with significant gaps in education. Similar concerns from other ground-level educators are documented in the research (Batt 2008; Griffin 2008; Penfield 1987). The differing perspectives suggest that there is a role for the Department in continuing to improve newcomer education.

Training and Supports for Educators Teaching ESL Students

With the exception of the ESL teachers who had specialized ESL certification, all school-based educators cited minimal to no training. A few mentioned brief workshops or discussions of the topic in meetings. Few mentioned Department-prepared online resources as support. It may be that some educators were unfamiliar with these; however, educators’ responses focused on human support—that which could be available from the special education teacher, the school district, and for classroom teachers in particular, the support of the ESL teacher. This suggests that educators assessed meaningful support for their work with newcomer children in terms of access to ground-level “hands-on” expertise. As Cummins (2012) argued, pedagogy that draws upon the strengths of the first language and home culture to bridge the learning of English and

11


curriculum content can be effective, but is a complex undertaking, requiring substantial support to educators.

The areas of need that they identified for future professional development—chiefly, opportunities to learn more about newcomer families’ experiences, strategies for supporting ESL children’s language learning, and strategies for addressing learning gaps to help children eventually meet curriculum outcomes—provide directions for the District and Department in future professional development planning. This is not surprising in light of numerous studies that have pointed out teacher reports of lack of adequate professional development and curriculum and human resource supports (Batt 2008; Faez 2012; Griffin 2008). It also suggests that future professional development needs to be comprehensive and sustained over time to help educators learn through ongoing classroom practice. As Eun and Heining-Boynton (2007) noted, unless the effects of professional development are tracked to classroom practice, professional development cannot be assumed to have been successful.

Student Evaluation and Progress

Educators’ reports of newcomer children’s social progress varied somewhat, but were more consistently positive than those of their academic progress. A number of educators noted that the local children were very supportive of the newcomer children, and that, over time, the newcomers “fit in” and developed friendships. However, not all children were successful. One teacher noted that a child’s skin colour “was an issue.” Further exploration of factors contributing to children’s social-emotional progress in school settings for understanding the complex dynamics of “fitting in” and “belonging” are needed.

Criteria for assessing progress differed somewhat between ESL teachers and classroom teachers. The ESL teachers made particular reference to the achievement of learning goals they set for their students, particularly in the ESL classroom, although they did also refer to classroom teacher reports. The classroom teachers aptly pointed out that, like any group of children, there was a wide range of progress. Nonetheless, these classroom teachers were particularly concerned that challenges unique to some of the newcomer children—especially language barriers and gaps in education—put them at greater risk. Classroom and ESL teachers were in agreement that the ESL support time was not enough to meet the children’s needs. Without the intensity of programming necessary, they perceived the gap widening rather than closing over time. It is well documented that assessment of struggling students who are English language learners is complicated by the limitations of assessments, which are designed for and normed using native speakers of English. The Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (August and Shanahan 2006) in raising this issue, note the importance nonetheless of efforts to distinguish between children struggling to learn in a second language and the subset of whom have learning disabilities.

Neither the Department nor the District tracks the progress of newcomer children as a group. The Department indicated that one area of interest in the future was to evaluate how well programs were working. Given the educators’ concerns about the progress of some children and the Department’s expression of interest in evaluating program effectiveness, it would be important to look at the “big picture” of newcomer students’ progress, the diversity within this progress, and the reasons for it to inform future assessment policy and programming.

The Implications of Educators’ Suggestions for Future Policy and Practice

Some of the recommendations of educators are ones which require additional human resources that can only be provided to the school district by provincial government funding—primarily, greater numbers of ESL teachers to allow more intensive newcomer programs to be made available to all students who need them. Human resources for enhanced access to the services of interpreters and translators, and a specialist at the district level specifically responsible for

12


guiding ESL education and coordinating with community organizations, also are called for. Other recommendations, however, point to a reconsideration of how existing opportunities are utilized. Specifically, it is timely that newcomer issues are included in teacher education programs at both undergraduate and graduate levels, as well as teacher professional development sessions offered by school districts, with intensive, sustained, and supported learning through courses, workshops, teacher mentoring.

Numerous studies point to the important but challenging goal of establishing strong home-school relationships in the context of cultural and linguistic diversity (Hamilton and Moore 2004; Souto-Manning 2006; Walker-Dalhouse and Dalhouse 2009). The findings of this study suggest that educators recognize the diverse needs of newcomer families and aim to meet those needs as limited resources permit. This is a timely issue given the expanding refugee crisis in recent years. In Canada, as the newly-elected federal government begins its term of office and enacts its campaign platforms, substantial increases in the numbers of refuges are expected very soon and these newcomers will be settled in both larger and smaller centers. As the demographic makeup of smaller centers changes rapidly, some of the issues identified and the recommendations may be more broadly applicable than just to the local context in which the study was conducted.

Conclusion

This study aimed to investigate the perspectives of educators in one smaller center in Eastern Canada regarding newcomer education. It identifies a number of core issues for teachers’ professional development and ongoing supports. The educators expressed a belief that newcomers made a positive contribution to the school environment, especially in helping other students expand their understanding of others in deep and meaningful ways that can only come from person-to-person experiences. Nonetheless, the educators voiced specific concerns regarding how well they are prepared and supported in meeting the needs of newcomers, as well as how current levels of support impact students’ progress over time. In response to the substantial increases in the number of newcomers in recent years the provincial Department of Education developed policies and programs for the education of newcomers and informal methods gauged the success of these. This substantial work has provided the basis for newcomer programming for the past five years. This study suggests that further work remains to be done for supporting programming, assessing progress, and planning for the future. The suggestions of educators for the improvement of policies and practices provide direction for such deliberations.

Limitations

The findings of the study should be interpreted in light of its limitations. Since the study was intended to draw broadly across the spectrum of educators involved in K-6 education, relatively small numbers of each type of educator were interviewed. It must be noted therefore, that the responses of the participants do not necessarily reflect those of all educators. We sought the participation of staff members at the school district [school board] who could speak to issues of newcomer supports, but we were not successful in engaging them in the study. We believe that their contribution would have been important, particularly since they are a link between the Department and the educators in schools working directly with newcomers. In light of this, we acknowledge the missing perspective and its potential to further inform the study.

13


Direction for Future Research

The study pointed to a number of areas for further investigation. One important dimension of such inquiry is the question of school-family relationships and the types of conditions needed to better communicate and build effective relationships with culturally and linguistically diverse families. In this study, the queries around newcomer social adjustment pointed to the need to better the understand child, family, and school factors that may explain the conditions necessary for all children to truly “belong.” Another area for further investigation is the relations among child-, family-, and school factors, and children’s academic progress. Newcomer children and their families are not a homogeneous group; nor are all school contexts and resources equal. Further inquiry into these factors can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of why some newcomer children thrive, while others do not.

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge, with sincere thanks, all of the educators who shared their time and perspectives in the undertaking of this research. This research was supported by a grant to the first and second authors by the Jimmy Pratt Foundation and the Margaret and Wallace McCain Foundation.

REFERENCES

Apedaile, S., and C. Whitelaw. 2012. “Roots and Connections: A Culturally Integrated Approach to EAL Instruction.” TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada 30 (1) : 127–38.

August, D., and T. Shanahan, eds. 2006. Developing Literacy in Second Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority and Youth. Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum.

Batt, E. 2008. “Teachers’ Perceptions of ELL Education: Potential Solutions to Overcome the Greatest Challenges.” Multicultural Education 15: 39–43.

Brown, J., J. Miller, and J. Mitchell. 2006. “Interrupted Schooling and the Acquisition of Literacy: Experiences of Sudanese Refugees in Victorian Secondary Schools.” Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 29 (2): 150–62.

Carter. P., and K. Welner. 2013. “Building Opportunities to Achieve.” In Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance, edited by P. Carter and K. Welner, 217–27. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 2012. “Facts and Figures 2012—Immigration Overview: Permanent and Temporary Residents.” Accessed June 30, 2016. http://publications.gc.ca /collections/collection_2013/cic/Ci1-8-2012-eng.pdf.

———. 2013. “A Profile of Foreign Students Who Transition to Permanent Resident Status in Atlantic Canada.” Accessed June 30, 2016. www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics /facts2013preliminary/02.asp.

———. 2014. “Facts and Figures 2013—Immigration Overview: Permanent Residents.” Accessed June 30, 2016. www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2013 /permanent/11.asp.

Crozier, G., and J. Davies. 2007. “Hard to Reach Parents or Hard to Reach Schools? A Discussion of Home-school Relations, with Particular Reference to Bangladeshi and Pakistani Parents.” British Educational Research Journal 33 (3): 295–313. doi:10.1080/01411920701243578.

Cummins, J. 2012. “The Intersection of Cognitive and Sociocultural Factors in the Development of Reading Comprehension among Immigrant Students.” Reading and Writing 25: 1973–90. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9290-7.

14

http://publications.gc.ca/

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics%0b/facts2013preliminary/02.asp

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics%0b/facts2013preliminary/02.asp

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2013%0b/permanent/11.asp

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2013%0b/permanent/11.asp


Davison, C. 2006. “Collaboration between ESL and Content Teachers: How Do We Know When We Are Doing It Right?” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9 (4): 454–75. doi:10.2167/beb339.0.

Department of Education, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. n.d. “LEARN-1: Mathematics.” Accessed June 30, 2016. www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12 /curriculum/guides/esl/learn/learn1_mathematics.pdf.

———. 2011. “LEARN-1: Language Arts: Basic Literacy.” Accessed June 30, 2016. www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/curriculum/guides/esl/learn/learn1_language_arts.pdf.

Epstein, J. L. 1987. “Parent Involvement: What Research Says to Administrators.” Education and Urban Society 19: 119–36. doi:10.1177/0013124587019002002.

Eun, B., and A. Heining-Boynton. 2007. “Impact of an English-as-a-Second Language Professional Development Program.” The Journal of Educational Research 101 (1): 36–48. doi:10.3200/JOER.101.1.36-49.

Faez, F. 2012. “Diverse Teachers for Diverse Students: Internationally Educated and Canadian Born Teachers’ Preparedness to Teach English Language Learners.” Canadian Journal of Education 35 (3): 64–84.

Gándara, P., J. Maxwell-Jolly, and A. Driscoll. 2005. Listening to Teachers of English Language Learners: A Survey of California Teachers’ Challenges, Experiences, and Professional Development Needs. Santa Cruz: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.

Gersten, R., S. Baker, D. Haager, and A. Graves. 2005. “Exploring the Role of Teacher Quality in Predicting Reading Outcomes for First-grade English Learners: An Observational Study. Remedial and Special Education 26 (4): 197–206. doi:10.1177 /07419325050260040201.

Goldenberg, C. 2008. “Teaching English Language Learners: What the Research Does and Does Not Say.” American Educator 32 (2): 8–44.

Griffin, N. E. 2008. “Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions and Attitudes toward the Inclusion of English Language Learners in Mainstream Classrooms.” PhD diss., Tennessee State University. ProQuest (304341823).

Gunderson, L., and L. Siegel. 2000. “The Evils of the Use of IQ Tests to Define Learning Disabilities in First- and Second-language Learners.” The Reading Teacher 55 (1): 48–55.

Guskey, T. 2004. “Analyzing Lists of the Characteristics of Effective Professional Development to Promote Visionary Leadership.” National Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP Bulletin, 87: 4–20.

Hamilton, P. 2013. “Fostering Effective and Sustainable Home-school Relations with Migrant Worker Parents: A New Story to Tell?” International Studies in Sociology of Education 23 (4): 298–317. doi:10.1080/09620214.2013.815439.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., and H. Sandler. 1995. “Parental Involvement in Children’s Education: Why Does It Make a Difference?” Teachers College Record 97: 310–31. doi:10.3102/00346543067001003.

Jeynes, W. 2003. “A Meta-analysis: The Effects of Parental Involvement on Minority Children’s Academic Achievement.” Education and Urban Society 35 (2): 202–18. doi:10.1177/0013124502239392.

Limbos, M., and E. Geva. 2001. “Accuracy of Teacher Assessments of Second Language Students at Risk for Reading Disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 34 (2): 136–51. doi:10.1177/002221940103400204.

Lucas, T., A. M. Villegas, and M. Freedson-Gonzalez. 2008. “Linguistically Responsive Teacher Education: Preparing Classroom Teachers to Teach English Language Learners.” Journal of Teacher Education 59: 361–73. doi:10.1177/0022487108322110.

Luttrell, S. 2011. “Teacher Perceptions of English Language Learners in Rural Mainstream Classrooms.” PhD diss., Walden University. ProQuest (863839232).

15

http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12


Merriam, S. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moats, L. 2009. “Knowledge Foundations for Teaching, Reading, and Spelling.” Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 22 (4): 379–99. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-91621.

Norton, J. C. 2013. Elementary ESL and General Education Co-teachers’ Perceptions of Their Co-teaching Roles: A Mixed Methods Study PhD diss., The George Washington University. ProQuest (3557498).

O’Neal, D., R. Ringler, M. Rodriguez. 2008. “Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Preparation for Teaching Linguistically Diverse Learners in Rural Eastern North Carolina.” The Rural Educator 22 (3): 5–13.

Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Pawan, F., and D. A. Craig. 2011. “ESL and Content Area Teacher Responses to Discussions on English Language Learner Instruction.” TESOL Journal 2 (3): 293–311. doi:10.5054/tj.2011.259956.

Penfield, J. 1987. “ESL: The Regular Classroom Teacher’s Perspective.” TESOL Quarterly 21 (1): 21–39. doi:10.2307/3586353.

Shealey, M. W., and T. Callins. 2007. “Creating Culturally Responsive Literacy Programs in Inclusive Classrooms.” Intervention in School and Clinic 42 (4): 195–97.

Statistics Canada. 2010. “Languages.” Accessed June 29, 2016. www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402 -x/2010000/chap/lang/lang-eng.htm.

Teckle, S., and C. E. James. 2014. “Refugee Students in Canadian Schools: Educational Issues and Challenges.” In Immigrant and Refugee Students in Canada, edited by C. Brewer and M. McCabe, 147–60. Edmonton: Brush Education.

Trueba, E. 2004. The New Americans: Immigrants and Transnationals at Work. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Walker-Dalhouse, D., and D. Dalhouse. 2009. “When Two Elephants Fight the Grass Suffers: Parents and Teachers Working Together to Support the Literacy Development of Sudanese Youth.” Teaching and Teacher Education 25: 328–35. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.07.014.

Zehler, A. A. 2008. Preparing to Serve English Language Learner Students: School Districts with Emerging English Language Learner Communities. Washington, DC: Appalachia Regional Educational Laboratory.

16


APPENDIX

Questions for Teachers and Other School-based Educators:

1. About how many ESL children have you taught (and currently teach)? 2. Do you do anything to prepare (yourself, your students) for the arrival of new

children to the classroom? Does this differ when they are from a different cultural or linguistic background?

3. Have you received any training (courses, in-service, workshops, etc. for teaching in culturally and/or linguistically-diverse settings)?

4. What supports (school-based or other) do you receive to advance their progress (academically and socially/emotionally)?

5. What supports (school-based or other) do the children receive to advance their progress (academically and socially/emotionally)?

6. Are there benefits in having newcomer / ESL children in your classroom/center? Discuss.

7. Are there and challenges in teaching these children? What are the challenges in teaching these children?

8. How are the children doing academically and socially/emotionally? How do you know?

9. Are current educational policies and practices (around placement of students, language, education and other supports) satisfactory?

10. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for how the education system could improve how you are supported in working with children?

11. Are you aware of community-based resources for newcomers to support children’s transition to school (child care) and continued progress?

12. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for improving how ESL children and their families could be supported by the broader systems of support, e.g., Social Services, Health, community association for supporting newcomers?

Additional Questions for the Department of Education:

1. How many ESL students are in the province, and what is their country of origin? What are the projected trends, and how is the department planning for this?

2. Aside from the typical measures used to track all children, is the progress of ESL children tracked in any way? If so, what kind of data is collected? Do you have findings on language development, social/emotional, and academic progress in relation to country of origin or age of entry into school/childcare?

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Antoinette Doyle: Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

Dr. Xuemei Li: Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

Dr. Marina Grineva: Instructor, Department of English, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

17

The International Journal of Learner Diversity and Identities is one of ten thematically focused journals in the collection of journals that support The Learner knowledge community—its journals, book series, conference and online community.

The journal investigates the dynamics of learning in diverse communities and classrooms.

As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this journal invites presentations of practice—including documentation of diversity practices and exegeses of the effects of those practices.

The International Journal of Learner Diversity and Identities is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN: 2327-0128

the international journal of learner diversity and …_li__grineva_2016.pdf · the international...

Documents