/ 

Increasing numbers of students whose first language is not English continue to enroll in American public schools (National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 2002). Throughout the country there are various models for meeting these ELLs' instructional and language needs ranging from an ESL emphasis (instruction in English progressing from oral to written skills) to a bilingual orientation. A review and synthesis of the position statements published by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, The International Reading Association, and The National Council of Teachers of English state instruction should support bilingual and bicultural education, use first language to support learning in English, and support the culture of ELL students. These statements clearly communicate that teachers should be prepared with appropriate coursework, be familiar with ESL issues and strategies, and cooperate with all other teachers-and vice-versa (Richardson, 2005)


While the research from which the position statements are derived, clearly and consistently recommends bilingual instruction, school systems across the country struggle to find qualified personnel and funds necessary to implement these recommendations. The most common delivery options exist within the range of the ESL category (e.g. pullout programs, CALLA, and sheltered instruction). Pullout programs have long been the hallmark for the "services" delivery of instruction, whether referring to special education, gifted education, or ESL. In classrooms where a student minority speaks a heritage language other than English, pullout programs are common. (Kennedy and Canney, 2001). "Pullout just means English learners are 'pulled-out' of their regular classroom to get small group/or one-on-one intervention." (Sudduth, 2006).


Although pullout programs are common, criticisms abound. Pullout programs are usually less successful than other programs because the mainstreamed teacher is usually unaware of the student's language and cultural and time to learn English as well as content is complicated by a lack of attention to either in a coordinated manner. (Richardson, 2005). In addition, "LEP students have been treated as remedial learners, or have been grouped separately from their English speaking peers within the classroom. As a result, these LEP students are labeled as academic failures and given limited access to the standard grade-level curriculum afforded their native English-speaking peers" (Kennedy & Canney, 2001), resulting in self-esteem and self-concept issues which extend beyond the school environment. Furthermore, these programs tend to be more sensitive to basic communication (BICS) at the start with its main goals being to help students attain the language skills needed for success in school as quickly as possible, as well as to move students to the regular classroom as soon as possible. (Richardson, 2005) The emphasis on BICS does not meet the need of providing academic language (CALP) so necessary to graduate from school.

The effectiveness of the pullout model has repeatedly been called into question, especially in the past ten years as accountability has increased. Research conducted by Thomas and Collier in 1997 indicated that "students who receive well-implemented ESL-pullout instruction… and then receive years of instruction in the English mainstream, typically finish schools with average scores between the 10th and 18th national percentiles, or do not even complete high school". The effective and efficient delivery of services to provide students with access to the general curriculum is compounded by the timetables now required to demonstrate gains for ELLs due to legislation such as No Child Left Behind. "A student must accomplish more than a year's growth for six years in a row (that is 15 months growth per school year for six consecutive years) to eventually close the 40-percentile gap between them and native language speakers. Native English speakers are not waiting around for ESL students to catch up with them" (Thomas and Collier, 2002).

(Cantu, 2006)

Also, under the umbrella of the ESL delivery options is sheltered instruction. Sheltered instruction refers to a content subject (science, math, or social studies) taught by a teacher certified in that subject area and additionally certified in ESL instruction or paired with an ESL certified instructor. This instruction "provides students with continuing English language development, access to the core curriculum, and opportunities for classroom interaction" (Ovando, Combs, and Collier, 2006). Sheltered instruction is constantly aligned with Cummin's instructional continuums as the information is provided in meaningful contexts to students using interactive methods (Garcia, 2003) because "meaning is conveyed not through language alone but with the help of gestures, body language, visual aids, demonstrations, and hands-on experience" (Glendale Unified School District, 1990, p. 2). Meaning in sheltered instruction is defined as comprehensible input. It is for these reasons that sheltered instruction is considered more effective than pullout instruction.

Sheltered instruction has existed since the 1980s. To help students make the necessary academic gains the blending of content and language instruction has become critical and has taken on many forms in the past thirty years. In California, Sheltered Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) was created by the State Department of Public Instruction. Also, the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) was developed by Chamot and O'Malley to blend content, language, and explicit strategy instruction. Students would begin receiving instruction in self-contained classes and then were mainstreamed as their proficiency increased. Both CALLA and SDAIE include group work, thematic instruction and scaffolding (assisting learners with lots of support) and can be used for ELD (Richardson, 2005). Since the late 1990's the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) has been introduced by Echevarria, Vogt, and Short.

Every instructional design has its drawbacks and criticisms. "Sheltered English instruction is an intermediate strategy. It is appropriate for students who have successfully emerged from the third stage of the natural approach." (Crawford, 2003).

Gersten and Baker (2000) also believe that English learners need formal feedback if they are to learn the language; however, they point out that merging content instruction with English language development usually truncates the amount of time devoted to learning the second language. They believe that sheltered instruction (instruction designed for making sure English language learners understand content instruction) usually does not include adequate English language development in the context of writing. Like Snow and Fillmore (2000), they believe that this phenomenon has a deleterious effect on student writing. (Hernandez, 2003)

As previously mentioned, SIOP is another form of sheltered instruction which is now gaining national attention. Jana Echevarria, a professor at California State University, Long Beach and principal investigator with OERI's Center for Research on Excellence, Education & Diversity (CREDE), … asserts that SIOP offers a model for systematic implementation of high-quality ELL instruction rather than the "pick and choose" approach to sheltered lessons used by some teachers (Barton, 2006). "The SIOP operationalizes sheltered instruction by offering teachers a model for lesson planning and implementation that provides English learners with access to grade-level content standards"(Echevarra, Vogt, Short, 2004). SIOP is NOT a program, but a method to organize best teaching practices around a protocol that provides equal access to the curriculum for English learners (Sudduth, 2006). Based on her research, Echevarria characterizes effective ELL practices as focused instruction that contains explicit content and language objectives; frequent opportunities to interact with the teacher and other students; and explicit vocabulary development with words repeatedly written, pronounced, modeled, and used in context (Barton, 2006).
The research on SIOP has been empirically validated. In all research projects the teachers are described as being highly trained in the implementation of the SIOP model. Writing in the February 2006 issue of Principal Leadership, Echevarra reports on one elementary school where … eighty-six percent of the enrolled third-graders, who were characterized as chronically underachieving students during the three years that SIOP was implemented, scored at or above grade level on state assessments (Barton, 2006).
Additional research conducted in 1997-98 and reported by CREDE and the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), compared ELL students in classes with SIOP-trained teachers with those who were not (control group). When student performance was measured using a narrative writing prompt, significantly higher writing scores were achieved by the students of the SIOP-trained teachers than the control group. A similar study was conducted during the 1998-99 school year. At the conclusion the students were provided an expository writing measure and again, the ELLs of SIOP-trained teachers outperformed the control group. (See diagram just before references; www.cal.org).
The fact that SIOP has been successfully implemented in Social Studies, a content area long considered as one of the most difficult to teach due to the vast number of conceptual ideas to be learned, and that the post-test results in writing were so dramatic, also an area of concern as previously mentioned by Gersten and Baker, has fueled its dissemination across the country. The North Carolina Department of Pubic Instruction is offering training to counties during the 06-07 school year. SIOP has already been implemented in several counties in North Carolina (e.g. Lee, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, and Wake).
Charlotte-Mecklenburg is conducting an outside study of their SIOP implementation. No performance data on student scores has been made available; however, in the Spring 2005 Survey, teachers reported several positive classroom changes directly tied to the SIOP training: simplifying and clarifying lesson and language objectives, including concrete/hands-on examples within instruction, and "improvement in overall planning skills including pacing, reviewing, and reflecting on the efficacy of the lesson delivered" (PRAXIS, 2005).
Research has shown when ELLs are placed in general education classrooms without any sheltering, the mainstreaming leaves them without support or special assistance and the time it takes for acculturation and English proficiency to be achieved is exacerbated, or possibly, never achieved at all (Richardson, 2005). Furthermore, a study of "massed" versus "distributed" learning (Collins, Halter, Lightbown, & Spada, 1999) showed more effective learning for ESLs when their instruction was concentrated over five months of full-day instruction rather than distributed over 10 months at two hours a day (Richardson, 2005).
What are the implications for education? Given the lack of positive effects shown from pullout programs, there has been a significant movement to inclusion of students within the regular classroom (Allington & Walmsley, 1995). Nationally, the movement towards collaboration is viewed as critical in providing successful opportunities for all students. Collaboration by definition is "a social interaction that requires teachers to continually share rationales and create options for teaching. In fact, teachers count on their colleagues to present alternative perspectives to troubling issues and to work with them to find insightful solutions" (Walker, Scherry, and Gransberry, 2001).
SIOP takes the focus off of student performance and places the responsibility squarely on the teacher. SIOP offers support to students within the general classroom, requires the collaborative planning and reflecting of teachers' delivered instruction, and addresses content and language goals simultaneously. It is the only Sheltered English instructional model that meets the requirements for NCLB. The few, published research studies on SIOP show positive results and additional studies are ongoing. It has been consistently stated that SIOP will only be as effective as its implementation according to design. Therefore, for success to occur, teachers must seek training and support through their first year to learn the components of the model. School districts must be aware that this will not be a "flash in the pan" attempt to raise scores. It will require intentional scheduling shifts to allow for collaboration, mental shifts affecting core teacher beliefs, and reduction of competing issues for teachers to have the time to plan, implement, and reflect. SIOP is a process of "becoming"; a process of continual improvement for the teacher and the school system. SIOP cannot be learned in one sitting.
The danger and history of educational initiatives reflects a "one size fits all" mentality. Educators must be consumers of available products/models and the research behind them. Educators must realize for whom a particular model is designed and question whether or not it meet the needs of their school/school system. Regardless of the implementation chosen, students must be assessed and placed appropriately. In addition, teachers must meet ELL students with a desire to build relationship, moving beyond the instructional model to the relational level. In learning about our students, their language and culture, while sharing another language and culture with them, everyone benefits and moves in a direction which contributes to a greater global society.

References

Allington & Walmsley (1995) in G.G. Garcia, (2003). English Learners: Reaching the Highest Level of English Literacy. Newark: Delaware: International Reading Association.

Barton, R. (2006). What the Research says about effective strategies for ELL students. Northwest Education Vol.11, No. 3, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/archive.

Bruce of PRAXIS, (July 20, 2006) sent the 2005-06 Draft report of the SIOP implementation in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system.

Cantu, L. (2006, April). Texas association for Bilingual Education, Executive Board Presentation. Available: http://www.tabe.org.

Collins, Halter, Lightbrown, & Spada (1999) in J. S. Richardson, (2005). The Effectiveness of Instructional Theories, Models, Issues, Programs, and Strategies for Mainstreamed English Second Language Students. Virginia Commonwealth University: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium.

Crawford, A.N. Communicative Approaches to Second-Language Acquisition: The Brige to Second-Language Literacy. In Garcia, G.G.(Ed.). English Learners: Reaching the Highest Level of English Literacy (pp.125-149). Newark: Delaware: International Reading Association.

Echevarra, J., Vogt, M.E., and Short, D.J. (2004). Making content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model. Boston: Pearson.

Garcia, G.G. (2003). English Learners: Reaching the Highest Level of English Literacy. Newark: Delaware: International Reading Association.

Glendale Unified School District (1990). Sheltered Instruction: Bringing subjects to life for Language Minority Students in Ovando, C. J., Combs, M.C., and Collier, V. P. (2006). Bilingual and ESL Classrooms: Teaching in Multicultural Contexts. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Hernandez, A. Making Content Instruction Accessbile for English Language Leaners. In Garcia, G.G.(Ed.). English Learners: Reaching the Highest Level of English Literacy (pp.125-149). Newark: Delaware: International Reading Association.

Kennedy, T.J. and Canney, G.F. (2001). Collaboration Across Language, Age and Geographic Borders. In Risko,V. and Bromley, K.(Eds.), Collaboration for Diverse Learners: Viewpoints and Practices. (pp. 310-327). Newark: Delaware: International Reading Association.

Maria Sudduth (email: Sudduth@csuchico.edu) sent definitions for pullout and SIOP over the SIOP LISTSERV. (July 18, 2006)

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (2002) in Richardson, J.S., (2005). The Effectiveness of Instructional Theories, Models, Issues, Programs, and Strategies for Mainstreamed English Second Language Students. Virginia Commonwealth University: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium.

Ovando, C. J., Combs, M.C., and Collier, V. P. (2006). Bilingual and ESL Classrooms: Teaching in Multicultural Contexts. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Peregoy and Boyle (2005) in Richarson, J.S., (2005). The Effectiveness of Instructional Theories, Models, Issues, Programs, and Strategies for Mainstreamed English Second Language Students. Virginia Commonwealth University: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium.

Reeves, J. (2004). "Like Everybody Else, Equalizing Educational Opportunity for English Language Learners." TESOL Quarterly, 38: 1, 43-66.

Richardson, J.S., (2005). The Effectiveness of Instructional Theories, Models, Issues, Programs, and Strategies for Mainstreamed English Second Language Students. Virginia Commonwealth University: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium.

Thomas,W.P. and Collier, V.P. (1997). School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Thomas, W.P. and Collier, V.P. Making US Schools Effective for English Language Learners in Richardson, J.S., The Effectiveness of Instructional Theories, Models, Issues, Programs, and Strategies for Mainstreamed English Second Language Students. Virginia Commonwealth University: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium.

Walker, B.J., Scherry, R.J., Gransberry, C. Collaboration in the Schools: A Theoretical and Practical View. In Risko,V. and Bromley, K.(Eds.), Collaboration for Diverse Learners: Viewpoints and Practices. (pp. 32-51). Newark: Delaware: International Reading Association.