UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The social practice (activity) of the integration of K-12 English as a second language (ESL) students… McRae-McCarthy, Victoria Lillian A. 2002

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2002-750515.pdf [ 17.9MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078211.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078211-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078211-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078211-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078211-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078211-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078211-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078211-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078211.ris

Full Text

THE SOCIAL PRACTICE (ACTIVITY) OF THE INTEGRATION OF K-12 ENGLISH AS A SECOND L A N G U A G E (ESL) STUDENTS IN A DIVERSE U R B A N SCHOOL DISTRICT IN C A N A D A by VICTORIA L I L L I A N A. M C R A E - M C C A R T H Y B. Ed. University of British Columbia, 1983 M.A. , University of British Columbia, 1987 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE D E G R E E OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF L A N G U A G E AND L I T E R A C Y E D U C A T I O N We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, September, 2002 © Victoria Lillian Aileen McRae-McCarthy, s 2002 U B C Rare Books and Special Collections - Thesis Authorisation Form In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I fu r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ^ £/\ - n / / S L f / ^ / l L / r ^ / t / A ^/rS^^Cf The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date • ? ^ Q ^ , A b s t r a c t Using mixed methods this exploratory research examined the social practice (activity) of integration for English as a second language (ESL) students in a large multicultural, multilingual urban school district from the point of view (survey, n=253/interview, n=64) of respondents (teachers, parents, students, administrators) from the school community. The study also exarrtined documents (n=242) at a micro/macro level over rime (ten years). It explicitly raised the question: How was the integration of ESL learners practiced by various participants in an organization, both actively and in writing (text)? - to explore and iUuminate issues surrounding the widespread disagreement amongst stakeholders previously documented in both internal/external school district reviews and other documents. TESOL Standards K-12 (2000) recommends against a 'traditional' model of integration and for a 'new' model, endorsed by contemporary research, and ultimately implying a language socialization perspective. Each of these models was considered in this research. Findings indicated that the majority of respondents and documents focussed on a traditional ESL service delivery model for integration centred on English testing of K-12 ESL students, but a substantial minority of respondents and documents gave other views of integration and/or views critical of the traditional model. School organizations did not adequately address issues required by TESOL Standards K-12 (2000): language as a medium of learning in relation to content knowledge, culture and student diversity. A greater focus on language socialization ii by schools could offer a richer and more current model for integration that would advance policies and practices for multicultural, multilingual ESL students in large urban centres and offer a more holistic approach to research amongst those in ESL, multicultural, and special education, as well as education generally around issues of ESL integration in urban school districts. Table of Contents Page Abstract " Table of Contents iv List of Tables viii List of Figures ix Acknowledgement x Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1 A. Background 1 B. Models for Integration 1 1. The Traditional Model for Integration 2 2. A New Model of Integration Recommended by TESOL 2 C. Findings 4 1. Findings: The Traditional ESL Service Delivery Model for Integration 4 2. Findings: Other Views or Views Critical of the Traditional Model for Integration 6 3. Conclusions and Implications 8 Chapter 2: Rationale, Significance and Implications of the Study 10 Chapter 3: Review of Relevant Literature 15 A. Integration Practices - A n Introduction 15 B. Models for Integration in K-12 Public Education 20 1. The Traditional ESL Service Delivery Model 21 2. A New Model for Providing ESL Support Recommended in the TESOL Standards pre K-12 (2000) 22 3. Comparing and Contrasting Models for the Provision of ESL Support and Service Delivery for Integration 25 C. English Tests and the Integration and/or Exclusion of ESL Learners in the Mainstream of Universities 33 D. English Second Language Education and the Integration of ESL Learners 36 iv 1. ESL Integration 39 2. Mainstreaming and Studies of ESL Integration 40 3. Service Delivery (Assessment, Placement and Movement) and the Integration of ESL Learners 41 4. Curriculum and Instruction and the Integration of ESL Learners 54 5. The Organization and the Integration of ESL Learners 58 6. Culture and the Integration of ESL Learners 61 E. Special Education and the Integration of ESL Learners 66 1. Segregated Programs 66 2. Mainstreaming 67 3. Inclusion 68 F. Multicultural Education and ESL Education: The Need for a More Holistic Approach 72 1. Multicultural Approaches and ESL Education 77 G. English Second Language Education, Special Education, Multicultural Education, and the Integration of ESL Learners 91 1. Policies and Practices 92 2. Views of Language 93 3. Views of Culture 94 4. The Teacher's Role 96 5. The Student's Role 97 6. Curriculum and Instruction 98 H . Issues of Language Socialization and the Integration of ESL Learners 101 1. Language Socialization and ESL Integration 101 2. The Functional Perspective on Language and Culture 103 3. The Changing Face of Urban Schools - The Influence of Global Culture 116 4. The Changing Social Identity of the ESL Learner and ESL Integration 119 5. Exploring Integration as an Activity with Active Social Agents 123 6. Situating The Present Study 127 Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology 128 A. The Methodology 128 1. Introduction 128 2. Rationale 129 V 3. Mixed Methods Approaches 131 4. Qualitative Methods 135 5. Quantitative Methods 139 B. Research Design 1 140 1. Statement of the Problem 141 2. Exploratory Questions 142 3. Selection of Cases 144 4. Data Collection 148 5. Data Analysis 149 6. Internal and External Validity 150 7. Summary 151 Chapter 5: Results: Findings, Conclusions, and Implications of the Study 153 A. Findings: Surveys and Interviews 154 1. Integration practices 157 2. Definitions 168 3. Perspectives 186 4. Integration Begins/Ends 238 5. Theories/practices define/delimit integration 241 B. Findings: Documents 260 1. Locally developed texts describing integration practices 262 2. District developed texts 268 3. Provincial Texts 285 4. Texts of external and internal reviews 291 5. Texts from the ESL Pilot Project 298 6. Texts of Committees 302 7. Texts from field notes and journal entries 306 8. Theories/practices - define/delimit integration 308 C. Summary of Research Findings 320 1. The traditional ESL service delivery model for integration 320 2. Other views of integration including those critical of the traditional ESL service delivery model for integration 322 3. Rethinking integration as a social practice or activity - links to TESOL 325 D. Conclusions - the social practice or activity of integration in large urban centres 354 1. The need for a more balanced view of integration 355 vi 2. Culture as an issue of language learning and learning in general 356 3. The need for understanding and supporting educational change with respect to integration 358 4. The traditional ESL service delivery model for integration made it easy to cut funds for and reduce ESL service for fiscal management - learning English was tied to time 360 E. Implications 363 1. Implications for future research in ESL education 363 Bibliography : 375 Appendix 1: Information Concerning Population of Sites 395 Appendix 2: Activity of Integration Data Frequency Coding Categories for Discourse of Surveys, Interviews, and Documents 396 Appendix 3: Description of Data Frequency Coding Categories 398 Appendix 4: Survey Questions 401 vii List of Tables Page Table 1. Comparing and Contrasting Models for the Provision of ESL Support and Service Delivery for Integration 26 Table 2. Policies and Practices in Special Education and ESL Education That Followed Multicultural Education Philosophies 100 Table 3. Number and Percentage of Returned Surveys 155 Table 4. Frequency of Responses for Parents and Teachers 225 Table 5. Frequency of Responses for Students and Teachers 236 Table 6. Frequency of Responses for all Text and all Respondent Data by Topic : 321 vii i L i s t o f F i g u r e s Page Figure 1. Research Design 140 Figure 2. Frequencies of Responses (Students And Teachers) 236 Figure 3. Frequency Of Responses Comparing all Text and all Document Data 322 ix A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t A dissertation has no meaning in absence of those who contribute to the research and support the researchers' quest along the road to its completion. This dissertation has been completed with the support of many educators and others in the school community whom I thank sincerely. I am also very grateful for the ongoing dedication, direction, and thoughtful consideration given my ideas by Dr. Bernard Mohan. I thank Bernie for his progressive ideas in second language education, for his sincere interest in his students, and for always pushing me forward so that I might take the next step. And finally, thanks are also due to the members of my committee, Dr. Gloria Tang, Dr. Margaret Early, and Dr. Stephen Carey for their time, ongoing support, and interest in my work in English second language education. X 1 Chapter 1: Overview of the Study Given the depth, complexity, and length of this thesis, a brief overview of the study is presented to summarize the research. An overview of the method, perspectives and findings of this study are very briefly considered. A. Background Using mixed methods this exploratory research examined the social practice (activity) of integration for English as a second language (ESL) students in a large multicultural, multilingual urban school district from the point of view (survey/ interview) of respondents (teachers, parents, students, administrators) from the school community. The study also examined documents at a micro/macro level over time. The study explicitly raised the question: How was the integration of ESL learners practiced by various participants in an organization, both actively and in i writing (text)? - to explore and illuminate issues surrounding the widespread disagreement amongst stakeholders previously documented in both internal/external school district reviews and other documents (see Chapter IV, pages 120-143). B. Models for Integration In the new TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) Standards K-12 (2000), a set of documents which have been commissioned and endorsed by the TESOL organization which summarize much contemporary 2 literature, two models of the social practice of integrating ESL learners can be identified: i) the traditional model for integration, and ii) a new model or concept of integration recommended by TESOL (see Table 1). TESOL Standards K-12 (2000) recommends against a 'traditional' model of integration and for a 'new' model, endorsed by contemporary research, and ultimately implying a language socialization perspective. 1. The Traditional Model for Integration The traditional model for integration as presented in the TESOL Advancing the Profession ESL Standards for pre-K-12 Students (2000) concentrates the provision of ESL services and support around separate English language classes and English tests. In this model English is taught for its own sake rather than as a medium of learning; ESL students' developing knowledge of the language system (e.g. English grammar and vocabulary) is deemed of paramount importance. Language classes operate quite separately from the mainstream of a school and students are both placed in these classes on the basis of English test results, as well as moved out of these classes either when the time limit has expired, and/or when they pass an English exit test. 2. A New Model of Integration Recommended by TESOL In contrast, in a new model or concept of integration recommended by TESOL, English is taught to achieve academically in all content areas, the expectation being that this wi l l take six to nine years with much variation due to 3 many factors. The purpose of learning the English language is to achieve academically; the goal being to reach a level on par with non-ESL students. ESL students learn sheltered (adapted) content as a bridge toward the mainstream academic program of a school. Given this thinking TESOL advocates that ESL students should receive support for as long as it is necessary. Teachers and students within this model for integration are a fully functioning part of the mainstream with a curriculum organized around the mandated state curriculum, and instructional practices that involve the teaching of language with content to achieve academically in all curricular areas. In this model the recommended concept of integration in the mainstream by TESOL is an active and ongoing process, which involves the provision of support for the ESL student by both content and language teachers and bilingualism including literacy in the L I , and the concomitant diversity within the student body "facilitates second language development." Instructional practices involve students in higher level thinking about the curriculum; for example, students compare and contrast science species through language, or establish cause and effect relationships through language in social studies. Evaluation in this model is based on students' ability to use English to achieve academically in the content areas. Students are tested on what they are taught with the recognition, according to TESOL, that performance and assessment must "distinguish between language and academic achievement" if assessment is to fairly represent the capabilities of ESL students. 4 C. Findings Findings in this research indicated that the majority of respondents and documents focussed on a traditional ESL service delivery model for integration centred on English testing of K-12 ESL students, but a substantial minority of respondents and documents gave other views of integration and/or views critical of the traditional model (see Chapter V , pages 144-311). A brief summary of the findings from texts of respondents and documents related to the traditional service delivery model for integration follow. And, in contrast, a summary of findings from texts of respondents and documents that express other views and /or views critical of this model follow. Brief reference to some of the conclusions and implications of the study are also indicated below. 1. Findings: The Traditional ESL Service Delivery Model for Integration The traditional model was dominant in this study and the texts of many respondents and documents supported TESOL's description of the traditional model. For these traditional respondents and documents some main areas of support found in this study were: 1. ESL students were grouped by language level in language classes based on scores on English tests and were separated from non-ESL students for most of the academic day; 2. parent and student respondents placed great stress on knowing how to pass the English tests which would facilitate ESL student movement into the mainstream academic program; 5 3. ESL teachers took sole responsibility for teaching English to ESL learners and content teachers generally expected ESL learners to know English before entering their academic classes showing little awareness of the time it takes to develop academic language; 4. although respondents and documents commented on the tremendous student diversity (cultural, linguistic, educational background, learning needs) in schools, respondents and documents indicated that ESL students were generally expected to use 'English only' at school, and to assimilate to the dominant English culture of the school; 5. many respondents believed that monolingualism and/or 'English only' practices supported the learning of English; and 6. mainstream teacher respondents generally did not view dealing with student diversity and the range of ESL learners in their classes as part of their job -they indicated that they believed the teaching of language related to their subject specialty was an ESL teacher's responsibility. These respondents and documents showed an awareness of language as traditionally understood but there was little evidence of an understanding of the link of language to content learning (points 1,2, 3 above), of the demands of academic English (points 3,4 above), of the potential role of the bilingual learners' L I to support learning generally (points 5, 6 above), and of the range of student diversity in terms of educational background, language, culture and learning needs (points 5, 6 above). 6 2. Findings: Other Views or Views Critical of the Traditional Model for Integration A substantial minority of the texts of respondents and documents in the present study were critical of the traditional service delivery model for integration and/or respondents held other views. These responses lined up with and elaborated on issues recommended in TESOL's standards (2000) new model of integration. Evidence of dissatisfaction with the dominant traditional practices, in a positive light, suggested that there existed substantial support for changing the traditional program model of integration. Among of the main points of the present study are those following: 1. parents expressed dissatisfaction with ESL students lack of access to mainstream academic/content; 2. ESL students and parents expressed dissatisfaction at how they were moved into mainstream programs and some teachers and administrators also recognized this; 3. the English test based traditional model for placing and moving students was often criticized in the texts of respondents and documents - Some parents, teachers, students, and administrators believed that there was a need to consider testing in relation to the English language of mainstream content curriculum outcomes; 4. some ESL teachers believed that the schools under study here needed to better coordinate language learning with education generally because the ESL student population was the dominant one in schools and they indicated in the 7 data that they did not believe ESL students' integration was of good quality/best practice; 5. some content teachers believed that they needed to learn more about teaching ESL students from ESL specialist teachers because there was a large range of ESL learners in their content classes; 6. respondents indicated concerns about culture (e.g. some respondents did not believe parents and students understood mainstream traditional school culture, access to translation to support parents' and students' understanding of issues of teaching and learning was commented on as an issue, ESL students reported cultural adjustment was difficult); 7. respondents believed that student diversity was greater than it had been in the past and they indicated great frustration teaching and trying to meet the educational needs of the wide range of ESL learners in schools Thus, dissatisfaction recorded in the texts of respondent and document data in the present study generally centred around issues related to language as a medium of learning in relation to content knowledge (points 1, 2, 3,4, 5 above), culture (points 6, 7 above) and student diversity (points 5, 7 above) and implied that that some respondents were aware that issues of language socialization were at work in the schools under study here. It should be noted however that these critical/other views were expressed by a diverse group of respondents with a range of opinions. 8 3. Conclusions and Implications TESOL offers forward thinking ideas in terms of standards to foster a new model for integration which are generally supported in the texts of respondents and documents which expressed other views and/or views critical of the traditional ESL service delivery model for integration in this study. At the same time, the present study suggests that TESOL standards need to consider more closely the diverse contexts that exist in organizations including specific school sites in terms of the impact that students, teachers, administrators, and parents might have on the adoption and implementation of standards that support a new model of integration. In examining ESL integration as a social practice, this study considered the stakeholders in the school district as active agents and they brought to integration as a social practice diverse theories/practices concerning language learning, culture, and/or content that could impact on attempts to make changes in the organization that supports ESL learners' education. Changing dynamics with respect to the diversity (linguistic, cultural, educational background, and learning needs) of student populations in large urban schools like those under study here require greater consideration; especially with respect to policies and practices that require organizations to change traditional views of integration that separate the learning of language from the learning of academic content and culture. Study of the specific school sites in which 'change' is to be implemented is needed to better appreciate the circumstances that may exist in specific educational contexts, as are studies that pay greater attention to issues of language as a medium of learning, to academic content, 9 and to issues of culture in relation to learning to better understand these issues of language socialization in public schools. 10 Chapter 2: Rationale, Significance and Implications of the Study This original research has explored integration as a social practice (or activity) in an organization - a large, culturally and linguistically diverse urban school district. Using a mixed methods approach, this study has documented the plurality of perspectives that are encountered when discussing integration practices with parents/guardians, students, teachers, administrators and other interest groups that comprise the school community and bring their ideas to the table for consideration. In addition, the researcher examined the involvement of some of the specialists and leaders in the school district, and province to determine whether or not they facilitated and/or hindered integration through the public documents that they produced to support ESL integration in their practice as educational leaders. This exploratory discovery oriented study is significant in that the researcher has been unable to find any previous studies in second language education that have examined integration as a social practice (or activity) in an organization with a view to critically exarrdning the testing of English in isolation of other learning that drives the existing model of service delivery (assessment, placement, movement) for the integration of ESL learners. At the university level, such testing (using the TOEFL test) has been severely criticized by the Canadian Psychological Association (see below). At the present time, as a consequence, the standard assumption in public schools appears to be: a) that ESL students are assessed for performance in English 11 on tests of language in isolation and placed, b) that they experience a language teaching program and, c) that after passing additional tests of language in isolation and /or moving through levels of language progress and/ or after proving they can perform on English only assessments, students move into partial or full mainstreaming. A similar situation exists at the university level with the TOEFL (Test of English as a foreign language) where ESL students are often excluded from the university mainstream because of their English language test scores/performance. Significant links with respect to ESL integration and the services provided for ESL students have not been adequately made amongst studies in special education, multicultural education, and ESL education, yet, careful examination of the literature in these areas suggests that these fields of study need to collaborate in terms of advancing ESL education in the best interests of the students who experience the activity of ESL integration - there is a need for a more holistic approach to hold school systems more accountable. Also, the researcher has not been able to locate any studies of ESL integration that have dealt with the plurality of perspectives which could be encountered when various participants in a diverse school community come together, each with belief systems and philosophies of education (theories), to put "integration" into practice. This study has highlighted aspects of research in second language acquisition that is seldom given enough consideration. First, the context of the interactions of participants has been developed in greater detail so that the research is firmly housed in the social and cultural circumstances that surround the activity of integration in an organization, here the school community. If learning is a social and cultural process then English second language, multicultural, and special education researchers wi l l benefit from examining more closely the social and cultural contexts, which surround ESL students with regard to their integration. Secondly, the use of mixed methodology, as appropriate to circumstances, has been used to facilitate the critical examination and presentation of an educational issue, giving due consideration to all of the diverse interest groups involved, and the dilemmas within which the perspectives may operate. By choosing not to focus on one or the other method of conducting research here, the researcher hopes to better mirror the diversity found in an organization, adding incidentally through this exploratory shady to other studies that are moving second language research in this direction. This study has implications for both practitioners and researchers. Practitioners in diverse school communities are encouraged to reflect on the quality and complexity of integration as a social practice (or activity) for the learner of ESL, and to advance practice by creating and implementing more effective policies and practices consistent with current research in English second language learning and education. TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) has recently introduced standards for K-12 learners with an implied concept for integration that is more current and visionary that suggests a richer model for integration than the traditional service delivery orientation. Evidence of aspects of this model while not dominant were evident in this study and offered this potential for this richer model. In addition, the study suggests that more meaningful attention needs to be given by school communities to the plurality of perspectives encountered when working with and "integrating" ESL students and their families, particularly in large urban centres where they now dominate the student population. Educators are encouraged to reflect on their use of institutional discourse in theory and on its relevance to actions or practice when attempting to act on and/or resolve issues of importance to ESL students in the school community. It is hoped that perhaps educational leaders may spend more time analyzing the process of ESL integration and the multitude of agents and/or implications for action and their various perspectives, rather than accepting the status quo. Researchers, on the other hand, have an opportunity to examine ESL integration from the point of view of a social practice (or activity) in a diverse school community in which ESL learners are not only placed for services based on assessments of their language performance on English tests but are also engaged in the process of second language socialization; they may build on this exploratory attempt and examine educational issues in greater detail and depth considering many alternatives and challenging existing rules. Finally, there is an opportunity for researchers to continue to examine links between the three fields of study examined in this research - multiculturalism, special education, and second language education - in terms of working more holistically to critically investigate and advance language policy and educational practice in public schools in large multicultural and multilingual urban centres for 14 the benefit of the integrated English second language learner, and his/her public education. C h a p t e r 3: R e v i e w o f R e l e v a n t L i t e r a t u r e 15 A. Integration Practices - An Introduction Historically, integration has directly and indirectly been a topic considered in many research discussions in the areas of second language education, special education and multiculturalism with reference to the education of immigrants. However, each of these fields of study have largely operated in isolation with regard to ESL students and the services provided for their integration, in spite of obvious links between them when it comes to the social practice or activity of integration for ESL students. It is not clear that any adequately address the impact of the English in isolation assessment based service delivery orientation for integration on the ESL learner perhaps because integration has not been viewed within the context of a large urban school district where ESL learners predominate and where learners are also engaged in learning the K-12 public curriculum mandated for schools. Instead the existing social practices with respect to ESL integration operate at the level of program arrangements - assessment/placement/movement of ESL learners dominates the discussion and operate from the perspective of language in isolation - decisions for integration are made for ESL students based on results on tests of English forms or structures/grammar in isolation of other learning. Absent from discussions in the three fields is an examination of the "big picture" concerning integration as social practice (activity) in an organization - a large urban school district with a culturally and linguistically diverse student population of which many are ESL learners - the focus of this study. Given large numbers of ESL learners (fifty percent or more) how 16 does/can a school district integrate? Are schools continuing to use models for integration that are based on testing of English for its own sake? And, how are they working with the large numbers of ESL students they must integrate in large urban centres? The literature in the field of multicultural education has paid insufficient attention to complex issues of the social practice (activity) of integration and its impact on services provided for ESL learners in the large urban school communities in which they predominately attend school. And yet, while the learner of ESL has been viewed through various multicultural lenses as multicultural ideologies developed and altered over time (assimilation, enrichment, empowerment, inclusion, critical perspectives etc.), little attention has been given in multicultural studies to language issues when ESL dominates an entire student population (fifty percent or more). Neither has adequate attention been given to the quality of the educational services and programs provided for English second language learners for integration in multicultural studies, nor to the complexity of the social and cultural situation encountered by the ESL learner who is the subject of the social practice or activity of integration in the elementary or secondary school where he/she dominates. Efforts in Canada and the United States to include the ESL learner through discussions of multiculturalism have largely focused on "inclusive curriculum" and heritage language programs" underplaying the linguistic issues that occur when multilingual groups of students interact within a single classroom through many 17 languages, or when ESL learners are the dominant group in a school and English speakers are "the minority," or where one language group (e.g. Mandarin) predominates. There are also many examples of ESL learners having been misdiagnosed as needing learning assistance or special education because of a lack of ESL education and training on the part of well intentioned educators who have not adequately understood linguistic, social, and/or cultural factors and were impatient with the learners' progress in learning the language of instruction in the school (see, Samuda, 1989 or Cummins, 1995; 1998; Cummins and Cameron, 1994). It was easier to fix the learners than it was to examine the organization and its myriad of social policies and practices. And, given research that clearly points to the educational necessity of ESL learners being able to use all of their language resources (first, second, etc.) to learn at school to enhance their integration and optimize academic success (see, Short, 1991; Thomas and Collier, 1997 and others) advocacy to ensure that school districts do so has not been forthcoming in multicultural literature (nor in some ESL literature). Links between language learning, and curriculum content, and culture are largely absent from discussions of integration in multicultural education and yet the impact of programs on the ESL learner has been profound. The ESL learner has been diagnosed (often through biased measures of the English language in isolation given during early days of cultural and social adjustment to a new school and/or society, sometimes while yet in culture shock), organized (e.g. grouped/segregated/ mainstreamed), misdiagnosed (learning disabled, special education), as well as 18 placed and positioned within these programs (separated/included/pulled out/ moved) on the basis of criteria that may marginalize the learner. The ESL learner as both one who encodes as well as creates culture in the classroom is not adequately recognized in most multicultural studies (and in many ESL studies), however, recent investigations in second language education into the complexity of social discourse and its relationship to identity and power relationships indicates that this is a much-needed area of study when it comes to ESL learners and their families (see, for example, McKay and Wong, 1996:577-578). In this regard, there is a need to bring together multicultural research and English second language research. Both fields of study might support each other and provide leadership in the best interests of ESL learners and the social practice or activity of their integration in public schools. Special education has also paid insufficient attention to the social practice of integration and its impact on the English second language learner, this in spite of the tremendous increase in the number of ESL learners in many of our urban schools and on descriptive accounts in ESL education that indicate there is a need to do so (see, for example, B.C. Ministry of Education document on ESL learners with special needs, 1998). Nor has special education collaborated adequately with multicultural education experts to ensure that ESL learners were integrated fairly and not based on test scores that are at best questionable (see, for example De Rose, 1990). A n d yet, much of the literature on "integration" appears to have its origins in studies of special education policies and practices. Though ideas from special education concerning integration may have been applied to the circumstances of the ESL 19 learner, the language socialization of the ESL learner has largely been unrecognized in discussions of special education, as has the benefit and the impact of the two or more linguistic domains in which the ESL learner operates in school. Important links with second language researchers have frequently not been made and the consequence has often been the misdiagnosis of the ESL learner, a misunderstanding of appropriate program placement because of the application of special education ideas concerning integration to the ESL learner (see, Samuda, 1989 or Cummins, 1995; 1998; Cummins and Cameron, 1994; Kline, 1999). Second language education seems to have mirrored special education in suggestions for the movement and placement of the ESL learner as integration, this in spite of the fact that ESL educators have long dismissed links between special education and English second language education - language was declared a natural process and not a learning handicap or disability. This appears to have led the way concerning the development and implementation of integration for the ESL learner in the public school. In addition, policies and practices for ESL learners seem to follow ideas popular in multicultural education at various times (for example, assimilation, inclusion). And, while second language studies are frequently focused on cultural issues, the field has not taken the leadership role it could have in discussions of the ESL learner in multicultural education and in special education, particularly when it comes to notions of integration as a social practice (activity) of significance in terms of the language education of ESL students K-12. 20 Traditional views of integration include the theoretical dominance of issues of language in isolation (e.g. studies of language as form or rule) which indirectly work at the expense of advancing ESL integration policies because language is perceived in absence of learning and the focus is on English tests as the basis of program organization. Among other things, this focus on English forms may inadvertently negate the value of learning that has already occurred in another language and culture (see, Thomas and Collier, 1997; Mohan 2001; Thomas and Collier, 2002 as examples). A richer, more current and visionary model is needed and is implied in the new TESOL Standards Pre-K - 12 (2000) based on the notion that ESL learners in the K- 12 school system need to acquire English to learn if they are to achieve academically and reach their potential for learning curriculum. The work of international TESOL is of major importance in currently reorienting this field. B. Models for Integration in K-12 Public Education In the new TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) Standards K-12 (2000), a set of documents which have been commissioned and endorsed by the TESOL organization which summarize much contemporary literature, two models of the social practice of integrating ESL learners can be identified: a) the traditional model for integration, and b) a new model or concept of integration recommended by TESOL. Each of these models is briefly presented in the subsequent discussion. 21 1. The Traditional E S L Service Delivery M o d e l The traditional model for integration as presented in the TESOL Advancing the Profession ESL Standards for pre-K-12 Students (2000) concentrates the provision of ESL services and support around separate English language classes and English tests. TESOL describes this traditional pedagogical model as: ... approaches that view language learning and teaching primarily as mastery of elements of language, such as grammar and vocabulary without reference to their functional usefulness This model was originally conceived when ESL students were few within the student body of a school site. This traditional concept of integration presupposes that ESL students have passed an English test or completed an English class/course prior to being integrated - meaning placed in the mainstream. This model provides support for ESL students within a limited time period; two years is presently the upper limit in many cases in the United States (TESOL, 2000). (Similar time limits are being imposed in Canada - ranging from two years in Ontario, to three years in Calgary, and in recent months support has been capped at a maximum of five years in British Columbia.) Beyond these time limits, there is no additional ESL support or services provided for ESL students. In this model English is taught for its own sake rather than as a medium of learning; ESL students' developing knowledge of the language system (e.g. English grammar and vocabulary) is deemed of paramount importance. Language classes operate quite separately from the mainstream of a school and students are both placed in these classes on the basis of English test results, as well as moved out of these classes either when the time limit has expired, and/or when they pass an English exit test. Teachers and students within this model for integration operate quite separately from the mainstream of a school population within a separate ESL program/course with a curriculum organized around the learning of English for communicative purposes, and instructional practices that incorporate grammar worksheets, levelled reading books, and oral language drills. Evaluation is based on the ESL student's knowledge of the elements of the English language system, including grammar, vocabulary and language structures. 2. A New Model for Providing ESL Support Recommended in the TESOL Standards pre K-12 (2000) TESOL's point of view as expressed in the "Standards" implies another concept of integration, which if interpreted accurately leads to a model of integration that is perhaps more current and visionary because: i) it allows for the increasingly diverse urban school situation where there are large numbers of ESL students in the population, and ii) it facilitates both ESL students' language education as well as the learning of the academic content mandated in public schools. TESOL recognizes that language minority students are a growing concern in the United States and states that "effective education" for ESL students includes not only the learning of English but also "the maintenance and promotion" of ESL students "native languages in school and community contexts." In Advancing the Profession: ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students (2000) TESOL notes the following 23 which points to a growing awareness of student diversity, as well as to the growth of ESL students in urban centres: Every year, more and more students who speak languages other than English and who come from homes and communities with diverse histories, traditions, world views, and educational experiences populate classrooms in urban ... settings. The number of school-age children and youth who speak languages other than English at home increased by 68.6% in the past ten years... Current projections estimate that by the year 2000 the majority of the school-age population in 50 or more major US cities wil l be from language minority backgrounds. TESOL has recognized that ESL students are growing in number, which has implications for public schooling, as does the notion that with this growth schools are becoming increasingly diverse. Furthermore, TESOL Standards, intended to "bridge" the "general education standards" in the United States, have recognized the importance of facilitating both ESL students' language education as well as the learning of the academic content mandated in public schools. The significance of this recognition is made clear in the document: ESL Standards do not and cannot stand alone. Other professional organizations and groups have developed standards that are world-class, important, developmentally appropriate, and useful. These standards mandate high levels of achievement in content learning for all learners, including ESOL learners. But the content standards do not provide educators the directions and strategies they need to assist ESL learners to attain these standards because they assume student understanding of and ability to use English to engage with content. Many of the content standards do not acknowledge the central role of language in the achievement of content. Nor do they highlight learning styles and particular instructional and assessment needs of learners who are still developing proficiency in English. In this model, according to TESOL, English is taught to achieve academically in all content areas, the expectation being that this wil l take six to nine years with 24 much variation due to many factors. The purpose of learning the English language is to achieve academically; the goal being to reach a level on par with non-ESL students. ESL students learn sheltered (adapted) content as a bridge toward the mainstream academic program of a school. Given this thinking TESOL advocates that ESL students should receive support for as long as it is necessary. In Advancing the Profession, TESOL notes: It can take 6-9 years for ESOL students to achieve the same levels of proficiency in academic English as native speakers. Moreover, ESOL students participating in thoughtfully designed programs of bilingual or sheltered content instruction remain in school longer and attain significantly higher rates of academic achievement in comparison to students without such advantages. Teachers and students within this model for integration are a fully functioning part of the mainstream with a curriculum organized around the mandated state curriculum, and instructional practices that involve the teaching of language with content to achieve academically in all curricular areas. In this model the recommended concept of integration in the mainstream by TESOL is an active and ongoing process which involves the provision of support for the ESL student by both content and language teachers. Bilingualism including literacy in the LI and the concomitant diversity within the student body "facilitates second language development." Instructional practices involve students in higher level trunking about the curriculum; for example, students compare and contrast science species through language, or establish cause and effect relationships through language in social studies. Evaluation in this model is based on students' ability to use English to achieve academically in the content areas. Students are tested on what they are 25 taught with the recognition, according to TESOL, that performance and assessment must "distinguish between language and academic achievement" if assessment is to fairly represent the capabilities of ESL students. The model for integration recommended in this TESOL document also views the responsibility for ESL students as that of both the ESL specialist teacher and the content area specialist. As TESOL states it: If ESOL students are to have full access to challenging curricula and to achieve to the same high level in the content areas as native English speakers, then content area specialist must become aware of the importance of language in relationship to their disciplines so that they can better facilitate the academic achievement of ESOL students. 3. Comparing and Contrasting Models for the Provision of ESL Support and Service Delivery for Integration Table 1 presented following, summarizes the two models for integration presented in the foregoing discussion. The extent to which these models in reference to the social practice of integration are evident in an urban school situation has yet to be explored in research in language education. TESOL in Advancing the Profession and in a related document entitled Assessment and Accountability of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Students (June 2000) criticizes the tenets upon which the traditional model of ESL integration has operated. There are a number of areas of critical analysis, among them: a) functional language rather than "mastery of the elements of language" as the language learning focus, b) the sequential presentation of curricula to ESL students versus their interdependence, c) the importance of assessments that C N o • tH oi o M-l > o> Q u 01 C/3 T J ts o OH CD • J CO W <4-l O c o • * H CA •p Ol IH o Ol T3 O 60 c o U 13 I o U 0) •a H 5 II m §1 00 .5 cO Oi J OJ bC « 3 bO O PL, bO bo •» c •• o - M .s T J 01 o» its cn cq cy C C Ol o o ^ t u 01 OH U fc-nS 01 53 o £ B £ •d a; o " l o o TJ e m u £.£ g C 3 O n -d "bC g -S ™ cn .2 K o .5 o, g O) o 5 3 0) , a 01 cn i— C "» S J2 T J O 2 S O £ m C H O) F IH 3 ** cn .£ 1 1 -0 ii "o "g § .SS be c c a cs Ol Si b p ^01 cs & §T2 III Ji ,o T J cn 01 u _ c o « 11 0) Oi u c ft c Cu, 0) cn 0) cn J Oi bo CS 3 bo O . .£ l i s J H ?» ^ T3 i< CL S » 3 .a s » SI a bo £ Q 0 S *j 01 ±f > * s i -# S 2 <f •o S s E 5 H % * j S .£ £ UJ cn C cn Oi C o O, 3 O cn o> , o u cn u T J o» a JS "fe c 13 o> 5^  I £ cn cj .3 cn C 0) C bp ca o. «> S » o "S "3 *3 cn OJ pu, S | m i u £ 5 OH DH S en _0) "3 i -5 3 J 5 S« cn t3 cu o C o re i-J a cs H W U H 01 0> T3 rs u< bO 0> be r3 c o S2 m rs ra i l bO '2 WD cu 3 S $ .5 % — o 3^ * J cu a 2 1 8 -° •5 o CS CO •S -a. =< .y o 3 u c v a* 3 cn O u C S <*> T3 —1 3 C/5 •55 w 5 u ±2 > « 5 <2 43 c C C 5 cu cu 211 C A _e .-3 Z ? O bO C J 2 8>| H co to & e £ — . § Cu cu 0 •£ ~* ro 01 CU -a o 4 £ ^ 3 ^•6 3 .3 CO u 0) 0) C CO CU § ^ •3 .y 2 s CO cu g * T J CS rl > .2 U CS S 2 §•§ 8 £° S3 W •a co R £ * 5 3 ts 3 01 bo cs 3 bO J3 "bb c w to 4) bd rs CU > CS c O cS 01 >> o •3 c o co ,CS OH rs g OL, O cu e u «> C — « 3 >2 C/) C/D r, 3 a £ -5 3 S •= 5 •3 3 Sri co vJ 3 e -C PU 1^ §1 j s l - c i 01 ^ £3 c 01 2 £ | ^ 3 rs <-> & g CO _3 3 o •C 4) b > 3 oi U Q OH O rs C .2 CO CU 3 •« i t! co « 5 £ o o '•3 o 2 « g 28 measure student ability beyond an isolated test of English for its own sake, and d) the need for an accountability system that aligns both progress in the English language and progress academically. Each is briefly discussed in the following with appropriate reference to parts of the documents. a) Functional language rather than "mastery of the elements of language" as the language learning focus First, TESOL notes that "language is functional." In this regard the focus of language learning is according to TESOL "to function effectively in English and through English while learning challenging academic content." TESOL views this as different than traditional approaches which teach mastery of the elements of language only, and documents this - the TESOL language learning focus is: a departure from traditional pedagogical approaches that view language learning and teaching primarily as mastery of the elements of language, such as grammar and vocabulary, without reference to their functional usefulness. Traditional models for integration that focus on service delivery offer students an emphasis on language for its own sake but do not account for TESOL's concern which is the English that ESL students must learn to be successful academically. In this way, ESL students can be marginalized according to TESOL because they could lack access to language support while learning content, as well as to the opportunity to continue to learn content from content specialists while learning English. 29 b) The sequential presentation of curricula to ESL students versus their interdependence Traditional views of integration that include the sequential presentation of language arts (speaking, listening, reading and writing) to ESL students limit the possibilities for learning in other areas. As TESOL puts it: Traditional distinctions among the processes of reading, listening, writing, and speaking are artificial. So, is the conceptualization that language acquisition as linear (with listening preceding speaking, and speaking preceding reading, and so forth). Authentic language often entails the simultaneous use of different language modalities, and acquisition of functional language abilities occurs simultaneously and interdependently rather than sequentially. TESOL recognizes that the language learning focus needs to account for both functional language so learning becomes meaningful, as well as the interdependence of skills so that students are enabled to reach their potentials as language learners and learners in general and not held back by having to unnaturally focus on mastering an isolated linguistic skill. c) The importance of assessments that measure student ability beyond an isolated test of English for its own sake Traditional views of integration that focus on learning English for its own sake also test in English as a means of placement and movement for ESL students. TESOL has been critical of this method of assessment because an English test does not assume that ESL students have any other knowledge except the knowledge of English language systems of grammar and vocabulary. To this end TESOL has written the following in a TESOL Advocacy: Position Paper concerning the assessment 30 of ESL students entitled Assessment and Accountability of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Students (June 2000): Of major concern is the overreliance on the results of a single test when assessment standards require that teachers, school districts, and states use multiple measures. The TESOL document writes about a number of issues of concern regarding assessment, of particular importance, the lack of adequate specialist support and a general lack of awareness of the issues when it comes to matters of assessment and ESL students, as TESOL expresses it: Most US school systems do not have adequate procedures, resources, and staffing to identify, develop, and implement multiple measures of assessment for ESOL students. In.addition, schools generally are unaware of best practices in assessing ESOL students and have inadequate or inappropriate tools to measure their progress. In addition, insufficient professional development is provided on the appropriate use and interpretation of assessment results for ESOL students. Given the great diversity in the ESL student population in urban centres, assessments have not yet been developed that recognize this diversity and translate this recognition into meaningful assessments that support issues directing teacher instruction and intervention. In addition, TESOL is critical of models that test only in English and do not acknowledge either in theory or in practice that ESL students, if they are expected to achieve academically (and there should be high expectations for this achievement) must be assessed for their knowledge of content as well as language. TESOL states that: assessments used in many English as a second language (ESL) programs often do not reflect current research findings and best research practices ... For example, research, practice, and standards in ESL indicate the importance of developing academic language, content 31 knowledge and learning strategies for success in grade-level classrooms. However, existing language proficiency assessments often do not measure how ESL students perform on these diverse skills in mainstream and age appropriate settings which is what teachers and principals need to know. Another issue raised by TESOL concerning issues of assessment have to do with the state tests used for accountability. Of these tests in addition to issues of test taking and language and content, TESOL notes that: Very few accommodations have been researched that allow ESOL students with substantial levels of English language proficiency to fairly demonstrate their abilities. Also, very few states have developed alternate assessment systems that capture the linguistic range of ESOL students and are built on what these students can do. Linguistic, content, and cultural factors affect the validity of assessment... (Increasingly, Canadian schools are leaning toward state/provincial testing, such as B.C.'s Foundation Skills Assessment, and similar issues arise). d) The need for an accountability system that aligns both progress in the English language and progress academically A fourth and final issue raised in the TESOL Advocacy: Position Paper on assessment and accountability has to do with accountability and ESL students. While ESL students are learning both language and content, state schools have not taken responsibility for ensuring an integrated accountability system where the teaching of language is well coordinated with the teaching of academic content for the benefit of ESL students. As the TESOL document on assessment and accountability puts it: Outcomes for ESOL students often have not been adequately integrated into the overall accountability systems adopted at the local, state, and national levels. Many ESOL students move through two 32 separate systems of accountability: one that measures their progress in language development, the other in academic achievement in the content areas (e.g. mathematics, science, social science, and language arts). Too often these measures are neither related nor anchored in content standards. This lack of connection between progress in language acquisition and academic achievement results in less than full accountability for ESOL students. Among the many problems which the document illustrates, is the notion that: exit criteria for ESL/bilingual programs and services should be aligned to the academic skills required for success in mainstream classes. In traditional models for the integration of ESL learners this is not the case but rather exit criteria are based on the results of one or more English test(s) in isolation of content knowledge and other skills needed for success as a learner. In some cases, exit tests include reading tests which have been normed on native speakers of English. These tests similarly reflect a failure to take into account the general language development of ESL students in academic content classes. In sum, in the new TESOL (2000) Standards for Pre-K through 12 students there are two models for integration, a traditional model of integration, and a new model recommended in the new TESOL (2000) Standards. The former has an emphasis on English language testing and places and moves students on the basis of test scores. The latter, implied in the TESOL documents, is critical of the English test based model and argues for the provision of opportunities for ESL students to achieve their potential academically through being enrolled in school programs that have high expectations for their success by thoughtfully coordinating both language and content instruction. In this model integration is an active ongoing process of support for ESL students, which is provided by both ESL specialist teachers and content specialist teachers. Student progress is not based on English test scores but is monitored by a strong system of accountability. TESOL Standards offer the practice of integration policies that are both current and visionary because they not only account for student diversity given large numbers of ESL students in urban centres, but also for the coordination of language and content with the expectation that students wi l l achieve their potentials as learners academically. There is some evidence that more research is moving in this direction. The discussion following examines the use of English tests as a method of inclusion/exclusion for ESL students at universities. The use of English tests are central to the service delivery model and examples of critical research about such testing is pivotal in pointing to the need for alternative directions in ESL integration. C. English Tests and the Integration and/or Exclusion of ESL Learners in the Mainstream of Universities At the university level students are often integrated based on scores on the TOEFL test; students are assessed, placed and moved within the university system based solely on measures of their language performance on this test of English. The test does not consider content, culture, or context and notions of language being a resource for learning and achieving academic success. Instead, students are allowed to enter courses in the mainstream of the university only after achieving a certain level on the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language). Students who fail the test often attend language classes to help them pass the test at a future date. These 34 courses are in general not thought of as part of the university system, but rather are viewed as part of a remedial non-credit program. The Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) has taken a position on the use of the TOEFL and despite the long-term, well-funded efforts of the Educational Testing Service at making it a sound measure, the C P A warns against its misuse and notes the social injustices that this misuse is likely creating at the university level. In the words of the position statement (Simner, 1999): In March, 1997 the Board of Director of the CPA approved a position statement that called upon Canadian Universities to refrain from using the TOEFL as a standard for university admission. This call was prompted by evidence in a report (Simner, 1998), which suggested that the TOEFL was being employed not only in a manner that was contrary to recommendations by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) which publishes the TOEFL but also in a manner that could prove harmful to many Canadian immigrants and refugees. Briefly stated the evidence showed that in Canada the decision to accept a non-native English speaking applicant is often based primarily on the applicant's overall TOEFL score and only secondarily on the applicant's prior academic performance. What is both surprising and troublesome about this procedure is that over the years a considerable body of evidence has accumulated which shows that only a weak relationship exists between TOEFL scores and academic achievement at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Because much of the evidence was collected by the ETS itself, ETS has repeatedly advised university officials to avoid making decisions based solely on TOEFL scores. Despite this advice, however, surveys indicate that since 1982, many universities have increased their TOEFL admission cutoffs. In Ontario, for example, by 1995, ten universities had raised their minimum undergraduate cutoffs from 550 (which is close to the 70 lh percentile) to scores that ranged from 580 through 600 (which is close to the 90 th percentile). Needless to say, these higher cut-offs mean that, whereas previously the top 30% of applicants would have been eligible for consideration now only the top 10 % are eligible. Hence, it is quite 35 likely that today, large numbers of immigrants and refugees, many of whom may otherwise be qualified for university admission may very well be denied admission to these universities. The report goes on to recommend that an applicant's readiness to begin academic work be "based on all available information" and "not solely on TOEFL test scores." A similar warning could be issued in the K-12 pubic education system (and has been made to some extent by TESOL Standards - see following). Although there has not been a great body of critical research documenting the inadequacies of tests of English in isolation (see, De Rose, 1999 - critical of the Woodcock - a test of English reading) that are/were used to assess, place and move ESL students in public schools, it would be surprising if these assessments were better at predicting academic success, and providing adequate reasons for placing and moving (or integrating from this perspective) ESL students than the TOEFL which has a longer history of use with ESL students, albeit older ones, and a greater body of research and thought behind its use. In the literature review that follows, integration is first examined in the field of English second language education and it is noted that the social practice or activity of integration has not been recently and specifically dealt with in any meaningful manner either from the point of view of examining the services provided for K-12 ESL integration, or in critically analyzing the emphasis on testing English in isolation as a means of placing and moving or advancing students toward the mainstream (though precedents exist for doing so (see TOEFL and TESOL discussion following). Next, integration as a social practice (activity) is examined from the point of view of special education, perhaps the source of some of the terminology and practices applied to the situation of the ESL learner. Then, literature in multicultural education is considered in relation to ESL education and is critically analyzed - the argument being the need for a more holistic approach. The institutionalized norms, values and beliefs in the larger society are considered in relation to their impact on the social practice (activity) of integration for the ESL learner in public school. Finally, these three approaches are compared and contrasted with respect to their impact on the social practice of integration for the ESL learner, and we look ahead at the social practice or activity of integration with a view to leading discussions of integration towards a concept that better coordinates the learning of language with other aspects of one's education, perhaps from the perspective of language socialization which meets the criteria established by the TESOL standards. D. English Second Language Education and the Integration of ESL Learners There are few, if any, studies of 'integration practices' in second language research in elementary and secondary school education that deal adequately with the service delivery orientation prevalent in many schools. One might argue that studies which mention integration in passing count. However, such studies neither locate "integration" in any discussion of "theory or practice," nor do they examine directly the "social practice or activity" of integration within the organization where it is practiced, most often in public schools. Much of the research that exists (e.g. 37 Harklau, 1994) is very indirect and appears motivated by the generally accepted notion that ESL students take a long time to learn English as a second/additional language, therefore, issues of assessment, placement, and movement of individuals or groups of students (including entry and exit between /amongst programs based on measures of language in isolation) seem to direct research. The focus in discussions of public education (e.g. see Sheppard, 1994) is presently on service delivery or program arrangements developed through assessments of ESL learners' performance on tests of English with little critical account of this practice and school districts have not as organizations taken on the leadership role needed to move beyond this assessment (test) focus toward making better the activity of integration for ESL learners. Discussions (e.g. see Thomas and Collier, 1997) often reflect a dichotomy - at one end educators reach the conclusion that mainstreaming is better for ESL students because they are exposed to the language of the classroom, learn more quickly from English speaking peers, and are exposed to more demanding academic language, though it is generally agreed that mainstream classroom teachers without substantial ESL braining provide a less than adequate learning environment in terms of effective instructional methods for the ESL learner. At the other end, educators argue for segregated classrooms or sheltered programs to make the transition more smooth by offering, through a competent ESL teacher, curriculum, instructional and socio-cultural support for the learner gradually moving the learner toward content knowledge and understanding - though often these programs are said not to be 38 challenging enough for the ESL learner, and the gap between the language and content of ESL programs and the mainstream is reported as wide in terms of the academic language of the school curriculum while organizations wrestle at the level of service delivery, program arrangements, or assessments. The literature lacks studies that directly examine the wider social and cultural context/s mforming integration practices either within and/or across institutional contexts, yet evidence exists in many studies (e.g. see Kauffman et al. 1993) that paying attention to the organizations in which integration practices occur may prove fruitful and give attention to theories and practices that are articulated by various interest groups about the integration of ESL learners - one of the points of this study. Also, though it would seem that culture should be central to discussions of integration, ironically it is not (e.g. Constantino, 1994). This part of the literature review presents examples of the range of difficulties inherent in present discussions of the integration of ESL learners. And, it argues that discussion of the social practice (activity) of integration within an organization of learning needs to move: a) from a focus for ESL integration on service delivery and program arrangements based on assessments of the English language as form, rule or grammatical structures in isolation of other learning as the basis of the integration of ESL learners, to a larger view of integration, and b) toward greater collaboration on the part of researchers in multicultural education, special education, and English second language education so that research is more consistent with the issues faced by ESL learners integrated in urban schools in a modern world. 39 1. ESL Integration Issues of movement and placement seem to have originated from a mixture of research in multicultural education, special education, and from ESL education. As stated previously special education used the terminology "integrating'' to mean to move toward the inevitable mainstreaming of students. In the early 1980's, Stephen Krashen was one ESL researcher who offered a discussion of matters related to integration. Krashen (see for example, Scarcella, 1990:42-47) advocated language classes for the beginning ESL learner when "real life input" was too complicated. He developed a language teaching program which included general second language teaching, sheltered language teaching, partial mainstreaming, and finally, full integration of the ESL learner into mainstream classes. This program was based on notions of providing students with "comprehensible input" and curriculum in beginning stages of language learning that was not too "cognitively demanding" -language teaching/learning in isolation of content. Often ignored was a suggestion that beginning students take all core subjects in their first languages while learning in English so as to not fall behind in studies in core subjects. For the past fifteen years, like Krashen's work, discussions of ESL programming have been mainly concerned with moving students into the mainstream (e.g. see Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramsey, 1991). Few researchers on integration practices have viewed them from the perspective of language socialization - the view that language learning, content and culture are learned interdependently. The majority of discussions about integration tend to continue to 40 view content and culture as separate issues. Not enough attention has been given to whether or not Krashen's suggestions for programming were sound given multicultural policies and practices and movements in special education which found tracking into ability groups easier for managing classrooms but lacking sound pedagogical support (e.g. see Thomas and Collier, 2002). Neither has enough attention been given to examining the philosophical basis for placement and movement, generally English (grammar/form/rule) assessment based. Nor has there been much consideration of pedagogical practices related to integration and of their impact on learning. 2. Mainstreaming and Studies of ESL Integration Studies of mamstreaming ESL students usually discuss the assessment, placement and movement of ESL students based on tests of English language performance (form/grammar) in various systems of service delivery. Some contrast L I and L2 learning environments in articulating issues related to ESL student assessment, placement and movement (Schwab, 1995; Harklau, 1994; Liedtke, 1990). Others compare and contrast various models of service delivery (bilingual versus English immersion; early and/or late immersion/exit etc.) with a view to determining how effective/ ineffective they are, or in distinguishing between/amongst them (see, for example, Ramirez et al., 1991 or Kauffman et al., 1993; Sheppard, 1994; Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti, 1996). Some have included integration within discussions of culture, though not many have discussed socio-cultural adjustment, an important part of the second language learners academic 41 success (Thomas and Collier, 1997; Watt and Roessingh, 1996; Menkart, 1993; Liedtke, 1990). If integration is mentioned at all, it is usually mentioned in passing, in spite of the fact that it would seem that any discussion of mamsheaming would imply a discussion of integration. Why discuss mainstreaming except in reference to the successful language socialization of the learner? 3. Service Delivery (Assessment, Placement and Movement) and the Integration of ESL Learners As stated previously, much of the focus in the research literature concerning the integration of ESL learners is on service delivery or program arrangements - the assessment, placement and movement of learners. At the same time, the vast majority of these studies note the inadequacies of service delivery and question the program arrangements made for the integration of ESL learners. Consider a few of the many examples that exist in the literature to show that assessment, placement and movement of the ESL learner is not perceived to operate particularly effectively. i) Assessment A number of English second language researchers have long suggested that language assessment in isolation from other learning is ineffective and that assessment must be provided within a context of diversity if it is to be effective for ESL learners (Samuda and Kong, 1989:1; Kline, 1999) and noted that assessments that do not enable learners to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they bring with them (and have had for at least five and upwards to ten or more years) to school are likely to be inappropriate for ESL students, particularly if the consequences are to place the ESL learner in a variety of school programs created specifically for them and based on their test scores. Various studies state that educators in school districts continue to determine the ESL learners place in the school through invalid and inappropriate assessments (De Rose, 1999; Thomas and Collier, 1997; TESOL ESL Standards, 1997; Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti, 1996; Moodley, 1995; Harklau, 1994; Ramirez, Yuen and Ramsey, 1991; Liedtke, 1990; Samuda and Kong, 1989). They suggest that the consequence of these less than satisfactory assessments has been less than adequate programs arrangements for the integration of the ESL learner. Harklau (1994:74) in a long term study of ESL learners notes that standardized tests do not given accurate information about ESL students' content knowledge or language abilities. The study recommends alternative assessments that measure the learners' knowledge and understanding of language and content over time. In the same light, Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti (1996:206) note that in spite of language assessments ESL students and teachers continue to overestimate then-language proficiency. This results in many students dropping out because they cannot handle mainstream programs. And, Liedtke (1990:80) in a study of ESL learners notes that there is little consistency regarding entry into programs as a consequence of assessments, which are irregular and inconsistent. Also, Sheppard (1994), in a long-term study of ESL practices found that language proficiency tests varied greatly, everything from standardized tests to teachers' informal reactions to 43 students' abilities, and that consequently there was little justification for entrance into any program, given the criteria used to determine placement. Lucas (1993) writes about the inadequate assessment of the students' native language and content skills. And, notes that students are often not challenged in school but instead relegated to a narrow range of programs because of their inability to produce English on tests. The integration of ESL learners based only on assessments of English proficiency does not enable the learner to let the school know what he/she is capable of doing. In a similar vein, Kauffman (1993:27) notes that ESL assessment consists of a variety of formal measures but "none of the programs ... assess student achievement in the content areas prior to placing them in ESL programs." Finally, the vast majority of tests that were/are used to assess the English second language learners' English have not been normed for ESL learners, and researchers have questioned, given the range of variables ESL learners bring to school, whether or not doing so is feasible (see, for example, De Rose, 1999; Kline, 1999;Thomas and Collier, 1997; Samuda and Kong, 1989). A number of researchers (e.g. O'Malley and Pierce, 1996) have noted that educators need to direct their attention to curriculum based, authentic assessments if there are to be fair assessment procedures. They note that the integration of ESL learners should not be based on one shot tests of English language proficiency in isolation of learning content, and that the integration of ESL learners need not be dependent upon their performance on inadequate measures that do not reflect their potential for academic 44 achievement. Sheppard states that (1994:114-115) in a study of ESL programs in the United States, students had to be integrated from an ESL program of some kind (content, newcomer, sheltered, etc.) to the mainstream. Mainstreaming was withheld anywhere from three to six years or more while ESL learners developed proficiency in English. While some students were placed in ESL content classes, they were still isolated from the mainstream and content instruction was reduced with a focus on language except in two way bilingual programs where ESL learners appear to be offered age and grade appropriate content. Thus a number of studies report that assessment of English language proficiency for its own sake with standardized measures of assessment is not a reliable indicator of the ESL learners potential for achievement, nor should these measures be used to justify placement of ESL learners in models of service delivery. ii) Placement The integration of ESL learners from a service delivery or program arrangement approach uses the scores received on various assessments to place the learner in an appropriate program to learn English. These program placements range from completely separated or segregated classes, through various models of partial through to full integration. A number of researchers have found little if any justification for placement in an ESL program based on standardized assessments of language in isolation upon arrival at school For instance, Sheppard, (1994) has found that there was little justification for the manner in which programs were created and students placed in them. c 45 Placement in programs usually included a test of language proficiency (though not always), the tests used varied greatly, and exit criteria was determined in a wide variety of ways - everything from standardized testing through to teacher recommendations. There were few rational reasons for the creation of programs, nor for entrance into these programs. The creation of many ESL programs (some sixty two percent) was motivated by the rapid influx of students into an area, and programs seemed to evolve given the circumstances that existed in the area (situational constraints, available teachers, resources etc.) (see, Sheppard, 1994:92). Another example of the inappropriateness of placement for the ESL learner is best expressed by Kauffman et al. (1993:31) who noted that: Comments by parents and students suggest that some students enter these (content-ESL) programs with greater knowledge of academic subjects than they are expected to have because placement is based on their English proficiency skills rather than on their academic achievement in content subjects. As a result some students are misplaced and do not achieve the proper level of instruction in these academic areas. A number of research studies reiterate the same point, finding little rational foundation for either the creation of programs for ESL learners or their placement in them and indicating that whether students are placed in ESL programs, partially integrated with pull out support, or mainstreamed, the manner in which learners are placed in these programs leaves a great deal to be desired. Various studies note that it is common for second language educators to accept the notion that self-contained classrooms are of benefit for ESL learners and that many mainstream classroom teachers also believe that ESL learners are the 46 responsibility of ESL teachers and that ESL learners should be excluded from the mainstream until fully fluent in English. In their minds a disservice is done to ESL students by integrating them into a sink or swim model without support (see, for example, Naylor, 1994; Constantino, 1994; Cummings, 1995). In other studies mainstream teachers wi l l accept the ESL learner as long as some version of pull out support is maintained (Naylor, 1993). However, many studies question the assessment, procedures used to determine placements, the quality of the instruction students receive from inadequately trained ESL teachers, note that ESL students are not challenged in these classes and, furthermore, where instruction takes the form of pull out service several researchers have noted the futility of providing forty minutes of language instruction in a week. (Thomas and Collier, 1997; Collier, 1995, Constantino, 1994; Ramirez, Yuen and Ramey, 1991; Liedtke, 1990; and others). In placing learners in pull out situations educators may be doing more harm than good. Thomas and Collier (1997:54) in their long-term study of 700,000 learners over ten years state that: Since ESL pull out programs address only ... the Linguistic area (and then only in English) and do not explicitly provide for students' continuing age - appropriate development in cognitive and academic areas while they are learning English, it is instructionally desirable that students have shorter exposure to such programs. Continued exposure to such an instructionally limited program would almost certainly produce larger gaps between English (second language) learners and native English speakers ... since students' cognitive and academic needs would be unaddressed for long periods of time. At the same time, in a study that interviewed mainstream/regular classroom teachers and ESL classroom teachers, Constantino (1994) discovered that most 47 mainstream instructors place the responsibility for language development and academic success on the ESL instructor in the school. And, when she interviewed both ESL teachers and mainstream teachers both groups held low expectations for the students and downplayed the importance of prior language and culture as a factor in language and content learning. In this situation, the researchers' note that there appears to be little benefit to being placed in an ESL classroom versus a mainstream classroom - both placements are ineffective. Ramirez, Yuen and Ramey (1991) also conclude that ESL students are better off if they remain in sheltered programs for three or more years and, in contradiction, at the same time note that ESL learners are not being challenged in these classes. Indeed, studies of school effectiveness have found that the pull out model of ESL instruction the least effective model for students' long-term academic success (Thomas and Collier, 1997; Thomas and Collier, 2002). In sum, the justification for the placement of ESL learners in various programs is often both arbitrary and ineffective at the present time. As Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti (1996:207) have noted, the students themselves neither understand their placement in the organization of a school, nor the lack of challenge the work offers in the early years, nor the subsequent lack of support while still learning English upon full integration or mainstreaming. Many students expressed regret at being placed in lower grades because of their lack of English and felt out of place being integrated with younger classmates. This contributed to their dropping out without high school completion. Other studies note that ESL students remain in 48 ESL program for three of more years; even content ESL instruction is received outside of the mainstream of the school in separate content ESL classes (see, for example, Sheppard, 1994, Ramirez, Yuen and Ramsey, 1991). Contradictions abound, for example, the above mentioned studies at the same time, note that most content ESL classes "use the same materials as regular classes" and augment them (Sheppard, 1994), and that ESL classes do not challenge learners but ESL students remain in them for a long time - up to five years (Ramirez, Yuen and Ramsey, 1991). Thus the evidence suggests that if this is a model that is designed to support the integration of ESL learners, then it has not done so satisfactorily. iii) Movement At the present time the research literature suggests that the integration of ESL learners from program to program is highly unpredictable and founded on very little substantial practice in many situations. For instance, Harklau (1994) in a longitudinal study of high school students examined ESL and mainstream classrooms in one school to contrast their learning environments in terms of instructional and linguistic value for newcomers. She studied what students lost and gained during the transition from ESL to mainstream classes, compared language learning experiences and behaviour across mainstream and ESL classrooms, and considered the "socializing role" of these classes. Conclusions included the facts that mainstream teachers had many misunderstandings about the nature and purpose of ESL instruction, teachers in 49 mainstream classes seldom adjusted their input to make it comprehensible, and teacher led discussions predominated in content classes. Harklau points to the notion of tracking students according to high and low academic achievement - ESL students were typically placed in low track mainstream classes because there was an assumption that these classes would be easier for the learner. She raises the questions: Were the procedures and standards being used to "place" and "move" ESL students fair? Or, were they limiting ESL students and preventing them from reaching a potential as learners? Watt, Roessingh, and Bosetti (1996:207) found that the school organization was not working in the best interests of ESL students - they neither understood their physical movement from class to class, nor their movement between programs. And, even after they have been fully mainstreamed, some ESL learners have been moved backwards into ESL classes or into non-academic programs - a less than satisfactory arrangement that lowers self esteem and contributes to their dropping out of school. Kauffman (1993:30-31) found no consistent procedures for monitoring students after they were mainstreamed, and in some situations difficulties in the mainstream after placement meant being "returned to the ESL program." There was no suggestion in this process that perhaps the mainstream needed evaluating and fixing to better meet the needs of the students. Instead, the students were moved back. And, in some transitional programs (1993:36) the goal was to move students into the mainstream after three years of transitional services. Given Thomas and Collier's (1997) findings that ESL learners cannot afford to be left out of the mainstream for 50 such a long period of time without dooming them to failure, the policies of movement that are in place seem questionable. In another study of practices in "effective" bilingual programs, Hector and Perez (1995) have noted that the institutional context in which the program occurs has an influence on its effectiveness, and that having high expectations for student achievement is an effective school correlate. In addition, studies of ways to improve the high ESL drop out rate of secondary or high school ESL students who have been isolated in ESL programs and then mainstreamed without support suggest that students need both "monitoring and resource room support programs" for several years after mainstreaming (Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti, 1996). Liedkte (1990:80) found that there was little consistency regarding integrating ESL learners or mamstieaming as a decision making process - entrance and exit criteria and the length of stay before moving between programs did not seem to follow any logical or consistent policy. And it was discovered that (1990:85) ESL teachers "who do not have specialized training" made poor instructional decisions with regard to ESL learners progress. Among many of the recommendations at the end of the shady is the idea that district wide policies be established to address these issues, including the point that teachers of ESL learners be trained adequately (i.e. to be specialists). As another example, Ramirez, Yuen and Ramsey (1991), in a longitudinal study of structured English immersion, and early and late exit bilingual education programs examined the relative effectiveness of these programs by comparing and 51 contrasting them. They note among other ideas that: 1) the three programs represent three distinct instructional programs differing primarily in the amount and duration of English and Spanish used for instruction, 2) the teachers generally use the same instructional methods regardless of the language used for instruction, 3) none of the teachers in any of the programs teach either language or higher order cognitive thinking effectively, thus limiting student opportunities to produce and develop complex language and thinking skills and, 4) the rate at which students are reclassified from limited English proficient (LEP) to fluent and moved into the mainstream is slow (up to five years) - there is no early mainstreaming because it is felt that LEP students need prolonged assistance to succeed in English only mainstream classes. And yet, in Kauffman et al's research (1993:38) ESL students were kept out of the mainstream from K through 3 in many situations in elementary (this in direct opposition to the findings of Thomas and Collier, 1997, that primary students do not benefit from pull out or separate programs) and had to pass through five or more levels before mainstreaming in secondary. As Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti (1996:218) note "mainstream classroom teachers must find ways to address the language learning needs of ESL students" not in separate programs but "within the academic class setting." After students enter the mainstream they continue to need language learning support because they are making a transition from conversational fluency to academic language proficiency. It has been shown that there is a tendency for mainstream teachers and ESL students alike to overestimate their language 52 proficiency and soon both groups "realize their language has not develop sufficiently to meet the demands of the academic classroom" (Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti, 1996:206). Given that Mohan (1986,1990) has identified several instructional methods, and a framework for increasing the mainstream teachers' capacity to teach higher level cognitive processes and academic discourse to ESL learners. Similar ideas are noted by Early, 1992 and Short, 1991. These researchers argue that it is the curriculum that needs addressing for the learner, and not his/her movement based on tests of English in isolation of other learning. Thomas and Collier (1997:55) found that ESL learners have significant difficulties with mastery of the curriculum in the long term. In their words: ... significant differences in student performance begin to appear as they (ESL learners) leave their elementary school instruction and continue in the cognitively demanding secondary school years, with drastic differences seen by the end of schooling. This implies that if school districts focus on the integration of ESL learners as service delivery, as assessment, placement, and movement or mere program arrangements, they are likely to fail to identify and address the differences learners of English face when they are confronted with the language of a cognitively demanding academic curriculum. In other words, if ESL learners are separated from the mainstream for long periods of time, and isolated in ESL programs, which focus on the teaching of language in isolation from curriculum content, their cognitive and academic development is likely to suffer in the long term (e.g. Thomas and Collier, 1997; 2002). At the same time, if they are mainstreamed without monitoring by highly qualified specialists who provide the support needed to master the academic and cognitive 53 challenges, the linguistic challenges, and the cultural challenges faced, ESL learners have been shown to have a high drop out and limited success rate by the time that they reach secondary (see Thomas and Collier, 2002). In summary, ESL research on integration shows that there is a current concentration that exists in the literature on the assessment, placement and movement of individual ESL students or groups of students in/out of various programs/models of service delivery based on students' scores on tests of English as form or rule in isolation of other learning. And, there is also evidence of the need to pay greater attention to defining how students experience integration and mainstreaming in two or more languages, particularly in secondary schools with a view to improving the students' potential for academic achievement and school completion. Many researchers have stated that there exists little ethnographic research concerning ESL versus mainstream classrooms, and have argued for more detailed ethnographic studies comparing and contrasting ESL classroom environments with mainstream classroom environments (Harklau, 1994; Crandall, 1993; Freeman, 1993). Such studies would view language in sociocultural contexts and explore how participants interpret integration. Harklau (1994:241-242) concludes that such studies may serve as a basis for developing approaches to ESL service delivery and might better "facilitate the articulation and transition between ESL and the mainstream." 54 Finally, this researcher has not been able to locate any studies in ESL research that have dealt with the complexities that might arise when thinking about language as an activity or social practice for the ESL learner and the plurality of perspectives which might be encountered when dialogues take place concerning integration practices with various interest groups interacting in the organizational framework of a large and diverse urban school community. There are neither rich ethnographic descriptions of the social practice (activity) of integration, nor are there any studies that show the complexity of the theory that might constitute decision making around this practice. There is, however, much evidence to suggest that educators need to pay greater attention to the social practice of integration so that it moves beyond the present focus on service delivery (see recent work by Mohan, 2001; Low, 1999; Liang 1999; Beckett, 1999) to one that pays attention to other issues related to the socializing role of language learning. 4. Curriculum and Instruction and the Integration of ESL Learners Recent studies of mamstreaming have begun to examine various connections between language and content from the point of view of program or curriculum development, or implementation and instruction. Collier (1995:311-327) notes that much misunderstanding occurs because many policy makers, as well as educators, assume that "language learning can be isolated from other issues." She views this as an "oversimplistic perception" which indicates that those in charge do not realize that socio-cultural issues affect the learner and that the learning of language is interdependent with linguistic, 55 cognitive, and academic development. In addition, the school district has not understood that the process of "acquiring the language through the school curriculum" is not the same as learning English in isolation as a subject at school, or as learning a foreign language at school. Language, curriculum content across a huge variety of subject areas, and culture must be considered. In Thomas and ColUer's (1997:41) words: ... the simplistic notion that all we need to do is to teach language minority students the English language - does not address the needs of the school age (student) ... Furthermore, when we teach only the English language, we are literally slowing down ... cognitive and academic growth and that child may never catch up ... In a long-term shady of ten years, in five school districts, with seven hundred thousand students, Thomas and Collier (1997:34) found that school districts fail to monitor progress once students are integrated fully into the mainstream and as a result do not detect the fact that as schoolwork gets more cognitively complex each succeeding grade, ESL students typically fall behind the achievement of native English speakers. Thomas and Collier have based their assessments on curriculum, instead of assessments of language in isolation as have been traditionally used in discussions of the integration of ESL learners in term of service delivery. Many other studies note that the curriculum and instructional practices in place often do not allow ESL learners access to age and grade appropriate content, given the language learners commensurate ability to work cognitively with challenging academic content (see, for instance, Thomas and Collier, 1997; Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti, 56 1996; Harklau, 1994; Early, 1992; Ramirez, Yuen and Ramsey, 1991; Short, 1991; Mohan, 1986,1990; Liedtke, 1990). Collier (1995:311-327) notes in the same article that in the past, it was believed that teaching English was the first step, prior to the integration of ESL learners in various models of service delivery moving toward the challenging mainstream curriculum. But she points out in her discussion that "postponing or interrupting academic development for ESL learners is likely to promote academic failure." She believes that by far, the best curriculum and instructional situation for ESL learners is to receive uninterrupted academic instruction in their first languages while learning English, so that cognitive and academic growth is maintained and continues, and so that skills are available for transfer to English (see, Thomas and Collier, 1997; Collier, 1995). However, where this is not feasible, the successful integration of ESL learners in mainstream programs seems to depend upon: a) immediate and continued access to academic content that is age and grade appropriate, and b) specialized coordination and support for the language socialization of the learner. A pullout curriculum that focuses on language in isolation is ineffective, as are ESL programs that operate with a language in isolation curriculum, rather than challenging ESL learners with grade and age appropriate academic content. In addition, placements in the non-academic stream, or movement back into ESL classes if unsuccessful in the mainstream as ways of mediating the language gap are highly ineffective (Thomas and Collier, 1997; Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti, 1996; Harklau, 1994; Ramirez, Yuen and Ramsey, 1991; Short, 57 1991; Liedtke, 1990). Mainstream teachers must be better trained and find ways of supporting the language socialization of the learner who needs to be integrated in academic subject areas with monitoring and ongoing support for much of schooling. And, ESL teachers need to become better skilled at teaching academic, cognitively challenging content by working collaboratively with their mainstream colleagues. Harklau's (1994:253) study suggests that when discussing the curriculum, ESL courses serve students well when they "help students learn both academic content and the language of subject matter areas," rather than language in isolation of content. Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti (1996) make a similar comment about mainstream teachers who must develop skills at teaching language with and through content, and at encouraging the learner to use the first language to support the learning of English when needed (see also Watt and Roessingh, 2000). In sum, some studies have begun to examine the curricular contexts in which students are integrated and experience academic success - research must continue to build in this area and must look more closely at issues of curriculum in reference to situations where ESL learners are the mainstream. Finally, long-term staff development has been shown to make a difference in terms of improving the quality of curriculum and instruction provided for ESL learners. Studies of staff development with mainstream classroom teachers who were unable to support ESL learners previously has revealed how effective long term staff development programs can be (see, as examples, Thomas and Collier, 1997, Castenada, 1994, Lucas, 1993). Long term staff development and peer coaching 58 by highly educated and up to date ESL staff developers has facilitated the implementation of scaffolding techniques by mainstream teachers of ESL learners, creating an improvement in curriculum delivery and methods of instruction, thus facihtating the language socialization of ESL students. 5. The Organization and the Integration of ESL Learners There is much evidence in the literature to suggest that the situational and organizational context should be considered in greater detail in looking at the integration of ESL learners (see, for example, Thomas and Collier, 1997; Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti, 1996; Corson and Lemay, 1996; Collier, 1995; Harklau, 1994; Lucas, 1993; Liedtke, 1990). As Lucas (1993) has stated, the larger school context is often overlooked and yet it is well known that the larger school context has an impact on the ESL learner over time, often negatively. The policies of the organization lead and are the example set for the practitioners. And, yet the few studies that have examined the organization indirectly or incidentally, leave a less than satisfactory image of the schooling provided for ESL learners (see, for example, Mohan et al, 2001; May, 2001; Watt and Roessingh, 2001;Thomas and Collier, 1997; Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti, 1996; McKay and Wong, 1996; Harklau, 1994; Liedtke, 1993; Lucas, 1993; and many others). Consider a few examples. Harklau (1994:244) in her study contrasting L I and L2 classrooms, notes that the teacher in the ESL program was "often skeptical of the administration's motives in selecting teachers" to teach ESL courses. Harklau goes on to discuss the administrations motives as largely political (contractual issues), and notes further 59 that the mainstream teachers "showed many misunderstandings about the nature and purpose of ESL instruction," and that "curriculum in mainstream subject areas was constrained by many forces outside the classroom" while the ESL program was constantly changing. Harklau (1994:269) concludes that changes need to made in the following areas: i) adaptation of curricula and instructional practices in mainstream classrooms, ii) collaborative dialogue between ESL and mainstream teachers, iii) systematic integration of language and content instruction, and iv) realignment of instructional roles, amongst others. These changes would also imply that greater attention needs to be given to the underlying theoretical and philosophical ideas that the participants in ESL education (parents, students, teachers, administrators) bring to the school and articulate in their personal practices concerning this education. Are their ideas convergent or divergent? And, re-examination of the policies and practices at an organizational level needs to take place. What responsibility have the governing bodies, the leaders, taken for organizing policies and practices that are current and effective for ESL learners? The findings of Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti reported in a shady (1996:199-221) regarding the high drop out rate by ESL students in secondary schools are striking. They found that "ESL students generally give school related reasons for leaving school." ESL students noted in their study that there was a "disjuncture between their experiences of school and their actual experiences within the system." In their view, the organization needs examining, not the students who are often blamed for their own failures, and who blame themselves for issues beyond their control (see also Watt and Roessingh, 2000). Similar conclusions regarding situational constraints are evident in other studies (see, for instance, Schwab, 1995; Sheppard, 1994; Kauffman, 1993; Ramirez, Yuen and Ramsey, 1991), Hector and Perez; 1990; Leidtke, 1990). Several researchers (see, for example, Lucas, 1993, Minnicucci and Olsen, 1992) suggest that programs for ESL learners in secondary schools lack cohesive, comprehensive planning, have insufficient offerings of content courses for the ESL learner, as well as materials, and tend to hire inadequately trained teachers. This voices the question - Who (in terms of English second language qualifications) designs the programs, does the hiring, sets up the curriculum and instructional activities that are in place, and makes the decisions that affect the integration of ESL learners? Can this integration be accomplished more effectively? At the present time, there is a great amount of evidence to suggest that the organization that leads in creating and implementing schooling for ESL learners needs examining because there are still many examples of ineffective program offerings, which are holding back ESL elementary and secondary students, holding back the academic and cognitive growth of the elementary learner, and causing secondary ESL students to drop out without completing school. (As examples, see Watt and Roessingh, 2000; Thomas and Collier, 1997; Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti, 1996; McKay and Wong, 1996; Schwab, 1995; Harklau, 1994; Sheppard, 1994; 61 Liedtke, 1993; Lucas, 1993; Kauffman, 1993; Ramirez, Yuen and Ramsey,1991, Hector and Perez; 1990; Leidtke, 1990). 6. Culture and the Integration of ESL Learners In discussing culture and its relationship to the integration of ESL learners, most studies view the learner as charged with the task of adjusting to the cultural norms of the school. Few studies see the ESL learner engaged in an active mental process, which involves at the very least both the creating and encoding of culture, as part of his/her language socialization during the activity of integration in the school. /') Culture as External Differences In a study of perspectives on integrating ESL pupils into mainstream or regular classes, Liedtke (1990:80) notes that the administrators' motives for integrating students were related to the notion of "unifying" the school as a whole, while the classroom teachers were focused on "broadening" cultural experiences for all learners. Though a study of "perspectives," Liedtke does not examine in any depth these two opposing perspectives. Critical examination suggests that there is a limitation in thinking here - the role of the ESL learner in a school is neither to "unify the school," nor to "broaden the cultural experience for non-ESL learners." This role is in keeping with the policies and practices of the "enrichment" and "enhancement" models of multicultural education of the early eighties. These may be one of many indirect outcomes of integration but certainly should not be the 62 founding principles behind integration - which should focus on the instructional and academic benefits for the ESL learners who attend school to receive an education and reach their potentials as learners, and who ultimately receive the integration and mainstreaming. In addition, practices that include cultures in reference to external differences without demonstrating that the groups represented are equally treated can be marginalizing. As an example, consider the findings of Menkart (1993) who noted that schools often had "welcome signs in many languages" but did not treat ESL students equally by encouraging the students to "maintain their native languages," this in spite of the large body of literature which shows the use of first languages actually helps the learning of English at school because of the continuation of the learner's superior cognitive development in the first language until English catches up - the socio-cultural support that is necessary for academic success at school involves more than celebrating diversity (see, for example, Mohan et al., 2001; May, 2001; Watt and Roessingh, 2000; TESOL Standards, 2000; Thomas and Collier, 1997; Watt and Roessingh, 1996; Collier, 1995). ii) Culture as Closely Tied to the Learning of Language and Content Spradley (1980: 89) offers the view that "any description of cultural domains always involves the use of language" because it is language that" gives meaning to and defines parts of the culture" a view which may be helpful in examining the activity of integration of ESL learners. In analyzing the language of traditional service delivery approaches to integration they have tended to ignore the social and 63 cultural knowledge that participants in various situations have brought to these situations and have conveyed through language. In Spradley's view (1980:07) "by identifying cultural knowledge as fundamental" we merely "shift the emphasis from behavioural artifacts to their meaning." This is important because a "large portion of our cultural knowledge remains tacit, outside our awareness." In other words, culture is more than conscious 'enrichment and enhancement', and the role of the ESL learner more significant than that of unifying or enriching the school by arriving and bringing with one both artifacts and differences - the ESL learner is more active cognitively than these viewpoints take into consideration. Some researchers have long argued that the focus of studies of English second language should not be only language or literacy in isolation, as often is the case in the literature discussing the integration of ESL learners from a service delivery perspective, but rather as interdependent with social and cultural practices (see, for example, Gee, J. P., 1989). Language must be considered within its social and cultural context so that its analysis becomes a more holistic exercise. This notion takes culture from a place of external differences to a recognition that sociocultural processes strongly influence students' access to cognitive, linguistic and academic development (see, for instance, Mohan et al., 2001; May, 2001; Watt and Roessingh, 2000; Thomas and Collier, 1997; TESOL Standards, 1997; Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti, 1996; Collier, 1995; Liedtke, 1993; Menkart, 1993; Ogbu, 1992). The learner is engaged in a process of language socialization, learning language, content and culture simultaneously, developmentally, and interdependently. To shady integration effectively, the 64 language socialization of the learner in the organization responsible for ensuring the learner experiences academic success needs consideration. Thomas and Collier (1997) state that the cultural experience of the ESL learner at school is an active and dynamic process, closely tied to language learning and content learning. What goes on in the learner's head depends upon the experiences of social and cultural process across time - past, present, and future. These processes interact, are interdependent and can strongly affect language development, and the learning of content and culture at school, hence must be considered as part of the shift in thinking that is needed for ESL learners to experience success at school. And, it has been shown in studies of school adjustment that "ESL students do not find educational and cultural adjustment a smooth or an easy process, in fact "many do not feel included in the broader culture of the school" in "any significant way" (Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti, 1996:210). As stated previously, Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti (1996:208) found that ESL students do not find cultural adjustment an easy process, and in fact many feel excluded from the culture of the school, therefore, educators need to pay greater attention to culture and its role in relation to the integration of ESL learners. ESL learners are affected by power relationships in the school, some feel very unsuccessful and excluded, and many drop out because of this. As Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti (1996:209) discovered, the students perceived themselves as the problem; they did not perceive the "school system as playing a role in creating the marginal underclass" in which they found themselves situated. The same study notes the high drop out rate, about seventy five percent after two 65 years in high school and views this as tragic because the students "see no way out of the predicament and no way of further adjusting for inclusion." Part of the socio-cultural experience of the English second language learner at school involves the respect shown for his/her first language and culture in the organization of which the school is part. In Thomas and Collier's (1997:49) long term study of a variety of programs and services for ESL learners, they found overwhelming evidence that "language minority groups benefit enormously in the long term from on grade level academic work in first language," this regardless of background experiences of schooling. In addition, where students were registered in bilingual programs and learned English, English was not viewed as remedial, as is the case in ESL service delivery models with separate or pull out ESL classes. In fact Thomas and Collier (1997:51) found that: the strongest socio-cultural support for new students results in graduates that are amongst the highest academic achievers in each school district The continuation of academic and cognitive development in the first language must be encouraged not discouraged by teachers at school to promote academic success in English. Many other researchers reiterate the significance of the use of the first language at school (a few examples, May, 2001; Thomas and Collier, 1997; Corson and Lemay, 1996; Collier, 1995; Auerbach, 1993; Menkart, 1993, Lucas, 1993). How this wi l l be translated into practice with large numbers of language groups in schools is another issue. In sum, socio-cultural processes have a powerful influence on English second language learning. In addition, success at school is closely tied to the extent to which schools understand the relationships amongst first language, English, culture, the knowledge learners bring to school, and the curriculum. These relationships are likely to appear more clearly if researchers examine the integration of ESL learners from the perspective of social practice (activity). Exarrdning the language socialization of the learner within social practices would closely tie language learning and content to culture and illuminate their interdependence more which some consider fundamental to academic success at school. Given TESOL's emphasis on the importance of considering functional language, and content and culture, a language socialization perspective which views language, content and culture interdependently is a much needed perspective. E. Special Education and the Integration of ESL Learners Special education has a long history of research and discussion of integration. Special education students were originally placed in segregated programs and they earned the right to be mainstreamed through acquiring the ability to learn to keep up with work. Special education used integration to refer to the selective placement of students in one or more regular classes under traditional thinking about models of service delivery - from segregated programs, to part, then full integration. 1. Segregated Programs In 1974/5 steps were taken as an outgrowth of the Education for AW Handicapped Children Act toward including special education learners in regular classes. However, segregated and self-contained programs continued to exist 67 because "lip service was given to the idea that students would be integrated as much as possible" (see, Kunc, 1992: 26). The new policy articulated in practice that students needed to get skills in self contained or segregated classrooms before they were ready to be integrated into the regular classroom. Skills were the prerequisite for integration and inclusion. The main argument was that segregated and self contained classrooms were a "necessary" option for some students, this in spite of the fact that there was (and is) growing documentation of students who seemed incapable of learning appropriate behaviours and skills in segregated settings but achieved these previously unattainable goals once integrated into regular classrooms (Kunc, 1992:27). And, that the curriculum in self-contained programs consisted of many hours of engagement in largely meaningless skill driven tasks. 2. Mainstreaming In Webster's (1991:718) to "mainstream" is defined as a term identified in 1974, which meant to place a handicapped child in a regular school class. It would appear that the term was created to deal with the foregoing situation and to encourage movement into the mainstream. In the eighties it was proposed (see, Villa et al., 1992:xvii) that: ... many of the services that were then offered to a small group of students through special education pull out programs might be provided more appropriately in regular classrooms by "regular" teachers. The idea here was to move away from "lack of program coordination, misclassification, student stigma" and to deal with "children who seep through the cracks" by creating a blend of the best of both special education and regular classrooms. Some teachers eagerly abandoned segregated programs fully, while others became negative and angry (Villa etal, 1992: xvii-xviii). The new ideas sought a collaborative relationship between regular classroom and special education teachers, and the student now entered the regular class where he/she received support to develop skills. Special education jargon shifted from a focus on entitlement and civil rights where students had a right to access regular classes, to a focus on outcomes where students needed both excellence and equity. 3. Inclusion More recently, discussions have centred on notions of "full inclusion" -"inclusion" the word of choice to move away from early models of segregation and integration through mainstreaming that did not work effectively because students still received separate treatment (Rogers, 1993). There were two mains reasons for inclusion: a) segregated programs were viewed as a violation of civil rights and even though there was a move to partial and full integration specialists felt that "some" students still needed skills, while regular classroom teachers expected little of those students who were integrated, and b) special education programs have not shown academic or social benefits for the learner. The change was from bringing the student to the services (segregated classes and/or self contained programs, partial integration models) to bringing the services to the child (within the mainstream class). 69 There has been a considerable number of research reports that share the numerous benefits socially and academically of inclusion (Rogers, 1993; Kunc, 1992). Villa, et al. (1992:xv) state that: We wi l l not successfully restructure schools to be effective until we stop seeing diversity in students as a problem. Our challenge is not one of getting "special" students to better adjust to the usual schoolwork, the usual teacher pace or the usual tests. The challenge of school remains what it has been since the modern era began 2 centuries ago: ensuring that all students receive their entitlement. They have the right to thought provoking and enabling schoolwork, so that they might use their minds well and discover the joy therein to willingly push themselves farther. They have the right to instruction that obligates the teacher ... to change tactics when progress fails to occur. They have the right to assessment that provides students and teachers with insight into real world standards, usable feedback the opportunity to self assess, and the chance to have dialogue with, or even to challenge the assessor - also a right in a democratic culture. Until such as time, we wi l l have no insight into human potential. It is the adult routines and rituals that need to be adapted not the students who are subject to methods that need changing and bureaucracies that have not grown. There has been for a long time in special education an emphasis on the delivery of services pervading because of the bureaucratic public service side of education. This emphasis on the delivery of services has led to the maintenance of old standards with a focus on individual development and remedial instruction which has worked to the detriment of the students (Block and Haring, 1992:17-19). As a result of this focus on service, and the emphasis placed on teaching skills in isolation, special education "specialists" were resigned to the idea that students could not be expected to be excellent. They developed a limiting view of the human capacity for learning. On the other hand, regular classroom teachers felt that integration produced mediocrity and were unwilling to consider ways of generating excellence in the many. It was evident that reform in special education was needed because somewhere the notion that "different learners can learn amazing things if educators are clear" and teach in a "variety of ways" had been lost (Block and Haring, 1992:18). Kunc (1992:27-29) suggests that perhaps there is a more effective way to prepare to students to enter the community. He suggests that "inclusion" is about "belonging" and that this concept is not new but was advocated in 1970 by Maslow. Maslow's idea was that self-worth could only arise when an individual was grounded in community (Kunc, 1992:29). Therefore, Kunc suggests that given the student's right to "belong in a regular classroom" it is up to adrrunistrators and educators to "redefine normalcy," rather than viewing integration as a status the student has to earn. The redefinition of normalcy would focus on the discovery of individual student strengths and on the facilitation of opportunities to excel given these strengths. Teachers would discover individual strengths, teach the students what quality work looked like given these strengths, and expect excellence. Block and Haring (1992:19) suggest that the emphasis move from service delivery to self-determination techniques, which are designed so that students develop "competence." At the present time they see that research and "current practice in special education seems to offer little opportunity for students to determine themselves. Regular education may be even worse." In their view this competence would not be defined individually through skills but rather socially -students' abilities to interact effectively in their life roles. These life roles are 71 developed in three categories: a) the generic roles society says they must play (e.g. Worker, citizen, and procreator), b) the specific roles within these generics that they choose to play (e.g. Doctor, democrat, parent), and c) the roles that they make up (e.g. Witch doctor, conservative, democrat, househusband). Students would not only develop the ability to interact effectively in these roles (to do things) they would also learn to make the effort (intrinsically to want to do things) to use these abilities. Curriculum reform would involve aligning curriculum, teaching and testing with self-determination techniques. Students would take charge of and participate in their own "inclusion." ESL integration practices have followed a process similar to special education in that students have been (some still are) segregated from mainstream classes, then the movement shifted to part and full integration, and more recently an increased interest in mainstreaming. However, too often in our history ESL was viewed "as special education" to the detriment of many students and it clearly is not. Language learning is a natural not a special education process. This is not to say that a small number of ESL students may have learning issues that arise from learning challenges unrelated to language learning, that is, they are ESL and special education candidates (see Cummins, 1988, Samuda and Kong, 1989) - an area where education has paid scant attention. Before comparing and contrasting similarities amongst multicultural education, special education, and ESL in terms of integration, attention must first be turned to integration as a subject of research within multicultural education. 72 F. Multicultural Education and ESL Education: The Need for a More Holistic Approach With the growth of nation-states, and increased emphasis on the political doctrine of nationalism within these states, declaring countries multicultural has become a desirable end since most modern societies are recognizably pluralistic and are struggling to represent the population of which they are comprised (Parekh, 2000; May, 2001). Concomitantly, societies have experienced the unprecedented growth of English as a second, additional or international language, the status of this language being derived as a direct consequence of nationalism or a perceived need for unity in efforts to secure the future stability of the nation-state (Corson and Lemay, 1996; May, 2001). As a result, unity is associated strongly with the English language, which is perceived as providing a commonality of expression for speakers and therefore promoted as desirable and modern. Historically, the emphasis on English was a consequence of the colonisation and power of Great Britain, more recently it is related to the domination of the USA and its focus on English in the international political and economic sphere (May, 2001: 200). At the same time, diversity as expressed in great part through the minority languages represented in the pluralistic population is thought of as undesirable since this multitude of languages and the perceived lack of opportunity for interaction amongst them has the potential to threaten the stability and homogeneity of the nation-state and works against the political doctrine of nationalism that is favoured (May, 2001:200-201). This emphasis on English in nation-states has caused an unprecedented and greatly accelerated loss of minority languages, many lost or marginalized to a point of 7 3 minutia in families by the third generation, one of the great contributors to the loss being pubic schools where English has status and dominates as the language of instruction (Ng, et al., 1995; Corson and Lemay, 1996; Thomas and Collier, 1997; May, 2001). Given these circumstances it behoves the educated to pay greater attention to links that need to be made between multicultural education and ESL education in order to gain a better grasp of what is happening in our English dominated public education system in large urban centres in North America, particularly with respect to the integration of ESL learners. The need for greater collaboration between the two fields of study, multicultural education and ESL education in order that there be a more holistic approach to the education of English second/additional language learners or language minority students cannot be understated. At the present time, the two fields have operated largely outside each others boundaries in theory, perhaps for academic reasons, and yet in practice when minority language students enter public education institutions in societies in nation-states this is not only impossible; it is also unnecessarily unwise. Where English predominates as the language of instruction in North America, a multicultural education must be responsive to the diverse community of minority languages represented in the public school, while at the same time, ESL educators cannot help but become advocates for the multilingual learners that they represent in schools, since these learners' identities are closely tied to an appreciation and an inclusion of the languages and cultures within which they are embedded prior to entry into school. Moodley (1983; 1992; 1995) has begun the discussion and raised issues of ESL education in her work on multicultural education. May (2001) has articulated the need for others to follow suit. Consider the dichotomy and the need for advancement in this area. Multicultural education, while recognizing the importance of bilingualism and acknowledging the need for heritage language programs after school, has not dealt in depth with the issues that arise when huge numbers of ESL learners dominate and create plural student populations in large urban school districts. Discussions of ESL education are largely absent from literature in the field and public education systems have been able to ignore issues that are culturally embedded with respect to the education of ESL learners, including the status of minority languages and their role in ESL education, the manner in which students are programmed for instruction, and the issues that arise out of the interaction of multilingual and culturally diverse groups of students forced to learn in English. In addition, integration of ESL learners is not discussed or considered relevant to any great degree. In contrast, ESL education has tended to focus on issues of language teaching and learning at the expense of issues of multicultural education, (and anti-racism pedagogies), often to the detriment of ESL learners in that critical analysis of the impact of the dominant culture and homogeneity of the public school has been neglected. Although language learning is embedded in culture and ESL students bring with them to school systems of meaning from a plurality of cultures, ESL educators have not involved themselves to any great degree in the dialogue on multicultural education. As a consequence, public systems of education have been able to situate ESL learners in educational programs in schools in ways that give greater emphasis to service delivery than they do to the cultural and linguistic knowledge and experiences the language learners bring with them to school. This has inadvertently failed to address the low status already given minority languages in public schools, and ESL students lack of access to quality content area instruction, and has not supported the need for a greater focus of issues of culture within the mainstream of education. In addition, ESL students and their minority languages, largely responsible for providing the diversity in public education in large urban centres, are considered as multicultural in that they give expression to diversity through celebrations but are not concomitantly given the status to alter the educational system in meaningful ways that express their linguistic and cultural diversity. While multicultural education and ESL education have much in common in that both have yet to be optimally considered and implemented in public spheres of education, careful examination of the literature in these areas necessitates the need for a more holistic approach, perhaps the power and status of both fields may rise if issues are amalgamated. There are serious issues of language status and loss being raised by researchers that ought to cause both multicultural and ESL educators to reflect on teaching and learning practices in education systems in large urban pluralistic districts (May, 2001). There is much to be done in terms of critically investigating and advancing language policy and educational practice in public schools in large urban centres for the benefit of the second/additional English language learner and his/her public education if we are to maintain the languages that second language learners bring with them to school, as well as continue to advance goals of multicultural education. English second language education and multicultural education must examine more closely the social and cultural contexts which surround ESL students in public schools if learning is to truly reflect the notion that it is not only a social process but also a cultural one. Meaningful attention needs to be given by school communities to the plurality of perspectives that are encountered when working with the families of ESL students. Educators who work in today's pluralistic school communities need to reflect on their use of institutional discourse and examine its relevance to actions from a cultural and a linguistic perspective when attempting to act on and/or resolve issues of importance to ESL students in the school community. Today's teachers ought to be able to deal with the language issues that might arise in multilingual, multicultural school communities. They also ought to have developed a refined sense of cultural literacy including the understanding that issues of multicultural education and ESL education are not separate issues as they are often treated in schools - ESL students don't need to celebrate their diversity, they live this diversity daily, instead they need to be given the status and power to influence and sometimes refocus the direction of education in public schools where they dominate. 77 In order to underline the need for a more holistic approach to the educational work being articulated in the fields of multicultural and ESL education, I w i l l briefly examine approaches to the education of language minority students. 1. Multicultural Approaches and ESL Education The hterature in the field of multicultural education has not paid great attention to complex issues of ESL education and its impact on ESL learners in the large urban school communities in which they predominately attend school. Little attention has been given in multicultural studies to language issues, to the quality of the educational services and programs provided for English second language learners, and to the complexity of the social and cultural situation encountered by the ESL learner who is the subject of the activity of integration in the urban public school. Efforts in Canada and the United States to include the ESL learner through discussions of multiculturalism have largely focused on "inclusive curriculum" and "heritage language programs" ignoring the linguistic issues that occur when multilingual groups of students interact within a single classroom through many languages, or when ESL learners are the dominant group in a school and English speakers are "the minority," or where one language group (e.g. Mandarin) predominates. There are also many examples of ESL learners having been misdiagnosed as needing learning assistance or special education because of a lack of ESL education and training on the part of well intentioned educators who have not adequately understood linguistic and cultural factors and were impatient with 78 the learners progress in learning the language of the school. It is easier to fix the learners than it is to examine the organization and its myriad of policies and practices. And, given research that clearly points to the educational necessity of ESL learners being able to use two languages to learn at school for academic success, advocacy to ensure that school districts do so has not been forthcoming in multicultural literature. Links between language learning, and curriculum content, and culture are largely absent from discussions of integration in multicultural education and yet the impact of programs on the ESL learner has been profound. If one considers the use of the term integration in the field of multicultural education one finds that there is a relationship between the institutionalized norms, values and beliefs articulated through multicultural educational theories in the larger society and the practices that followed with respect to place or position of the ESL learner in the public school. As one example, integration has long been the subject of study in research discussions related to multiculturalism, anti-racism education, equity or equality, and immigration. Although there are a multitude of definitions for our purposes the definition offered by Fleras and Elliott (1992) wi l l be considered. Discussions in the field of multicultural education with respect to the integration of language minority students have centred around three approaches or models according to Fleras and Elliott (1992) - segregation, assimilation, and integration and the appropriate placement or positioning of minorities along this continuum. Historically, state or government policies in the USA, Canada and other 79 countries adopted viewpoints of segregation, denying racial and ethnic minorities equal status, sometimes formally in written discourse, other times informally in the public practices adopted and/or in a combination of both. This was followed by the liberal-democratic move toward assimilating and/or integrating racial and ethnic minorities into the mainstream of society. These three approaches of segregation, integration and assimilation are perhaps best summarized and defined by Fleras and Elliott (1992:63): Each defines a specific arrangement for positioning minority groups vis-a-vis the state, as expressed in terms of government-minority interaction. Assimilation sought to destroy diversity through a process of absorption, conformity and compliance. Integration was concerned with the incorporation of diversity into the mainstream through fusion with the dominant sector to establish a singular cultural identity. Segregation denied the legitimacy of diversity through a process of compartmentalization, maintained by the threat of coercive force. In an effort to move beyond these approaches, and in response to the need to account for the bilingualism of Quebec, Canada developed its philosophy and policy (Multicultural Act, 1988) of multiculturalism. Similarly, in the United States and in other parts of the world within the context of liberalism, policy makers in education sought reform for the placement or positioning of language minority students through multicultural education (see, N g et al., 1995). Multiculturalism promoted diversity as the social and cultural norm to be institutionalized in the structure of Canadian society with the hope that Canada's identity would include both cultural diversity and social equality. Systems of public education were one of the main institutions within which this diversity and equality were to take shape. Fleras and Elliott (1992:64) have compared and contrasted the movement towards the integration of language minority group members and they see similarities and differences between multicultural education and integration. In their view, both have a "common commitment to incorporate minorities into the mainstream" but differ in that "multiculturalism promotes a mosaic of plurality" and integration is "often akin to a melting pot that synthesizes variation to create a new entity." Integration from the point of view of multiculturalism is a "strategy for managing diversity" where efforts are made to "mainstream" minorities or ethno racial groups equitably. And, mainstreaming involves "the obligation of institutions to facilitate the institutional integration of minorities" in an inclusive and equitable manner (Fleras and Elliott, 1992:316). The general feeling is best summarized by Banks (1995:3) who notes that a major goal of multicultural education was to "reform the school" in order that students from "diverse racial, ethnic and social class groups" would experience educational equality. How is this mainstreaming i and integration of language minority students to take place according to multicultural education? And, what specifically is the relationship between mainstreaming, integration and the learner of ESL in literature on multicultural education and/or ESL education? According to Fleras and Elliott (1992:198), mainstreaming and integration have been addressed in the field through various models or approaches to multicultural education. Approaches to multicultural education in public schools have a chronological arrangement similar to the segregation, assimilation, 81 integration, continuum previously described. This parallel movement progressed from compensatory, to enrichment and enhancement programs, and finally to empowerment as approaches for realizing multicultural ideals in public education systems (Fleras and Elliott, 1992; Ng, Staton and Scane, 1995). The teacher and the learner of ESL had a different place in each of these models, though this place has not been the subject of any extensive discussion in multicultural education, nor have those involved in ESL education made sure that it was an issue by bringing the marginalization of language minority students forward. These approaches need examining with respect to the need for greater collaboration between fields of multicultural and ESL education. i) Compensatory Approaches to ESL Education and Multicultural Education Prior to the fifties in education in both the United States and in Canada (see, Fleras and Elliott, 1992; Banks, 1995; Moodley, 1995; N g etal, 1995; May 2001) the assimilation of immigrants was the dominant force in society. Immigrants were treated as second-class citizens and expected to change to fit into a dominant Anglo-Saxon society. Assimilation in practice meant getting rid of ethnic traits, Anglo-Americanizing/ Canadianizing the immigrant and the native. In America efforts were made to modify these second-class citizens (the Hispanics, Native Americans, black youth and others) to bring them in line with middle class norms, values and beliefs (McCarthy, 1995:23). In Canada, similar practices were articulated and there are many examples of attempts to change the immigrant (see, for example, Moodley, 1983; Ashworth, 1988). Although these countries may have become pluralistic in composition, and in theory they articulated their newfound liberalism, modern nation-states were assimilationist in practice, particularly when one considers the education provided for ESL or language minority learners. Compensatory education models of multiculturalism which arose in the fifties and early sixties were meant to improve the lot for the immigrant through compensating in public education for the immigrant's perceived disadvantages but still through this very idea of the need to compensate, they were geared towards assimilation. The assimilation approach, founded on highly conformist practices, cultivating Anglo-Saxon values advocated that all students were to "melt" or assimilate as one unified, single conglomerate - a policy in the USA and Canada which was largely a result of the political doctrine of nationalism in the nation-state, a nationalism needed to consolidate the country as a strong and unified political entity (McCarthy, 1995:22-25; Corson and Lemay 1996; May, 2001). With respect to ESL education, compensatory programs were to alleviate problems and make up for the ESL students' cultural, economic and linguistic disadvantages. Students from backgrounds other than those of traditional institutional norms were thought to be disadvantaged. Ashworth (1979:58) for example, writes of the formation of a separate school for Chinese and Japanese children in British Columbia in Canada, created solely to segregate students to keep them away from "white children" for the "preservation of the Anglo-Saxon standard of moral and ethical culture." During this time period there was Utile discussion of 83 the integration of the ESL learner instead the learner was blamed for using English words "without knowing their meaning" and was segregated from age and grade peers by race. Similar practices were the fate of many immigrant children in Canada (and the United States) from a variety of backgrounds other than English. The learner of ESL was viewed as "a problem to be fixed" under policies and practices of assimilation. Indeed, in the early fifties and sixties, it was assumed that once ESL students,learned English problems with immigration would disappear (Moodley, 1995:804). Stills and Ellison (1996:148) describe this thinking as follows: When children of diverse backgrounds do not conform to traditional institutional norms and expectations, the hypothesis has been that these children come to the school environment ill-equipped to meet the demands and challenges of the school as a direct result of being either "culturally disadvantaged" or "cognitively deficient." The direct consequence of this approach in terms of ESL education was the establishment of remedial and separate classes for the education of ESL students in the public system. And, they were other subtle messages conveyed to ESL students about their own value and status as well as the importance of their minority languages in public education, for example, ESL students' names were changed (often by secretaries) or anglicized, and the school did everything possible to remove the language of the home from the education of the learner by enforcing the practice that it not be used either publicly at school or privately at home (see, for example, Ashworth, 1988; Corson and Lemay, 1996). The goal was mainstreaming and integration and this could not be accomplished until the 'handicap' of knowing a language without status was removed from the ESL learner. Monolingualism and 84 the replacement of the language of the home with English was the vision of a public education for language minority students (Ashworth, 1988). Educational disadvantage was directly associated with minority language use. The ESL specialist teacher in this approach operated in a segregated classroom, often isolated within the institution, frequently in a small space removed from the core of the school (Ashworth, 1988). ESL education meant success when the task of "fixing" the minority language learner through intensive drilling in English was accomplished (Edwards and Redfern, 1992:100). The rapid replacement of the first language with a second was the consequence. And, as Ashworth (1988:27) notes of immigrant students in her discussions of ESL in a historical context, "it was questionable whether the aim was to provide additional help in English or merely keep them (ESL students) apart from white children" through streaming until the English language predominated. Some advancement was made, albeit a small one with the movement toward an enrichment and enhancement approach to multicultural education and concomitantly ESL education, however, giving status to the minority languages of students and priority to an optimal ESL education was not commensurate with these approaches which still viewed immigrants as different. In May's words (2001:177): the essence of the multicultural model is the recognition of the right to be different and to be respected for it, not necessarily to maintain a distinct language and culture. 85 ii) Enrichment and Enhancement Approaches to ESL Education and Multicultural Education ; Enrichment and enhancement models of cultural understanding and competence followed in the seventies and early eighties in both Canada and the United States, the implicit goal being to celebrate visible differences and promote understanding across cultures (Fleras and Elliott, 1992; Brown, 1992; Banks, 1993; Banks, 1995; McCarthy, 1995; May, 2001). The learner of ESL was seen to enrich the school merely by being present/integrated through everyone celebrating diversity in "foods, festivals and famous people" - prevalent was the notion of the "other." And, recognition was to be given to the role of the learners' background cultural experiences in the classroom, curriculum was to be changed to reflect the ethnicity of the learner of ESL in materials and resources, and to include aspects of the language of the home in curriculum, albeit in a marginal manner (e.g. a welcome sign in many languages hung on the door). Banks (1995:13) describes this as the "contributions approach" to multicultural curriculum reform. Schools occasionally celebrated discrete cultural elements such as "heroes, heroines, holidays and food." A n outgrowth of this movement was the advocacy for heritage language programs as greater (but not equal) status was given to the language of the home. Advocacy existed for improving English proficiency, as well as for bilingual, bicultural and ethnic studies to preserve students' cultural identities through acknowledging cultural and linguistic diversity. Bilingual programs were advocated in many parts of the USA (some only created as transitional), and Quebec while heritage language programs were the focus for meeting the needs of the ESL learner 86 in many parts of Canada (for a detailed discussion see Corson and Lemay, 1996). With regard to heritage language programs they remained outside of the mainstream of the school. Ontario, for example, permitted two and a half hours of heritage language instruction in schools, after regular hours (Moodley, 1995:804; Corson and Lemay, 1996). And, where there has been advocacy for heritage language programs after school across Canada, at the same time the programs continue today to exist for the most part outside of the mainstream curriculum of the school. Their relevance in terms of the curriculum of the school and the integration of ESL learners within the school has not been examined in any detail - they remain an add on, this in spite of the growth in numbers of language minority students in large urban centres of education. For instance, while Fleras and Elliott, (1992:157) report that in Ontario there were one hundred and twenty nine thousand students enrolled in supplementary heritage language programs in 1988, and yet this has not translated itself into meaningful language classes as part of the mainstream academics of the school for ESL learners who come to school with languages other than English. May (2001) argues that there is a precedent for dealing with minority languages in Canada in terms of their promotion. Language policies in Quebec that promote bilingualism do so by delimiting the use of English, perhaps language minorities can enact similar policies in areas where they predominate in an effort to preserve their linguistic heritages and to give public status to their languages (May, 2001). According to May there is a key role for education to play in minority 8 7 language maintenance, and given the fact that the nation-state has been able to use public education to advance the ends of homogeneic [English dominant] civic nationalist cultures, it can do the same for minority languages and begin by giving them greater status in public schools. In addition to issues of language, enhancement programs also focused on improving inter group dynamics through collaboration and cooperation - a focus on similarities amid the differences (see, Banks, 1993; 1995). Relationships between ESL learners, ESL teachers, and learners and teachers in mainstream classrooms became more fluid during this time period, at least that was the theory - the mainstream teacher sought the support of the ESL specialist and the ESL specialist sought interaction with native English speakers in mainstream or regular classes to improve the ESL learners communicative competence. Staff developers were viewed as agents of change who supported desegregation and integration in schools by supporting teachers so they improved practice and student achievement through developing a range of instruction strategies (Brown, 1992:20). There was (at least in theory) recognition that the ESL learner needed some kind of continuing language support in the mainstream and that the "transition to full integration" required the ESL "specialist teacher" to "plan with and work alongside the subject specialist teacher" (Edwards and Redfern, 1992:100-101). A n examination of these ideals from the point of view of practice in English second language education research quickly reveals that educators today continue to wrestle with issues of English language learning, curriculum content, and culture. And, greater emphasis is still given to the 88 teaching and learning of English as a dominant language, rather than to the influence of culture in relation to knowledge, experience and learning in schools. In sum, research in multicultural education has not paid enough attention to the ESL learner's education and yet there is certainly a need to do so: a) in terms of examining the relationship between the languages he/she uses in public education, b) in reference to their importance for supporting learning in English, c) in terms of the dynamics involved when multiple linguistic groups interact in one classroom, d) in reference to the place or position the ESL learner has been assigned when integrated in the system of public education. Advocacy and research is needed in this area in collaboration with English second language educators. iii) Empowerment Approaches to ESL Education and Multicultural Education Current models of liberalism focus on various critical perspectives -emancipation, empowerment, social justice, and equity. The movement toward the mainstreaming of the learner of ESL, which began in the eighties, continues today. The focus of discussions of ESL have been on the provision of adequate in-service for mainstream and content classroom teachers, on facilitating the academic achievement of the ESL learner at school, and on the relevance of the discourse used in the context of classrooms given the diversity in family systems and views of the world held by all of the participants in public education (see, Corson and Lemay, 1996). In empowerment models where the focus is on justice, equahty, and inclusion, minority students are advanced in theory toward reaching their potential 89 academically and as citizens through educational restructuring (see, Fleras and Elliott, 1992; Banks, 1995; N g Et al., 1995). The cultural positioning of students, parents and teachers within the organizational structure of public entities are examined from multiple perspectives in and effort to challenge and influence educational practice. Interestingly enough, from this researcher's perspective, the focus has been on class, race and gender as culture, but not on language which defines, creates, and conveys culture - beyond some discussion of and advocacy for bilingual programs, out of school heritage language classes, and a variety of courses in schools that teach languages other than English or French. For example, in his review of multicultural education in terms of historical development, its dimensions and practice, James Banks (1995:3-24) does not mention language, bilingualism, or ESL education as an issue central to the discussion. And yet, there is a great amount of evidence that suggests that the most significant content in the next century wi l l be the relationship between the language of the home and ESL in the classroom. ' 'Minority' ' language groups are increasing in number both in Canada and in the United States to a point where by the end of the century they wi l l compose about fifty percent of the total enrolment of US schools (and in Canada a substantial part of the demographics of the country) (Banks, 1993:22-28). And, while May (2001), ascribes a lack of focus on multilingualism to multicultural education, he himself does not deal with the multilingual and minority language issues that arise in and beyond ESL classrooms in public schools in large urban centres. The main response to demographic changes of educators concerned with culture and "multi" culture has been a focus on content integration in terms of making revisions to curriculum to make it culturally relevant, either by adding to existing curricula, or by transforming it to look at diverse perspectives (see, for example, Banks, 1995:13 or Banks 1993:25. For instance, Banks (1993:25) identifies five types of knowledge that need addressing in addition to the "implicit cultural assumptions, frames of reference, perspectives and biases within a discipline." They are: personal/cultural, popular, mainstream academic, transformative, and school. Though each of these areas of knowledge is discussed in great detail, nowhere does he mention relationships between language (LI or first and L2 or second) and the content and culture of the school. Instead, the focus is on additive or a transformative experience. While multicultural studies recognize that learners bring to school diverse "world views" (see, for example, Banks, 1995; Stills and Ellison, 1996), these studies have not dealt to any great degree with the relationship between these diverse world views and the interaction between first and second or third languages for the learner of ESL and his/her peer group in a variety of classroom situations, including those where ESL learners form the mainstream and/or a substantial part of the mainstream. Banks (1995:13) describes an approach to curriculum, which he calls the "action approach" where "students make decisions on important personal, social and civic problems" and they "take actions to help solve them. Given the lack of recognition of languages in curriculum, and the general lack of prestige of minority 91 languages within the context of the school one wonders to what extent this is truly-possible for the ESL student- except perhaps in some bilingual programs where linguistic duality is considered a benefit. McCarthy (1995:35-43) argues for a model of critical emancipatory multiculturalism because American (the same may be said of Canadian) approaches have tended to focus on 'boosting self-concepts" and on "transforming white intolerance" but have not contested the "underlying rules of the game or "exiting structures of exploitation and oppression." McCarthy sees a need for links to be made between the "microdynamics of the school curriculum" and "larger issues of social relations outside the school" - we need to take our heterogeneous population more seriously. Given our heterogeneous student population and the large number of second language learners of whom American and Canadian education facilities are comprised, particularly in major urban centres, research must make links in rich detail between language learning, and curriculum content and culture for the learner of English as an additional language. G. English Second Language Education, Special Education, Multicultural Education, and the Integration of ESL Learners In the three fields of English Second language education, special education, and multicultural education, the policies and practices of organizations with regard to the integration of ESL learners has followed a similar path with origins in service delivery and program arrangements, inadequate and ineffective policies, and practices that either are created in an ad hoc manner, and become outdated but 92 remain in place, and/or practices that serve the learner outside rather than inside the mainstream of the school. While an in depth analysis of the history is beyond the scope of this research, the overlap in the three fields of study must be acknowledged and wi l l briefly be related in terms of the policies and practices in vogue over time with respect to the integration of ESL learners under six recurring themes or topics: 1. service delivery, 2. view of language, 3. view of culture, 4. teachers role, 5. student's role, 6. curriculum and instruction. Each of these wi l l be briefly discussed to show how integration has evolved in educational practice in all three fields of study and has subsequently had an impact on the ESL learner's position or place in the organization of school. This discussion represents an amalgamation of ideas from studies referred to earlier in the literature review and the reader is referred there for details. 1. Policies and Practices Special education policies and ESL policies have reflected societal philosophies about educating learners in a given time and space, and have followed philosophies of multiculturalism from those with an assimilation bent to current theories of empowerment. There is evidence that in both special education and second language education, integration policies and practices paralleled patterns of thinking in multicultural education. As multicultural education moved along the segregation, assimilation, integration continuum, so did programs for learners. There is a link between the model of cultural practice, which predominated over 93 time, and the policies and practices in place for learners - segregated, compensatory, enrichment, empowerment. Both special education and ESL education have followed a similar pattern from an emphasis on the integration of learners as service delivery - the development of the learners' (remedial skills) in a segregated or self-contained classroom or pullout program, through partial to full integration or mainstreaming. As in the case of special education, the trend toward mainstreaming has not entirely worked for the ESL learner but has been subject to a lack of adequate, current, and effective government and school district policies and practices, as well as insufficient specialist support (see literature review above). i However, in recent years, while policies and practices for inclusion have long been in place for special education and learners are being included in schools with specialist support, many ESL policies are still being developed and ESL learners remain in segregated or separate programs and/or are pulled out for periods of time. 2. Views of Language Neither multicultural education, nor special education have been strong advocates for first language use at school. There is however overwhelming evidence of the benefits in doing so to support to the ESL learners' integration (see literature review). And, ESL educators have not taken the strong leadership role they might assume to ensure that multicultural education and special education focus on significant issues related to language learning and the schooling of ESL learners. 9 4 Language has not been dealt with in any detail in special education, this in spite of the fact that under remedial education models with an assimilationist focus, ESL learners were often misdiagnosed with tests for native English speakers and ended up with learning disabilities they often did not have (Cummins, 1988; Cummins and Cameron, 1994; Samuda and Kong, 1989). And, as Lai (1994:126) notes, there are issues of equity and fair treatment of learners to consider: "Assessment instruments in languages other than English are still few in North America after all these years of controversy over assessment." 3. Views of Culture As stated previously, there appears to be a link between the model of cultural practice that predominated over time and the policies and practices in place for learners - segregated, compensatory, enrichment, and empowerment. If researchers examine the culture continuum we find schools "fixing the handicapped learner" through remedial skills based education under models of assimilation. This was followed by a focus on integrating the learner and adapting curriculum content for the learner through in-class and/or pull out support in models of enrichment and enhancement. Both special education learners and ESL learners suffered under this model because the feeling on the part of many educators was still that the learner had to acquire skills to be integrated, therefore, there was an over emphasis on pull out support and teachers in mainstream classes expected little of the integrated learner. Finally, the learner was mainstreamed in the case of special education and there is a move to mamsfreaming in ESL education. However, in this situation both 95 special education and ESL learners are often subjected to inadequate in-class support and inadequately trained teachers, therefore, the benefits remain questionable. In contrast to ESL research, multiculturalism has typically given attention to the importance of culture such as in the case of reports of negative self esteem, often viewed in the literature as the result of cultural exclusion. This may, according to research, hamper learning as well as social development in situations were the culture learners bring to school is not recognized in a significant way; situations have arisen where lack of adequate interpretation has negatively affected the interpretation of concepts at school for both parents and students, even at a most basic level (see, Lai, 1994:126). However, multiculturalism has tended to focus more on models of inclusive curriculum (pictures, realia, books) and the provision of heritage language programs during the day at school as significant for the ESL learner, than it has on how the learner was wrestling with his/her language socialization - the learning of language, content, and culture simultaneously and interdependently at school. The main trend in ESL research has not placed great emphasis on language socialization either. Greater work is needed from a collaborative perspective amongst the three fields in the area of culture and the integration of ESL learners to advance the focus of public schools when it comes to culture and the language socialization of the ESL learner. 4. The Teacher's Role The role of the teacher was largely remedial in both special education and in ESL education under assimilationist policies of multicultural education. Teachers spent many hours of instruction in pull out or separate class situations drilling the learner with rote and often-meaningless tasks. There was little or no collaboration with mainstream teachers and the specialist often had little to do with the curriculum of the mainstream. Mainstream teachers on the other hand, felt that the ESL learner was the responsibility of the ESL teacher and ESL students should stay separated until fluent in English. With the advent of the enrichment and enhancement philosophy, the teachers' role changed to one where the teacher was charged with helping learners' enrich the school. For the ESL learner this often meant studying "differences" and celebrations. Some teachers spent time adapting and modifying content for the learner to be used during periods of partial integration. Generally the focus was on the language learners' differences and not on ways that the language learner both created and encoded culture. And, the first languages of learners were acknowledged but were not positioned either in the school or the classroom in a strong relation to curriculum and instruction and the ESL learner. In the empowerment model the teacher had a role to play in ensuring equality of access and programming for the learner, and (at least in theory) a role as a resource person in the school as a whole. However, this model was often met 97 without long term staff development initiatives, and highly skilled and trained specialist teacher support, so that student progress was not adequately supported and monitored, and the model was questioned rather than the policies and practices in place to support it. In all situations, the teacher was charged with moving the ESL learner in and out of programs based on the idea that the integration of ESL learners was closely tied to the delivery of service over time. The importance of hiring more bilingual teachers, of insisting that ESL teachers be optimally trained, and of ensuring adequate pre and in service professional development activities to support the specialist ESL teacher, as well as the mainstream teacher, have all been under emphasized. 5. The Student's Role Under the assimilation model, the learner both in special education and in ESL education was the passive recipient of "fixing" of various handicaps. Remedial drills constituted the day plan at school, with very little opportunity to experience the mainstream curriculum of the school, and often equally little opportunity to interact with age and grade peers. With the advent of the enrichment model the special education and ESL learner became a part of the life of the school, and as learners with "differences" they enriched the school and enhanced the curriculum. Learners were more frequently but not always integrated for part of the day and had some although limited opportunities to experience aspects of the mainstream curriculum, not 98 necessarily at an appropriate age or grade level, often in a manner that offered little challenge cognitively. With the idea of empowerment, critical consciousness came into prominence and inclusion the term of choice for including special education (and ESL learners increasingly) in the content of curriculum in subject specialties through additive or adapted mainstream curricula. For the first time there was a focus on age and grade appropriate content. 6. Curriculum and Instruction Best practices at a micro (classroom) level also varied with policy at the macro level. In both special education and ESL education under an assimilation model the learners were subjected to intensive skill based teaching and a curriculum that was far removed from the mainstream, often marginalizing and not a challenge. Workbooks, flash cards and drills were the curriculum and instructional practices had a rote, skill based, repetitive emphasis. With enrichment the focus shifted to enrichment and adapting content in mainstream classrooms (at least in theory), however, models of adaptations were not always forthcoming and teachers tended to use the mainstream curriculum, or reverted back to tried and true methods of the past. Discussions of adaptation of curriculum and instruction tend to exclude issues related to language socialization -the cultural and linguistic issues that arise for ESL learners and issues of scaffolding to support integration generally remain a need rarely mentioned in the literature (Lai, 1994). In special education learners,were still not integrated to any great extent 99 and the curriculum remained outside of the mainstream, hence the push for inclusion and the full integration of learners. Empowerment models focused on inclusion - all learners were to be included in the curriculum content. This inclusion meant to a large degree in special education, multicultural education and ESL education, the inclusion of issues of race, gender and class in the curriculum - as yet the language learner and his/her language socialization remain inadequately addressed in most discussions. This idea is best summarized in the following two quotes. Kline (1999:1) notes that: Although Federal regulations require assessment materials used in evaluating and placement children with disabilities "be selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory," culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students continue to be over-represented in programs for children with leaning disabilities and under-represented in programs for gifted and talented students (Artiles and Trent, 2000). It is suspected that evaluation and placement practices, which have been ruled to be discriminatory toward some C L D students could be contributing to this problem. To this, Thomas and Collier (2002:Executive Summary page 1) add the following: ... research from 1985 to 2001 has focussed on analyzing the great educational services provided for language minority (LM) students in US public schools [K-12] ... this demographic group is projected to be forty percent of the school age population by 2030 and most US schools are currently under educating this group. Table 2 that follows summarizes the various policies and practices of special education, English second language education along with multicultural philosophies as they varied over time. The literature has followed a similar path in the three fields, and points to a great need for re-examination of practices with iu(J respect to the social practice or the activity of the integration of ESL learners in K-12 classes in public schools. Table 2. Policies and Practices in Special Education and ESL Education That Followed Multicultural Education Philosophies Philosophies of Multiculturalism (Macro level) —> (Micro level) Assimilation -> Enrichment -> Empowerment Policies & Practices in Special & ESL Education service delivery • segregated classes • pull-out programs or self contained classes • partial integration or transition • movement along continuum to mainstream • mainstreaming • may/may not find support in class language • first language - a handicap • heritage programs encouraged • use of first language to learn the second culture • a unified whole • "melting pot" • foods, famous people, festivals • celebrate diversity • equality, equity, justice, inclusion • critical perspectives teacher's role • remedial • in class and pull out support • adapt curriculum • resource for the school collaborator student's role • to be fixed • handicapped • student to the service • enhance the school • services to student and student to services • change the mainstream curriculum and instruction • skills based • rote drills • intensive • workbooks • adapted content with specialist support • compensatory • programs • regular teacher changes - through course work and professional development 101 H. Issues of Language Socialization and the Integration of ESL Learners As previously stated in the literature review, discussions in multicultural education, special education, and English second language education seem to have progressed in a way that focuses on service delivery in terms of assessment, placement, and movement of ESL learners based on their performance on measures or tests of the English language in isolation as the focus of integration. By contrast, Collier (1995) in a long term study of second language learners has found that "much misunderstanding" occurs because "policy makers and educators" maintain on "over simplistic perception about English second language learning, that is they "assume that language learning can be isolated from other issues and that the first thing students must do is learn English." I. Language Socialization and ESL Integration Missing in much of the existing research is a more holistic view of integration, as recommended in the TESOL pre-K-12 Standards (2000). This is offered by the perspective of language socialization. From the perspective of language socialization, (as with TESOL), researchers would explicitly raise questions about relationships between language(s) and learning, and learning content and culture in contrast with views that not only fail to do so but treat language learning, and the learning content and culture separately (see Mohan et al., 2001). This was a difficulty with existing research discussions of integration in multiculturalism, special education, and ESL language learning at the time of this study. 102 The focus of this research, as previously noted was to explore the "big picture" to identify ways in which existing ideas could move forward with respect to integration and the ESL learner. A language socialization perspective of ESL students would recognize that the students were: a) learning language to learn, b) learning language with content, c) learning about and contributing to the culture of the school and the community, d) learning and using language(s) in contexts, and e) learning the language(s), content, culture(s) and context(s) interdependently, and not as independent processes unrelated to learning. In addition, a language socialization viewpoint beyond one solely related to language instruction in isolation of other learning would allow for better understanding of coordination of language learning with the learning of content because other issues would be considered beyond English testing. In this research considering other points of view became particularly important since integration was at the time of this research in conflict in research in second language education, both theoretically and practically and this conflict was related to differing perspectives of the practice by participants. How was ESL integration conflicted as a social practice (activity) in K-12 public education at the time of this study? a) ESL Integration as a Conflicted Social Practice (Activity) Within Public Education Integration as a social practice (activity) in public schools was at the time of this study conflicted, both in theory and practice. There were varying conceptions of what it meant amongst the participants in both education generally and in language education, and it was difficult to find consensus on any of the issues. There 103 appeared in the literature to be evidence of two ways of looking at integration, both arising out of differing theoretical perspectives and concomitant practices in language education. On the one hand, there was an emphasis on assessments of performance in English or testing and on the placement and movement of students through a model or program of service delivery based on results of these assessments, which involved students' performing in English and moving sequentially based on their scores on levelled tests of English. On the other hand there were issues of culture, using languages to learn, mastering content, and using language contextually in schools which though clearly interdependent, were being dealt with separately and / or received less emphasis through they turned up repeatedly both in studies of full/part mainstreaming, bilingualism, or pull out/ in class support, and in action research in various schools. The data analysis of this thesis wil l be alert to these differences when they occur. To explore the language socialization perspective we wil l examine a functional perspective on language and culture. 2. The Functional Perspective on Language and Culture Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) centres on the idea that language is functional - that is, language exists in a social and cultural context and is used for learning within this context. And so, the context becomes critical to meaning making in any linguistic event in any language. In Painter's words (1989:19): "language is a symbolic system ... the individual is engaged in making meanings in some particular context." 104 A functional approach to language and culture brings to discussions of integration, an emphasis on the discourse of social practices (activities) and it offers an opportunity to consider how meanings are expressed by the forms of the language in sociocultural situations in classrooms where language learners are also learning content and culture. The discussion that ensues considers the importance of the language socialization perspective with respect to the public education of the ESL learner and the social practice (activity) of his/her integration at school. a) Language Socialization within Language and Culture Language socialization involves two processes: a) socialization to use language, and b) socialization through language (Ochs and Schiefflen, 1984). Both of these processes involve both language and culture (Poole, 1992:595); when we learn a language we are socialized into cultural practices, and learning a language involves learning to deal with these practices, therefore the processes are interdependent. According to Cazden (1988), from a language socialization perspective, language is a resource for making meaning for children, and it is learned about in a variety of different contexts. Language is not only viewed as functional, the forms of the language are also viewed as being closely linked to these functions. Language from the language socialization educators point of view also has content, which is presented in social contexts to children as they are socialized into their families and their cultural and linguistic communities. Cazden and others believe that children are engaged in social interactions in language - language is used and talked about in 105 social contexts and not in isolation from these contexts. For instance, research on mother tongue acquisition indicates that young children learning their first languages were not only learning the languages but they were also socialized into the cultural practices of the family and community, hence the use of language acquisition was replaced with the concept of language socialization; either primary or secondary socialization - involving language, content, culture and context. In Cazden's view (1988:112) children were learning more than simply grammar from their caregivers; they were also learning a "world view" during what she has labelled their primary socialization. For instance, young children learning a game were not only learning forms of language related to the game from caregivers, they were also learning the rules of the game culturally, contexts for playing the game, and how to interact socially. Language as a social practice (activity) is to be distinguished from language as a formal system existing for its own sake. b) Language as a Social Practice While young learners of their mother tongues enjoy opportunities for learning language through socialization in their homes and communities with significant others and authentic contexts for learning, students learning English at school are socialized in a different way and the best way to support the socialization of learners at school is less clear. Mohan (2001) and others have argued that language learning should be related to other learning at school, therefore there is a need to better coordinate the learning of language with learning in the content areas I in an effort to provide for students more meaningful and effective school 106 environments for learning. Certainly, this deserves attention given the current multicultural and multilingual diversity in the student population in large urban centres, and given that in many of these centres ESL students represent half or more of the student population. Since the language as a social practice perspective has not been widely discussed in North American second language acquisition literature, let us consider some classroom examples from the researchers own practice in ESL education and mainstream education that point out the need to give greater consideration to language as a social practice (activity): a) Example 1 shows how the increase in student mobility and global cultural understanding has become an issue which needs to be considered by educators in planning for instruction for second language learners, b) Example 2 shows the importance of considering context in assessing the ability of ESL students to accomplish tasks in English and not only i their performance in English, and c) Example 3 show why there is a great need for language teachers and content teachers to collaborate or to be trained in both skills to support student learning of academic content at school. Example 1: The importance of'paying greater attention to increased mobility and the advent of a global sense of culture. Four intermediate students had come to the English language centre for support learning English. The students were sitting around a table having a conversation about differences in their experiences of schools and teachers in their countries of origin. One (student A) was a former refugee from the Sudan who lacked literacy but was fluent orally in English; a second was from India (student B) and was an intermediate learner wrestling with differences between Hindi and 107 English; a third was from Australia (student C) obviously fluent in English but learning some of the dialectical differences between Canadian and Australian English and adjusting culturally to a different society; the fourth was from Hong Kong (Student D) and fluent in Cantonese with a strong academic background but wrestling with making sense of academic English - certainly not the content. Clearly, one could not educationally defend organizing a program for these students, all from the same class, based on an assessment of their knowledge of English alone - one could not justify assessing, placing and moving them through a program of studies in English in isolation of the mainstream class of which they were part, and yet they were all working at the same place in an English workbook. Here the teacher was dealing with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds which required different types of intervention beyond the learning of English in isolation of content - refugee issues, literacy, the differences between the culture and the first language in countries of origin versus Canada, differences in understanding of and experience with school culture to name a few - for the mainstream teacher to ignore the diversity of experience which these learners brought with them to the classroom was to inhibit and not enrich their learning. There was a need in this situation to consciously and intentionally adjust classroom practices to take into consideration the wealth and breadth of educational expertise these students brought with them to school. Similarly, schools in modern urban centres must look at language in terms of social practice (activity) and make instruction suit the diversity (now global diversity) of experience, which students 108 bring with them to school. The students in this situation were reflecting consciously on social practices (or activities) in education, and they were engaged actively in this reflection; the students were using complex cognitive (compare/contrast/evaluate), as well as linguistic skills (the language of compare/ contrast/evaluate) related to social practices (activities they recalled at schools across countries/cultures/societies). In the classroom, to accommodate the lack of English skills, students were completing worksheets which offered them drills in English forms - grammar rules, punctuation, correctness of sentence structure and other exercises; in the English language centre they were using language as a resource for sharing and developing their knowledge of the world and of the social practices (or activities) within this world. In this authentic classroom situation, the learners' experiences of language and culture were not only interwoven but were also brought to the task of discovering the culture of the school community in Canada and of contributing actively to this school culture, something that existed outside of a traditional approach to learning language in isolation of the actual context for its use. Example 2: The importance of considering context A student who recently arrived from China was enrolled in a mainstream classroom and was being pulled out for beginner instruction in English. As a beginner he was not permitted to take a Ministry Math test. He asked his teacher to try to take the test. The teacher explained the task to him in each section of the test, and he completed the content. The student scored the highest mark in the class, although the test result was not recorded and reported to the Ministry as one of the 'official' results of the test. Clearly, the student, a beginner in English acquisition, "fully met the expectations for understanding the content of mathematics" - he could use language as a resource or tool for learning once its use contextually was explained, although his English language skills (knowledge of forms and conventions of the language) were "not yet within expectations for learning," according to the education Ministry's descriptors of these skills. In this situation, it would be easy to conclude that the student was unable to master the content because of his inability to produce or understand forms of the English language; indeed he scored at a low level on the Woodcock reading test and was placed in the beginner category of a matrices being used to place him in a program for English language instruction in isolation of content. But was this the right conclusion and what was the best practice in terms of developing a language-learning situation for this student? Would the student benefit more from a program that moved him sequentially through a series of exercises in English in isolation of content until his English was well enough established to teach content, or would the student benefit more from an educational experience that offered a coordinated approach to teaching him language and content at the same time? Example 3: The importance of considering relationships between language and content or language in use and not language in isolation that exists for its own sake A student from Vietnam was immersed in a mainstream science (biology) classroom without additional instruction in English. As a beginner he wrestled with how to use language to express his ideas about the content of curriculum in various 110 contexts. Consider an example, where the student was required to write a causal explanation on a test. The question was a scientific explanation requiring the student to be able to compare and contrast two kinds of experiments, and to evaluate the use of one kind of experiment with group A versus group B. Clearly, from the response written by the student, there was evidence of some marginal understanding of the content, as well as a need for support putting together the language needed to answer the question. In a classroom situation with only content instruction, there was no back up language support or instruction for the student. The test question and the answer given by the student were: Question: Explain why double blind experiments are used in human experimentation but not in rat experimentation. Student Answer: Because human has a smart mind than rats In other words rats don't have the mind of its own. As a result scientist tend to use double blind in human to guarantee the result. Double blind is an experiment where both people - the person, giving the drug, and the person receiving the drug, do not know what the drug is. This is good because they do not know which one is bad or good. In a classroom situation where integration was considered solely from the perspective of language in isolation of content, or language for its own sake, the student would not be ready for content instruction. On the other hand, clearly the student has some, albeit a marginal understanding of the content and perhaps with better coordinated language and content instruction may be able to express ideas more clearly. In this kind of an environment, the task of the content teacher would be to explain the content, and the language teacher to work with the language learner building the knowledge of the language needed to be able to I l l compare/contrast ideas, and to evaluate social practices (activities), here experimentation on animals versus humans. To give another example, the science teacher (chemistry) asked the student the following question and received the answer recorded below. Again, the ESL student was immersed in a mainstream science (chemistry) classroom without additional instruction in English. Question: Does doubling the concentration of H C L double the rate of reaction - why or why not? Student Answer: Doubling the H C L does not double the rate. Double the concentration every time the reaction rate increase by different factors because magnesium available for each reaction is same. Once again there is evidence that the student is not only wrestling to express his subject matter understanding within a content classroom but also with how to use forms of the language to express his understanding of it. A coordinated approach to language and content instruction would offer the student an opportunity to learn the language needed to express his ideas about this science content. Learning the language in isolation of content would not necessarily support the language learners needs in this classroom; learning content without language support would limit the students opportunities to experience academic success by learning to express his conceptual understanding of content. A coordinated approach that consciously and intentionally teaches language and content to this student would be best practice. 112 c) Primary and Secondary Language Socialization There is general agreement amongst many researchers who have studied child language that young children learn the pragmatics of language through participating in a variety of interactions in their social and cultural communities with adult caregivers (Cazden, 1988; Ochs, 1983; Hymes, 1978; Halliday, 1978; Schiefflin, 1983). While learning in these situations occurs through a process of primary language socialization, in the present study, language functions within what Cazden (1988:63) and others have referred to as "secondary socializations" that is the context for learning pragmatic, syntactic and semantic competence is a planned one within an organization - a public school which has been created for learning. Some of the constraints imposed by this environment with its secondary socializing agents are: a) the agents of socialization may not be able to provide immediate feedback because of the sheer number of language learners whose education is under supervision, and/or b) the physical, social and cultural contexts for learning and the content of this learning may be unfamiliar or strange, and/or c) the language learner begins the process at a later age with an already developed first or home language and d) already possessing an experience of primary socialization. Methods of providing optimal learning situations for ESL students from culturally and linguistically diverse communities who dominate organizations of public education in urban centres are not clear. As Cazden, (1998: 64) notes: How secondary socializations can be aided in school is less clear, and educational controversies continue over them as to the most effective combination of implicit immersion and explicit instruction in public education. While contexts for learning in situations of primary socialization are comfortable for learners in that they are immediate and familiar (home, family and community gathering places); often cited as the most effective learning environments with hands on and immediate feedback from agents of socialization (caregivers), the contexts provided for learning in situations of secondary socialization such as public schools are less clear. In these situations, teachers must develop a plan for the language socialization of the ESL learner that takes account of his/her expertise at learning language(s) and perhaps at doing school in another cultural and social community, and that at the same time is systematic, conscious and intentional in its outlook. d) Language as Culture Texts arise in social contexts; they are one mode and perhaps the most pervasive one of manifesting culture. There is a relation between texts and the social factors that shape their meanings, which needs examining. SFL according to Halliday and Martin (1993:23) is concerned with language as a "system for constructing meaning, rather than a conduit through which thoughts and feelings are poured" - language is therefore a meaning making not a meaning expressing system. Language is presented at school to ESL students through the discourse of texts which are removed from experience, organized according to subject specific patterns that are not necessarily sensible or familiar culturally to linguistically 114 diverse groups of students, and may contain conceptual knowledge that may be socially and culturally new and which may vary from one context to another (e.g. conductor in science versus conductor of an orchestra), therefore, students must be taught to work with the discourse of texts, both intentionally and consciously by their teachers. They also need to be taught their cultural relevance since language is a system for conveying meanings of the school culture and of the culture of the larger community. e) Language as Action Halliday's (SFL) perspective on language learning "avoids the simplistic view of language learning as skills training" (1989:19, Painter). Language learning is also a social and a cultural process that involves the language socialization of the learner. Language learning is viewed by Halliday (1975,1986,1988,1993,1994) as an active, interacting system of meaning making acts, clearly developed to suit both the child and the caregiver and meet both of their needs. Language is instrumental to meeting needs of human interaction and has socio-cultural relevance. From this point of view, language acquisition can only be a social process - because it is interactive, there is ongoing social action, and it is constructed based on reflection on the use of language by the language learner in action, or to put it another way any act is a socially meaningful unit of action produced by the interaction of a number of actors within various situations. 115 f) Grammar as Meaning SFL is oriented to the description of language as a resource for meaning rather than as a system of rules. According to Painter (1989:20) who concurs with Halliday "grammatical structures are functional; they serve to make meanings" and teaching practices should help learners to see form/function as related. In Painter's own (1989:29) words: teaching may focus on decontextualized sentence construction exercises, which ignore language as a meaning making system ... mastery of such skills would not take the learner very far since it ignores the use of meaning. Meanings are social constructs, have semantic potential, depend on circumstances and are contextual. Since from this perspective, grammar exists as part of texts and not for its own sake, SFL is concerned with the discourse of texts rather than sentences as the basic unit through which meaning is negotiated. SFL focuses on mutually predictive relations between the discourse of texts and social contexts rather than on texts as decontextualized structural entities in their own right; meanings are exchanged in interpersonal contexts and as Hasan notes (1992:19): Each text is an 'individual'; each has a distinct identity in the sense That it is not the replication of any other text.... a text is interpretable only in light of the systems as the speakers share them. Texts have socio-cultural relevance - they are an instrument or a tool for communication and their meaning depends upon the context. Language teaching which examines grammar in isolation of the context fails to address these issues. As previously indicated in the foregoing, multicultural education, special education, and English second language education have not adequately collaborated 116 to investigate the activity of integration and how it has been evolving as a consequence of educational ideologies in all three fields. The present study began to explore some of the ways in which the three fields overlap and could work together in the best interest of the ESL learner's integration at school. In addition, there are other reasons to consider the socialization of the language learner because schools have changed, the social identities of the second language learner have become important to consider given the diversity of experience culturally and linguistically of any one student, and within the context for schooling and a number of researchers would want to place greater emphasis on the students as active agents. 3. The Changing Face of Urban Schools - The Influence of Global Culture In the words of Glasser (1992: 61-72) on the provision of quality education -"in order for a school community to change its schooling practices it must first have the wi l l to do so." The key then for creating change in policies and practices related to the integration of the ESL learner is to have the "wi l l " to change. Why are these changes needed? According to Glasser and others (Kunc, 1992; Villa and Thousand, 1992), there are five main reasons for looking at changing public education systems. The first has to do with the characteristics of the students themselves. In recent years students have changed dramatically so that there is a great increase in the number of students from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds, (to this I would add linguistic diversity, presently absent from the discussion). Not only must education cope with this dramatic change in student demographics but also added to it are an increase in poverty and non-traditional families, that is, families with 117 other than the two traditional parents. Sheppard (1994) notes that the increase in ESL populations in the Untied States from the 1980's to the present is massive and continuous. They do not foresee that this wil l change but rather see the classroom of the future as multiethnic, multiracial and multilingual. Teachers wi l l need to develop skills at dealing with integrating ESL learners. Next, there is the issue of society and how it has changed. According to Glasser, society is now international in terms of marketplace. As a consequence, demographics wi l l continue to fluctuate with economic market fluctuations, restraint and resources. With an international marketplace comes rapid change, an information based and communication dependent society, and increased interdependence on a worldwide basis. To survive in this changing world education must be different. There wi l l be increased mobility of students and waves of immigration and/or out migration wi l l be the norm. Demographic shifts wi l l necessitate a more flexible approach to education. Students require problem-solving skills, skills at human interaction, self-discovery, higher-level thinking and interest in self-education. In addition, (and of interest to the ESL situation) schools must begin "to model the equity and parity they wil l be expected to demonstrate with future co-workers of diverse skills, backgrounds, cultures and values" Villa and Thousand (1992:111). Thirdly, there is a need for the educators who work in our schools to change -they are the "problem to be fixed" not the learner (Villa and Thousand, 1992:111). Teachers and other educators often lack both the skill needed to teach diverse groups 118 of students, and the will to learn how to teach more effectively to meet the demands of a rapidly changing school system. Flexibility and openness to learning and change is required of educators today, and wil l be increasingly required of educators in the future. In addition, the generalist wi l l need more specialist tiaining. Changes are also needed within the organizational structure, which generally lacks the ability to coordinate ideas and promote teaming but instead thwarts the development of positive interdependence. Until organizations look at the imbalances, which they create in terms of power relationships, and until they realign power to better include diverse families in education, they wil l not have the necessary preconditions to make progress in educating more effectively. A fifth condition for change requires that we examine the loss of culture within organizations. With advancements worldwide the "loss of an organizations culture" becomes an "inevitable result of change," culture being a "socially transmitted set of deep patterns of thinking and ways of acting that give meaning to human experiences" (Villa and Thousand, 1992:115). People are emotionally attached to values, mottos, heroes, rituals, ceremonies, and stories, which define for them, culture. When change threatens this emotional attachment they often dig in and resist the change. Given this situation, Villa and Thousand (1992:115 - 116) see the need for "leaders within the school to envision, create, reshape and maintain a different school culture." We, as educators have failed to understand the complexity of the organization of a school and have lacked the courage to adequately deal with the potential conflict and turmoil this complexity might cause; we need to see the 119 "big picture" beyond the everyday actions so that due consideration is given to the social, (I would add linguistic) cultural, political and economic contexts of schooling. At the moment no one is backing off and looking at the school as a total cultural system and at the ways in which the elements of this system articulate and bear upon one another. And, yet there is evidence in research to suggest that we should (Mohan, 1990; Mohan et al., 2001). We are as Eisner (1971:204) states: ... all victims of large scale organization, of the specialization that comes with largeness, of the blindness that comes with specialized preoccupations. And, blindly we try to adapt to the problems of large organizations by creating new specialized roles. It is time to rethink these roles with regard to ESL integration given the historical origins of the policy and practices related to integration, given what is currently pedagogically sound, and given the need to change education so that organizations become places of learning prepared to change regularly to meet the worldwide challenges of an increasingly mobile, linguistically and culturally diverse student community. 4. The Changing Social Identity of the ESL Learner and ESL Integration Individuals are socialized into a new society. Most recently, there has been a focus on looking at this socialization of self in relation to others, human beings are more frequently being viewed as agents who take intentional or deliberate actions while pursuing a goal (see, for example, Harre, 1993; Auerbach, 1993; Taylor, 1996; N g et al., 1995; McKay and Wong, 1996). The self is currently seen as being multiple sited, dynamic, conflictual and both capable of creation and created by social forces. 120 In line with this there is a need to rethink social roles and positioning in the school and the classroom. We have long known that language plays a significant role in establishing one's identity because it is closely tied to the social and cultural norms of the community of which one is a member. For example, it is a generally understood fact that segregated schooling with its assimilationist bent had a negative impact on the learner. Language is part of the learner's sense of self and facility in the primary language helped this self evolve. To interfere with the ESL learners' sense of self can only work to the detriment of his/her academic success (see, for example, Thomas and Collier, 1997; Watt, Roessingh and Bosetti, 1996). To refuse to view the language learner as one who negotiates this sense of self while learning language and content and culture is to do a disservice to his/her public education. As Spach-Tufts (1997) notes, students have "multiple identities and draw on multiple resources." Researchers need to reflect this complexity in discussions of issues related to language learning and culture. Teachers have long been known to disagree professionally as they bring to the task of teaching a variety of identities and positions, which affect how they organize and teach curriculum. For example, some teachers may impose the values of the historically dominant culture (e.g. Anglo-Saxon) on all students. Many teachers still struggle with the notion that to learn English one must speak only in English, this in spite of the large body of research that suggests the contrary is the case (see, for example, TESOL Standards, 1997; Thomas and Collier, 1997). Teachers 121 language behaviours are culturally motivated (see, Poole, 1992) and they too negotiate and hold positions within the school based on theoretical and practical knowledge and understanding. And, parents arrive at school with philosophical ideas about teaching, learning and parenting. Many parents are also excluded from meaningful discussions and decision-making about schools because they lack the language, which has prestige and power within the instructional milieu of which, their children are part. McKay and Wong (1996:577-578) have begun to examine the ESL learner in terms of self, social positioning and multiple identities and as a result note the need for paying greater attention to the language learner in a "contextualized" sense. For a long time students of ESL were examined in terms of the errors they made and/or the interference of these errors in learning English relative to native-speaker proficiency. Later, the learner came into focus as the emphasis in research shifted to "process" and so studies examined "learner strategy training," retrospective and reflective accounts of the learner. However, while there has been some progress in the area of exarnining the second language learner - we are getting closer to the learner rather than operating outside of the learner - research has not given adequate attention to the social and cultural identities of the ESL learner. Neither has it explored how the focus on program arrangements and service delivery in terms of integration has placed the ESL learner in opposition to other mainstream learners. There is a need to radically redefine the learner within the context of the "multiple identities" the language learner assumes while negotiating a place in a complex school culture through language(s), content, culture and social activity (McKay and Wong, 1996:578-579). When ESL learners learn in English, they negotiate curriculum content in English, cope with peer relationships in more than one language, interact with teachers who have a variety of philosophical positions regarding the "learning of English" and "culture," cope with labels and streaming (assessment, placement, and movement), and assume a variety of evolving roles with parents. A l l of these complexities influence the social identities the learners are negotiating and must be taken into consideration in discussions of "integration' and "mamstreaming" because it is the learner who is actually doing the "integrating" internally. In addition to the language learner wrestling with his/her position in the society, school and classroom, ESL teachers and parents are also involved in negotiating places in the school community. Research that looks at the multiple identities assumed by those involved in integration and mamstieaming, and at the patterns that are internalized as a result of negotiating these roles is needed. In McKay and Wong's (1996:604) words, we need to make an attempt to "understand the immigrant second learner as a complex social being" and the school and the ESL classroom need to be viewed as "contestatory discursive sites," particularly given times of "rapid demographic changes." Research that looks at the multiple identities assumed by those involved in integration and mamstieaming, and at the patterns that are internalized as a result of negotiating these roles under various policies is needed. 123 5. Exploring Integration as an Activity with Active Social Agents To facilitate the exploration of integration from a perspective of greater depth and balance in this study the participants in the practice of ESL integration were viewed as active social agents with perspectives of integration as a social practice (activity) in terms of the theories and practices they articulated at various times. It was hoped that this would support greater examination of the social practice (activity) of ESL integration and work toward balancing the present emphasis on service delivery or assessment, placement and movement in public schools (testing) with a viewpoint that also considers equally the relationship between language learning, and the learning of content and culture. Activity theory is behind this process. a) Activity Theory - an Introduction Activity theory facilitates discussion of context and is an important factor to consider in "illuminating context" because it provides a richer and more meaningful way to look at this context in that both practice (experience) and the application of this practice (reflection/theory/knowing) are considered. This is consistent with Dewey's (1916) notion that knowledge is derived from a higher source than just practical activity; understanding involves both theory and practice. b) The Origins Traditional accounts of activity theory may be traced back to Aristotle and Plato who made a distinction in the conduct of human activity between theoretical 124 knowledge (reason) and practical knowledge (experience). Theoretical knowledge referred to affairs whose existence could be verified - ideals and spiritual reason. Practical knowledge on the other hand, was practiced, material, observable and short lived (Hamilton, 1994: 62-63). Later, Kant argued for a model of human rationality or knowing. He described human knowledge as more than just the result of experience and discussed the "inside the head processes of the knowing subject." For Kant there was a distinction between "scientific reason" and "practical reason," the former a world of "strict causal determinism" (what is), the latter, applied social research aimed toward the application of "moral judgments in the realm of human action" (what ought to be) (Hamilton, 1994:62-62). Habermas too espoused connections between knowledge, method and human interests (Hamilton, 1994:67). Habermas viewed social research as an "interactive process" between "unreflected consciousness" and "self-reflection" - for Habermas this would lead to a vision that "knowledge and interest are one" (Hamilton, 1994:67). In qualitative studies of culture Spradley (1980: 5-6) argued that the participants in any situation brought to that situation cultural knowledge and understanding based on individual as well as collective experience. This knowledge and experience affected the interpretation of behaviour in human activities and an understanding of how was necessary in order to understand both the context of the situation, as well as its content in all its cultural complexity. 125 As an example, Spradley (1980:6) describes an activity in which the police are kneeling over and trying to save a heart attack victim by giving her cardiac massage and oxygen. A crowd of onlookers interpret the actions of the police as beating the woman, therefore, cruel and brutal. In this situation, the social and cultural knowledge the participants have affect their practices - the police are viewed by the onlookers from their past knowledge and experience of police brutality, and the police have knowledge and experience of how to save heart attack victims. c) Recent Approaches More recently, interest in studying social practice (human activity) from the point of view of knowledge or theoretical understanding, and practice or experience, as well as, the interconnections between the two, has become the subject of research and discussion in both cognitive and social psychology (see, for example, Taylor, 1994; Harre, 1993; Von Cranach, 1992). Increasingly, attention is being given to the connections between social action or practice and its relationship to social knowledge or theoretical understanding, both enacted, given meaning and altered through systems of discourse and its use; from the perspective of Harre and others "cognition lives in discourse" not "in the head" (Harre, 1993:95). Rom Harre (1993:95) describes all social encounters or human activity as "processes of interaction" with "dynamics." These interactions or experiences are realized "according to local norms" and are "performed" by "active agents," active because they have an understanding or knowledge of culturally accepted norms that come into play during the course of "realizing projects" (Harre, 1993:123). In Harre's own (1993:107) words, " . . . social behaviour is the product of the joint actions of intelligent and knowledgeable agents acting to further some end or another." In examining a social practice, he (1993:95) defines discourse as " a sequence of jointly produced acts," and he (1993:117) makes a distinction between discourse as it is used to accomplish social acts (action/actively) and discourse to "comment on and theorize about" (texts) these social acts. It is the study of the interaction of the two and how they drive each other that is most mteresting to Harre. Recent notions of activity have been considered and applied to the activity under study in this research - integration. Integration practices as social practices were considered from the point of view of activity, having both an experiential component (by individuals and groups as practice) and a knowledge base or theoretical component (cultural norms, values, beliefs, principles, formal/informal knowledge and understanding) from which the experience or action situation could be viewed. d) Integration as a Dilemmatic Social Practice or Activity Active social agents engaged in a social practice or activity any kind may have either unified and/or differing viewpoints of both theory and practice in any field. Evidence for this notion is found in recent work in social psychology. This research that considers the social psychology of thinking tends to look at the opposing themes that the ideology participants bring to a situation offers; these opposing themes reflecting multiple goals and beliefs (or theories and practices) and serving as alternatives for action (see, Billig, 1987). 127 Applied in a recent study of cooperative learning and Chinese ESL students, Liang, (1998:11-12) considered cooperative learning as "a potentially dilemmatic situation" in which students held "multiple and conflicting beliefs and goals" and at times as a consequence had "difficult choices to make." Active social agents engaged in a social practice or activity of integrating ESL learners could have unified and/or differing viewpoints about both the theory and practice of integration in a similar fashion. 6. Situating The Present Study With reference to the theoretical ideologies presented in this review, this study assumes a number of perspectives and views. First, the study views language as a system for constructing meaning in context - influenced by social and cultural situations. Next, the study assumes that integration as a social practice (activity) involves the second language learner in a process of learning academic content, and culture, in addition to learning language in the context of these processes as suggested in the TESOL Standards. In addition, the study views the participants as social agents who act not only purposefully but also as individuals and groups who may hold multiple and conflicted views of the social practice or activity of the integration of ESL learners during public education. 128 Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology A. The Methodology I believe that the process of inquiry in science is the same whatever method is used and that the reheat into paradigms effectively stultifies debate and hampers progress. (Hammersley, 1992:102) 1. Introduction In his book, "what's wrong with Ethnography?" Martyn Hammersley (1992) argues for a new methodological approach or framework for the conducting and analyzing of research in the social sciences. In his view, the traditional dichotomy used in social sciences research that pits qualitative methodology against quantitative methodology is no longer useful, even in studies where both approaches are used in a complementary discussion. Instead, Hammersely sees the need for a "deconstruction of quantitative and qualitative method into a more complex array of (research) options" (p.202). The reason for this shift or movement away from traditional methodology has to do with the inability of either method to "capture the variety of strategies that one finds deployed in social research" (p.183), in addition to concerns of a philosophical nature - epistemological debate today is more diverse and complex than " a dialogue between only two positions" (p. 183). As Hammersley puts it: ... in doing research we are not faced with a fork in the road, with two well-defined alternative routes between which to choose. The research process is more like finding one's way through a maze. And it is a rather badly kept and complex maze; where paths are not always clearly distinct, and also wind back on one another; and where one can never be entirely certain that one has reached the centre. (Pp. 183-184). 129 2. Rationale This researcher adopted this vision, and used a mixed methods framework for the conduct of this research for several reasons. A mixed methods approach: i) facilitated the development of a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem and its context from the plurality of perspectives that existed within a diverse school district and community, o ii) enabled the researcher to circumvent the limitations (data collection and analysis) imposed upon the study if the researcher had adopted either a qualitative approach or a quantitative approach, as traditionally is the case in designing research methodologies, iii) assisted the researcher in developing the notion of "activity" as central to the conduct of research studies in the social sciences, education being one of these social sciences, enabled the researcher to deal with the limitations of studies of discourse analysis which have a history of analyzing units quantitatively, missing or omitting vital aspects of the context of the discourse that may be discovered and analyzed qualitatively, iv) supported the researcher's exploratory movement beyond the deductive limits of quantitative analysis, to a richer description and illumination of the context of the study, and v) provided the researcher with an opportunity to move beyond the inductive limits of qualitative analysis, to increase the generalizability of the study and reduce bias, and finally, vi) enabled the researcher to capitalize on the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative methods, and in so doing, creating an exploratory study of greater depth to increase understanding of the problem(s) being researched. Each of these reasons has been developed in greater detail throughout this chapter. To do so most effectively, it was necessary to discuss the following topics: mixed methods approaches: advantages and limitations, quantitative methodology: advantages and limitations, and qualitative methodology: advantages and limitations. This discussion of these topics is offered within the context of the present study - an exploratory and discovery oriented research study. The researcher used a mixed methods approach with an emphasis on qualitative analysis, to seek an understanding of issues housed in complex and detailed social, cultural and linguistic circumstances. The purpose of using a mixed methods approach in the present study was to give depth and breadth to the results to increase understanding of complex social practices related to the integration of students learning English as a second or additional language (ESL) in a school district and its associated communities. To conduct this study using only qualitative or quantitative methods would have limited and obscured the complexity of the study and rendered it less effective. This study benefited from capitalizing on the rich description offered by qualitative methodology and from the opportunity to use quantitative analysis in some 131 situations, as helpful, adding to its detail, increasing its generalizability and reducing the opportunity for bias. 3. Mixed Methods Approaches Mixed methods approaches have come into popularity in recent years, originally emanating from studies in psychology in the 1950's. Numerous researchers have concluded that qualitative and quantitative methods are best viewed as "complementary" or the ends of the same "continuum" rather than being viewed as "rival camps" or "dichotomous entities" (Tick, 1979, Hammersley, 1992, Creswell, 1994). Arguments for mixing methods are common - usually centred around the strengths and weaknesses found in "single method designs." Mixed methods designs overcome these individual strengths and weaknesses, increasing the validity, reliability, and the depth of the research by exploiting the strengths of individual methods, thus neutralizing the weaknesses - if used effectively (Tick, 1979:602 - 603). Creswell (1994:184) describes a mixed methodological design as one in which the "author collects both qualitative and quantitative data" and presents "both themes and statistical analysis." a) Background Information In the late 1970's researchers such as Denzin and Jick used the term "triangulation" to describe and define mixed methods approaches to research design, emanating from its use in navigation and the military. The idea in survey research was to locate an object by placing it in a triangle in the centre of its 132 surroundings. For the research community, this came to be the term used to mean the combination of research methodologies in one study to explore the same phenomenon (Tick, 1979). Janesick (1992:215) describes triangulation as a "heuristic tool" which supports the reporting of research findings in one study, both "inductively in terms of patterns, trends, or themes" and "deductively, so that data can be quantified and analyzed statistically." b) Advantages Advantages of using a mixed methods approach to research methodology are many, summarized as follows. Jick (1979:608) describes the "overall strength" of the multimethod design as one of allowing researchers to be "more confident in their results." Other strengths according to Jick include: i) opportunities to add new methods to traditional data collection methods to increase understanding, ii) the possibility of enriched explanations due to opportunities to pay more attention to the divergence of results, iii) the synthesis and/or integration of various theories, and iv) opportunities to critically test competing theories (Jick, 1979:608-610). Creswell (1994:184) adds to this list the opportunity for the researcher "to extend the breadth of the inquiry" by "triangulating or converging findings" and by "elaborating on results." In his discussions of triangulation, Jick (1979:603) concludes that triangulation can be used to "uncover some unique variance," perhaps neglected in a single method design, and at the same time to "capture a more complete, holistic and contextual portrayal of the units under study." From Jick's point of view, this 133 enables the researcher to use triangulation: i) to examine the same phenomenon from multiple perspectives, and ii) to enrich understanding about the phenomenon under study by extending the depth of the study. Jick (1979:604) describes numerous attempts to use triangulation to "integrate fieldwork and survey methods" in the social sciences, and gives some "particularly good" examples of studies combining or mixing methods. He concludes that combining methods brings to fieldwork, quantification, that is "systematized observations, sampling and quantifiable schemes for coding data," both increasing the "generalizability" of studies and "reducing bias." In return, qualitative research or fieldwork in combination with the foregoing, offers an opportunity for the researcher to "illuminate context," to "clarify" and "validate" results through "holistic observation" of social practices (Jick, 1979:604). More recently, Creswell (1994:175) identifies several researchers (Grant and Fine, 1992;Greene, Caracelli and Graham, 1989; Mathison, 1988; Swanson, 1992) who have argued for a mixed methods approach to research design for several reasons, summarized in Creswell (1994:175) from Greene's work in 1989 as follows: • triangulation in the classic sense of seeking convergence of results • complementary, in that overlapping and different facets of a phenomenon may emerge (e.g. peeling the layers of an onion) • developmentally, wherein the first method is used sequentially to inform the second method • initiation, wherein contradictions and fresh perspectives emerge • expansion, wherein the mixed methods add scope and breadth to a study 134 c) Disadvantages Criticisms of mixed methods approaches come from those whom Creswell (1994:176) describes as the "purists" who assert that methods should not be mixed under any circumstances. Jick (1979:605) states that although there are many examples of studies mixing methods at universities, "this model of research and its advantages have not been appreciated" and tend to be ignored in many articles and journals which tend to highlight and focus on quantitative methods only. Hammersley's (1992:161) argument against criticisms of mixed methods approaches adds to the understanding that "a large proportion of researchers (including many that are registered as qualitative) combine methodologies." He (1992:159) challenges criticisms of mixed methods approaches by noting that single method studies are of "limited use" and carry "some danger" because they tend to "obscure" the complexity of the issues involved in social research. For Hammersley (1992:160-161) a more thoughtful approach requires the use of numerous strategies including the "practicality of the various strategies given the circumstances in which the inquiry is to be carried out." He (1992:172) goes on to note that a focus on the two dichotomies presented traditionally in research studies has tended to "render our decisions less effective than they might otherwise be." Perhaps the "purists" are best addressed by Creswell (1994:178) when he states that the "overall design" of mixed methods approaches to research "best mirror the research process of working back and forth between inductive and 135 deductive models of thinking in a research study" - something we all do, whether or not we are prepared to admit it. d) Rationale For the purposes of this research, a mixed method approach offered the researcher an opportunity to delve into the complexity of a large urban and diverse school district and to better represent the multiple perspectives, connections and relationships (parents/ guardians, students, teachers, administrators, district staff, government) that bear on the social practices (here, social practices related to integration) in that district and its related communities. Integration practices for students learning ESL was researched by considering the activity (integration) within the context of the life of the organization and its related constituent school communities. A mixed method approach facilitated examining the issues from multiple perspectives, enabled the researcher to triangulate or converge findings, and gave the study greater depth and detail, capitalizing on the advantages of both statistical method and rich description. 4. Qualitative Methods According to Denzin and Lincoln's (1994:3) the "separate and multiple meanings of the methods of qualitative research make it difficult for researchers to agree on any essential definition for the field, for it is never just one thing." Given these constraints, Denzin and Lincoln (1994:2) offer the following generic definition: Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative 136 researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Other definitions of qualitative research examine qualitative research within the context of its research paradigms and its development and growth over time. In this regard, Creswell (1994:1) offers the following definition: ... an inquiry process of understanding a social or human problem based on building complex, holistic picture, formed with word, reporting detailed views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting. He describes related paradigms as constructivist theory, naturalist theory, interpretive, postpositivist, or postmodernism (Creswell, 1994:1). Denzin and Lincoln (1994:1-3) add to these paradigms from later methodology poststructural, cultural and interpretive studies, positivism, hermeneutics, semiotics, phenomenology, feminism and critical theory among others. Though there is no distinct paradigm with which one may associate qualitative research there is a multiplicity of designs with similar features. And, as Guba and Lincoln note (1994:105), "both qualitative and quantitative methods may be used with any research paradigm" (1994:105). a) Advantages The advantages of conducting research with qualitative methodology are many. Qualitative research methodology facilitates the framing and discussion of research problems in situations where the context for the research is multifaceted and complex because there are a number of different interest groups involved 137 (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). In the present study this wil l be of primary importance. Qualitative methods wi l l enable the researcher to get at some of the plurality of perspectives that exist in a diverse school district, operated through the ongoing interaction of numerous interest groups - parents, teachers, students, and administrators to name a few, at an area, district and provincial level. Qualitative methodology facilitates discussion about situational constraints and enables the researcher to provide rich and detailed descriptions of what is being studied (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Again, in this study, this facilitated the description of a culturally and linguistically diverse student population, learning in a school community under numerous situational constraints, both self-imposed and influenced by others. Not to include these details in the research would be to obscure the complexity of the issues in this research. Perhaps most importantly, qualitative methods enable the study of issues in all their complexity, including their "multi" social and cultural complexity, and the examination of the plurality of perspectives that is characteristic of today's research in learning organizations. The researcher is able to identify the meanings people attach to experience and to understanding, hence there are opportunities for the field to define terms and articulate their meanings, rather than the researcher making his/her own assumptions about the field (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). In this research it provided opportunities for the researcher to examine how the field defines, understands and practices integration. b) Disadvantages Limitations in using qualitative methodology are generally related to the difficulty that arises in replicating research and in ensuring that the researcher's involvement in the situation does not lead to a misinterpretation of what is occurring in that situation. In this situation, there is neither the need to replicate the research exactly - the context-bound nature of the research and its limitations in terms of generalizability are readily acknowledged. Nor is the researcher directly involved in the process (integration) under study, therefore, observations may be included without fear of bias. c) Rationale Creswell (1994:21) asserts that "one of the chief reasons for a qualitative study is that the study is exploratory" and that in this situation "the researcher seeks to listen to informants and to build a picture based on their ideas." In this study, qualitative research is conducted for this purpose and is used predominately to "illuminate context" to increase understanding. Qualitative methods facilitated the painting of a rich and comprehensive picture of the activity (integration) from multiple perspectives and, hence, are the "glue" that brings this study together. This researcher adopted Janesick's (1994:216) notion that qualitative research is a necessary part of research conducted with people, in her words, "qualitative research is adapted, changed and redesigned as the study proceeds, because of the social realities of doing research amongst and with the living." 139 5. Quantitative Methods Quantitative research has its origins in the natural sciences with studies of nature or natural phenomena. Surveys, laboratory experiments, hypothesis testing and numerical methods have long assisted quantitative researchers in analyzing behaviours. Quantitative research involves systematic measurement. Data is collected and analyzed in an experimental or quasi-experimental way with statistical methods for relationships between predetermined variables. The setting is controlled and the analysis usually deductive. a) Advantages The main advantage of using quantitative methodology is the consideration that the researcher is removed from the situation; therefore, the research is thought to be free from bias. Guba and Lincoln (1992:106) note that many researchers hold to the notion that "only quantitative data are valid or of quality in research." b) Disadvantages Limitations are many, perhaps, most importantly the lack of recognition that there is an interaction between the research and the researcher. Quantitative research is valued for its remote, empirical qualities - the researcher removed from what/whom is being researched. Yet, the question most frequently asked is: Is it possible for a researcher not to interact with that being researched? Is it possible to research free of context? Critical researchers would argue that empirical data is 140 "dependent upon the researcher's own ideological assumptions" and is therefore never free of the researcher's perceptions (Kincheloe and McLaren, 1994:144). Quantitative research has also been criticized for its lack of description. The omission of detail takes away from the richness of the report and may in fact stultify findings. In Kincheloe and McLaren's (1994:144) words, "the meaning of an experience" is not "self-evident" but wil l depend on "the struggle over the interpretation and definition of that experience." c) Rationale For the purposes of this research, quantitative methods were employed to support qualitative methods, as/if needed, and to provide detail in terms of statistical data analysis as needed. B. Research Design This study used a mixed methods approach to research with an emphasis on qualitative method. The following model was used to articulate the research design in this document, adapted from Hammersley's sketch in "what's wrong with Ethnography?" (1992:184), figure 1. Figure 1. Research Design The Problem -> Selection of —> Data —> Data -> Results Cases Collection Analysis I I Case Study Surveys Documents Interviews Researcher's Notes 141 The development of the model follows. This research was exploratory in nature and scope and was meant to direct further research. 1. Statement of the Problem In the past ten years, ESL students, grades 4 through 12, speaking over one hundred languages from more than thirty different ethnic groups and a wide variety of countries had arrived in the school district under study (Gunderson, 1995). This had an enormous impact on the district, rapidly changing the student population to one where second language speakers predominated commanding changes in the teaching practices to accommodate the diversity of the student population. Some teachers, administrators and others moved with the change, others continued to resist this diversity and were frustrated with the notion of teaching students with a wide range of interests, abilities, and social, cultural and academic histories. Traditional practices continue with many ESL students moving on the basis of their English test scores from a sheltered ESL class, into the mainstream, in most cases within two to three years; sometimes a transitional program forming part of this move and delaying the movement another couple of years. The greatly increased number of ESL students in mainstream classrooms made integration a problem frequently articulated in forums where ESL issues are discussed. For example, three recent reviews of the district (the Vancouver School Board ESL Management Review (1995) - an internal review; Cumming, A. (1995) - an external review; and a BCTF survey of teachers - Naylor, C. (1994) conducted by three separate organizations/individuals with different agendas have all found 142 integration to be a major concern, and yet, when one examines these documents, there is not even agreement on what integration means. In spite of the several reviews that have been conducted and the numerous initiatives that have been undertaken, little progress appears evident in this area in the district. The need for clarity regarding integration practices and ESL students was immediately evident. There was also a need to pay greater attention to recent research and implied concepts of integration such as the one recently developed in the TESOL Standards. To facilitate this need and to add to the growing interest in program quality and organizational evaluation in the field of second language education, this research was organized to allow description of the wider social and cultural contexts informing integration practices for students learning ESL in this school district. Factors influencing these practices have been explored, both in terms of the evolution of integration practices for students of ESL on an area, district, and provincial level, and the adoption of these practices in the school district. 2. Exploratory Questions Specifically, this inquiry was concerned with discovering the "big picture" -integration was viewed as a social practice or an activity in an organization. The study explicitly raised the question: How was the integration of ESL learners practiced by various participants in an organization, both actively and in writing (text)? A number of related questions arose out of this central thought: a) How did the participants in the organization(s) in this study view the activity or social practice of the integration of ESL learners (surveys, interviews), more specifically: 143 i) How did participants define integration? ii) Was there a plurality of perspectives on the part of the participants and was there consensus amid this plurality? iii) What specifically were the integration practices in schools? iv) When did integration begin and/or end? v) What were the theories and practices concerning the integration of ESL learners expressed by the participants and do they (theory/practice) inform each other and how? vi) To what extent, i i any, did the theories and practices expressed by the participants to support the integration of ESL learners define and or delimit the integration of ESL learners? b) How did the documents produced in the organization(s) concerning the social practice or activity of the integration of ESL learners view integration, more specifically: i) What were the theories and practices concerning the integration of ESL learners expressed by the participants and did they (theory/practice) inform each other and how? ii) To what extent, if any, did the theories and practices written in the documents to support the integration of ESL learners define and or delimit the integration of ESL learners? This study assumed that the participants and the documents in the organization were developed in particular contexts under specific social circumstances that might have existed at the time. As such, the participants involved in the social practice or activity of ESL integration were active agents who knowingly contributed to theories and practices that existed and who could hold either unified and/or dilemmatic perspectives of integration. These perspectives might have both influenced and been influenced by the ideologies that may have prevailed. 144 3. Selection of Cases This study combined survey methodology with case study methodology, the former in order to bring to the research increased empirical generalizability, and the latter, greater accuracy and detail, consistent with other studies of a similar nature (see, for example, Gogolin and Swartz, 1992). For the purposes of this study, Hammersley's (1992:185) approach to case study and survey methodology was assumed, that is: There is no implication here that case studies always involve the use of participant observation, the collection and analysis of qualitative rather than quantitative data, that they focus on meaning rather than behaviour, or that case study inquiry is inductive or idiographic rather than deductive or nomothetic etc. Nor do I believe that case studies display a logic that sets them apart from surveys and experiments ... the same methodological issues apply to all three ... each of these strategies might often be used to pursue the same research problem, though they would have varying advantages and disadvantages, depending on the purposes and circumstances of the research. He goes on to state that: Given this it seems to me that our choice of case selection strategy should be determined by our judgment of the resulting gains and losses in light of the particular goals andcircumstances of our research, including the resources available. (Hammersley, 1992:185) In this research, both methods were employed to facilitate study of the research problem in greater depth. These methods were not viewed as competing dichotomies, but rather as tools this researcher employed to enhance the in depth analysis of complex social activities and the language interactions that accompanied these activities. 145 a) The Survey Systematic survey research has a long history of application in academia, since its use by Paul Lazerfeld in the 1940's and 50's. Recently, researchers have used surveys with case studies to enhance the quality of the research, in Hammersley's (1992:188) words: ... the distinction between case study and survey is a matter of degree, and it involves the trade off between the likely generalisability of the information obtained on the one hand and the detail and likely accuracy of data about particular cases on the other. In this study surveys were used to give a focus to interview questions, which were developed from patterns and trends emerging in the responses to the survey, consistent with other studies, such as Gogolin and Swartz (1992). It was readily acknowledged that survey research offered only partial insight into issues of the integration of ESL learners, therefore, surveys were considered in conjunction with other data. Survey questions are included in the Appendix. A n approximate response rate of sixty five percent was expected and was received in most cases (see Appendix). b) The Case Study Although used in education in a limited manner for about fifty years, more recently, work with case study methodology in the field of education has grown, largely due to its facility in illurru^ating the dynamics of human social interaction during various activities (Becker, M . , 1990; Schofield, J., 1990; Hammersley, M . , 1992; Yin, R., 1994). Hammersley (1992:189) notes of case study methodology: Whatever its advantages in terms of detail and accuracy, case study is usually weaker than the survey in the generalizability of its findings ... it is not to say that it provides no basis for generalizations. Indeed, according to Yin (1989) case studies offer the researcher who plans to use multiple sources of data, the advantage of conducting an empirical inquiry of contemporary phenomenon in complex real life contexts. In this discovery-oriented study, the integration of ESL learners was viewed as an activity in an organization, or a case, to facilitate a richer description of the context in which integration operates, as Yin (1989) suggests, in all of its complexity, i) Interviews Interviews may be structured in a variety of ways depending on the desired outcomes of the interview in the context of the research being conducted. In this research interview questions were structured and subsequent responses were semi-structured. The main purpose for more formal interviewing was to focus the interview on the concepts under study. However, questions were generally open-ended and informants given the opportunity to shape both the activity "integration practices" and the direction of the content. This was consistent with and has been used effectively in other research studies of a qualitative nature, both ethnographic studies and studies of language education (see, for example, Stainback, S.; Stainback, W.; 1988:52; Helmer, 1995). Interview questions were an expansion of the survey questions (see Appendix) -147 ideas, which occurred most frequently in answer to the survey questions, were explored for greater detail. ii) Setting and Site This site for this study was an organization - a large urban school district with a culturally and linguistically diverse student population where at least one half of the learners are learning ESL. Two elementary and two secondary schools in the district were the local focus (survey, interview), along with an examination of pubhc documents developed by specialists and leaders at the school, area, district and province level which were collected and analyzed. iii) Participants Participants in this study were volunteers who completed the survey and returned it by mail. In addition, five (each) of parents (n=20), teachers (n=20) and students (n=20) were interviewed, and administrators (n=4) in sites as they volunteered to participate, c) Researcher's Role Qualitative research has at its core the researcher. In Eisner and Peshkin's (1990:203) words "at the heart of the qualitative approach is the assumption that a piece of research is very much influenced by the researcher's individual attributes and perspectives." In their minds, the goal of the researcher is to "produce a coherent and illuminating description of and perspective on a situation that is based on and consistent with detailed study of that situation." 148 Although this researcher was not actively engaged in the practice of "integrating" ESL students at the time of the study, it is significant to acknowledge this researcher's long history with the school district - in the capacities of ESL pilot project resource teacher, researcher, consultant, professional and staff developer, curriculum writer and member of numerous implementation teams, as well as a member of various ESL and multicultural committees at a local and provincial level. It was out of many years experience in a school district that had gone through constant changes that the researcher developed an awareness of the need for this study. Having been positioned in various roles and involved in various discursive "integration practices" in the school district over many years, the researcher brings to this task a direct experience of this social/cultural activity in practice over time, including those contradictions that have existed within the organization. 4. Data Collection Creswell (1994:Table 9.3:151) presents a detailed description of the advantages and limitations of qualitative data collection types. Ultimately, the data collected in qualitative research should be of benefit to the illumination of rich description, which is the case in this research. In this research, data was collected as follows: a) Surveys (distributed and completed prior to the interviews - see attached appendices for questions) b) Interviews - audio (completed after the surveys, an elaboration of the survey questions - see appendices for survey questions) 149 c) Documents (products/texts collected) - locally developed texts describing integration practices - district created data and texts describing integration practices - documents from the District ESL Pilot Project - provincial documents - external and internal reviews and reports - committee documents and reports - local, area, district, provincial d) Researchers field notes and journal entries (used to augment the discussion and illuminate context where helpful) - notes regarding on site observation and reflection 5. Data Analysis Data was analyzed in a manner consistent with a mixed methods approach to data analysis, that is, both qualitative and quantitative methods of analyzing data were employed. As with all qualitative studies, data analysis was an "ongoing activity" that "occur (red) throughout the process." Benefits of this method of analysis have been well developed by Stainback, S. and Stainback, W. (1988:64) who note that the ongoing nature of data collection, organization and analysis throughout a study allows its direction to be influenced by the data gathered from the field as the study progresses. The main purpose of data analysis being to "extend and broaden our understanding of cultural and social situations not to critically analyze data and generalize to new situations." Qualitative and quantitative data analysis was used as needed to add to the generalizability of the findings. Data was analyzed as follows: • statistical and non-statistical data as collected in manageable units • classification and/or categorization of the information collected in the contexts of the situations under study 150 • search for patterns and themes • synthesis and further analysis of information as needed, including a rethinking of missing or incomplete parts of the data collected Consistent with past studies (see, for example, Helmer, 1995; Gogolin and Schwartz, 1992) and with the exploratory questions given previously in this study, the following frequency coding categories were developed and a form created (see Appendix) to code the data collected. Data was coded on the forms as follows: Individually i) form per participant (a through z) per survey ii) form per participant (a through z) per interview iii) form per document Grouped iv) one form for all participants per site/category per surveys collected v) one form for all participants per site/category per interviews completed vi) one form for all documents per site Overall vii) one form for all participants in all sites for all surveys collected viii) one form for all participants in all sites for all interviews completed ix) one form for all participants in all sites for all surveys plus all interviews collected x) one form for all documents collected in all sites Note: the forms included as follows were modified to exclude columns which are not needed for individual responses but were needed for grouped data, all columns have been included in the sample presented in this document for your information. 6. Internal and External Validity Internal validity in this study was considered and the following strategies employed as laid out by Creswell (1994:167): a) triangulation of data - data was 151 collected through multiple sources, including surveys, interviews, documents, and observation data analysis, b) an independent coder served as a check and coded ten percent of the data to ensure consistency in the interpretation of the coding scheme, c) long term and repeated observations were made in the sites under study over time, and document data was collected over ten years, d) the researcher was directly involved in all aspects of the research, and e) the researcher's role has been clarified and the potential for bias acknowledged. External validity in this study was also considered and the following strategies employed as laid out by Creswell (1994:168): a) the research gives rich and detailed descriptions so that there is the potential for transferability in terms of comparison, b) the contexts from which the data was collected have been described in detail, c) triangulation of data and multiple methods of data collection (survey, interview, document, researcher notes) strengthens reliability, d) data collection coding schemes and analyses were presented in rich and detailed descriptions to provide as clear a picture as possible of the situations under study, and e) a holistic account of integration is provided through giving rich and detailed examples of responses to the research questions, both in surveys and in interview, document, and observation data. 7. Summary In summary, this inquiry examined the integration of ESL learners in an organization from the perspective of social practice (activity) and raised the question: How was the integration of ESL learners practiced by various participants 152 in an organization, both actively and in writing (text)? Specifically, the study aimed to get at the "big picture" to establish the focus of the theories and practices of the participants in ESL education, as well as the policies produced by various leaders (texts) in an organization with respect to the integration of ESL learners. In examining research on the integration of ESL learners in English second language education there evolved a need to bring together the literature in English second language, with that of multicultural education and special education. These three areas seemed to have followed a similar direction in terms of their emphasis and yet the three fields have neither dealt with each other in any detail in a collaborative manner, nor have they examined critically their roles in creating and/or influencing some of the injustices and inequities that currently exist in the integration practices for ESL learners in public schools. Greater attention needs to be paid to the perspectives and programs in place for the ESL learner with respect to integration from a holistic and cross disciplinary perspective which considers the many alternatives and possibilities. This discovery-oriented study began the process. No attempt will be made to apply these results lo any other situation. That remains the task of those who may choose to follow up the study. 153 Chapter 5: Results: Findings, Conclusions, and Implications of the Study The results of the study are presented with a focus on how "integration" as a social practice in the school district "influences and is influenced by surrounding social structures, ideologies and theories" (Stainback, S. and Stainback, W., 1988:70). There was a balance of descriptions, analyses and interpretations used. Results had validity when there was a "fit between what was intended to be studied" and "what actually is studied" (Stainback, S.; Stainback, W., 1988:97). Reliability resulted, "not literally across observations," but rather when there was "a fit between what occurs in the setting and what is recognized as data" (Stainback, S; Stainback, W. 1988:101). As stated previously, conclusions are confined to the sphere of this research and are not generalized beyond it - this remains for future studies. The main focus here was to influence the direction of research in the field of ESL education - to help researchers and educators in the field gain insight into why integration practices exist as they do, and to note what changes, if any, could take place to improve educational practices and the integration of ESL learners. It was felt that future research in support of the activity of the integration of ESL learners needed to pay greater attention to the organization as a whole to include qualitative data with a "rich description" of context so that the social and cultural aspects of situations for students learning ESL were illuminated in all their complexity. This inquiry sought to discover the "big picture" regarding the integration of ESL learners - integration was viewed as a social practice or activity in an organization, a large urban school. The study explicitly raised the question: How was the integration of ESL learners practiced by various participants in an organization, both actively and in writing (text)? Findings from data were grouped and are discussed as (1.) surveys and interviews, and (2.) document or text data. As noted earlier, integration means different things depending on the view as expressed in the TESOL Standards pre-K-12 which distinguished between integration as placement and integration as active support for ESL students in the mainstream. These distinctions wi l l be referred to here, as wi l l a wider range of meanings, for example, social interaction between ESL and non-ESL students has also been used in reference to integration by respondents. A. Findings: Surveys and Interviews To examine the social practice or activity of ESL integration in the organization, participants in this study were first surveyed and then volunteers were interviewed to determine how they viewed the integration of ESL learners. Survey data was collected, coded for frequency to aid the discussion, and examined the issues (see Appendix for details). Subsequent interviews (same questions) explored the issues and developed them within a richer context of greater detail. Responses to the research questions (see Appendix for details) are discussed in the parts that follow. Headings (a) through (f) on surveys sequentially correspond to the topics of survey and interview questions and were designed to get at the issues relevant to this discussion. 155 Surveys were distributed and returned as follows (Table III.). The results were fairly high for the schools involved. Parental responses are lower but reasonable given the respondents comments concerning parent involvement in the schools selected, half of which were in lower socio economic areas where parents were less involved. Some administrators did not want to participate formally and this was honoured. Informal discussions were considered. Additional responses to the activity of integration from parents and administrators were collected in the document data and enhanced this discussion. Table 3. Number and Percentage of Returned Surveys Group Number Distributed Number Returned Percentage Teachers 1 1 0 1 0 2 9 3 % Administrators 4 2 5 0 % Parents 1 1 4 4 6 4 1 % Students 1 1 4 1 0 3 8 4 % Totals 3 4 2 2 5 3 7 4 % A brief preview of survey results is presented first to provide clarity for the reader, in anticipation of a more detailed discussion presented later in this section. A large proportion of both the written (survey) and oral (interview) discussions from all participants (survey, n= 253; interview, n=64) - parents, students, teachers (both ESL and regular), and administrators concerned discussion of the social practice or activity of integration from the perspective of a traditional ESL service delivery or program arrangements model for integration (66%). Responses were related to the 156 process of basing the placement and movement of ESL students on their performance on an English test. The dominant focus in the data was that English existed for its own sake in schools, rather than as a medium of learning for ESL students. A smaller proportion of both the written (survey) and oral (interview) discussions from all participants formally wrote or informally spoke about different views and/or coru^icting perspectives of the integration of the ESL learner at school (34%). Their comments raised issues that considered the dynamic interaction between/amongst content, culture, language and learning for the English second language learner. The dominant focus amongst this minority response group was that English did not exist for its own sake in schools, rather English was as a medium of learning for ESL students who had other issues, including those discussed earlier in the literature review related to language socialization to contend with at school regarding their integration. These issues were related to the learning of language and learning in general, culture, and background experiences, as well as to curriculum and inshuction. Before proceeding with a general discussion of the respondents views concerning the activity of integration across sites, it is important to set the context for this discussion of integration across sites, by first commenting on the specific integration practices in each of the school sites under study. 157 1. Integration practices Findings indicated that all sites (n=4) in this study had their own integration practices. What specifically were the integration practices (see exploratory question (a) (iii), page 134 and/or survey questions 4 and 5 in the appendices)? The specific practices in each site are described below (see Appendix for further details concerning the sites). i) Elementary The integration practices in the two elementary schools under study were similar. The schools had reception classes (separate ESL classes) within which there was a range of ESL learners from beginners through intermediate language proficiency. They also had large numbers of ESL students present in the entire school, reflecting the change in the city's population in recent years. The influx of immigrants that had arrived in urban schools over the past fifteen years, meant that a large number of classroom teachers had as many ESL students enrolled as those enrolled in the separate ESL classes, as well, mainstream classes had the same range from beginner through intermediate language learners. Both schools had roughly the same ESL support specialist staff in terms of numbers. Integration was reported as largely practiced in both schools through participation in extra curricular activities. Site A was in a more affluent area of the city while site B was in an area of generally lower socio-economic status. Although students in both schools had access to tutors and support at home according to respondents, they felt students in site A 158 were advantaged in this area in terms of support for their integration into regular classes. Site B had a greater number of students unfamiliar with schooling and less parent support and involvement and this was perceived by respondents to be a disadvantage for learning at school. ii) Secondary Movement in both secondary schools proceeded from separate ESL program to transition classes to mainstream regular classes based on English assessments. However, there were some differences with respect to the programs and the students' placement in and movement between them. Site C was in a more affluent area of the city while site D was in an area of generally lower socio-economic status. Although students in both schools had access to tutors and support at home, students in site C were described by respondents as advantaged in this area in terms of support for their integration into regular classes. Site D had a greater number of students unfamiliar with schooling (they were new to Canada) and respondents described the situation as one of less parent support and involvement. In school C, students were grouped heterogeneously and in multi-level classes without layers or levels through which students passed sequentially. Students were enrolled in either/or ESL classes, transitional classes in socials and English and/or into the mainstream. English language centre support was provided for transitional programs only. The teachers believed that students needed to be in 159 as many regular classes as possible and gave the following reasons for mixed ability grouping - Excerpt 86: older students could help younger students, younger students were sometimes more willing to try activities and older students would follow, and new Canadians were mixed with more experienced students. Movement in this school could occur four times during the year. At the end of the year each students' status was reviewed. The ESL teachers in collaboration with the counsellor and subject teachers as appropriate initially decided upon integration. The criteria were subjective and included oral competency, research and library skills, success in project work, grasp of concepts, and motivation. Student work was collected in a portfolio to show progress in English. When students were ready for full integration, there was a trial period and the subject teacher had the final say as to whether or not the integration [within mainstream content classes]was working. The ESL department worked very collaboratively and collegially and had a strong language and content background in terms of ESL training. In addition, they met regularly to discuss student progress. They shared philosophies concerning the need to base assessment on teacher judgment rather than on standardized test scores. They also commented that they preferred to examine ESL students' authentic classroom work and not only test scores in English, and these respondents commented on the need to have students work together in cooperative and heterogeneous groups in support of learning. ESL students were encouraged to speak "only English in classes," and the importance of the first language was acknowledged. 160 In school D, students were grouped by ability - beginners (Level I), intermediate (Level II) and advanced (Level III) English language learners, followed by a set program of transitional socials and English with English language centre support. The teachers commented that ESL students needed to be grouped by language ability because it was easier to teach them, curricular resources for language levels were readily available and it was not fair to hold back advanced ESL learners by having them mixed with beginning language learners. Movement here was permitted only twice per year. Integration was initially decided upon by the ESL teachers as students passed through a series of tests - the G A P , CELT, SLEP and composition writing skills were examined as was the learners' background. To exit from the transitional programs students were required to pass the regular class English exam. Integration into subject classes was usually with the consent of the subject teacher. The counsellor worked as a liaison between the ESL department and subject teachers. When students were ready for full integration, there was a trial period and the subject teacher had the final say as to whether or not the integration was working. Students could be (and were) sent back to the ESL program. The ESL department worked very collaboratively and collegially and had a strong oral language and grammar background in terms of ESL training. They met regularly to discuss student progress and to organize students into ability groups. They shared philosophies concerning the need for standardized assessments to determine placements in programs. They also believed in small classes and shared 161 an "English only" philosophy at school - the first language was thought to impede not support learning in English. iv) The quality of integration as a social practice or activity in the sites in this study Respondents' comments about the integration practices in schools and the quality of these practices were also noted. One surprise in the present study was the fact that both mainstream and ESL teachers noted that there was little integration in the sense of both social and academic integration during regular class time. They spoke infrequently about integration in regular content classes and seemed to focus their responses concerning integration on social and extra curricular activities -outside the mainstream academic life of the school. Sometimes ESL students were not placed in academic programs at all. Respondents frequently made comments in their survey discourse across sites such as those illustrated in Excerpt 87: S:30 "integration doesn't happen much during class time" S:9 "ESL integration doesn't happen much between our district class students and the regular classes during class time" S:10 "the district class [separate language class]is rarely integrated" S:74 "ESL programs gate keep ESL students from high school graduation" S:29 "We do have a district class and they are rarely integrated." S:75 "students who have poor academic backgrounds are rarely integrated and end up in pre employment or alternate programs" It was apparent in this study that integration [within mainstream classes with active ESL support] was not happening to any great degree in academic areas in the 162 schools under study according to the respondents across sites. However, there were many recommendations made by respondents about ways to integrate ESL students in extra curricular activities within the schools, and/or socially. The large degree to which respondents' suggestions for "integrating" ESL students involved extracurricular activities was contrasted with the few respondents who commented in surveys that ESL students needed to be actively supported within mainstream classes as a significant part of the academic and cultural community of the school. The majority of respondents in surveys commented on no role for ESL learners within the mainstream curriculum of the school. When mentioned, the role for ESL learners in the mainstream was described as extra curricular, and the language, cultural, and previous experiences of ESL students were not discussed in the majority of survey responses by these respondents as significant. Examples of some of these comments given in survey discourse data follow. The respondents across all four sites were describing activities within their schools that supported the integration of ESL students, mainly in extra curricular activities outside the mainstream of academic classes within the schools: Excerpt 88: S:10 "The ESL students are integrated in activities like Sports Day S:14 "We let the ESL class come to our PE periods because it doesn't involve much English." S:69 " A l l extra-curricular activities support integration, especially sports because language is secondary there." ( S:9 "The ESL class is involved by going on some field trips together with other classes in the school." 163 S:20 "The ESL class joins music and physical education, little language is needed here." S:25 "we have a party together so they won't feel left out" S:304 "We invite some of the ESL kids to our dances." S:327 "We perform a dance or singing in a group of four or more sometimes with them." S:248 "we involve the ESL class by playing sports with them." S:271 "we watch a movie or a video in school with them" S:30 "participation of district class students in extra curricular activities such as track, dances, etc. supports their integration" S:10 "collaborating in math, library, physical education, at assemblies, multicultural theme nights, and extra curricular activities such as dances, teams and sports" S:84 "ESL students join computers because there is not much English." Finally, when asked to describe the quality of the integration taking place within each/all of the four schools, respondents did not give the activity of the integration of ESL learners a very high rating in the discourse data of surveys as exemplified below. Examples of some of their comments follow in Excerpt 89 to illustrate the generally accepted view of the quality of the integration taking place across research sites: S:43 "Poor." S:27 "More could be done." S:58 "Cat best" S:55 "not enough or effective" 164 S:109 "no ESL students aren't integrating because they need parallel helping courses to enable them to pass credit courses" S:49 "some students do not know how far they are behind and do not have an understanding of the expectations in content classes or evaluation of success in grade level subjects . When they are integrated they become disillusioned and start to fall by the wayside so we put them in alternate programs to restore their self-esteem." S:l0 "it needs staff support, an ESL coordinator, the support of the administration, the impetus of teachers to do so, and less influence or input from parents." S:33 "most teachers are supportive of the concept even if it doesn't always work." S:89 "it would be nice to integrate them more because I believe they feel isolated as a group." S:77 "it could be dealt with better, especially the way they are integrated into a regular class for subjects." S:88 "difficulties arise due to class size limits, reports, timetables" S:101 "integrated ESL students who are floundering academically and can't afford a tutor or other support fall through the cracks and stop attending" S:75 "parents who have not seen the secondary texts may put unrealistic expectations on their children for achievement" S:66 "sometimes students are integrated because of administrator pressure or because of a family's insistence against the recommendation of the ESL teacher and the student flounders badly or is temporarily propped up by an out of school tutor" S:102 "the students who are mtegrating are the students who were successful academic language learners in their home countries" Again, this was reinforced in interview data and substantiates later discussions made in this research where there were some criticisms of a test based service delivery or program arrangement focus for the integration of the ESL student 165 because of its narrow emphasis on English performance. Examples from four interviewees follow to bring clarity - Excerpts 90-93 - (interview data): 1:26 ... students who have emotional and economic concerns in addition to weak English may not ever be integrated ... or else they are integrated without support... and often they fail the course 1:27 on the east side of the city teens with weak academic backgrounds from their homelands and low socio economic status either aren't integrated or flounder when integrated and don't receive adequate support to succeed. They lack the skills to do school and are very much at risk, especially older teens who frequently drop out of school and go to work. 1:28 refugees, literacy class students, tutorless students and students with a poor previous educational background are at risk for integration. 1:30 The types of students in the school need to be considered for integration regarding staffing and programs. Support needs to change depending on the students and their needs. If they are for example, refugees versus astronaut families or from war torn countries ... an ESL student is not an ESL student... there are so many differences between students. And, lastly/one interviewee - Excerpt 94 - noted in discourse that the quality of integration was "fairly high - some art, cooking, PE, social activities and math." -clearly not an academic focus for the learner of ESL, beyond mathematics which is generally thought to be strong in Asian cultures by teacher respondents. v) Summary of integration practices As stated previously, findings concerning the integration of ESL students were dominated by an English test based emphasis which determined placement and movement of students for service delivery. However, findings indicate that the specific practices in each site also offered other perspectives about integration which 166 were different and sometimes critical of this orientation. There was some evidence in the discourse data of surveys in findings that teachers were thinking about ESL students' need to achieve academically, though they wrestled with how best to organize for this achievement and these thoughts conflicted with models of service delivery which often mitigated against academics, in that teachers could not put into practice what they might have given no constraints. In addition, there were differences between sites along socio economic lines which affected integration, although the practice of placing and moving students was similar in all sites. In other words, the traditional ESL service delivery model for integration looked similar in all sites, but there were inequities and inequalities that would influence learning in general, as well as language learning and academic success which reflected other views of integration and and/or were critical of the traditional ESL service delivery model for integration. Consider some examples given in the data from respondents, as well as in the data of observations. First, in the elementary sites, as stated previously, integration practices looked similar. However, in both sites, a large number of classroom teachers had as many ESL students in their mainstream classrooms as those enrolled in separate ESL programs. And, so on the one hand the ESL students in separate classes or programs were to be integrated gradually over time. On the other hand, mainstream classes were full of ESL students that had already being integrated within the mainstream of the schools which were largely ESL. Sometimes due to lack of space in the ESL class, respondents reported that ESL students were moved out of the ESL class after 167 a short time to make room for new arrivals. The respondents reported that the change in programming had nothing to do with either learning and/or language but rather with financial expediency. This created inequities in schooling for ESL learners and made integration practices inconsistent. Secondly, there were issues of socio economic status that affected learning and access to academic programs for ESL students awaiting integration into the mainstream of the school and for those already in the mainstream. For instance, in Sites A and C which were in more affluent areas of the city, ESL students benefited from more hours of instruction via tutors and parents who recognized the advantages of schooling. There were far greater opportunities provided as indicated in the discourse data of surveys and interviews and observation data for academic support outside school. In fact, respondents reported that many of the ESL students were enrolled in academic programs outside the school, which increased the number of hours of instruction for their learning, and backed up learning that had taken place at school. In Sites B and D, the greater emphasis placed in homes on working as soon as possible out of necessity and the lack of financial resources of families to support school vis a vis tutors, made integration more difficult for the ESL students. Education here was disadvantaged in the sense than the students were more unfamiliar with schooling and experienced less parental support - parents needed to work - and there was both less access to tutors and to outside programs to support learning as reported by respondents. 168 In all situations respondents noted that the learning environment was affected by the circumstances of the students; by their previous academic experiences, by the opportunities economically feasible in terms of providing for additional support out of school, and by the parents desires and interest in academic education. In sum, the language of the respondents affected the place or position of the ESL learner within the school. He/she was both positioned by the language respondents used, and was placed in reference to something else - the mainstream or regular program based on test scores in English. Integration was viewed largely as arrangements made along a continuum of assessment of English toward full mainstreaming when it was deemed that the students had reached proficiency -when the ESL students passed English tests. Having set the stage by commenting on specific sites and their integration practices, attention is now turned to a general discussion of responses to surveys and interviews across sites, beginning with the definitions of integration offered by respondents in surveys and interviews, grouped as appropriate to the data. 2. Definitions Surveys and interviews were analyzed to determine how the respondents defined the activity or social practice of integration (see exploratory question a (i), page 134, and survey question 1, appendices). The answer to this question was that respondents presented conflicting viewpoints when asked to define integration, 169 both theoretically and in practice. These viewpoints are discussed in the sections that follow. A couple of other points need to be made before proceeding. Of the elementary student responses to the survey, a few (n=9) did not know what the word "integration" meant and said so. There were few or no differences in terms of describing what the activity of integration meant between schools across ages with the exception of the elementary students. There was also little variation in different areas of the city (east/west), as indicated by the respondents, however, socio economic status emerged in the data as an important consideration (see perspectives). For the sake of clarity, this part of the findings is organized as: a) definition(s) reflecting the traditional ESL service delivery model for integration and ii) other views of integration and views critical of the traditional ESL service delivery model for integration. a) Definition(s) reflecting the traditional ESL service delivery model for integration The following definition(s) from the traditional model for integration emerged: i) integration was defined with reference to an English language test/assessment and ESL service delivery (from assessment • placement • movement based on English test scores/performance) Discussion of this dominant and traditional definition of integration by respondents in both surveys and interviews in this study follows under this heading and three sub headings: integration in reference to assessment, integration in reference to placement, and integration in reference to movement; these being categories most frequently used by respondents. Each is briefly discussed with reference to data collected and analysed. i) integration was defined with reference to an English language test/assessment and ESL service delivery (from assessment • placement • movement based on English test scores/performance) Discussions of integration in surveys and interviews by respondents were presented as a dichotomy - integration existed as the mere physical presence of ESL students in classes which were "regular/mainstream" in opposition to "ESL" classes - in reference to the assessment, placement and movement of ESL students to regular/mainstream classes dependent upon the results of English tests. The question of active support in the mainstream was not raised by respondents. Because of the frequency of the discourse, in reference to these three categories, the discourse of the respondents was coded and grouped under headings of integration in reference to assessment, integration in reference to placement, and/or integration in reference to movement. Examples from the discourse of the respondents to surveys and interviews make the point succinctly. Integration from the perspective of the majority of respondents existed as ESL students' presence in the mainstream and was discussed in reference to service delivery or arranging a sequence of programs for ESL learners which situated them outside of the mainstream of the school depending upon their ability to perform on tests of English. 171 b) Integration Defined in Reference to an Assessment Assessment initially placed the learner within the school in all four sites in this study. A n external assessment was done at an off site orientation and assessment centre and paperwork developed during this assessment supported the place the learner was assigned within the school - either separate ESL program (district/reception class for beginners) and/or transitional program (secondary only for intermediate learners) and/or regular program. The activity of integration was then viewed, as revealed in the discourse of the survey data, in reference to this testing, in opposition and comparison to support for learning and socialization in the mainstream or regular classes both in elementary and secondary programs. Integration was defined by comments the respondents made, as examples provided below indicate. Excerpt 1: (Data from surveys) Integration means: S:41 "ESL students passing English tests to get into regular classes" S:73 "ESL students are placed in the regular classroom situation after passing English tests." S:81 "coming directly into a regular class after testing from an ESL programme" S:43 "our students (secondary) are integrated based on their reading levels which assessments show a reading range from kindergarten to upper grade three" S.T7 "people who need more help with English writing or are not capable of keeping up with regular class" S:51 "putting students who have reached a certain level of English skills into the regular system" S:28 "making the ESL's do the same work for marks as regular students in regular classrooms" 172 S:63 "ESL students working in classes of like grade level for marks" S:887 "ESL students taking regular courses which give credits to graduation" The focus of the discourse of the respondents when asked to define integration on surveys was viewed only in reference to a program other than the one he/she was in at the present based on the results of a test of English proficiency. This thinking, on the part of respondents that integration existed only after some assessment, and only in reference to regular or mainstream classes, continued in discussions of the activity of integration in reference to placement and movement at all sites. Integration defined in reference to an assessment was the least frequently mentioned survey category of all service delivery categories (18%), however, it directed the next two categories because ESL students were tested to determine their placement in an ESL program, and their movement between ESL programs and the mainstream. The discourse of interviews elaborated on this emphasis, for example, as one respondent put it: Excerpt 2 (interview data): 1:26 Integration doesn't happen until after an assessment... we aren't sure what to use ... a standard one would help ... since there isn't any ... we do the Gap or the Woodcock for reading and we do a writing sample ... if the ESL student is ready, they are integrated ... maybe part time ... or maybe full time but not usually full time ... Others gave similar accounts of integration as existing only after a test of English in isolation of subject or academic content or of any other learning in reference to the mainstream. 173 c) Integration Defined in Reference to Placement Integration was also frequently defined by respondents in reference to the placement of ESL learners (n=197) (35%) in programs or language classes within a site in the present study, the second most important integration category. It was surprising the extent to which all participants believed that "integration" was synonymous with entering a "regular class" in the mainstream. Consider a few of the many comments given by respondents in surveys. Integration meant: Excerpt 3 (Data from surveys). S:266 "integrating the ESL's into the regular program" S:15 "ESL students are placed in the regular classroom situation" S:80 "ESL students are placed in the regular class system" S:77 "ESL students are placed one subject at a time, English and Social Studies are usually the last because of the high level of English involved" S:4 "students are placed with reception teachers who work with them to prepare ESL students for integration" S:230 "different people who go to the same room to take ESL" Once again, according to the respondents, integration existed as the mainstream and was discussed in reference to a place or a program within a school that the ESL students held, both individually and in groups. This place was assigned based on ESL students' English performance on English tests. This was consistent across all schools in both elementary and secondary. The placement of ESL learners as a reference point for definitions of integration was most frequently mentioned by secondary teachers (n=103) (52%), it was the next most important concern for 1 7 4 students (n=28) (14%), and the least concern for parents (n=20) (10%) and administrators (n=13) (7%). This seems to substantiate findings of others who have noted that these groups (ESL parents, students) did not understand the placement process (Watt, Roessingh, Bosetti, 1996). This was also reinforced in interviews in this study, both formally and informally. The most frequently mentioned service delivery concerns regarding placement of ESL students for service for integration were as follows: pull out ESL placements (n=58) (29%), s