Common Underlying Proficiency

Baker (2011) writes that what Cummins considers essential in the bilingual education of ELLs is that the ‘Common Underlying Proficiency’ be well developed either in the first or second language, or in both languages simultaneously.

According to Baker (2011), the distinction between social and academic language has been influential and valuable for policy development, provision and practice in areas such as instruction and assessment. However, Cummins’ theory to distinguish between social and academic language has been criticized by several researchers (Ovando & Combs, 2012). MacSwan and Rolstand (2003) are concerned that by theorizing a distinction between social and academic language the latter could be favored. Ovando and Combs (2012) explain that the implication of making the distinction between the types of language may lead to thinking that academic proficiency can be attained only at school, and not through home or family discussions. Another critique of Cummins’ theory is noted from Aukerman (2007) who questions the utility of this language distinction for teachers of ELLs since we should not blame their academic struggles on their lack of mastery of the correct type of language.

According to

Lambert (1974), ELLs who are enrolled in programs such as ESL/English-only or transitional bilingual education experience subtractive bilingualism, which means that their native language is subtracted as a result of being instructed with a different language. On the other hand, students that belong to the majority language generally experience additive bilingualism since the school language is added to their native language (Lambert, 1974). Garcia (2009) suggests that bilingualism should not be seen as the additive (the balanced wheels of a bicycle) or subtractive (unicycle) models, but rather as an all-terrain vehicle that it is used by persons to adapt to the uneven topographies of communication. Current research developed by Garcia and Kleifgen (2010) proposes that bilingualism is ‘dynamic’ instead of linear, and that under this perspective languages should not be seen as independent systems that individuals possess, but as practices used by them. According to Garcia and Kleifgen (2010), “Dynamic bilingualism refers to the development of different language practices to varying degrees in order to interact with increasingly multilingual communities” (p. 42). Consequently, effective instruction for ELLs should be built on the full linguistic range of the students and also should include practices that are multiple and hybrid, and support the dynamic bilingual practices used by bilingual individuals to create knowledge and understanding (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010).
Educational Programs for English Language Learners
Ballenger and Ninness (2009) report that NCLB does not require the use of a specific bilingual education model to instruct ELLs.

According to Ovando & Combs (2012) bilingual education cannot be considered as a single uniform program nor seen as a consistent methodology to teach ELLs, but rather as an approach that involves a variety of programs that might pursue different linguistic goals. Baker (2011) notes that the term bilingual education is a “simplistic label for a complex phenomenon” (p. 207). Baker (2011) maintains that there is a difference between classrooms in which instruction promotes bilingualism through the use of two languages and classrooms in which there are bilingual students instructed through basically monolingual education in a second

language.
Simmons & Connelly (2000) classify bilingual educational programs as additive or subtractive. Additive models are those that promote the maintenance of the ELLs’ first language while acquiring the second one; besides, these programs include pluralistic goals that affirm the linguistic rights and autonomy of different groups (Roberts, 1995). Some examples of additive bilingual education programs include late exit, maintenance or developmental bilingual education and two-way or dual language bilingual programs (Simons & Connelly, 2000). On the other hand, subtractive programs can be described as those models in which ELLs lose their first language while acquiring the second language because maintenance of ELLs’ native language as well as pride in their heritage is not their objective (Simons & Connelly, 2000). These authors include the following as examples of subtractive bilingual models: early exit transitional bilingual education, pullout-ESL, submersion, and structured immersion.
Garcia and Kleifgen (2010) reveal that ELLs have been the focus of different educational policy decisions since the 1960’s, which has originated the development of different educational programs for them. Baker (2011) explains the approach called “submersion” or “swim and sink” by using an analogy in which an ELL is thrown into a deep pool and is expected to learn to swim as soon as possible without the assistance of floating devices or special lessons. Garcia and Kleifgen (2010) indicate that this type of program provides ELLs with exactly the same learning conditions offered to monolingual English speakers. This means that neither the school offers alternative educational services, nor uses the students’ native language to instruct them (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010).
Another category of educational program for ELLs offered in the U.S. is called “pullout ESL”. This program consists in providing assistance to ELLs in special sessions that usually take place outside the classroom (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010). Ovando and Combs (2012) note that this program has some inconveniences because ESL teachers might meet students of different ages at the same time; besides, some students miss important academic areas such as math, science and social studies, and ESL teachers also might not have enough time to individualize their lessons for each ELL.
Ovando and Combs (2012) indicate that, during the 1980’s, schools acknowledged that ELLs inevitably get behind in their academic progress while they are learning English; therefore, language and content materials should be taught together. ‘Content-based ESL’ or ‘Sheltered English’ programs were developed to comply with this purpose. These programs can be effective when delivered by a trained specialist since it offers ELLs pedagogical support and scaffolding to assist each ELL (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Ovando & Combs, 2012). According to Ovando & Combs (2012), there is a consensus between researchers and practitioners that sheltered English instruction works best when it is used with ELLs that have acquired an intermediate or advanced level of proficiency in English.
There are other programs that use the ELLs’ native language in order to assist them in their transition to English, or to help them become bilingual and biliterate individuals. A program that was the main method used in bilingual education in the U.S. during the 70’s and 80’s is the ‘transitional’ or ‘early exit bilingual education program’ (Ovando & Combs, 2012). Baker (2011) indicates that early exit bilingual programs generally used the students’ native language for a period of two or three years. However, it is considered a subtractive model of bilingual education since its goal is for ELLs to acquire English as soon as possible in order to exit them into classrooms that use English-only instruction (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010). The transitional program has been subject to some critics. For instance, Ovando & Combs (2012) note that transitional bilingual education is perceived as a remedial program that segregates students and consequently limits the possibility of academic success for ELLs. Federal policy has extensively funded this program in spite of its ineffectiveness to instruct ELLs (Ovando & Combs, 2012). In this regard, Spener (1988) explains that this could be intentional because if non-white people receive a substandard education, the public education system can be central to producing adults that meet the requirements to be economically exploited, unemployed or experience underemployment.
A different method to educating ELLs is through the developmental bilingual education model, also known as maintenance or late exit. In this type of bilingual program, the focus is not on exiting ELLs as quickly as possible to mainstream classrooms; thus, the instruction of content area subjects is delivered in both languages throughout the elementary school grades, usually from kindergarten to fifth grade (Ovando & Combs, 2012). The research of Thomas & Collier (1997) reports that when ELLs are instructed through the developmental bilingual model, they reach high academic achievement on tests in English after being enrolled in the program for a period of four to six years.
Another program focused on maintaining the native language of ELLs is called bilingual immersion, two-way bilingual or dual language. The dual language program was first developed in Canada during the 1960’s with the objective of instructing majority students in both English and French throughout grades K-12 (Ovando & Combs, 2012).