The Family Language Program

One of the key factors of a learning society according to the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (1999) 4^th report of Returning to our roots is “It is socially inclusive and ensures that all members are part of its learning communities” (p. 29). With this in mind, it was important to focus on English Language Learners and their families who are struggling to not only find their way in a new country, but also with a new language. By focusing on English Language Learners in the U.S.A., it is a goal to provide a model for other countries to follow in a world that will increasingly need to meet language needs of the ever-increasing global citizenry.

An In-depth look at the Learning Community

The Family Language Program is a non-profit English Language Learner support agency providing assistance to ELL K-12 students and their families in a variety of locations across the United States. The agency runs the program as an after-school tutoring session designed to meet the varied needs of the English Language Learners. To reach as many ELL students as possible, the agency has reached agreements with school districts rich in ELL students to house the program. Therefore, the students are able to move from the classroom directly to the after-school program. To promote the program, the agency conducts informational workshops outlining the benefits of the additional assistance with the faculty, staff, and administration of each school. The program is voluntary for the students and families to participate; however, the agency does accept teacher referral for ELL students who are struggling with their academics. Additionally, the Family Language Program advertises the after-school program with fliers in English and many native languages; these fliers are posted throughout the school, community, and sent home with the students.

Since its inception, the Family Language Program uses trained and certified ELL teachers for all its locations throughout the United States. The agency has discovered the students gain the most by learning from trained professionals. Furthermore, the teachers are encouraged to attend ELL professional development workshops, continue their education, and must hold a current teaching certificate. The after-school program is structured to provide support for the students three days per week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) directly after school. The grade level of the student determines how long they attend the program each day. For instance, K-6 students attend for one-and-a-half-hours, while 7-12 grade students attend for two hours. As a student becomes involved in the program, the agency completes an in-take session which determines the needs of the students. The in-take session tests the student in oral ability, reading, writing, comprehension, and spelling. This information facilitates the activities the teachers provide for the students, as well as grouping strategies to incorporate small group activities. The student-teacher ratio is small to provide an optimum learning environment; students in K-6 are in groups of five with one teacher and students in 7-12 are in groups of ten with one teacher. The agency has discovered with the smaller group sizes, the students can create their own learning community which enhances their education.

To meet the varied learning styles of the students, the agency provides off-site activities that produce authentic English exposure. For instance, upper elementary students may visit the grocery store with a shopping list and must find where all of the items are located, writing the answers in complete sentences. Additionally, the teachers will assign small groups different scenes from popular American movies then the students will act out that scene. Once the dramatization is finished, the groups will watch the scene as it was in the movie to help the students grasp the­ context.

A goal of the Family Language Program’s offerings is to reach the ELL students, and also provide support for the families. All family members are encouraged to attend the tutoring sessions three days per week. The teachers provide similar resources for the family members, depending on their needs. In helping to meet this goal, the agency sponsors once-a-month family activities off-site. An activity may include a day at the baseball park watching a minor league game. Afterwards, the student and his or her family will write a news report highlighting what occurred during the baseball game. Other plans include watching a family movie at the theater and using their writing skills, the family writes a review of the movie. These activities reinforce authentic English experiences where the students and the families can improve their English speaking abilities and their writing skills.

A closer look at the rationale for decisions made

One of the reasons it was decided to focus on ELL learners is rooted in the fact that language skills will continue to rise in value and will prove to be a valuable tool in creating a strong nation. In “Adaptive Education for Our Emergent Global Era”, Chris Harth (2007, para 8) explained that: “The premium on cross-cultural communication skills and foreign language proficiencies continue to grow”. English, seen as a cross-cultural communication skill as it is used in many nations throughout the world, serves to be a skill that equips one with the ability to function in the global era. Combined with the native tongue that the ELL students possess in the U.S.A. and there is a learning community prepared to thrive in the Global Era.

In structuring the learning community, student-teacher ratio was an important focus for the ELL students to increase their skills in the English language. The Family Language Program’s rationale for having a small student-to-teacher ratio is it allows the teacher to truly focus on different learning styles that suit individual students. As Harth (2007, para 10) pointed out:

Regardless of whether one subscribes to Howard Gardner’s notion of multiple intelligences or Bob Sternberg’s concept of multiple facets of a single intelligence, most educators agree that students learn in different ways. By targeting specific learning styles and abilities with differentiated instruction, in and out of the classroom, educators can and should tailor curriculum, instruction, and related programs to best fit a given context and the needs of individual students.

Following this advice from Harth (2007), within the program students will be exposed to learning experiences through the different intelligences and the small numbers will allow for more thorough learning experiences. A group of students at the elementary level who for instance show a strong musical intelligence will have sessions where they study English through music. Example activities would include listening to songs, discussing the meaning of the songs, and then discussing what various words in the song mean. Students would then learn the songs and choose an audience of their choice to perform the songs. An out-of-school experience that would combine musical intelligence with linguistic intelligence would be a trip to see a classical performance where a small group of students attempt to discuss the show directly after and talk about their favorite parts, with the teacher helping to scaffold those who are struggling to describe the experience. Students would then go home at night and write in their journals about the experience, which would be shared the following session. These types of learning experiences will help encourage students to not only study English, but to enjoy living “it”.

The decision to incorporate many activities outside of the classroom is that it allows for spiral learning to take place as well as non-linear learning situations. Bateson (1994) wrote, “Spiral learning moves through complexity with partial understanding, allowing for later returns” (p. 31). These out of the classroom experiences varied at the different grade levels will create situations down the road where students will put pieces together from each experience to create a clearer picture of how the English world works, how they see themselves and how they see the world. Bateson (1994) also pointed out, “most learning is not linear” (p. 30). As students are out at various venues they will have the opportunity to read or look at different advertisements while traveling, plus listen to the stadium addresses given over the loud speaker at a baseball game, and watch how another group celebrates as someone throws a strike in the bowling alley. The out-of-classroom experiences will help to create non-linear learning experiences that will have the potential to create some powerful learning experiences.

Another reason to incorporate many activities outside of the classroom stems from the desire to allow students to observe. Whether students are at a baseball game, a theme park or a bowling alley, it all allows students to observe not only the immediate conversations, but also the conversations and surroundings around them. As Mary Catherine Bateson (1994) pointed out in Peripheral Visions, knowledge has the ability limit learning by observation (Bateson, 1994, p. 43). Instead of just feeding the students vocabulary, reading, oral and writing exercises, the agency believes it is important to allow them time to observe the English world and partake in it on their own terms.

The decision was made to house the Family Language Program on school grounds for a number of reasons. The first is that it solves the economic dilemma of building separate brick-and-mortar facilities. It also allows for students to stay directly after school and it eliminates the need of parents of the elementary and junior high students to transport the students to a separate facility. The third and main reason is that it allows the Family Language Program the opportunity to form a partnership with schools the agency resides in: it helps to better a portion of the student body’s academic performance; the administration allows the agency to use the facilities. As pointed out by Gene Maeroff (2003) in A Classroom of One: How Online Learning is Changing Our Schools and Colleges, partnerships “would be good for all of education” (Maeroff, 2003, 211). It is believed that at Family Language Program, as it not only serves the agency’s interests and its partners’ interests, but most important is that it helps to serve the students’ interests.

As a non-profit organization, the Family Language Program aims to receive funding from federal and state governments as well as from private donations. Specifically, the aim is to obtain money from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which is the only federal program solely dedicated to funding afterschool services. Also suggested on Afterschool.gov is the idea of, “Creating partnerships and collaborating with other entities in your community that can provide funding, support, logistics, and more for your afterschool program” (Afterschool.gov, 2008, Collaborations & Partnerships). This is an area the Family Language Program will explore within the various communities the after-school program resides, drawing on the unique resources in each community.

The teacher referral system is designed to help all of the students in the program. In particular, it aims to encourage older students and their families in making the right choice to improve their language skills. In Peripheral Visions Mary Catherine Bateson (1994) makes the argument that the strongest and weakest defend themselves against new learning (Bateson, 1994, p. 75). The strongest in this context pertains to those older students who have a strong social life at school, who are popular and perhaps have friends around them who would rather speak their native tongue than spend extra time after school acquiring English Language Skills. The weakest are the students who feel destined for failure and see no point in making an attempt to improve their skills on their terms. The teacher referral system aims to play a big part in helping these two groups of students make the right choice.

The Importance of Culture

At the Family Language Program we felt it was very important to consider the culture of our students. Oxford and Scarella (1992) point out that, as teachers, we have the tendency to forget to learn about the student’s culture in the teacher’s rush to help the student learn the American language and culture. The student’s culture can have an impact on how they interact within the educational environment. For example, Europeans tend to hold a high regard for friendships and take a long time to solidify these relationships (Hall & Hall, 1990). It may then take a long time for students to allow anyone within their circle of relationships. Students from Asian cultures may have the typical belief that members of the culture are not supposed to stand out. In their home cultures they are typically expected to work hard but not to “out do” the neighbors (Gudykunst, 1998). As such, these students tend to be quiet, yet study hard, and not question the teacher.

These are only two of the literally hundreds of cultures that students could come to the program from, and are both grossly generalized. Individual students will have individual personalities that may or may not fit into stereotypical constructs. With all students it is important to learn about them and where they come from in order to break down any cultural barriers that exist. This is especially true of students from Latin and African cultures as their educational experiences and beliefs will vary greatly depending on which country, and which region of that country they originate.

The Role of Family

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2003-04 school year English Language Learner (ELL) services were provided to 3.8 million students (11 percent of all students). California and Texas had the largest reported number of students receiving ELL services. In California, there were 1.6 million students (26 percent of all students) who received ELL services; and in Texas, there were 0.7 million students (16 percent of all students) who received ELL services (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96).

The role of the family is vitally important to the success of the Family Language Program. Additionally, it must be realized that the estimated millions of students who utilize ESL services, have families at home who are also in need of support. Estimates vary on how many adults are in need of said support, but range from 15-25 million. This support might be directly related to their acquisition of the English language, or it might be related to supporting the acquisition for their student. While the program is targeted towards the K-12 ESL certified student, there are programs available that are designed with the parents in mind. One such program is Project FLAME (Family Literacy: Aprendiendo, Mejorando, Educando). The Family Language Program is founded with assumptions that also believe and will incorporate into the program, “a supportive home environment is essential to early literacy development, the belief that parents can have a positive impact on children’s learning, and the knowledge that, if parents are confident and successful learners, they will be the most effective teachers to their children” (Rodriguez-Brown, 2003, p. 129).

In order to build this supportive home environment, parents will be invited to, and strongly encouraged to participate in, many of the instructional activities that their children are involved in. The parenting aspect of the program is intended to focus upon discussion about school culture and school requirements in hope to increase parent involvement. According to Greene and Tichenor (2003), parental involvement is defined as participating “in the educational process by enhancing their parenting skills, developing positive communication skills between home and school, volunteering, providing learning opportunities at home, contribute to decisions that affect schooling, and collaborating with the community in support of the school” (p. 242). This leads into Epstein (1992) belief that “students at all levels do better academic work and have more positive school attitudes, higher aspirations and other positive behaviors if they have parents who are aware, knowledgeable, encouraging, and involved” (p. 1141). The teachers of the Family Language Program will discuss with parents the importance of dialogue between them and their children in regards to school and for the parents to provide a quality study environment.

It should be noted that in this definition, not all family involvement must be done at the school. In a review of research on family involvement in schools, Cotton and Wikelund point out that “there are strong indications that the most effective forms of parent involvement are those which engage parents in working directly with their children on learning activities in the home.” This is especially important with the families in our program to take note as parents may not have the time or conflicting work schedules to be actively involved with their children’s in-school activities.

Cultural barriers also play a role in preventing the parents of ELL students from becoming involved in the education of the child. Many of these parents do not speak or understand English themselves and therefore view the system as incomprehensible. Some families come from cultures in which the school and teachers have a higher status than they do. A “teachers can do no wrong” attitude can create an unnecessary disconnect between schools and homes (Burmudez and Marquez, 1996).

The agency strives to involve all members of the English Language Learning family in the program in order to help them understand the importance of involvement in education. By having parents work together with their children to learn the language and understand the educational system that that have become a part of, it is hoped to increase not only the language skills of all those involved, but to increase the academic achievement of the students as well.

Roadblocks to the Program

In determining the difficulties the agency will have in implementing the Family Language Program, four areas have been identified. The first is hiring competent and qualified teachers to support the ELL students. As noted on www.afterschool.org: “Adequate staff capacity is critical to running any out-of-school time program, and many programs must cope with high staff turnover. Even if quality staff members are recruited … programs may not be able to pay them enough to retain them.” Because of the nature of the program and the specialized training involved, the Family Language Program may fall victim to high turnover amongst its staff members. As well, the agency is committed to providing its students with the highest quality of teachers; however, the program may not afford the luxury of sending its staff to trainings and conferences to enhance the learning of the ELL participants.

Additionally, the program competes with other school activities for use of the facilities. The agency has created partnerships with schools in the community, but space is always limited and the agency is concerned about losing its home base. Other facilities off school property could be utilized; however, this presents another issue of transportation of the students. Cost would also be a factor in outside facilities as the use of the school building is complimentary Ideally, the Family Language Program wants to continue its partnership with area schools in each community, but realizes this may not always be feasible.

A third roadblock the agency experiences is time available for students to attend the program, especially the high school aged students who may need to find a job to help support the family, or has been accepted to an after-school club or sports program. As the program moves forward, the teachers and directors working with the area high schools will have to brainstorm different strategies to still reach these ELL students. As mentioned earlier, time is also crucial in space available at the different sites around the US. The program competes for time with the students against other clubs, additional tutoring programs, sports, and students’ outside responsibilities. The Family Language Program can combat this roadblock with effective advertisement, teacher buy-in from the hosting school, and a high success rate of accomplished ELL students.

The most important roadblock to the program is financial. As a non-profit agency, the program relies on federal dollars, state dollars, and private donations to fund the curriculum. Additionally, the Family Language Program could initiate partnerships with local businesses and organizations to contribute to the program. While the overhead is relatively low, as there is no brick-and-mortar expense, the main expense is the director of the program, the teachers who are required to have specific training and/or experience, supplies, and the family activities. Some areas the program is concentrated in around the US may face difficult socioeconomic circumstances which decline available revenue. This decline in available revenue – i.e. contributions – may result in stiffer competition among programming for ELL students and programming for other community services. This can result in limited services to the ELL students (www.afterschool.org). As mentioned, the only federal funding resource is the 21^st Century Community Learning Centers Program (21CCLC). The drawback to this funding is the monies “flows to states based on the number of low-income students, and state education agencies award grants to applicants in a competitive process” (www.afterschool.org). Subsequently, the Family Language Program funding is contingent on the importance of ELL students determined by the home state because “states have discretion on how funds are prioritized, but the funds must target the state’s poorest communities and students attending low-performing schools” (www.afterschool.org).

Another funding possibility for the program is Title I Supplemental Education Services (SES) where the Family Language Program can pursue becoming an SES provider or partner with its local school district to provide the after-school programming. Once the program has qualified as an SES provider it “must apply for approval from the state and enter into a contract with a local school district on what types of services and supports they will provide” (www.afterschool.org) . Once the partnership has been established, students are identified for the available services which are free for the families. While the funding sources identified are essential to running the program, it is not a guarantee that the Family Language Program will receive these monies. It is essential, therefore, for the program to foster relationships with other possible contributors to ensure the success of the ELL students and their families.

A Look at the Future

In the future, the Family Language Program will gauge whether it will be possible financially to provide support through online learning to alleviate the space competition with other after school programs. Offering the program online will also increase times that are convenient for students and parents. However, the social interaction and the practice of language exchange with “live” speakers proves to be a crucially important tool in the program. As Maeroff (2004) pointed out in regards to the importance of live interactions:

Face-to face interactions in both academic and nonacademic situations in schools teach children lessons in getting along with others. Personal confrontations force them to tolerate disagreement, to compromise, to reach consensus. They hone listening and speaking skills. They learn the give-and-take of conversation-though clearly not all students learn these skills with equal results. (276)

The ability to improve the students listening and speaking skills is at the core of the Family Language Program and it is believed this is best met in the classroom. However, if funding does become available, the agency recognizes the importance technology could play in reaching those students and families who otherwise would not be able to take part in our program.

Conclusion

Throughout planning and implementing this learning community it was decided to focus upon English Language Learners to scaffold their knowledge of the English language and culture. Each facet of the program was designed to promote lifelong learning in each participant by providing authentic activities and lessons. Families of students were also invited to attend any and all tutoring sessions as well as outside activities. The goal behind this initiative was to advance the learning of English in the home, and also create a partnership with the parents, extended family, the Family Language Program, and community school. All these areas increase academic achievement in the students. This additional assistance for the ELL student and his or her family augments the realization they will participate in a world that requires global citizenry. By participating in the Family Language Program, the students and their families will be more effective as a global citizen, which in turn will make the US in a politically stronger position as it can hoist the fact that it has a large amount of citizens who speak dual languages.

References

Afterschool.gov. Retrieved July 21^st, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.afterschool.gov

Bateson, Mary Catherine (1994). Periphial Visions: Learning along the way. New York: HarperCollins.

Bermudez A.B. & Marquez, J.A. (1996). An Examination of a Four-Way Collaborative to

Increase Parental Involvement in the Schools. The Journal of Educational Issue of Language Minority Students, V. 16, Boise State University. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/jeilms/vol16/jeilms1601.htm

Cotton, K. and Wikelund, K., Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Parent

Involvement in Education. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from the World Wide Web:

http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu6.html

Epstein, J. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Akin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

educational research (2nd ed., p. 1139-1151). New York: MacMillan.

Greene, P. and Tichenor, M. (2003). Parents and schools: No stopping the involvement.

Childhood Education, 79(4), 242.

Gudykunst, W.B. (1998) Bridging the differences: effective intergroup communication. (3^rd ed). Volume 3 Interpersonal Comments. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications

Hall, E.T. & Hall, M.R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Maine: Intercultural Press.

Harth, Chris (2007). Adaptive Education for Our Emergent Global Era. Retrieved July 17^th, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.globalstudiesfoundation.org/ShowContents.cfm?CategoryID=68

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (1999). Returning to our roots: A learning society. 4^th report. http://www.nasulgc.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=187.

Maeroff, Gene I. (2003). A Classroom of One: How Online Learning is Changing our Schools and Colleges. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Nation Center for Education Statistics, Fast Facts. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from the

World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96

Oxford, R.L. & Scarella, R.C. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: the individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Rodriguez-Brown, F. V. (2003) Family literacy in English language learning

communities: Issues related to program development, implementation, and

practice. In Family literacy: From theory to practice, ed. A. DeBruin-Parecki and

B. Krol-Sinclair, 126-146. Newark, DE: International Reading Association