Children for Whom English /French Is Not Their First Language

National Strategy for Early Literacy

Children for Whom English /French Is Not Their First Language

Esther Geva & Alexandra Gottardo with Fataneh Farnia & Julie Byrd Clark

2 National Strategy for Early Literacy

Children For Whom English /French Is Not Their First Language 3

Children for whom English /French is not their first language

Esther Geva1 & Alexandra Gottardo2 with Fataneh Farnia3 & Julie Byrd Clark1

1 OISE/University of Toronto2 Wilfrid Laurier University3 Hincks-Dellcrest Institute/Centre-University of Toronto

January 2009

Primary Blue: pantone 648 CMYK: 100, 88, 38, 34Primary Orange: Pantone 151 CMYK: 0, 51, 98, 0

Secondary Red: Pantone 710Secondary Orange: Pantone 7408CSecondary Blue: Pantone 631Secondary Green: Pantone 376

The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network in supporting and leading the National Strategy for Early Literacy (NSEL) Initiative. The author would also like to thank the Ontario Ministry of Education for its financial support in the development of this paper and the Canadian Council on Learning for financial support and research on literacy for the NSEL initiative.


Table of Contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................7

Background .............................................................................................................9

Policy, Funding, and Accountability Regarding the Education of

ESL/FSL Students – A Province by Province Account ...............................................11

British Columbia Education ...............................................................................12

Alberta Education .............................................................................................12

Saskatchewan Learning ....................................................................................13

Manitoba Education .........................................................................................13

Ontario Education ............................................................................................14

Québec Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport du Québec (MELS) ........15

The Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training ..............................16

New Brunswick Education ................................................................................16

Nova Scotia Education ......................................................................................16

PEI Education ...................................................................................................16

Newfoundland and Labrador Education ............................................................16

Summary ..........................................................................................................16

Are Provincial Policies Sensitive to the Educational Needs of the

Children of Immigrants? ........................................................................................19


Assessment, Support, Graduation Requirements, and Early School Leaving ...........23

British Columbia Education ...............................................................................24

Alberta Education .............................................................................................24

Saskatchewan Learning ....................................................................................25

Manitoba Learning ...........................................................................................26

Ontario Education ............................................................................................27

Québec Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport du Québec (MELS) ........28

New Brunswick ................................................................................................29

Nova Scotia ......................................................................................................29

Prince Edward Island ........................................................................................30

Newfoundland and Labrador ............................................................................30

School Retention, Streaming, and Academic Success among ESL/FSL Students .......31

Streaming.........................................................................................................33

Heritage Language and Complementary Resources Available to

Students and Families .......................................................................................35

What the Research Shows – The National Literacy Panel ........................................39

Differences and Similarities between Language-minority and

Native Speakers in the Development of Literacy Skills .......................................40

Factors that Impact the Literacy Development of Language-minority

Children and Youth ..........................................................................................41


Profiles of Language-minority Students Identified as having

Literacy Difficulties ......................................................................................41

Relationship between Language Proficiency and Literacy in L2 Learners ............42

Word-level Skills ..........................................................................................42

Text-Level Skills ...........................................................................................42

Reading Comprehension .......................................................................42

Writing ..................................................................................................42

Summary ....................................................................................................43

What the Research Shows: Summary of Recent Canadian Research .......................45

Effects of Instruction.........................................................................................46

Word Reading in ESL ........................................................................................46

Language and Reading Comprehension ...........................................................48

Spelling and Writing .........................................................................................49

The Role of Home Language (L1) ......................................................................50

Summary ..........................................................................................................51

Recommendations .................................................................................................53

A National Agenda ...........................................................................................53

Training ............................................................................................................54

Implementation of Services ...............................................................................54

Dissemination ...................................................................................................54

Research Agenda .............................................................................................55

References .............................................................................................................57

Resources .............................................................................................................61


This policy paper focuses on the language and literacy skills of Canadian English as a Second Language (ESL) and French as a Second Language (FSL) students in elementary and secondary school. It aims to provide an integrative overview of knowledge and practices in the following areas:

(1) provincial policies pertinent to the learning needs of ESL/FSL students

(2) province-based practices and support targeting the learning needs of ESL/FSL students

(3) language and literacy development of Canadian-educated ESL/FSL students

(4) second language and literacy development of children and adolescents who immigrate to Canada later

This document begins with a province-by-province review of policies and practices, educational funding, and accountability as they pertain to the education of ESL and FSL students. It follows with a province-by province description of assessment procedures, community support, and graduation requirements for ESL/FSL students. We highlight provincial sensitivity to the educational needs of children of immigrants and the degree to which the needs of ESL/FSL students are considered. We also identify gaps in knowledge or service provision and make reference to international evaluation studies such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Youth in Transition Survey (YITS). In a subsequent section, we discuss heritage languages, as well as complementary resources that might be available to students and parents. We then review the critical issues facing educational systems in the instruction of elementary and secondary school ESL/FSL students, such as higher school dropout rates.

The paper then turns to a review of the most recent research evidence concerning the language and literacy skills of ESL/FSL students. We begin with an overview of the conclusions reached by the National Literacy Panel (NLP). This U.S.-based panel conducted a systematic review of the research evidence pertaining to English language learners in 2006. Because of Canada’s immigration policy and demographic characteristics, research conducted on English language learners in the U.S. context and in other countries might not be applicable to Canada. We therefore proceed in a separate section to highlight recent, state-of-the-art Canadian research on the development of language and literacy skills of ESL students. The paper culminates with a set of recommendations that are based on the review.

4 In the United States, these are referred to as English Language Learners (ELL). In the United Kingdom, these learners are referred to as English as an Additional Language (EAL). We will use ESL and ELL interchangeably.

Introduction



Background

According to the most recent report of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2007), the number of immigrants and refugees who arrived in Canada in 2005-2006 reached 254,400, with similar numbers arriving annually. Immigrants to Canada are attracted to the three most populous provinces, with Ontario ranking first, followed by British Columbia and Quebec as the second and third most popular provinces (Statistics Canada, 2006). However, the proportion of immigrants who choose to reside in one of these three provinces has been decreasing since 2000-2002. Recently, a more even distribution of immigrants has been observed across the country. For example, it is notable that Alberta, Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island have experienced demographic growth as a result of international migration (Statistics Canada, 2007).

Between 2002 and 2004, three out of five immigrants to Canada were admitted as “economic immigrants” (Statistics Canada, 2008). According to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, economic immigrants are skilled workers, businesspersons, or individuals who can contribute to the Canadian economy and be sources of enrichment for Canadian society. The “principal” applicants in each family are selected by using a point system: immigration status is granted to applicants on the basis of age, education, work experience, adaptability, and knowledge of the two official languages. Despite being well educated, many recent immigrants to Canada face the inherent difficulties associated with entering a new labour market. Consequently, there is a high rate of unemployment or underemployment. Some recent immigrants face difficulties associated with lack of fluency in English or French, and have problems with their certificates/credentials being recognized (Statistics Canada, 2003; Toohey, & Derwing, 2006). These demographic conditions create new challenges for the integration of children and adolescents from these families into the educational system (McMullen, 2004). For example, parents may work long hours, experience language barriers, and encounter an unfamiliar school system that includes cultural differences in terms of school expectations, grading, reporting, concepts related to streaming, school-home liaison, and terminology related to various academic problems. This lack of familiarity with the Canadian system might decrease the ability of immigrant parents to be effectively involved in their children’s education.


The federal government is responsible for immigration policy and it provides some language and vocational training for adult immigrants. However, it has a minimal role in devising national policies or in funding the education of ESL/FSL children and youth, even though they comprise one third of the immigrant population. The federal government does not fund ESL or FSL programs for children who do not speak any of the official languages, while it funds ESL and FSL programs for children who already speak one of the official languages, as well as children in French Immersion programs. Instead, in the case of ESL/FSL students, provincial governments are the ones held accountable for policy decisions affecting this population of learners, provision of funding and facilities, service delivery, and the provincial curriculum.


In Canada, education in general, including that of ESL/FSL learners, is defined at the provincial level. There is a general consensus among provincial Ministries of Education across Canada on the definition of ESL. The term ESL is used to refer to: (a) Canadian-born students who come from homes where languages other than English are spoken; (b) foreign-born students who immigrated to Canada at different ages from non-English speaking countries; and (c) students who were born in Canada and use a dialect of English. Eligibility for ESL funding depends on the provincial immigration policies and immigrant demographics. While consensus exists for the term ESL, the definition of the term FSL varies across provinces, particularly in Québec, where according to the Charter of the French Language (Office Québécois de la Langue Francaise, 1977), all children must be educated in French until the end of their secondary studies, whether in a public school or a subsidized private school. Thus, the term FSL is used to refer to: (a) Canadian-born students who speak a language other than French at home (this includes students whose non-immigrant parents were born outside Québec and who claim English as their first language (L1); and (b) newly arrived students who immigrated to Canada and speak very limited or no French at all.

There is a large variability among provinces with regard to ESL/FSL expenditures, which, in part, reflects the size of the provinces, their demographic make-up, and the number of immigrants residing in that province. Expectations of levels of teacher preparation for ESL/FSL teachers also vary considerably across provinces. In what follows, we provide a province-by-province snapshot of the funding structure for ESL/FSL students or programs, service delivery models for these students, and educational requirements of the training of qualified ESL/FSL teachers.

Policy, Funding, and Accountability Regarding the Education of ESL/FSL Students – A Province by Province Account


British Columbia (BC) Education

ESL is considered a transitional service with the objective of integration of students into the mainstream education system. The support is provided using a student-centered approach. The curriculum is adapted considerably in schools with large numbers of ESL students and is designed to help them integrate into the mainstream. In schools with small numbers of ESL students, language teaching and teaching of content areas are integrated under the support and supervision of ESL specialists. Based on English language skills, support may be provided in self-contained full-day and half-day classes, school-based and itinerant teacher pull-out classes, or in-class support. ESL support is available for five years (Beynon, Larocque, Ilieva, & Dagenais, 2005). Each eligible full-time ESL student is entitled to a supplementary fund of $1,100 per year for ESL services. The BC Ministry of Education sets the criteria for funding eligibility. The specific goals that are set by individual school boards are specified in accountability contracts, and the BC Ministry of Education ensures that the funding provided is allocated to services for ESL students.

ESL teachers in BC are required to have a professional teaching certificate and basic classroom experience. Training in methodology for teaching ESL, cross-cultural sensitization and strategy training, multicultural studies, first and second language learning, and applied linguistics are suggested, but not required.

Alberta Education

In Alberta, the objective of providing ESL support is to facilitate the rapid integration of the students into the regular school curriculum and community environment. Alberta Learning5 provides ESL programs for school boards. ESL support may be provided in sheltered, pull-out, adjunct, or inclusive classes. This support is available for three years per student. In 2006-2007, Alberta Learning expanded the ESL eligibility for a maximum of seven years for students who may need additional support. Eligible full-time ESL students receive supplementary funding of $1,020 per year in Grades 1-12 (the program is not offered for ESL children in Kindergarten). School jurisdictions have maximum flexibility to use these funds in whatever manner best meets their local needs. There is no connection between allocated ESL funding and tracking of language and academic progress of ESL learners. In Alberta schools, ESL teachers are required to have a Bachelor’s degree in Education (B.Ed.) or a teacher’s certificate with specialization in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL). Some boards require a graduate diploma or a Master’s degree in TESL or Applied Linguistics.

5 The former Ministry of Learning has been divided into Alberta Education (for K-12 education) and Alberta Advanced Education (for post-secondary education) effective November 25, 2004. Alberta Learning and Alberta Education are used interchangeably across the Ministry’s documents.


Saskatchewan Learning

The aim of ESL programs in Saskatchewan is to integrate ESL students as quickly as possible into the mainstream classes. An “adaptive dimension” of the curriculum is designed to accommodate individual needs. ESL support is available for two years. A programming fund of $791 per year is allocated per each full-time equivalent ESL student.

The teaching certification required for K-12 is similar to the one that is required by TESL Canada for teaching adult ESL students. Qualifications include a post-secondary degree and 240 hours of training relevant to ESL that includes 18 credits. In order to receive an Additional Qualification Certificate, teachers have to obtain an additional 12 credits (equivalent to 400 hours of training).

Manitoba Education

The Department of Education in Manitoba asserts that learning English is an “additive” process in which learners build on and expand their native language linguistic repertoire. This philosophy is reflected in their labeling of students as English as an Additional Language (EAL) learners, and the provision of “transitional” programming. EAL services entail instruments for screening, initial assessment, and monitoring of students’ progress. The curriculum involves “adaptive” and “differentiating” instruction, based on stages of EAL development. Services are provided for a maximum of four consecutive years for students in Kindergarten to Grade 12. The EAL programming fund is $775 for the first year, $750 per year for the second and third years, and $600 for the last (fourth) year of eligibility. Accountability for funding is currently under review.

In terms of qualifications, K-12 ESL teachers are required to have a valid teaching certificate. An additional elective ESL course at the M.Ed. level is recommended.


Ontario Education

In the first few years in Ontario schools, students may receive one of two distinct support programs: English as a Second Language (ESL) or English Literacy Development (ELD). ESL programs are for foreign or Canadian-born students who speak languages other than English at home. ELD programs target newcomers who speak a language other than English or a varient of English different from that used in Ontario schools, and who arrive in Canada with significant gaps in their education (Curtis, Livingstone & Smaller, 1992). ELD services are available to students who arrive from countries where there is limited access to education in their first language as a baseline to develop language and literacy skills in a second language.

English support is provided in ESL/ELD classes for elementary and secondary ESL students. ESL/ELD teachers work with regular teachers in their classrooms. Students may be withdrawn for a part of or the whole school day. ESL/ESD programming is one of the four components of the 2007-2008 Language Grant that will be allocated to school boards in order to meet costs for language instruction of minority and second languages (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2007). ESL/ELD support is available for four years in the amount of $8,450 per each eligible ESL student. Local boards have some flexibility in deciding how to allocate resources for ESL programs and in terms of localizing student needs (Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, 2005).

To teach ESL children or adolescents in Ontario public schools, teacher candidates must complete a university degree, a teaching certificate, and a mandated post-graduate ESL Specialist program, offered at a number of Ontario universities. This program is offered as Additional Qualification for teachers of ESL/ELD at the K-12 level (Ontario College of Teachers, 2008).


Québec Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport du Québec (MELS)

The aim of the FSL policy in Quebec is to provide language learning support for immigrant children to undergo a process of “francisation” (being French-like). Newly arrived children and youth are entitled to up to 10 months of “classes d’accueil” (welcome classes). These classes can be offered as intensive one-on-one pull-out, or assistance in regular classes, depending on the number of students in the school and their needs. The FSL needs are not specified or defined. The welcome classes can be expanded for a maximum of three years (30 months) as stated in the most recent documents (Bousquet & Martel, 2001; Commission Scolaires, 2007).

Class size and number of students determine funding. Schools receive a monthly allotment of $361.00 for each FSL secondary level student from the Ministry of Education in Quebec for the first 10 months. However, this amount is reduced by 25% for the next year of welcome classes ($229.60), and then during the third and final year of welcome classes, the amount is reduced by approximately 50% or $153.00/a month for the next 10 months). For example, in this case, a school will receive $3,610 for 10 months in the welcome class for a new immigrant student who has arrived before September 30. The amount the school receives will be adjusted proportionally if the child arrives later in the school year. FSL funding is allocated to the school boards to distribute. The Ministry sets the criteria for funding eligibility and monitors whether the funding provided supports the services for FSL students. Accountability contracts detail the specific goals that individual school boards have set to enhance student achievement.

To teach French as a Second Language (FSL) in Quebec schools, teachers need to have four years of university and a Bachelor’s degree, plus 700 hours in a teaching practicum and 120 credit hours in a teacher training program. Teachers who are speakers of other languages must show mastery in French by passing a proficiency exam. Supplemental training for second language instruction is provided, and a certificate from the Québec Ministry of Education is required. The appropriateness of FSL training has been an issue raised recently by Armand (2005). In particular, it appears that FSL teacher candidates are not sufficiently prepared and often lack basic training in the areas of teaching reading and writing skills.


The Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training

(New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador)

The Council seeks to encourage regional cooperation in terms of curriculum. The philosophy of ESL programming in the Atlantic Provinces focuses on quick mainstreaming of newly arrived immigrant students to the regular classroom. To this end, students are given intensive language instruction to enable them to deal with the curriculum in the mainstream classrooms, where they learn English as well as other subjects. There is no designated funding for ESL from the Ministries of Education in Atlantic Provinces.

New Brunswick Education

Information on the ESL/FSL policy, funding, and ESL/FSL services is not available from the New Brunswick Department of Education (2000). This is significant as New Brunswick is Canada’s official bilingual province, and is undergoing shifts in its demographics with increased immigration and the establishment of call centres for many international businesses.

To teach in New Brunswick elementary schools, a Bachelor’s degree in education is required. Additional training in special education or second language instruction, a provincial teaching certificate from the Office of Teacher Certification-Department of Education, and certification to teach English or French as a second language are required.

Nova Scotia Education

The Nova Scotia Department of Education is a member of the Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training (2005). In Nova Scotia, ESL eligibility is determined on the basis of an assessment carried out by an ESL teacher. Identified students are provided opportunities to engage in the mainstream curriculum. As there is no specifically designated funding for ESL services at the board level, funding comes from the budget allocated to the boards for all support services. Boards may choose to use the Special Education Grant to provide ESL services. Starting in 2005-2006, school boards received needs-based funding from the Office of Immigration in Nova Scotia. No funding accountability is specified as funding for ESL comes from supplementary funding (Nova Scotia Department of Education, 2006).

No special qualifications are required to teach ESL in Nova Scotia. However, there are some recommended competencies that include a professional teaching certificate, specialized skills in ESL teaching and methodology (e.g., M.Ed. with TESL focus), and classroom and practicum experiences.


PEI Education

The Department of Education in PEI will conduct an assessment when there are questions about the ESL student’s eligibility to receive tutorial services in English. This is initiated by schools. ESL students in PEI are eligible to receive up to 60 hours of tutorial services one-time-only in the first year. The Minister establishes funding protocols for ESL services. Boards must report student progress to the Ministry.

Educational assistants are assigned to work with ESL students in PEI. They require two years of formal training in the education of persons with special educational needs, or 4,000 hours experience as an educational assistant. No specific training regarding second language (L2) teaching and learning is required.

Newfoundland and Labrador Education

Through provincial funds, the Department of Education of Newfoundland and Labrador assigns one teacher to each school per 16 identified ESL students. Approved ESL books are provided to schools with ESL students. The Department of Education does not allocate any additional budget for ESL support services.

A valid teaching certificate is required to teach in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are no specific qualifications required to teach ESL. However, some competencies, including elective ESL courses at the M.Ed. level, are recommended.

Summary

This province-by-province overview underscores the need for the development of a comprehensive, problem-based, flexible, and adaptive approach to address the needs of ESL/FSL students in Canada.



As previously noted, even though the majority of immigrants to Canada reside in Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec, in recent years international immigration has resulted in population growth and demographic changes in Alberta, Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island (Statistics Canada, 2006). As shown in Table 1, there is a noticeable increase in the percent of immigrants settling in provinces that did not draw many immigrants until recent years.

Table 1: Annual Settlement of Permanent6 Residents by Province/Territory in the years 1997-2006

Are Provincial Policies Sensitive to the Educational Needs of the Children of Immigrants?

Province/Territory 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number

Newfoundland and Labrador

417 402 424 417 393 407 359 579 496 511

Prince Edward Island

144 136 135 189 134 106 153 310 330 565

Nova Scotia 2,832 2,043 1,594 1,609 1,700 1,418 1,474 1,770 1,929 2,585

New Brunswick 663 723 660 758 798 706 665 795 1,091 1,646

Quebec 27,936 26,622 29,155 32,503 37,601 37,591 39,553 44,243 43,312 44,677

Ontario 117,737 92,397 104,166 133,505 148,640 133,592 119,723 125,092 140,524 125,914

Manitoba 3,703 2,997 3,725 4,635 4,593 4,619 6,502 7,426 8,096 10,051

Saskatchewan 1,734 1,564 1,729 1,882 1,704 1,668 1,668 1,942 2,107 2,724

Altberta 12,832 11,188 12,089 14,363 16,408 14,767 15,837 16,473 19,404 20,717

Birtish Columbia 47,836 35,973 36,126 37,430 38,474 34,055 35,231 37,028 44,771 42,079

Yukon 89 62 77 60 65 50 59 62 65 65

Northwest Territories

100 63 58 83 95 60 94 89 84 98

Nunavut 0 0 14 12 13 12 9 8 12 9

Not Stated 15 25 5 13 23 0 24 7 18 8

Total 216,038 174,195 189,957 227,459 250,641 229,051 221,351 235,824 262,239 251,649

6 Permanent resident is a term used by Ministry of Immigration and Citizenship to refer to landed immigrants.


Three-quarters of these immigrants come from non-English speaking countries. Of primary relevance in the present context is the fact that almost one-third of immigrants are under the age of 19 and that they have additional educational needs beyond just learning to speak and read the societal language (one of the official languages of Canada). They need to adapt to and integrate into the new environment and the new culture. These students require resources and support to enhance their learning and success. It is true that provincial governments’ obligations toward the education of ESL students are acknowledged in the respective provincial ESL policy guidelines. However, on the whole, provincial Ministries of Education tend to overlook research evidence in allotting adequate funds to ESL programs and in imposing funding caps for ESL/FSL services.

We now know that, depending on the age of arrival, it takes two to three years for a newly arrived immigrant student to acquire language skills required for everyday, informal interaction. For academic purposes, however, an immigrant student needs additional years of targeted instruction to develop language skills similar to those of their native language peers (e.g., August & Shanahan, 2006; Biemiller, in press; Cummins, 1984; Farnia & Geva, under review). Relatedly, as illustrated in Figure 1, the PISA/YITS (Bussiere, Cartwright, Crocker, Ma, Oderkirk, & Zhang, 2000) results show that even though immigrant students make rapid gains in their reading skills in the early years of their immigration, their average performance on reading comprehension converges with that of their Canadian-born counterparts only after they have lived in Canada for about 14 years.

ESL and FSL services and funding entitlement formulas suffer from under-funding by the provinces and do not appear to reflect demographic trends and research findings. The short-term nature of funding and the typically low levels of funding also affect the quality of ESL/FSL programs. In addition to the short-term ESL/FSL funding cap, maximum age of school entitlement (i.e., age cap for high school completion) may have an effect on ESL/FSL students’ long-term language and academic achievement, especially if they immigrate to Canada in later years, or if their education was interrupted. Provinces differ in their maximum age of entitlement for schooling. Maximum age of entitlement ranges from the age of 18 in Quebec to 22 in Saskatchewan. Funding caps for supplementary ESL support range from a maximum of 60 hours in Prince Edward Island to a maximum of five years in British Columbia and Ontario. In Alberta, the 3-year funding eligibility may be extended to a maximum of seven years when the school authorities determine that some ESL children may need additional support (Alberta Education, 2007). Students in Québec are entitled to 10 months of FSL services, and this service, in the form of a welcome class spanning an additional 10 months, can be extended to a maximum of three terms (Québec Ministry of Education website, http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/GR-PUB/m_englis.htm ). The FSL services (classes d’acceuil/welcome classes) are only extended under conditions where the student has been unsuccessful at achieving the desired proficiency, has failed the FSL assessments, and has demonstrated a need (student being academically behind other students at the same academic level).


Setting unrealistic caps on age of entitlement curtails opportunities for better-developed language and literacy skills of immigrant and refugee ESL and FSL students who enter the Canadian school system in adolescence or as young adults. Some of these learners may have come from war-torn countries where they experienced interrupted schooling or no opportunities to attend school at all. These ESL/FSL students have needs beyond learning a second language. Adjusting to a new culture and the challenges these learners encounter in integrating into the new society may hinder their ability to learn the societal language adequately and to develop academic skills needed to become productive members of Canadian society. In a country with negative population growth, it is especially important that new young immigrants are given the opportunities to develop their potential.

Figure 1. Literacy scores of immigrant and Canadian-born students converge over time

The overall picture that emerges suggests that in provinces with smaller immigrant populations, the prevailing assumptions and practice is that the small number of ESL/FSL students does not warrant funding for ESL/FSL services or hiring qualified personnel with skills to address the needs of ESL/FSL students. These students may receive little or no specialized language training or may be grouped with special education students. These practices are especially detrimental when latecomers enter the secondary level and do not have enough time to develop the language and literacy skills needed for academic success. Maintenance of ESL/FSL policy is important for its continued usefulness, but lack of funding at the provincial level, redirection of ESL/FSL funding to other programs at the board level, and the accountability oversight (Dunn, 2006; McCarter, 2005; Wild, Helmer, Tanaka, & Dean, 2006) often clash with ESL/FSL policy values. The quality of educational programming and pertinent interdisciplinary support services for ESL/FSL students hinges on clear policies, dedicated funding, and higher standards of accountability.

Reading Literacy (PISA)

560

550

540

530

490

500

520

510

470

460

480

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Number of Calendar years student has lived in Canada

Immigrant


By definition, while school boards are responsible for the design and efficiency of implementing ESL programs, the provincial Ministries of Education across the country are responsible for funding allocation and are accountable for evaluation of program delivery mechanisms. It is notable that ministries allocate funds for ESL programs (and FSL programs in Québec), but in the majority of cases they remain flexible as to how the boards spend the funds. The Boards, in turn, have the right to redirect the funds to other programs or use them to finance other items deemed to be more important, such as staff salaries, financing smaller class sizes, or improving library services. In 2005-2006, for example, the Toronto District School Board received $80 million from the Province of Ontario for ESL programs. However, the financial report posted on the board’s website and the Annual Report of Auditor General reveal that the board used less than half of the funds on ESL programs (McCarter, 2005; People for Education, 2007). Lack of restrictions on how boards are allowed to spend funds allocated to ESL programs may be construed as reflecting more flexibility at the board level, but in reality, a lack of accountability inherently reduces the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation of ESL/FSL services and the ways they are put into practice to serve ESL and FSL students.

Across the provinces there are commonalities and differences in the specifications of the credentials for ESL teachers (and FSL teachers in Québec). While the majority of provinces require a professional teaching certificate, they vary in the recommended degree of ESL specialization training required of ESL teachers. One of the key concerns is whether and to what extent teachers with varying degrees of training in second language education are able to provide ESL/FSL instruction in a manner that is flexible and adaptive, yet still meets expectations for student achievement. In this regard, it is notable that no Canadian study to date has compared the differential effects of these diverse policies and practices on ESL/FSL academic student outcomes in a systematic manner. In addition, this heterogeneity underscores the need to pay more attention to ways in which ESL/FSL teachers, and also the teachers of academic subjects, are trained to address the language and academic needs of ESL/FSL students.

To summarize, it is evident from this overview that there is quite a bit of heterogeneity among provinces with regard to:

• years of entitlement to FSL/ESL services

• policies concerning the funding of ESL/FSL supports

• the extent to which there is built-in flexibility in adapting eligibility criteria for the individual learning needs of ESL/FSL students

• policies addressing the divergent needs of students who received education in their home country prior to coming to Canada, and those whose schooling prior to arrival in Canada has been disrupted or non-existent

• ESL/FSL teaching certification/licensure/training

• the objectives and modes of delivery of ESL/FSL programs

• the nature and rigor of the curriculum


There is a general consensus among Ministries of Education that the purpose of initial assessment at time of arrival or commencement of formal schooling is to identify ESL students’ potential and their language and academic needs in relation to their typically achieving peers in the same age group. Assessment is also used to determine appropriate placement, type of transitional services, and the intensity of instruction. The rationale is that this information will assist in setting up educational goals, and generate strategies and plans for providing the necessary language and literacy support to ESL/FSL students. However, the success of each provincial ESL/FSL policy is reflected in funding procedures and practices, mandated standard values, and the compliance of boards and school staff. This section examines how provincial ESL/FSL policies are tied to the levels of academic achievement accomplished by ESL/FSL students. A better understanding of this issue is important as it can increase or mitigate the rates of early school leaving among ESL/FSL students. We also comment on the variability of assessment procedures, services available, and graduation requirements across different provinces.

Assessment, Support, Graduation Requirements, and Early School Leaving


British Columbia Education

In the B.C. school system, students are generally assigned to age-appropriate classes. The placement of ESL students should be determined by an ESL specialist in consultation with other professionals (e.g., the school counselor, the classroom teacher). Suggested initial assessments measure listening and speaking (Prototype Oral Interview, Aural Comprehension), reading (Alberta Diagnostic for Grades K-3; Woodcock Comprehension subscale for Grades 4-12), and writing (Genre Analysis and Written Language Matrix for Grades K-12; Burnaby South Benchmarks for Grades 8-12). School districts are flexible in using other test instruments. The placement of ESL students occurs on the basis of the assessment results. Intensive ESL support is provided in sheltered/self-contained classes, in which students receive instruction in listening, speaking, reading, writing, and social and academic English in full or half-day classes. Sheltered ESL courses are considered as ‘services’ and not ‘curriculum’ (Wild et al., 2006). Therefore, ESL students who take these courses do not earn any credits toward their graduation.

In order to meet graduation requirements and be awarded a British Columbia Certificate of Graduation, called a Dogwood Diploma, students must earn a minimum of 80 credits that must include 48 credits of required courses, a minimum of 28 elective credits, and 4 credits for Graduation Portfolio Assessment. Language Arts is the only mandatory Grade 12 course. The large number of credits, combined with a heavy emphasis on language arts and limits to years of educational entitlement, minimizes high school graduation rates for ESL students who are late-arrivals and require time to acquire high level academic English language skills.

Alberta Education

ESL students must be placed in their designated school in an age-appropriate regular classroom program, in consideration of the most recent grade completed by the student. ESL initial assessment tools and procedures vary across different jurisdictions in Alberta. Alberta schools reported using more than 60 different assessment instruments, the most common ones being the Developmental Reading Assessment test (K-6), the Woodcock-Munoz (7-9), and the Secondary Level English Proficiency test (10-12). Across all grade cohorts, 43% of schools reported collecting information about ESL students’ first languages. In some jurisdictions, assessment takes place at the school level without involvement or supervision of the board of education. In others, such as Calgary Public and Calgary Catholic boards, assessment of proficiency in English takes place at intake in formal reception centres. Even at school level, assessment of English proficiency for ESL learners is standardized in these jurisdictions and includes reading, writing, oral, and listening as well as numeracy assessment. This assessment is referred to as “authentic assessment” and is conducted by teachers. Interpreters are often used in the assessment process. In school boards where there are no reception centres, a teacher designated at each school (often identified as a “special education” teacher or “counselor”), or sometimes the classroom teacher, is generally responsible for administering and interpreting intake assessment tests.


English language proficiency is described in five levels: (1) limited formal schooling, (2) beginner, (3) low intermediate, (4) high intermediate, and (5) advanced. These levels determine students’ placement. Explicit instruction, differentiated instruction, and cultural competency programs are used to deliver ESL services. The support is available in sheltered, pull-out, and adjunct inclusive classes where English skills are taught.

High school in Alberta is defined as Grades 10 to 12. The Alberta High school Diploma involves 100 compulsory credits. Students write diploma exams that evaluate their performance relative to provincial standards. Such exams are required in biology, chemistry, English, French, pure and applied mathematics, physics, science, and social studies. The heavy emphasis on testing and the written language skills required to pass exams in some content areas could limit the chances of graduation for newcomer ESL students who arrive as preadolescents or adolescents.

Saskatchewan Learning

ESL students are placed in age-appropriate regular classrooms and are involved in appropriate activities upon arrival. English is expected to be learned by ESL students through a whole language approach to language learning (e.g., thematic approach, the language experience approach, shared-book approach). The philosophy is that ESL students should receive extensive exposure to meaningful, authentic language and acquire their second language through rich linguistic input. There is no specification or evidence as to whether ESL students are assessed formally as they enter the school system, or about their rate of graduation. Observation, anecdotal records, and rating scales are used to assess ESL students’ level of proficiency.

High school is defined as Grades 10 to 12. In order to attain a Saskatchewan high school graduation diploma, a minimum of 24 credits are required, of which 15 include English language arts, mathematics science, social sciences (includes Canadian Studies), health education/physical education, arts education/practical and applied arts. English and social studies, which require high levels of English literacy, are the only mandatory courses at the Grade 12 level. There are no provincial examinations. There is little information about the success rate of ESL students who are taking secondary level courses. It is also not known what percentage of ESL students obtain sufficient credits to continue with post-secondary education.


Manitoba Education

According to Manitoba policy, Early and Middle Years learners new to Canada should be generally placed in the grade that is appropriate for their age. Students, who are several grades behind peers and have had limited or interrupted schooling are provided focused, intensive literacy instruction in order to make steady gains and narrow the achievement gap.

Initial assessment is usually conducted within one or two weeks of the student’s arrival at school. The purpose of the initial assessment is to gather information on English as an additional language (EAL) students’ educational background, level of English and their first language proficiency. This assessment is used to determine EAL students’ needs and to devise appropriate second language programs. The assessment includes oral interview, review of students’ oral language proficiency, unedited written language samples, and students’ listening and reading skills. Use of diagnostic tests is also encouraged along with other assessment tools. There is no reference to any particular diagnostic instrument in the EAL Guidelines. Instruction may be adapted based on the specific linguistic demand of each subject area and EAL students’ language ability. When program adaptations are insufficient toward addressing student needs, an individual program plan (IPP) is required. IPPs are typically used when modifications must be made to the curriculum outcomes particularly for EAL students who have little or no formal education in English or whose education has been interrupted.

High school is defined as Grades 9 to 12. To attain a Manitoba Certificate of School Completion, students in senior year English-language programs need to obtain a minimum of 28 credits. The only compulsory courses at the Grade 12 level are language arts and mathematics. However students must complete four credits at the Grade 12 level. Students must meet the entrance requirements of the post-secondary, training, or work situation they intend to pursue. Manitoba has recently made some effort to modify graduation requirements for EAL students and to acknowledge their strengths in their first languages. Under the Special Language Credit Option Policy, EAL students are eligible to receive up to four credits toward meeting graduation requirements by demonstrating linguistic competence in a language other than English or French, presumably their native language


Ontario Education

Elementary and middle school (Grades 1-8) ESL students are generally placed in age-appropriate classes. In the first few years in Ontario schools, ESL students may receive one of two distinct support programs - ESL or English Literacy Development (ELD), which were described in more detail in an earlier section. In an initial interview, the classroom teacher or ESL/ELD teacher collects information about student demographics, previous schooling and educational experiences from both students and parents. The initial assessment includes information about the student’s level of English proficiency to enable proper ESL programming. The process may also include assessment of first language skill, or the English dialect, and a mathematics skills assessment. Information on students’ language and literacy skills is gathered over several weeks by observing students as they participate in class and school activities. Grade 9 to 12 students’ assessments are based on their class assignments, projects and their class performance. Teachers use their judgment to place ESL students in one of five levels of English as a Second Language and/or in one of five levels of English Literacy Development (with the highest level, Level 5, corresponding to abilities similar to a native speaker of English). Level 1 identifies students who fall much below the provincial standards and level 4 identifies students who have achieved all or almost all expectations of the course. No precise assessment tools (standard or other) are specified in the policy guidelines for evaluation of language and literacy skills of ESL students.

In order to graduate and earn an Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD)7, students must complete at least 30 high school credits that are earned in Grades 9-12. A Grade 12 level course in English is the only mandatory course at the Grade 12 level. There are no provincial examinations at the Grade 12 level, but students must pass the Grade 10 Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (Education Quality and Accountability Office or EQAO) and must complete 40 hours of Community Involvement activities. Provisions are made for ESL students to take the Education Quality and Accountability Office test when they have reached the level of proficiency in their language studies to be able to take the test. ESL students can repeat the Grade 10 EQAO test three times. If they fail, they must complete the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Course.


Quebec Ministry of Education-Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport du Québec (MELS)

According to McAndrew (2001), newly arrived immigrants from higher socio-economic backgrounds are placed in Francisation (Frenchifying/Francophiling) classes and regular classes, whereas immigrant students from lower socio-economic backgrounds with interrupted or no schooling, or learning difficulties are all placed in welcome classes (classe d’accueil) and post-welcome classes, if available.

Intensive FSL support, in the form of welcome classes, is provided to entitled students. This support might be provided through volunteers. Depending on the school boards, some FSL assistance may be available through itinerant teachers.8 Post-accueil (post-welcome) classes are offered, however only in certain school boards in more urban areas (see Armand, 2003).

Secondary school is defined as Grades 7 to 11. The Quebec Ministry of Education, Sports and Leisure (MELS) awards the Diploma of Secondary Studies (DES) to students who accumulated a total of 54 credits of which 26 are compulsory. Twenty of these credits must be taken at the Grade 11 level. English and French are the only mandatory Grade 11 courses. Students at the secondary level must also pass a required exam in written language at the end of their third year and another in written discourse at the end of their fifth year. Students who have achieved high school graduation status must complete additional two years of college education. This is referred to as CEGEP, Collège d’enseignement général et professionel (general and professional education college) before they can attend university. The literacy requirement in both English and French could limit high school graduation for FSL students who arrive in Canada not speaking one of the official languages. In Québec, all students need to have successfully completed six mandatory credits in English in order to graduate from high school. This means that newly arrived students, who speak neither French nor English, need to learn both languages in order to graduate from high school.

7 The Ontario Secondary School Certificate (OSSC) will be granted upon request to students who leave school before earning the OSSD, provided they have earned a minimum of seven compulsory and seven optional credits.

8 An itinerant teacher is usually referred to as a “visiting or volunteer teacher”, as someone who has had some formal training in education,

but in this case, does not work consistently (on a consistent basis) or has an informed understanding of working with linguistically and culturally diverse students. Generally speaking, itinerant teachers are most commonly associated with the field of Special Education (e.g., Lynch & McCall, 2007).


Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training

New Brunswick

High school is defined as Grades 10 to 12. There are two credit systems to acquire New Brunswick High School Diploma: 20-credit system and 16-credit system. In the 20-credit system (of which seven are compulsory), students must meet the requirements of the Grades 9/10 curriculum, achieve a successful rating on the English language proficiency assessment in Grade 9 (a reassessment in Grades 10, 11, and 12 is available to students who have not achieved a successful rating on the reading and/or writing component), and attain at least 17 of 20 credits (including compulsory credits). At least five credits must be obtained at the Grade 12 level. In the 16-credit system (of which six are compulsory), students must meet the requirements of the Grades 9/10 curriculum, achieve a successful rating on the English language proficiency assessment in Grade 9 (or a reassessment in Grades 10, 11, or 12), and attain 14 of 16 credits (including compulsory credits). At least four credits must be obtained in Grade 12. Although there are no provincial examinations at the Grade 12 level, students must also earn at least 50% on the Grade 11 English Provincial Examination.

Nova Scotia

The initial assessment section of the Nova Scotia ESL Guidelines is adapted from British Columbia’s Ministry of Education ESL policy guidelines (1999). Initial assessment is usually conducted upon a student’s arrival at school. However, it may be conducted at any point if a teacher believes a student may require ESL services. The assessment includes oral interviews, review of the student’s oral and unedited written language samples, and listening and reading comprehension. The purpose of the initial assessment is to gather information on students’ proficiency in different English language skills, previous schooling experiences, language and dialect spoken at home, the students’ proficiency in their first language(s), and their basic skills in academic subject areas such as mathematics. The initial assessment is used to determine the type and intensity of ESL services and to identify any additional (e.g., special education) support that an ESL student might require. Individual program planning (IPP) is available to ESL students where the adaptations to curriculum and ESL services are not sufficient to address students’ needs in meeting the curriculum requirements.

In order to earn a Nova Scotia High School Graduation Diploma, students require 18 credits of which five must be Grade 12 courses, and not more than seven may be Grade 10 courses. Students must take three English language arts and three French language arts courses, one at each grade level. Therefore, a level of proficiency in both official languages is required. Clearly, this would be a serious challenge especially to latecomers who do not speak any of these languages as their first language.


Prince Edward Island

The Immigrant Student Liaison Program (ISL) in PEI identifies the needs of immigrant and refugee students. The needs are assessed in consultation with guidance counselors, teachers and parents. ESL services are provided on a weekly basis in schools with most immigrant students in the Charlottetown area. No initial assessment of language proficiency or mathematics is conducted. Extra help is provided through volunteer tutors to ESL students who experience difficulty in catching up with schoolwork.

High school is defined as Grades 10 to 12. In order to earn a Senior High School Diploma, a minimum of 20 credits, of which 10 are compulsory, are required. The compulsory credits include four language credits (English/ French) of which three must be taken from English or French as a first language program. The fourth language credit can be either an additional credit of the first language program or a credit in the other official language. In Grade 12, students must have at least five full course credits. English is the only mandatory course at the Grade 12 level. High school courses have a value of one credit each. Full course credit is 110 hours of instruction time.


ESL teachers develop their own criteria and curriculum-based tests because there are no mandated standardized assessment tools. Initial assessment can involve informal testing of reading, writing, listening and speaking. The students are also assessed in literacy in their first language. Wherever the number of students warrant, ESL courses and programs are provided by ESL teachers. In other instances, individual students are supported by an appropriate program plan designed at the school.

High school is defined as Grades 10 to 12. In order to earn a Newfoundland Senior high school diploma, students require a total of 36 credits with a minimum of nine credits at the Grade 12 level. There are no Grade 12 provincial examinations. High school courses have a value of one or two credits each. The compulsory courses include six credits of English language arts. A student can take 12 optional courses.


The comparison across provinces indicates that there is great variability in approaches to initial assessment of the language and literacy skills of ESL/FSL students, the provision of programming and services, and graduation requirements among provinces. Comparing high school graduation rates of ESL/FSL students across provinces would need to take into account the lack of uniformity in criteria for high school graduation. In general, according to Bowlby (2005), early school leaving rates have decreased in Canada in recent years. However, there were 212,000 incidences of high school dropouts in 2004-2005. Higher rates of dropping out are noticed in rural areas as compared to urban parts of Canada (Ferguson, Tilleczek, Boydell, & Rummens, 2005). In some provinces, rates of students leaving school before graduation remains relatively high. As shown in Figure 2, Atlantic Canada, Ontario and British Columbia, have relatively low high school dropout rates, whereas Quebec, Alberta, and Manitoba averaged above 10% between 2002-2005 (Porter, 2005 Roessingh, 2004).

Figure 2. High school dropouts as a percentage of all 20-24-year-olds, Canada and provinces, average of 1990-1991 to 1992-1993 and 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 school years

School retention, streaming, and academic success among ESL/FSL students

High school dropouts

Manitoba

Alberta

Quebec

Saskatchewan


Ontario

Nova Scotia

New Brunswick

Canada

British Columbia

20%15%10%5%

Average of 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 school years

Average of 1990-1991 to 1992-1993 school years Source: Bowlby (2005)


Unfortunately, early school leaving of ESL/FSL students and various demographic trends associated with this phenomenon is not a topic that has been studied systematically across Canada. It would be important to consider the effects of high school graduation requirements on rates of high school graduation among immigrant students. Academic level credits are necessary for post-secondary education. Entering a post-secondary institution is not possible without completing these courses in high school. It is reasonable to expect that ESL/FSL students who do not receive adequate or sufficient language and literacy services, or are not given sufficient time to catch up, are more likely to underachieve in content area courses, where the language and reading demands exceed their L2 skills. Consequently these ESL/FSL students are perhaps more likely to leave school without obtaining a graduation diploma or a “general level” diploma, which will not allow them to undertake post-secondary education. Support for this hypothesis comes from Gunderson (2004) who reported a higher incidence of dropout rates in British Columbia schools serving less advantaged groups of immigrants. He also reported that 35% to almost 100% of ESL students from low socioeconomic background did not enroll in academic courses requiring examination in Grades 8 through 12, especially once they were no longer eligible for ESL support (the end of the five year funding cap).

These results are consistent with the findings of Watt and Roessingh (1994). In a study tracking ESL students between 1989 and 1997 in a high school in Calgary, these authors found that high school dropout rate among ESL students, particularly those from less advantaged families, is substantially higher (74%) than in the general population of high school students (30%). The dropout rate varied dramatically and was related to the ESL students’ English proficiency upon entry to high school. The authors have suggested that rapid integration of intermediate level ESL students into academic mainstream courses had a negative impact on their educational success. They noted three dropout subcategories: (a) “fall-out” – describes students in need of extensive ESL support services; (b) “push-out” – indicates the need for extended ESL instruction (extension of the ‘maximum age of eligibility for schooling’ for students who reach the age cap before they graduate from high school); and (c) “dropout” – indicates the need for sufficient development of prerequisite ESL proficiency in order to meet graduation requirements.

These findings have been replicated by Knighton and Bussiere (2006), who used Canadian data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Youth in Transition Survey (YITS). The results of this study showed that reading ability at age 15 predicted subsequent high school completion. That is, 15-year-olds with higher levels of English reading skills, as measured in the PISA (PISA, 2000) project, were more likely to graduate from high school while those with lower levels of English reading skills were more likely to drop out or stay in school for a longer period of time. In Ontario, fewer ESL learners than English first language speakers achieve at or above grade level on provincial Education Quality and Accountability Office tests of reading comprehension and writing (EQAO- http://www.eqao.com/). In this regard, the Ferguson et al. (2005) report on causes of early high school leaving in Ontario provides a useful synthesis of the demographic, contextual and acculturation factors that may drive ESL


students to leave school early.

Streaming

Streaming to non-academic course tracks may be an outcome of lack of opportunities to acquire higher level language and literacy skills. Krahn (2007) used data from Cycle 1 of Statistics Canada’s Youth in Transition Survey (YITS) to examine the extent to which streaming of tenth-grade students was occurring in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia in the year 2000. The results showed that social background, more specifically parental education and family income, significantly affected the choices students made in their course selection. That is, students from more affluent families were more likely to enroll in academic course options. It is not clear, however, to what extent this practice depends on student choice or on school guidance practices. Anecdotal evidence points to another related belief and practice – that of well-intentioned high school guidance counselors who advise ESL/FSL students to take less advanced academic courses in order to help them cope with high demands for language proficiency. Unfortunately, often students and their families are unaware of the detrimental implications of this streaming in terms of students’ future ability to pursue post-secondary education. Enabling ESL students with lower levels of English reading and language skills to remain in high school for longer periods while receiving appropriate instruction may help them improve their language and literacy skills and obtain the high school credits necessary to meet high-school graduation requirements.

In sum, there are large differences among provinces in the extent to which ESL/FSL students are given sufficient opportunities to develop the skills necessary to attend and succeed in mainstream classes, and the extent to which they have access to ESL/FSL services. There is variability with regard to:

• the methods and tools used to assess the educational and language needs of ESL/FSL students when they first enter the Canadian school system

• the level and extent of expertise of professionals who carry out the identification and placement of ESL/FSL students

• the nature of ESL/FSL programs, FSL welcome classes, and services provided

• the quality and quantity of services

• high school graduation requirements and the degree to which student must become fully proficient in both official languages in order to graduate high school

• provisions for enabling students to achieve English or French academic skills needed for obtaining high school diplomas

• credits given for language and literacy skills obtained in the home language (L1).



Another area that merits consideration for policy decisions concerning the education of ESL/FSL students is the adequacy of resources associated with heritage language programs and access to settlement workers. Heritage language policies and programs can assist in linking first language (L1) and second language (L2) proficiency, and have the potential to increase parental involvement in their children’s education. Research suggests that L2 reading comprehension and writing skills are related to better developed L1 proficiency and attainment of relevant skills in the home language (NLP, 2006). For example, students with lower levels of literacy skills in the L1 are less able to apply their L1 literacy skills to literacy in the L2 (NLP, 2006).

Parental involvement is an important factor in students’ academic achievement (e.g., Fan & Chen, 2001). Hong and Ho (2005) reported that, for some minority samples, parental participation in school-home activities had immediate and long lasting effects on their children’s academic achievement. Immigrant parents, who do not speak the language of school instruction, may not be aware of all the information available to them about learning opportunities for their children, school expectations, differences in marking schemes, streaming, and so on. In this section, we provide an overview of heritage and multilingual resources and programs available for families across the provinces.

In terms of heritage language programs, provincial offerings range from school board sponsored classes to classes offered by community-based ethnic and cultural centres, to no services beyond English or French. For example, British Columbia and Alberta offer heritage language classes almost exclusively through community organizations. Associations within the provinces are responsible for regulating the classes in terms of standards and the amount of instructional time offered. The classes usually take place in community centres but may also occur in school buildings.

In Saskatchewan, the public school system and community groups share the responsibility for heritage language instruction. Saskatchewan Education provides administration services for out-of-school heritage classes and certification procedures for heritage language teachers. It also provides financial support for out-of-school classes and grants to school boards for the equipment and facility rental costs of classes offered beyond normal school hours. Heritage language classes may be taken for credit.

Heritage Language and Complementary Resources Available to Students and Families


In Manitoba, heritage language classes are offered in elementary and high schools during the regular school day. Manitoba Education identifies the goals of the program at each grade level, develops curricula and offers program support, identifies textbooks and materials, and provides resources and ongoing consultative assistance. Schools are responsible for providing resources and support for the implementation of heritage language programs, hiring qualified teachers, organizing language specific teacher in-service, and ensuring that students in heritage language programs have an opportunity to study French.

In Ontario, heritage language programs are referred to as “international languages” instruction. International language programs are available in schools, community centres and public libraries. The funding for international language classes at the elementary level is provided by Continuing Education and other program grants. Funding is based on the number of hours of classroom instruction and class size.

In Quebec, provincially funded heritage programs are offered through the Program d’enseignement des langues d’origine (PELO), which was established in 1977. These programs support the maintenance of the linguistic and cultural heritage of immigrant students. According to McAndrew (2001), the programs offer a diverse range of activities, presented in a folkloric way rather than in an academic manner. These programs are offered as weekend or after-school classes. There is currently no link between the Program d’enseignement des langues d’origine (PELO), Programme d’enseignement des langues d’origines (Heritage Language Instructional programs) and the welcome classes. In other words, there is no cooperation between these language programs which encourages and supports the development of both the students’ first language and second language at the same time. Programs are offered at schools and are based on the number of students who belong to the same ethnic group and wish to study their language of origin. Other students, who speak another language of origin, can also participate in the class.

In the Atlantic Provinces, there are some international minority language programs and services for immigrants. These programs are not associated with Departments of Education or school boards, nor are they delivered in a systematic way. Canadian heritage language is used to refer to the Aboriginal languages in Atlantic Provinces. Minority languages are referred to the official language minorities (i.e., English in Quebec and French in Newfoundland). Canadian heritage means promoting French schools in minority settings.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1990) and Canadian Heritage Act (2004) emphasize the diversity of languages spoken by immigrants and their children. However, federal funding to pursue multiculturalism policies is limited. In addition, the current federal government initiatives on multiculturalism focus on adult immigrants’ English language development, anti-racism education, and cross-cultural awareness. Therefore, the prominence of heritage language education has gradually decreased in importance as a federal mandate. In some provinces, heritage language policies are being implemented and enacted by provincial governments. However, there is a large difference among provinces in course offerings and implementation of the programs.


The Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1990) underscores the importance of promoting international minority languages (heritage languages). Similarly, research findings support the notion that well-developed heritage language (defined as students’ mother tongue) instruction can support and promote L2 language proficiency and literacy skills. It is therefore surprising that heritage language programs are not emphasized sufficiently across the provinces.

Another way in which schools and communities can support immigrant families is by providing funding for hiring settlement workers whose purpose is to assist families and students in integrating into the community and understanding the school culture. As with other areas of second language education, availability of services varies from province to province.

In British Columbia, settlement workers in schools (SWIS) work collaboratively with the provincial government and community-based agencies serving immigrants. Services include: (a) settlement counseling for students, parents, or family (e.g., information and orientation to newly arrived immigrant families about services and resources available to them, information and advice to secondary school-aged immigrant students and their parents about educational programs); (b) workshops and group activities (e.g., cultural profiles, school district culture); and (c) serving as school liaisons (e.g., facilitate culturally sensitive communication between school staff and immigrant children and their families, assist school staff with establishing and maintaining contact with parents). Interpreters are available for parent-teacher conferences and a bilingual contact person is also available for students. Multilingual resources providing access to information on education are not currently available to immigrant parents.

In Alberta, Calgary is the only centre that provides settlement workers in schools. Information in 20 different languages is available on the Internet through a site sponsored by the government of Ontario and Citizenship and Immigration Canada at www.settlement.org. In Saskatchewan, information is provided through the Saskatchewan Association for Multicultural Education (SAME). Schools provide interpreters and encourage parents to actively participate in school meetings and events. Settlement workers are available through private agencies but are not linked to schools.

In Manitoba, information for parents is available in English and French, but no multilingual guides could be found. Ontario has a school-based settlement workers program that links schools, agencies and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The program focuses on school and community related needs of newcomer families. The school-based settlement program has developed the Newcomers’ Guide for elementary and secondary schools. A series of handouts is available in 18 languages (see www.settlement.org/edguide).

Quebec provides services through federally funded organizations, such as PROMIS and PANA (Programme d’accompagnement aux nouveaux arrivants and Escorting program for newcomers, respectively). These programs purport to empower parents, to assist them in gaining familiarity with schools and the school system, and to mentor families on life in their new country. The program also provides interpreters for parent-teacher conferences. Some school boards have a bilingual contact person who works with students and family members.


In New Brunswick, the Immigrant and Refugee Support Centre provides settlement assistance for refugees and immigrants. Assistance includes housing, language training, and employment in the community. The services are provided in English, French, and Spanish. In Nova Scotia, settlement workers are affiliated with the Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association (MISA), a community-based organization that delivers services to newcomers. No link exists between the Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association and Nova Scotia school boards. The Prince Edward Island Association for Newcomers to Canada (PEIANC) provides some settlement services and implements a Multicultural Education Program (MPE), which provides workshops, presentations, and training materials to schools and to the community at large. The Immigrant Student Liaison Program provides support for integration into the Canadian school system. However, services are only available in English and French. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the Association for New Canadians provides settlement assistance and various other educational programs and services to support all aspects of newcomer integration.

The above section shows that provinces vary in the extent to which support is available to guide immigrant families on ways they can contribute and support their children’s education in Canada. For example, many families do not have access to relevant information in their home language and may therefore be misinformed and misunderstand the school system. Some provinces provide access to school-based settlement programs that link schools, agencies and Citizenship and Immigration Canada to interpreters or to school-based settlement workers who speak various languages and can help families adapt to and navigate the school system. Other provinces engage settlement workers whose generic training may not be adequate when special needs or circumstances arise.


A National Literacy Panel (NLP) systematic review was initiated and funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, and the Office of English Language Acquisition in the U.S. The goals of the National Literacy Panel were: to develop an objective research review methodology; to search the research literature on the development of literacy for English language learners; to analyze the research literature; and to develop a final report with recommendations for research, policy, and practice. This work was published in 2006 (August & Shanahan, 2006). This systematic review:

• covered research pertaining to the literacy skills of language minority children and youth ages 3-18

• reviewed the acquisition of literacy in the home language (L1) and the societal language

• involved empirical research

• was published in English in peer-reviewed journals

• addressed research published between 1980 and 2002

When considering literacy skills, it is useful to discuss them in terms of word-based skills such as decoding and spelling, and text-based skills related to text comprehension and writing. In this section, we provide a brief overview of chapters in the National Literacy Panel (NLP) systematic review that focused on: (a) the development of literacy skills (word-level and text-level) of language-minority students in comparison with native speakers; (b) skills that correlate with word-level and text-level skills; (c) the development of word-level and text-level skills; (d) the relationship between home language and the societal (L2) language; and (e) a differentiation between true learning disabilities that may be experienced by ESL students and reading difficulties that may be related to lack of language proficiency and students’ ESL status.

What the Research Shows - The National Literacy Panel9

9 To the best of our knowledge a similar meta-analysis involving FSL has not been undertaken to date.


Differences and Similarities between Language-minority and Native Speakers in the Development of Literacy Skills

The National Literacy Panel reviewed studies that compared the word-level skills (i.e., word-reading, spelling) with the text-level skills (i.e., reading comprehension, writing) of language-minority students (e.g., ESL) as compared to their monolingual (L1) peers. This review indicated the following points.

• Despite differences in English oral proficiency between native speakers and ESL students, the two groups perform at similar levels on measures of phonological processing and word-level reading skills (Geva, 2006). There is little or no difference between the performance of ELLs/ESLs and monolingual (L1) speakers on measures of word-reading accuracy. These studies, targeting primarily students in the elementary school years, were conducted in different linguistic and demographic contexts and included diverse home language backgrounds. In most studies, the ESL/ELL participants had been enrolled in schools where the societal language was taught for at least several months at the onset of the study.

• monolingual (L1) peers. No studies of high school ESL students were available.

• Only a few studies on reading comprehension skills development in ELL/ESL were available. They were conducted primarily in the Netherlands. Findings of studies on reading comprehension paint a very different picture from the one pertaining to word-level skills. The results of these studies were rather consistent, and indicated that the reading comprehension achievement of language-minority students is well below that of their monolingual (L1) peers (Lesaux, & Geva, 2006).

• The overall difficulties that ESL/ELL students have with reading comprehension can be understood if one considers that their language skills in the societal (L2) language are not at par with their monolingual (L1) peers, and that they may not have relevant prior knowledge skills needed for comprehending and learning from the academic texts they are required to read.

• Only very few studies examined the writing ability of ESLs/ELLs, and the results of these studies were rather diverse. Due to the lack of research in this area, the authors of the National Literacy Panel were unable to draw substantive conclusions about the writing development of language-minority students.

• Since none of the available studies were longitudinal, it was not possible to extract substantive findings about factors that influence the trajectory of writing development for language-minority students over the school years.


Factors that Impact the Literacy Development of Language-minority Children and Youth

Predictors of Word-Level Performance. The National Literacy Panel concluded the following points.

• The predictors of L2 word-level performance of ESL students in the primary grades are similar to those identified in research on early reading development of native speakers.

• Readiness skills that predict later literacy development in language-minority students (e.g., word awareness, letter naming, phonemic awareness) are consistent with those identified in monolingual children (Genesee, & Geva, 2006).

• Phonological processing skills, including phonemic awareness, rapid naming, and phonological memory, assessed either in the home language (L1) or English (L2), predict English word identification skills of language-minority students.

Predictors of Text-Level Performance. Many variables at both the individual level (e.g., background knowledge, working memory, motivation, vocabulary knowledge) and contextual level (e.g., story structure, home literacy, demographic factors) influence the L2 reading comprehension of language-minority students. Although the available studies did not typically include a direct comparison between language-minority students and native speakers, these individual and contextual variables have been shown to relate to monolinguals’ reading comprehension in other studies.

Profiles of Language-Minority Students Identified as Having Literacy Difficulties

Some ESL students may also have a reading disability. A handful of studies indicate the following points.

• When evidence-based systematic procedures are followed, a similar proportion of language-minority students and monolingual speakers are identified as having specific and persistent reading difficulties associated with poor decoding.

• In addition to the similar prevalence of reading difficulty, each of the studies reviewed found that the overall profiles of monolingual and ELL/ESL poor decoders were similar on various cognitive processing measures.

• Both monolingual and ELL/ESL poor decoders demonstrated difficulties with phonological awareness and rapid lexical access. On the whole, findings from studies with language-minority students with word-level difficulties suggest that underlying processing deficits, as opposed to language-minority status, are the cause of persistent word-level reading difficulties.

• Of course, ESL students who have a reading disability also have poorer command of English than their monolingual peers (Geva, & Genesee, 2006).

Interestingly, in the studies conducted with middle school students with reading difficulties, the English-language Learners designated as disabled readers had better scores on phonological measures than their native-English-speaking peers designated as reading disabled. This finding should be further investigated, since it differs from the findings of younger learners.


Relationship between Language Proficiency and Literacy in L2 Learners

Word-Level Skills:

• Measures of oral language proficiency in English correlate positively with word and pseudoword-reading skills in English but were not strong predictors of these skills.

• Various aspects of phonological processing skills in English (phonological awareness, rapid letter naming, phonological memory) were much more robust predictors of word and pseudoword reading skills.

• Measures of English oral language proficiency are not strongly related to English spelling skills. It should be noted though that only a small number of studies addressed these relationships, and that even less can be said about the relationship between English oral language proficiency and spelling among ELLs in higher grades.

• Various aspects of phonological processing skills in English (e.g., phonological awareness and working memory) are related to individual differences in the spelling skills of ELLs/ESLs.

• The evidence also shows that, with the exception of measures of English oral proficiency, the cognitive–linguistic profiles of native speakers of English and ELLs/ESLs who are poor spellers are similar despite differences in their English oral language proficiency.

• Due to lack of research, not much can be said about the profiles and predictors of spelling skills of older ELLs.

Text-Level Skills:

Reading Comprehension.

• Well-developed oral language proficiency skills in English, the societal language (L2), are associated with well-developed reading comprehension skills in English for those students who are reading in a second language (this is unlike word-level skills).

• Various aspects of English language proficiency (e.g., vocabulary knowledge, listening comprehension, grammatical skills, morphological skills), and the ability to handle metalinguistic aspects of language (in particular, providing definitions of words) are related to English reading proficiency. Some research suggests that when ESL students have had an opportunity to develop their command of the societal language, their reading comprehension is related to their command of the societal language as well as to their reading ability in their home language (L1).

• ESL students with poorer English language proficiency are less able to apply reading skills that they may have developed in their home language (L1) to reading in the L2.

• Individual differences in the reading comprehension abilities of ESL students are related to individual factors (e.g., cognitive ability, memory, word-reading skills) and to contextual demographic factors (e.g., socioeconomic status, home literacy practices, parental education), and to differences in instructional and other educational experiences.


Writing.

Only a limited number of studies have examined the relationship between English oral language proficiency and writing in English in minority students. The available studies suggest the following points.

• Better writing skills in English are associated with well-developed oral language skills in English. These include listening comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. The link between L2 oral and L2 writing skills is also mediated by underlying phonological processing skills.

• L2 language skills are essential but not sufficient for enhancing writing proficiency in ELLs. Good spelling skills, decontextualized language skills, sophisticated grammatical skills, familiarity with cohesive devices, audience awareness, and familiarity with writing different text genres in different content areas are also important.

• Quality of writing may also be related to L1 writing skills where these skills have already been developed.

• There is scant evidence, however, of the development of academic writing skills in ELLs students in any age group.

• Another pertinent observation made by the NLP is that only very few studies have addressed the language and literacy skills of ELL/ESL students at the secondary level.

Summary

In summary, the results of the NLP systematic review suggest that ELL/ESL students can acquire word-level reading skills at levels similar to native speakers. However, higher-level literacy skills such as reading comprehension and writing are impaired by weaknesses in L2 oral language proficiency, including academic vocabulary and advanced syntactic skills. Finally, gaps exist in the research regarding spelling and writing skills for all ESL learners and regarding all areas of literacy development for this group of learners at the secondary level (Genesee, Geva, Dressler, & Kamil, 2006).



What the Research Shows: Summary of Recent Canadian Research

Canadian researchers have been conducting cutting-edge research in the area of reading development in bilinguals and ESL/FSL learners, including some longitudinal studies examining reading development from pre-reading to reading comprehension. The research reviewed in this section was conducted in Canada after the cut-off date for the National Literacy Panel (NLP). However, it should be noted that several Canadian studies were included in the NLP report reviewed in the previous section, and that several Canadian trained researchers have conducted cutting-edge research in the United States. For example, Chiappe/Collins and Wang and their collaborators have studied ESL learners in the United States, who are from a wide range of socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds (e.g., Korean speakers). Research conducted in Canada allows us to examine the effects of language status without the confound of SES, or having a specific home language. ESL/FSL children in Canada come from a broad range of L1s and a full range of SES backgrounds. Therefore, the Canadian research shows a clearer picture of the strengths and weaknesses of ESL and FSL readers.10

10 Additional research has been conducted in Canada with English speakers, from a wide range of SES, learning French in an immersion or core French context. Although this research can inform processes and strategies used in language learning and effects of bilingualism, it will not be discussed in this chapter.


Effects of instruction

Canada affords a unique opportunity to observe the effects of reading instruction on ESL students from a wide range of SES. D’Angiulli, Siegel and Maggi (2004) showed that very high quality reading instruction benefited low and high SES ESL elementary students to a greater extent than their English L1 counterparts. SES was defined by family income based on neighbourhood data. These groups of ESL children began school with lower scores than their L1 peers but progressed to obtain higher scores than their L1 peers as a result of high quality literacy instruction.

The impact of the addition of a junior Kindergarten year (JK) on oral language proficiency, early academic skills and social competence of low-income FSL children and low-income French L1 children was examined (Pagani, Jalbert, Lapointe, & Hebert, 2006). The FSL children benefited more, showing improved academic outcomes, significant gains in vocabulary skills and comparable performance to French L1 peers on math readiness at the end of JK and similar grades at the end of Grade 1. In this early educational setting, parent and teacher resources were mobilized for the FSL students with lowest vocabulary growth. The results of these two studies showed that high quality educational programs offered to all students result in equal or greater gains for the ESL/FSL students compared to L1 students of the same SES. Most research on L2 learners outside of Canada has compared the impact of programs on low SES students of different languages or on low SES L2 learners and middle SES L1 learners.

Word-reading in ESL

As a result of Canadian research, much of it originating from the Siegel lab, we know that ESL students can achieve at levels comparable to their peers on word and pseudoword reading given high quality reading instruction. Having equal levels of word-reading skill allowed researchers to compare processes used to acquire reading in English L1 and ESL students (Chiappe, Siegel, & Gottardo, 2002). The ESL children showed greater growth in literacy in Kindergarten than English L1 children. Although differences were found in some skills related to English reading across the groups, no differences were found for the early Kindergarten variables that predicted later Kindergarten reading (Chiappe et al., 2002).

Subsequent studies with the same data set revealed similar trends. In Grade 2, the ESL group performed better than the English L1 monolingual group on reading fluency and spelling (Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). The L1 group, however, showed better syntactic awareness skills. When the language groups were divided into at-risk and not at-risk groups based on scores in Kindergarten, most of the phonological awareness measures differentiated risk status regardless of language status. In contrast, oral language skills such as syntactic awareness, verbal working memory and rapid naming differentiated the language groups, ESL and English L1, and also differentiated the risk groups within each language group. By Grade 2, most of the variables differentiated risk status only. However, the average ESL readers showed better performance on word and pseudoword reading, spelling and rapid naming. Therefore, similar phonological processes predicted word-reading skill and risk status in ESL and L1 children.


In Grade 3, the ESL and English L1 groups only differed on syntactic awareness scores (Lipka & Siegel, 2007). While all Kindergarten variables, letter identification, sentence repetition, rapid letter naming, syntactic processing and phoneme deletion, were related to third grade reading in the English L1 children, only letter identification and sentence repetition were related to third grade reading in the ESL children. The models for the ESL and English L1 groups explained similar amounts of variance in third grade word-reading performance. When variables related to classification as reading disabled or normally achieving were examined, Kindergarten letter identification and phonological awareness correctly predicted reading group membership, while language status, ESL versus English L1, did not.

Detailed comparisons of reading growth and reading error patterns in middle-class ESL and English L1 groups revealed that both groups showed similar growth from Grade 1 to Grade 2 (Chiappe & Siegel, 2006). In this different group of ESL children, performance was poorer in Grade 1 on the environmental print task and the syntactic awareness and verbal working memory tasks in comparison to the English L1 children. However, the groups showed comparable growth on literacy and oral language measures. Interestingly, the ESL children were more likely to attempt to pronounce unknown words in Grade 1 and were more likely to use grapheme-phoneme correspondences to pronounce words in Grade 2. All other patterns of reading errors were similar for the two groups. No other differences in reading strategies or predictors of reading were noted. The tendency to use letter-sound strategies is often believed to be the result of speaking and reading an L1 with a shallow orthography (regular and consistent script) (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). However, this pattern of responses might be more prevalent in L2 readers in general.

Word-level reading efficiency was also compared in ESL and English L1 readers in Grade 2 (Geva & Yaghoub-Zadeh, 2006). Although ESL children read single words faster than their L1 peers, the English L1 children showed relatively greater gains in reading speed when reading words in context. It is likely that the English L1 children benefited more from context due to their better English oral language skills.

The data from Canada allows researchers to examine word-level reading processes and growth trajectories in ESL/FSL students when confounds of poverty and lack of opportunity are removed. Data examining word-reading acquisition in Canadian ESL students shows that these students tend to perform as well as or better than native speakers on many word-reading tasks. However, somewhat different processes are used to achieve the same skills in these students. Also, ESL/FSL status and word-reading ability are predicted by different skills. These findings will help educators to determine if a young ESL/FSL child is experiencing difficulties due to language status or reading disabilities. Therefore, the research findings from other countries of word-reading weaknesses in ESL/FSL children might be related to other mediator variables such as SES and experiences related to SES factors.


Language and reading comprehension

Oral language proficiency is highly related to reading comprehension in native speakers and second language learners. Paradis (2005) examined the patterns of errors made in English by ESL preschoolers. Although large intra-group differences exist in the language skills of ESL preschoolers, many children had scores comparable to monolingual children with specific language impairments. Paradis (2005) highlights the potential for misdiagnosis of ESL children based on their oral language scores. This trend has been noted in older children in terms of teachers’ inappropriate reliance on oral language proficiency in assessing the reading skills of ESL learners (Limbos & Geva, 2001).

Even though the development of basic word-level skills does not appear to be problematic for ESL/FSL learners, this does not mean that the development of English vocabulary, an aspect of language proficiency that is closely related to reading comprehension, has reached the level of monolingual children. The vocabulary skills of ESL and English L1 learners were tracked for six years in one longitudinal study (Farnia & Geva, under review). In the early elementary years, when they began to be exposed in a systematic manner to English, the vocabulary of ESL children grew faster than the vocabulary of their English L1 peers. Yet, the gap between the ESL children and English L1 children did not close completely even after six years. The study also found that the same cognitive variables, phonological short-term memory and phonological awareness, predicted concurrent as well as longitudinal individual differences in vocabulary learning in both groups of children.

In another study concerned with ESL students who appeared to be fluent in English but in fact were not, Jean and Geva (in press) found that even after being in the school system for four to five years, ESL students had significantly lower command of academic words used for reading academic texts than did their counterparts who were monolinguals.

In yet another study that underscores the educational needs of newcomers who immigrate to Canada in later years, Pasquarella, Grant and Gottardo (2007) found that Grade 9 and 10 adolescent students who are recent immigrants to Canada perform, on average, at a Grade 2 level on vocabulary and at a Grade 4 level on word-reading. Taken together, these findings indicate that ESL/FSL students are likely to face serious academic challenges when dealing with grade appropriate curriculum when their vocabulary knowledge does not match academic demands.

Consistent with these research findings, data collected in Ontario from a large proportion of students writing the Ontario Secondary Schools Literacy Test showed that ESL students have lower scores on reading, specifically 0.5 of a standard deviation below the full sample (Klinger, Rogers, Anderson, Poth, & Calman, 2006). ESL students in larger schools fared worse than students in smaller schools. However, it is not possible to determine the exact nature of the early instruction for these students and why they struggled with reading comprehension.

In contrast with the above findings, reading comprehension performance was much higher for the cohort of children in Vancouver who had received early, systematic literacy instruction (Lesaux, Lipka, & Siegel, 2006; Low & Siegel, 2005). Language status was related to fourth grade reading comprehension when fourth grade predictors but not Kindergarten predictors were considered. Language status interacted with phonological awareness, specifically showing that phonological awareness had a greater effect on reading comprehension in ESL students than English L1 students (Lesaux et al., 2006). Additional analyses showed that similar proportions of good and poor comprehenders were found


for the English L1 and ESL groups (Lesaux et al., 2006). Surprising results were found for reading comprehension for this group of ESL students when they were in Grade 6 (Low & Siegel, 2005). Although the ESL students scored below their peers on a standardized test of reading comprehension, they did not differ on another reading comprehension test that did not rely as heavily on vocabulary and background knowledge. Even on the standardized test, the ESL group obtained average standard scores. The contribution of word-reading and cognitive variables, such as phonological processing, verbal working memory and syntactic awareness, to reading comprehension was examined. For the standardized test, similar patterns were found for the ESL and English L1 groups in terms of the variables that predicted reading comprehension, and the relative importance of the variables. For both groups, word-reading was most important followed by syntactic awareness and verbal working memory. Slight differences were noted for predictors of the unstandardized measure, with verbal working memory being the least important predictor of reading comprehension for the ESL group, and phonological processing being more important for the ESL group than the English L1 group.

The majority of Canadian research on reading comprehension in ESL/FSL students is consistent with research from other countries showing lags in L2 reading comprehension. However, a small number of potentially important studies show that ELL/ESL students who receive early, systematic, very high quality literacy instruction can achieve reading comprehension scores similar to their native speaking peers. These similar scores might be achieved using different patterns of strengths and weakness in ESL students than are evident of English L1 readers.

Spelling and writing

As pointed out in the NLP report, very little research exists on the development of spelling and writing skills in ESL learners. In a two-year longitudinal study, analyses of developmental trends suggested a similar developmental trajectory of spelling levels across time for ESL Cantonese-speaking children compared to the English L1 children (Wang & Geva, 2003). Spelling errors in Chinese children reflected a difficulty in representing phonemes that are absent in Cantonese phonology. This difficulty was not merely at the orthographic level. Poor phonological representations of the novel phonemes were also reflected in an auditory discrimination task. However, the effects of this “negative transfer” did not persist across time. By the time they reached the end of Grade 2, the performance of ESL children was very close to that of the English L1 children. These results point to an interactive relationship between general development of phonological and orthographic knowledge, L1 “transfer” and the effects of schooling and literacy acquisition on L2 spelling acquisition.

Geva and Lafrance (in press) examined the development of spelling in ESL children in the first three years of school. The roles of language proficiency and cognitive processes in understanding the spelling performance of ESL children were studied. Despite poorer command of English vocabulary, the trajectories mapping growth in spelling skill of ESL and English L1 groups were highly similar. Among ESL and English L1 children, poor spellers were distinguished from good spellers on the basis of weaknesses in vocabulary, phonological awareness and naming speed. The results support a framework that conceptualizes spelling skills in English L1 and ESL children as involving the ability to segment words into units and retrieve specific letter patterns from memory. Therefore, both phonological


awareness and naming speed are important to assess in order to understand a child’s spelling ability, in particular for children whose home language is not English. Despite consistent differences on oral language abilities between ESL and English L1 children across time, the results reiterate the fact that language status alone was not a satisfactory mechanism for understanding spelling development of English L1 and ESL learners in the first three years of elementary school.

In one of the only studies involving writing, Ndlovu and Geva (in press) compared ESL and English L1 Grade 5 children on various aspects of story composition. They found that after several years of attending school in English, ESL learners were able to achieve age and grade appropriate writing abilities in composing short narratives. Although normally developing ESL students continued to lag behind their English L1 counterparts in terms of their command of English vocabulary, they performed as well as English L1s on all measures of writing abilities, including lower level writing skills that require relatively little planning (e.g., spelling and syntax). When generating a story, ESL learners matched English L1 learners in terms of the mechanics of writing such as punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and higher order aspects of writing such as generating appropriate sentence structures and monitoring for grammatical appropriateness and complexity. The profiles of ESL and English L1 students were similar not only on writing tasks, but also on other cognitive, linguistic, and literacy components that underlie writing ability. The ESL learners with a reading disability (RD) did not produce poorer stories than EL1 learners with RD. The results of available ESL research on spelling and writing underscore the importance of early identification and appropriate interventions for ESL students.

The diversity of L1s in Canada has allowed researchers to determine specific effects of L1 on spelling errors. In addition, research that examined writing development in ESL students with a wide range of literacy experiences has shown that many components of writing, including low-level and higher order writing skills as well as the mechanics of writing, can be achieved at grade level in ESL learners.

The role of the home language (L1)

The unique combination of immigrants to Canada, specifically the relatively large number of middle SES Chinese-speakers, allows researchers to study the role of script in reading. For example, many of these children attend Chinese school on weekends or during summer holidays. In addition, a proportion of ESL children are enrolled in “heritage language” or “international language” programs usually outside of school hours requiring parental commitment to preserving or enhancing L1 skills. These children learn to read their L1 and make gains in or preserve their L1 oral language skills. Parents often use these programs to preserve language and heritage, as well as to provide out-of-school enrichment. This attitude of increasing educational opportunities beyond the classroom is less likely to be found in low SES environments. In addition, in large centres with concentrations of certain linguistic and cultural groups, private bilingual schools providing education in a given heritage language are available (e.g., Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew). This unique situation of L1 education as enrichment probably contributes to the fact that Canadian researchers have found benefits to bilingualism, specifically in the realm of phonological awareness (Bialystok, Luk, & Kwan, 2005). The role of the specific L1 is also crucial for instantiating this advantage for bilinguals in comparison to their monolingual English-speaking peers (Bialystok et al., 2005). In addition, these L1 enrichment situations can be used to understand relations between L1 and L2 reading and cognitive variables when high levels of L1 literacy skills are expected and achieved (Gottardo, Chiappe, Yan, Siegel, & Gu, 2006).


In some groups of immigrants in Canada, membership in the group is considered a protective factor for school success (Chow, 2004). Self-reported data collected from ethnic Chinese adolescents suggests that factors such as high levels of Chinese proficiency including Chinese literacy, religiosity, and identification with and pride in their Chinese background are related to academic success. Demographic variables related to academic success include being female, being born in North America and having proportionally more L2 education. Parental education, specifically in this case the father’s education, was strongly related to English use in Chinese-speaking adolescents (Chow, 2001). In addition, English reading proficiency was positively related to acculturation and negatively related to acculturative stress in Chinese-speaking adolescents (Kuo & Roysircar, 2004). Therefore, the Canadian experience suggests that bilingualism and biculturalism have advantages for cognitive development and social adjustment.

Summary

In summary, Canadian research is consistent with the NLP findings but adds some details to the existing report. For example, the research conducted in Canada with ESL children from a broad range of L1 backgrounds and encompassing the full range of SES shows the strengths and weaknesses of ESL readers. ESL readers appear to display strengths in the areas of phonological processing and possibly lower-level linguistic processing speed. These strengths allow ESL students to acquire word-level reading skills at levels comparable to their monolingual peers when high quality early literacy instruction is offered to all. In addition, strategies such as letter-sound decoding, traditionally associated with reading regular and consistent L1 scripts, might be more common in ESL children in general. Letter-sound decoding strategies might be more strongly associated with reading in an L2 than previously believed. ESL students use their relative strengths in decoding and phonological processing to help them with difficult tasks such as reading comprehension.

In contrast, ESL readers continue to show weaknesses in English syntactic processing and academic vocabulary. These weaknesses hamper their reading comprehension and writing skills. Additional research should focus on methods of increasing academic vocabulary and grammatical knowledge and reducing reading comprehension and writing difficulties of ESL and FSL students, especially because underdeveloped language skills have an impact on academic learning. Future interventions should aim to accelerate various aspects of the oral language skills of ESL/FSL students, including vocabulary, morphological awareness and advanced grammatical skills prior to the onset of reading comprehension and writing difficulties and prior to the stage when they are required to “read to learn” from academic texts (Chall, 1986). At the same time, these interventions should maintain high quality word level instruction to help ESL/FSL students compensate for L2 oral language weaknesses.



RecommendationsCanadian Research

There are good economic and educational reasons to foster coherent national, provincial and local-level policies and measures for ensuring implementation regarding the educational attainment of ESL/FSL students. Federal, provincial and local authorities need to come together in their efforts to strengthen their capacity to deliver effective educational services to immigrant students. The following recommendations are based on the review of existing practices and the research available on ESL/FSL learners in Canada and elsewhere.11

A National Agenda

A national ESL policy is recommended that takes into account demographic trends and research findings on language and literacy development of primary and secondary level ESL/FSL students.

1. Federal and provincial governments, boards of education and schools (teachers and school authorities) should be held accountable for the educational attainment of ESL/FSL children regardless of country of origin and level of schooling in the home country.

2. Upper limits to age of entitlement for schooling should be extended to enable ESL/FSL adolescents to have maximum opportunities to develop language and academic skills needed for functioning in a literate technological society.

3. National priorities and the common needs for the development of language and literacy of ESL students across the country should be identified.

4. Coordination of services would provide the education system with common resources that facilitate ESL programming and services nationwide.

11 It is interesting to note that some of the conclusions and recommendations we make independently in this paper are also echoed in a recent research synthesis on educating English Language Learners (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006), as well as a work by Bailey (2007).


Training

5. Core curriculum courses in Teacher Education Programs of all teachers should include training on issues such as: (a) the language and literacy development needs of ESL/FSL students in elementary and secondary schools; (b) adaptive instructional approaches for ESL/FSL students; and (c) the role of L1-L2 transfer of language and literacy skills.

6. Sufficient resources should be allotted to boards of education to employ well-trained professionals who understand the academic needs of ESL and FSL students in primary and secondary schools.

7. Sufficient funding should be allotted to boards of education to provide professional development to those who teach ESL/FSL students on a daily basis in primary and secondary schools. This includes regular classroom teachers, teachers of specific academic subjects, and ESL/FSL teachers.

Implementation of Services

8. Objective measures of accountability should be devised at both federal and provincial levels to ensure that funds allocated for ESL/FSL students are spent as intended.

9. Supplementary ESL/FSL support should be more flexible to address the needs of students who require additional support.

10. Sensitive assessments should be developed to enable program adaptation and continued for intensive support for struggling ESL/FSL students. In the long run, careful and timely attention to the needs of individual students would be cost effective, as services would be provided on a needs basis and potential learning difficulties and school dropout rates could be minimized.

11. Standard guidelines should be developed for identification and placement of ESL/FSL students that reflect ESL/FSL students’ true potential, and that can be commonly used by ESL/FSL educators and other service providers across the country.

12. Heritage language programs, which support L2 proficiency and literacy and increase parent involvement, should be maintained and developed where they are not available.

Dissemination

13. An online national clearinghouse of resources for professionals dealing with ESL/FSL should be created.

14. The establishment of a national database on assessment results, identification, and placement procedures within and across provinces and jurisdictions would enable school boards and local and national organizations and decision-making bodies to fine-tune policies concerning ESL/FSL students. This database could include lists of experts and materials, workshops available through various organizations, and so on.


Research Agenda

15. The unique features of Canadian immigration policies mean that it is not wise to import injudiciously into the Canadian context research findings concerning immigrant and bilingual children from the U.S. and other countries. Therefore policy decisions should be informed by research conducted on ESL/FSL students in Canada.

16. An agenda to stimulate and generate research targeting the language and literacy skills of FSL immigrants is badly needed (both nationally and internationally).

17. Systematic longitudinal research should be conducted regarding a realistic length of time and intensity of ESL/FSL support, and the effectiveness of supplementary ESL/FSL programs.

18. Research on content areas of literacy for ESL/FSL students is needed. There is a dearth of such research internationally, and it is critical to develop an understanding of what language and literacy skills ESL/FSL students need in order to be successful in different content areas at the elementary and secondary levels.

19. Research should be conducted to devise a framework for identifying common assessment tools that can measure the critical components of second language and literacy attainment in immigrant/refugee children.

20. There are almost no studies on the development of language and literacy skills in secondary level ESL or FSL students. Researchers should be encouraged to conduct research in the following areas:

i) the development of language and literacy skills of secondary level ESL/FSL students

ii) contextual and cultural factors and risk factors associated with school attrition among ESL/FSL students

iii) age of arrival of immigrants (with and without access to education prior to arrival) and students’ instructional needs

iv) the evaluation of best practices that facilitate academic success among ESL/FSL students in general, and specifically ESL/FSL adolescents

21. A meta-analysis should be conducted to synthesize research findings on literacy achievement of FSL students at the elementary and secondary levels.

22. There is a dearth of research on the development of higher-level literacy skills, such as reading comprehension and writing and factors associated with these skills, in ESL/FSL students. Even though Canadian research has shown that ESL/FSL students in Canada are likely to have literate parents and may achieve basic literacy skills in English or French, little is known about how to enhance their reading comprehension and writing skills. Research in this area should be encouraged given our demographic and curriculum differences in comparison to other countries.

23. Systematic research and development is needed regarding all aspects of the language, literacy and academic12 skills, career paths and successful intervention programs involving refugee students whose education was interrupted.

12 Due to space limitations, this document is confined to L2 literacy and related skills and does not include a discussion of L1 literacy skills, early language skills and familial factors that have an impact on achievement. It also does not address factors such as transitional planning and post-secondary education that would facilitate workplace participation.



References

Alberta Education. (2007). 2006-2007 Funding Manual for School Authorities. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Government. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/funding/Mannual2006-2007.

Armand, F. (2005a). Capacités métalinguistiques d’élèves immigrants nouvellement arrivés en situation de grand retard scolaire. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 31, 441-469.

Armand, F. (2005b). Les élèves immigrants nouvellement arrivés et l’école québécoise. Revue Santé, Société et Solidarité, 1, 141-152.

Armand, F., Gagné, J., De Koninck, Z., & Dutil, C. (2005). Éléments d’un portrait d’élèves immigrants allophones nouvellement arrivés en situation de grand retard scolaire au Québec. Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée, 8, 7-26.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bailey, A. L. (Ed.). (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Beynon, J., Larocque, L., Ilieva, R., & Dagenais, D. (2005). A sociocultural and critical analysis of educational policies and program for minority youth in British Columbia. In C. James (Ed.), Possibilities and limitations: Multicultural policies and programs in Canada. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Bialystok, E., Luk, G., & Kwan, E. (2005). Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 3-61.

Biemiller, A. (in press). Words worth teaching. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Bousquet, J. C., & Martel, R. (2001). La réforme des programmes de formation des enseignants de 1992 au Québec : Évaluation d’une tentative de régulation de l’offre de nouveaux enseignants qualifiés et d’amélioration de l’accès à la profession. Québec: Direction des statistiques et des études quantitatives, Ministère de l’éducation du Québec.

Bowlby, G. (2005). Provincial drop-out rates – Trends and consequences. Education matters: Insights on training and education in Canada (Cat. No. 81-004 XIE, vol. 2, no. 4). Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2005004/8984-eng.htm.

Bussiere, P., Cartwright, F., Crocker, R., Ma, X., Oderkirk, J., & Zhang, Y. (2000). Measuring up: The performance of Canada’s youth in reading, mathematics and science. OECD PISA Study – First Results for Canadians aged 15. Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada, Statistics Canada, and Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.pisa.gc.ca/pisa/81-590-xpe.pdf.

Chiappe, P., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). A longitudinal study of reading development of Canadian children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 135-152.

Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Gottardo, A. (2002). Reading-related skills of kindergartners from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 95-116.

Chow, H. P. H. (2001). English-language use among Chinese adolescent immigrants. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 47, 191-195.

Chow, H. P. H. (2004). The effects of ethnic capital and family background on school performance: A case study of Chinese-Canadian adolescents in Calgary. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50, 321-326.


Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2007). Facts and figures 2007 - Immigration overview: Permanent and temporary residents (Cat. No. Ci1-8/2007E-PDF). Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.cic.gc.ca/ENGLISH/resources/statistics/facts2007/index.asp.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2008). What is multiculturalism ? Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from, http://www.cic.gc.ca/multi/multi-eng.asp.

Commission Scolaires. (2007). Guide de Gestion des Allocations Relatives aux Services aux Élèves des Communautés Culturelles, Direction des Services aux Communautés Culturelles Août 2006. Québec: Éducation, Loisir, et Sport.

Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Curtis, B., Livingstone, D., & Smaller, H. (1992). Stacking the deck: The streaming of working-class kids in Ontario schools. Toronto: Our Schools/Our Selves.

D’Angiulli, D., Siegel, L. S., & Maggi, S. (2004). Literacy instruction, SES, and word-reading achievement in English-language learners and children with English as a first language: A longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 202–213.

Dunn, F. J. (2006). Annual Report of the Auditor General of Alberta. Office of the Auditor General of Alberta. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.oag.ab.ca/files/oag/November_2006_Report.pdf.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1-22.

Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (under review). Developmental and cognitive processes in ESL children’s vocabulary. Developmental Psychology.

Ferguson, B., Tilleczek, K., Boydell, K., & Rummens, J. A. (2005). Early school leavers: Understanding the lived reality of student disengagement from secondary school final report. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/parents/schoolleavers.pdf.

Genesee, F., & Geva, E. (2006). Cross-linguistic relationships in working memory, phonological processes, and oral language. In D. August, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). Synthesis: Cross-linguistic relationships. In D. August, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian, D., (2006). (Eds.). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Geva, E. (2006). Second-language oral proficiency and second-language literacy. In D. August, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Geva, E., & Genesee, F. (2006). First-language oral proficiency and second-language literacy. In D. August, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Geva, E., & Lafrance, A. (in press). Linguistic and cognitive processes in the development of spelling in ELLs: L1 transfer, language proficiency, or cognitive processes? In A. Durgunoglu, & M. Gerber (Eds.), Challenges for language learners in language and literacy development. New York, NY: Guilford.

Geva, E., & Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z. (2006). Reading efficiency in native English-speaking and English-as-a-second-language children: The role of oral proficiency and underlying cognitive-linguistic processes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 31–57.

Gottardo, A., Chiappe, P., Yan, B., Siegel, L., & Gu, Y. (2006) Relationships between first and second language phonological processing skills and reading in Chinese-English speakers living in English-speaking contexts. Educational Psychology, 26, 367-394.


Hong, S., & Ho, H. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 32-42.

Jean, M., & Geva, E. (in press). The nature of the relationship between vocabulary development and word recognition in ESL children. Reading and Writing.

Klinger, D. A., Rogers, W. T., Anderson, J. O., Poth, C., & Calman, R. (2006). Contextual and school factors associated with achievement on a high-stakes examination. Canadian Journal of Education, 29, 1-28.

Knighton, T., & Bussiere, P. (2006). Educational outcomes at age 19 associated with reading ability at age 15 (Cat. No. 81-595-MIE2006043). Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=81-595-MIE2006043&lang=eng.

Kuo, B. C. H., & Roysircar, G. (2004). Predictors of acculturation for Chinese adolescents in Canada: Age of arrival, length of stay, social class, and English reading ability. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 32, 143-154.

Lesaux, N., & Geva, E. (2006). Synthesis: Development of literacy in language-minority students. In D. August, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lesaux, N. K., Lipka, O., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). Investigating cognitive and linguistic abilities that influence the reading comprehension skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Reading and Writing, 19, 99-131.

Lesaux, N. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005–1019.

Limbos, L. M., & Geva, E. (2001). Accuracy of teacher assessments of second-language students at risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 136–151.

Lipka, O., & Siegel, L.S. (2007). The development of reading skills in children with English as a second language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 105-131.

Low, P. B., & Siegel, L. S. (2005). A comparison of the cognitive processes underlying reading comprehension in native English and ESL speakers. Written Language and Literacy: Special Issue: Literacy processes and literacy development, 8, 207-231.

Lynch, P., & McCall, S. (2007, June). The role of itinerant teachers. Community Eye Health: 26-27.

McAndrew, M. (2001). Immigration et diversité à l’école. Le débat québécois dans une perspective comparative. Montréal: les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.

McCarter, J. (2005). Annual Report of Auditor General of Ontario. Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_2005_en.htm.

McMullen, K. (2004). Children of immigrants: How well do they do in school? Education matters: Insights on training and education in Canada (Cat. No. 81-004-XIE). Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/200410/7422-eng.htm.

Ndlovu, K., & Geva, E. (in press). Writing ability in children who speak English as a second language and have a reading disability. In J. Kormos, & H. Kontra (Eds.), Language learners with special needs: An international perspective. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

New Brunswick Department of Education, Educational Programs, & Services Branch. (2001, February). Arts Education. Halifax, NS: Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.gnb.ca/0000/publications/curric/art.pdf.

Nova Scotia Department of Education. (2005). Learning for life II: Brighter futures together. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://brighterfuturestogether.ednet.ns.ca.

Nova Scotia Department of Education. (2006). Learning for life II: Brighter futures together, 2005-2006 Annual Report and 2006-2007 Action Plan. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.ednet.ns.ca/pdfdocs/learning_for_life_II/2006-07_LFL_Eng_web.pdf.

Office Québécois de la Langue Francaise. (1977). Charter of the French Language. Title I: Status of the French language chapter VIII: The language of instruction. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/english/charter/title1chapter8.html.


Ontario College of Teachers. (2008). New additional qualifications for members. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.oct.ca/additional_qualifications/new_qualifications.aspx?lang=en-CA.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). Education funding: Technical paper 2007-2008. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/0708/technical.pdf.

Ontario Public School Boards’ Association. (2005). OPSBA position paper on second language learning in Ontario. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.opsba.org/index.php?q=what_we_do/advocacy_and_action/aboriginal_issues/second_language_learning_position_paper.

Pagani, L., Jalbert, J., Lapointe, P., & Hébert, M. (2006). Effects of junior Kindergarten on emerging literacy in children from low-income and linguistic-minority families. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 209-215.

Paradis, J. (2005). Grammatical morphology in children learning English as a second language: Implications of similarities with specific language impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 36, 172-187.

Pasquarella, A., Grant, A., & Gottardo, A. (2007). The role of print exposure in the reading skills of first and second language English speaking high school students. Unpublished honours thesis, Wilfrid Laurier University – Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

People for Education. (2007). The Annual Report on Ontario’s public schools. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.peopleforeducation.com/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=634.

Porter, I. (2005). Québec, une ville fermée aux immigrants. Article paru dans le journal Le Devoir, édition du samedi 26 et du dimanche 27 mars 2005.

Roessingh, H. (2004). Effective high school ESL programs: A synthesis and meta-analysis. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 611-636.

Statistics Canada. (2003). 2001 Census: Analysis series, The changing profile of Canada’s labour force (Cat. No. 96F0030XIE2001009). Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/paid/pdf/96F0030XIE2001009.pdf.

Statistics Canada. (2006). Canada’s population. The Daily. Ottawa, ON : Author. Retireved December 9, 2008, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060927/dq060927a-eng.htm.

Statistics Canada. (2007). Quarterly demographic estimates: October to December 2006, Preliminary (Cat. No. 91-002-XWE, vol. 20, no. 4). Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-002-x/2006004/4094876-eng.htm.

Statistics Canada. (2008). Report on the demographic situation in Canada 2005 and 2006 (Cat. No. 91-209-X). Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/91-209-x2004000-eng.htm.

Toohey, K., & Derwing, T. M. (2006). Hidden losses: How demographics can encourage incorrect assumptions about ESL high school students’ success. Research on immigration and integration in the metropolis: Working paper series No. 06.

Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003). Spelling acquisition of novel English phonemes in Chinese children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 325-348.

Watt, D. L., & Roessingh, H. (1994). Some you win, most you lose: Tracking ESL student drop out in high school (1988-1993). English Quarterly, 26, 5-7.

Wild, J., Helmer, S., Tanaka, P., & Dean, S. (2006). A crisis in ESL education in BC schools. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Teacher Federation. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from http://bctf.ca/ESLPSA/downloads/Crisis%20in%20BCESL%20PDF.pdf.

Ziegler, J., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3-29.


Resources

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada:

http://www.cmec.ca/international/ice/47_ICE_report.en.pdf

Alberta Education:

http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/EducationGuide/pol-plan/polregs/adobe/1.5.1.pdf

British Columbia Ministry of Education:

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/esl/policy/definition.htm

Manitoba Education:

http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/docs/support/eal_sup_grant/guidelines.pdf

Nova Scotia Education:

http://www.ednet.ns.ca/pdfdocs/studentsvcs/esl_guidelines/esl_guidelines_web.pdf

Ontario Education:

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/esl912currb.pdf

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/esl18.pdf

Quebec Ministry of Education:

Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport du Québec (MELS)

http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/dscc/PDF/Guide_gestion_alloc2007-2008.pdf

http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/daasa/rens/banque/Fiches/F95a.htm

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/I_13_3/I13_3.html

http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/dgfj/csc/pdf/projects.pdf

http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/REFORME/int_scol/Plan_a.pdf

http://www.mfe.org/Default.aspx?SID=4897

http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/stat/Autres_doc/immigration_angl_460774.pdf

Saskatchewan Learning:

http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/branches/lcc/esl/document_welcome.shtml


Documents

Children for Whom English /French Is Not Their First Language