:*irt -r

* ::li:.]. r,rr, .. ,,,,, ,:-;;.::,2:;1; -1: ijili'i',t a a t a a a a a a a a a a la a o a a a a a aaaaaaalaaaatta

.',it:11i: , 'raaaatQ aatalaa

Young Lnglish language learners

Celia Genishi

How are second languagelearners resourceful?

l l

isten in on a conversa-tion in a classroom where childrenare learning English as a secondlanguage @SL). During snacktimefour-year-old Tiffany asks for paper.Donna. her teacher. directs her tothe writing center, but then realizesthat Tiffany is not referring towriting paper.

Donna: You want a paper, Tiffany?

Tiffany:Yeah. I wipe my hand!

Donna: You want paper to wipeyour hands? What do you need?

Tiffany:Tissue.

Donna: OK-there are tissuesbehind you. Or do you mean anapkin?

Iffany:Napkin!

Susan (staff deueloper):lI's made ofpaper, though, isn't it, Tiffany?

Donna: Yes, it is. A different kind ofpaper.

Tiffany: (holding up her napkin)Tissue.

Donna: The tissue's right behindyou. . .

Tiffany: That is, um, nose. This nap-kin is wipe hands and that is forbathroom wash hands. (points tothe roll of paper towels in the corner)

Donna: Paper towels! All differenttypes of paper, right?

Tiffany: Yup.

(Genishi, Yung-Chan, & Stires 2000,72)

66

This short conversation repre-sents but a slice of what childrenlearning a second language mustfigure out as they join the world ofEnglish speakers. The complexitiesand challenges of this social andcognitive enterprise are the focus ofthis article.

The number of students in theUnited States for whom English is asecond language is large and rapidlygrowing. Tiffany, a member of DonnaYung-Chan's public school prekin-dergarten class in New York City, isone of millions in the United Stateswhose primary or home language isnot English. In Tiffany's case, herfamily speaks Cantonese, a Chinesedialect also spoken by her teacherand by most of her four-year-oldclassmates. They are among themore than two million "limited En-glish proficient" children foundamong the 22 million children en-rolled in public elementary schools(prekindergarten through grade six)in the United States (Macias 2000).

Census figures suggest that bythe year 2025, more than half of thechildren enrolled in U.S. schools wil lbe members of "minority" groups,not of European American origin(United States Bureau of the Census1995). The largest numbers of theseyoung people will reside in heavilypopulated states like California,New York, Illinois, and Texas, wherenew immigrants will come primarilyfrom Asia and Latin America.

To use language at all-to speak or writeor sign-in consclous awareness ofanother's presence is to engage in an actof connection.

- iudith Wells Lindfors, Children's Inquiry:Using Language to Make Sense of the World

In this article children whoseprimary or home language is notEnglish are viewed as resourceful-not as "l imited English proficient,"but as "English language learners"(ELLs). Stated another way, childrenwho are learning English begin theirschool lives with their "languageglass" half full, not half empty.

There are powerful arguments asto why learners of any second lan-guage are resourceful and why theirlanguage glasses should be consid-ered half full. By the time they begin

Celia Genishi, Ph.D., is professor ofeducation and coordinator of the earlychildhood education program in theDepartment of Curriculum and Teachingat Teachers College, Columbia Universityin New York. A former oreschool andsecondary Spanish teacher, her work hasfocused on children's language in theclassroom, informal assessment, andcollaborative research with teachers.

This is one of a regular series of Re-search in Review columns. The columnin this issue was edited by journal re-search editor Ellen C, Frede, assistantto the commissioner for early childhood,New Jersey Department of Education.

Young Children. July 2002

school, children havealready used languageto connect with others,even if their languageis elementary (Bruner1983; Nelson 1996). Ailhuman beings seek tomake connections withothers from the mo-ment their lives begin.Children make connec-tions to help makesense of their every-

Children who arelearning Englishbegin lheirschoof lives wilhlheir "languageglass" half full,nol half emptg.

day experiences as they learn toparticipate in their families andcommunities. They use multipleways of expressing themselves tomake those connections, from cry_ing and making faces to rnou"rn"nt,and gestures and oral language.

In typically developing childrenlanguage is intertwined withcognition, emotion, and socialconnectedness (Bloom lggg). Theseaspects of the person develop astransactions occur betweenchildren's internal intentional statesand their external social andphysical world. Children learn muchabout the world through whateverlanguage their families or caregiversuse. Young children who are English

or to knowledge of language thatcomes through daily experiences inthe social and physical world(Genishi 1988).

Although the research on chil_dren learning multiple languages inearly childhood is not extensive(especially in preschool settings),the research increasingly shows thecultural, economic, and cognitiveadvantages of bilingualism (Hakuta& Pease-Alvarez lgg2). For example,with globalization and the growth ofimmigrant populations in the UnitedStates, those who are bilingual ormultilingual have access to a widerrange of social and cultural experi_ences. These extend from culturalevents in languages other than

language learners donot wait to expresstheir intentions or toconnect with othersuntil they encounterEnglish in the class-room. Thus it isgravely inaccurate toview them as deficientin language. Thesechildren may be newto English, but not toexpressing intentions

English to informal opportunities tointerpret English for family mem_bers S/aldes 2001) to jobs thatrequire the ability to speak andwrite English and at least one otherIanguage.

Moreover, while some monolin_gual adults believe children becomeconfused by learning more than onelanguage, researchers show thisisn't necessarily so @en-Zeev l97Z;Duncan & DeAvila 1979; HakutaI 986; Fouser 19961 t99Z). Bilinguatchildren may develop more aware_ness about the nature of languageand how it works than monolingualchildren, and there is evidence thatbeing bilingual enhances cognitivedevelopment generally. In a study of123 Puerto Rican kindergartnersand first graders, for example,researchers (Flakuta & Diaz l9g5-)found a positive relationshipbetween degree of bilingualism(how able children were in boththeir languages) and scores on theRaven Progressive Matrices, anonverbal test of cognitive ability.In other words, in this study beingbilingual made the studentssmarter, according to the research_ers'measures.

Young Children, July 200267

English language learnersin school settings

To tell you the truth. the hardest thing[about] coming to this country wasn't thewinter everyone warned me about-itwas the language.

- Julia Alvarez, Yo!

Writers like Alvarez poignantlyattest that learningEnglish as a secondlanguage can be agrueling task, aprocess beset withchallenges. Manychildren with below-average performancesin school are judged tohave "problems withthe language" andtermed limited Englishproficient (August &Hakuta 1997).

Indeed learning asecond language cansubject the not-yet-articulate learner topublic humiliation andcreate cultural dividesbetween children and their families.The process of learning English isinfluenced in the United States byenduring and insidious socialfactors: prejudices against speakersof languages other than English,people of color, non-middle-classlearners, accented English, andbeliefs and behaviors of culturesnot identifiably "American." Thesenegative societal attitudes in turnaffect the school performances ofchildren who feel pressure to learnEnglish and not speak the languageof their {amily members in school.

Researchers and advocates ofbil ingualism (Lambert 1977;Fillmore 2000) state that in toomany cases learning English doesnot equate with becoming bilingual.Rather the learning of English ispart of a subtractive process inwhich learners rid themselves oftheir home or heritage languageoften within a few years, losing the

68

benefits of bilingualism and impor-tant ties to their family and culture

@illmore 2000). Thus, althoughresearch shows that bilingualismcan be beneficial, learners who arepotentially bilingual often choose tobecome English-only speakers. (Forfurther discussion of language lossand attitudes toward English, seeTse 2001.)

children and teachers to varyingdegrees in both types of programs.

Zelasko and Antunez (2000)categorize bilingual programs forlearners who share the sameprimary language in three ways:

. two-way bilingual, bilingualimmersion, or dual-languageimmersion (terms are interchange-

able)-both theprimary language andEnglish are used in allareas of the curricu-lum, ideally for equalamounts of time

r late-exit or develop-mental bilingualeducation-theprimary language isused mostly at first,with English increas-ing as learners be-come more proficient,sometimes over aperiod of years

. early-exit or transi-tional bilingualeducation-primarylanguage and English

are used at first, but transition toEnglish is rapid

The first two types of programsfocus on the linguistic goal ofbilingualism; the third aims towardstudents acquiring English asquickly as possible.

ESL programs all share the goal ofEnglish acquisition. Different typesof ESL programs are

o sheltered English. specially designed academicinstruction in Englisho structured immersionr content-based ESLo pull-out ESL

The first four program types can beused with groups of students whoall share the same primary languageor those who have differing lan-guage backgrounds. Each type has aslightly different focus and degreeof structure, but in all four teachers

U

o

oa5

B

Approaches to English languagelearning in the classroom

Teachers who seek best practiceswill find a complicated mix offamilial, cultural, and politicalfactors influencing what kind ofcurriculum is desirable and effec-tive for their English languagelearners (Cummins 1986). Inaddition, the many possible ap-proaches to teaching overlapenough that it is difficult for re-searchers to evaluate their advan-tages and disadvantages. Programsgenerally are termed either bilin-gual education or English as asecond language. While bilingualprograms are designed to provideinstruction in both the learner'sprimary language and English, andESL programs are designed toprovide instruction in English only,in reality the primary language andEnglish are likely to be heard from

Young Children. July 2002

adapt English, often throughnonverbal means and visual aids, sothat it is appropriate for learners'levels of proficiency. The fifth type,pull-out ESL, is the most distinctivebecause it involves English lan-guage learners leaving their regularclassroom for some part of theschool day to take ESL instruction.

The differences among thesemany types of programs-bilingualand ESL-are often vague. ShelteredEnglish in one school might re-semble transitional bilingual inanother. In addition, as greaternumbers of "regular" teachers areproviding instruction for Englishlanguage learners, it is increasinglydifficult to say which types ofprograms are more effective.

Since the passage of the federalBilingual Education Act mandatingbilingual programs in 1968, re-searchers have compared achieve-ment results of students in bilingualprograms with those who are not insuch programs, despite the luzzyboundaries between program types.(For a comprehensive and clearpresentation of program evalua-tions, see August and Hakuta 1997,chapters 6 and 7.) Evaluative resultshave been mixed, with some studiesdeclaring that bilingual education isineffective @annoff 1978); somefinding that transitional bilingualprograms have a weak level ofeffectiveness @aker & DeKanter1981); and a few finding thatbilingual programs have positiveeffects flMillig 1985).

Program componentsthat work

At the opposite end of thespectrum from large-scale studies ofthousands of students are small-scale case studies of individualschools and classrooms. As casestudies their results are not general-izable in a statistical sense and thusdo not help answer questions suchas, What works best for children in

Young Children, July 2002

this country? This state? Or thisschool district? As August andHakuta (199O suggest, however,case studies can begin to identifycomponents or aspects of programsthat work for children in particularsituations. There are few studies ofearly childhood settings, in or outof school, that focus on childrenwho are English language learners-especially children in the pre.elementary school years. However,some noteworthy exceptions follow.

In their ethnographic study of aMexican American community,Pease-Alvarez and Vasquez (1994)illustrate the benefits for youngEnglish language learners whentheir experiences at home overlapin a variety of ways with theirexperiences at school. They pointout that knowing how language isused at home in children's familiesis an advantage for teachers whowant to build on what childrenbring to the classroom. Yet teachersmay know little about the children'shistories or about the funds ofknowledge that grow out of thosehistories; children's ways of usinglanguage and the purposes forwhich they use it reflect theircultural backgrounds and byextension their ways of participat-ing in school experiences (Moll etal. 1992). Teachers may unknow-ingly favor particular uses oflanguage-ways of telling stories,responding to instructions orquestions, participating in groups,and so on-that arefamiliar to teachers'own communitiesbut unfamiliar tosome of theirchildren.

Ballenger (1992,1999), a teacherresearcher in herpreschool class-room, found that thechildren, their par-ents, and her col-leagues, all of Haitianbackground, were

the best sources of information onthe children's history and theirways of using language. These wayswere clear to Ballenger, bilingual inEnglish and Haitian-Creole, oncethey were pointed out to her, butchanging her own classroom dis-course or talk took time. For ex-ample, Iearning to use direct formsof reprimand to control children'sbehavior was a difficult change forBallenger, but eventually it showedher and her children's families thatrespect for social and linguisticvariations can be reciprocal. Whilethe children were learning English,their teacher was learning aspectsof a style of talk that was appropri-ate in the Haitian community.

Yung-Chan, the teacher in theexample that opened this article,also used information from familiesand identified ways the childrenlearning English participated inclassroom talk and the curriculumto support their learning. She hadthe advantage of knowingCantonese, the language of most ofher children. Still her middle-classlifestyle differed from that of manyof her children and their familieswho had recently immigrated fromChina. Yung-Chan's ability tocommunicate in Cantonese andfrequent contact with familymembers provided her with infor-mation about how the children usedlanguage and whether English wasspoken at home.

In her "monolingual" classroom,designated neither asESL nor as bilingual,Yung-Chan was ableto use Cantonesewhen childrenneeded translations.She also routinelyfocused on Englishvocabulary (seeearlier example).Yung-Chan andcollaborators(Genishi, Yung-Chan,& Stires 2000)analyzed many

69

examples of classroom talkto see how these childrenwho are English languagelearners participatedthrough oral language inclassroom activities. Withno English-only rule in thisclassroom, all childrencould participate in eitherCantonese or English. Interms of what August andHakuta (1997) call "pro-gram components thatmake a difference," Yung-Chan's language instruc-tion incorporates

o out-of-school experiencesand classroom activit ies inscience, language arts,math, and so on. a focus on vocabulary o{interest to all children (notjust those learning English)r the creation of teachablemoments that keep prior exPeri-ences and the words to describethem alive in children's memories

Unlike Yung-Chan, most teachersare unable to speak the PrimarYIanguage of the English languagelearners in their classrooms (Brock

2001). They must use means otherthan the children's primarY lan-guage to establish relationshiPsthrough which teacher and childrencan communicate and learn. Fassler(1998) studied one public schoolkindergarten classroom made uPexclusively of children designatedas ESL learners. Mrs. Barker, themonolingual teacher, provided

consistent and continual modelingof English, and whenever possible

she allowed the children to sPeaktheir primary language as well asEnglish. The children were some-times able to support each other'slanguage growth in both their homelanguage (most often a Chinesedialect or Russian among the ninelanguages represented in thisclassroom) and English. Mrs. Barkerallowed children easy access to herspoken language.

70

In many other settings teacherstry to address the needs of the oneor two second language learners inthe class who do not have conversa-tional partners with whom toexpress intentions, emotions, orideas (Genishi 1989). In thesesituations teachers who sPeakEnglish only are especially depen-dent on their abilities to observenonverbal behaviors, knowing thatoral language communication willdevelop later. Translation in thesesettings might take the form ofexaggerated gestures and nonverbalmessages. These teachers mightalso invite additional adults or olderstudents fluent in the children'sprimary language for one-on-oneinteractions with the children.

lmplications for teachers

As young children whose homelanguage is not English enter a class-room or center for the first time,they begin their challenging journey

toward becoming speakers, readers,

and writers of English. Early child-hood teachers, regardless of their

preparation or background,are increasingly expected toaccompany English lan-guage learners on this jour-

ney and to make it a suc-cessful one. Teachers areexpected to meet learners'social and academic chal-Ienges by providing respon-sive environments and re-spect for what childrenbring with them.

In keeping with thefindings of the l imitedclassroom research done insettings for young children,teachers who work success-fully with children who areEnglish language learnersappear to build on whatchildren already know. Theydo this when they

. show flexibil i ty withcurr iculum

. have high expectations for alllearners but allow for individualvariation. encourage and enjoy the humanconnections made through theprocesses of learning language

These teachers do not expectchildren to take identical paths tolearning English, nor do they expectthem to pass through Predictablestages of language learning (Genishi,

Dubetz, & Focarino 1995). Further,these teachers do not relY on a set

curriculum for teaching oral lan-guage or literacy. Instead they learnfrom the children and adaPt theircurricula to allow for group prefer-

ences cnd individual variation. In

short, they expect and adjust tovariation and not uniformitY.

Successful teachers of EnglishIanguage learners also look at the

children's language glasses in aparticular way: they see them as at

least half full. They allow talk in thechildren's primary languages, andmost important, they see thechildren as resourceful and resistcategorizing them as "limited" or

"deficient." Just as they resist

sZ

B

l i

Young Children. July 2002

programs or curricula that are risid(either bil ingual or monolingual,phonics or whole language), theyresist rigid divisions betweenchildren who know English andthose who do not. Their view of theclassroom as ,.a site for everyone tolearn" may seem like an educator,sslogan, but it is a view that isproductive and rich for theseteachers and their children.

What would happen if morepeople shared this view of theclassroom? More studies miehtfollow individual learners an"dteachers over time, focusinq onspecific programs and clasJooms.Educational policies might resistacceptance of a ,,one size fits all,,yr^aV of learning language or literacy(Gutierrez 2001) and demonstrate adeeper understanding of howdiff icutt it is to ne young Englishlanguage learner in a classroom,expected to learn in English imme_diately. Finally, there might be agreater appreciation of the count_less ways in which children learn(Dyson 1999), in their sometimesunruly but always original ways.

aylT]r:, J., 1986. Empowering minoritystudents: A framework for intervention.

_Haruard Educational Reuiew 56 (1): 1g_36.Dannoff, M.N. 197g. Evaluation oi iheimpact of ESEA Title VII Spanish_Englishbi l ingual education programs. Techi icalreport. washington. DC: American Inst i_tutes for Research.

Duncan, S., & E. DeAvila. 1979. Bilingual_l:111na cognition: Some recent fiiOings.NABE Journat 4: 15-50.

Dyson, A.H. 1999. Transforming transfer:Unruly children, contrary texts, and thepersistence of the pedagogical order. InKe.Dreu of reseorch in education. vol.24,eds-,A. Iran-Nejad & p.D. pearson, 143_'/.J. wasnington. DC: American Educa_

- t ional Research Associat ion.

l 'assler. R. 1998. Room for talk: peer sun_port for gerting inro English in an esiiKf ndergarten. Early Ch ildhood ResearchQuarterly l3 (3): 379_409.

ReferencesAy_S_u1t.,O ,.4 K.^Hakuta. eds. 1997. tmprou_

ng scn,ooling for Ianguoge_minority chil-aren; A research ogenda. Washington. DC:r\atronal Academy press.

Bafea K.A., & A.A. -de

Kanter. t98i. tffec_tiD^eness of bitinguo! educatton; A reuieuot tne literature. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education.

Ballenger, C. lgg2. Because you like us:The language of control. Horuard Ediro_

^ti.onal Reuiew 62 (2): Igg_20g

6allenger. C. 1999. Teaching other people.schildre.n: Literacy and learntng tn a bilin_g-ual classroom. New york: TeichersCollege press.

Ben-Zeev, S. lgTZ. The influence of bilin_gualism on cognitive strategy and cogni_tive d-evelopm ent. Ch i td n"JL Upi" ii U(3): 1009-18.

Bloom. L. 1998. Language acquisition in itsoevetopmental context. ln Handbook otchild psychotogt; Cognition. perceptton, and1flg\.^gi; vot.2..ed.s. D. Kuhn & R. Siegter.

^ rrr:/U: New york: John Wiley & Sons.

ol l^..n C' 2001.. Serving English Ianguagelearners: placing learners iearnlng 5n c"en_

- ter stage. Languoge Arts Tg (5): 4d7_75.

bruner. J.S. 1983. Child.s talk; Leorninq touse language. New york: Norton.

Young Children. July 2002

Advance Your Careeiin Early Childhood EducatioP

3lI YouR DEGREE Ar HoME...CCHS djstance education allows you to mo\e \.ourcareer anead quickJy wirh progr:ms hcr:.

l:";l#,1-fessionat childhood eciucauon skjl* anct

. l"lq tol mrer srare ECE requiremenrs rhroLrglrrxgnty ellective tlaining merhoG

' Are endorsed by the National Child Care .{s:ociarionand accredired by rhe Distance Edr.;;;"; ,J i;;iling council

ff,1"i,.flr;r,*,ij^il .,:10^:.^,f:9.*i, rrme and nr"rr"u ^,o.or, ;;;Attyou need ro know, you can r"r," ir'iir?'.'r_friffi;ilffi i'J,iJ

c)u 12aot, oi sq'a tit coupon to: . !!'l:?.

,t#,[?,:X,13"::f":,:d:iffi #d-st#i"#f %ii11"1'.'ocaresrudies

t"*.;i*uyj#:nnil;pje'*:,ff*ti,1Hm:ff ."#""Choose ONE of the following accredited programs;

lrqfia'e ofsdenc Arsciale/Eachelor oft l Early Chi ldhood Erlur.at ion scierce in Cusinelr6ffidtr of Scios in Health Swics majore tuwiu l t E vanagemenrLl \4rtugemen( tr Burini ,sc€.tiffca[e prog|ms fo. colr$ credit ! .\4drLeting! L_OmrLnrN Hedlth EJu.at ion L] Ac, ount ing

phone (_ _l -.... _ --E_mail

Child Care Faciliry

ry

{

!E

Name

Address

Ciry,/SlareZiD

! Health Psvcholosv! Heatth Caie EthiZsLl Business Essentials

.tt,,"&thro ugh

'Oz

- -

/!\or" than 1oo easvactivit ies for infants

"nd toddl"r",

. Developmentally appropriate

. For parents and caregtvers

. Incorporate into the chilO's OayIf-ook for 20% off all of our

child-centered curriculum guidesand activity books at:

www. ch i ld re nsreso u rces. org

or cal l :1-800-625_2448

! f lnance

Phone ( )

71

Fillmore, L.W. 2000. Loss of family lan-guages: Should educators be concerned?Theory Into Practice 39 (4): 203-10.

Fouser. R.J. 1996197. The relevance of L3 ac-quisition research. TESOL Mafters 6 (6): 9.

Genishi, C. 1988. Children's language:Learning words from experience. IoungChildren 44 (1): 16-23.

Genishi, C. 1989. Observing the secondlanguage learner: An example of teachers'learning. Language Arfs 66 (5):509-15.

Genishi. C.. N. Dubetz, &C. Focarino. 1995.Reconceptualizing theory through prac-tice: Insights from a first grade teacherand second language theorists. In Ad-tances in early education and day care,vol.i. ed. S. Reifel, 12&-52. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Genishi, C., D. Yung-Chan, & S. Stires. 2000.Talking their way into print: Englishlanguage learners in a prekindergartenclassroom. ln Beginning reading andu:riting, eds. D.S. Strickland & L.M. Mor-row, 66-80. New York: Teachers CollegePress and Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Gutierrez, K.D. 2001. What's new in theEnglish language arts: Challenging poli-cies and practices, "y que?" Language,4rls 78 (6):564-69.

Hakuta, K. 1986. Mirror of language: Thedebate on bilingualism. New York: Basic.

Hakuta. K.. & R.M. Diaz. 1985. The relation-ship between degree of bilingualism andcognitive ability: A critical discussionand some new longitudinal data. InChildren's language, vol. 5, ed. K.E.Nelson, 319-44. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hakuta. K.. & L. PeaseAlvarez. 1992. En-riching our views of bilingualism andbilingual education. Educational Re-searcher 21 (2): 4-6.

Lambert, W.E. 1977. The effects of bilin-gualism on the individual: Cognitive andsocio-cultural consequences. ln Bilin-gualism: Psychological, social and educa-tional implications, ed. P. Hornby, 15-27.New York: Academic Press.

Macias, R.F. 2000. Summary report of thesuruey of the states' limited English profi-cient students and auailable educationalprograms and seruices, 1997-98. Washing-ton, DC: National Clearinghouse forBilingual Education.

Moll, L., C. Amanti, D. Neff, & N. Gonzalez.1992. Funds of knowledge for teaching:Using a qualitative approach to connecthomes and classrooms. Theory IntoPractice 3l (1): 132-41.

Nelson, K. 1996. Language in cognitiDedeuelopment: The emergence of the medi-ated mind. New York: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Pease-Alvarez, L., & O. Vasquez. 1994.Language socialization in ethnic minor-ity communiti es. ln Educating secondIanguage children: The uhole child, theuhole curriculum, the whole community,ed. F. Genesee,S2-102. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Tse, L. 2001. "Why don't they learn En-glish?" Separating fact from fallacy in theU.S. language debate. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

United States Bureau of the Census. 1995.The foreign-born population: 7994. Cur-rent Population Reports P20-486. Washing-ton, DC: Government Printing Office.

Vafdes, G. 2007. Learning and not leamingEnglish: Latino students in Ameicanschools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Willig, A.C. 1985. A meta-analysis of se-lected studies on the effectiveness of

bilingual education. Reuiew of Educa-tional Research 55 (3): 269-317.

Zefasko, N., & B. Antunez. 2000. If yourchild learns in tuo languages. Washing-ton, DC: National Clearinghouse forBilingual Education. Available onlinewww.ncbe. gwu.edu/ncbepubs/parent/

For further readingBarrera, R.M., C. Alvarado, A. Lopez, R.

Booze, C. Greer, & L. Derman-Sparks.1995. Bilingual education. Child CareInformation Exchange (107): 43-62.

Cary, S. 7997. Second language learners.York, ME: Stenhouse.

Freeman, Y.S., & D.E. Freeman. 1998. ESL/EFL teaching: Principles for success. Ports-mouth, NH: Heinemann.

Grant, R. 1995. Meeting the needs of youngsecond language learners. In Meeting thechallenge of linguistic and cultural diuer-sity in early childhood education. Year-book in Early Childhood Education, vol.6, eds. E. Garcia & B. Mclaughlin with B.Spodek & O.N. Saracho,7-17. New York:Teachers College Press.

Heath, I.A., & C.J. Serrano, eds. 1999.Annual editions. Teaching English as asecond language. 99/00. Guilford, CT:Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.

Mclaughlin, B. 1992. Myths and misconceptions about second language learning:What every teacher needs to unlearn.Educational Practice Report 5. Washing-ton, DC: National Center for Research onCultural Diversity and Second LanguageLearning, Center for Applied Linguistics.Available online wwwncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ncrcdsll/epr5.htm

Mclaughlin, B. 1995. Fostering secondlanguage development in young children.Washington, DC: Center for Applied Lin-guistics, National Center for Research onCultural Diversity and Second LanguageLearning. ERIC Digest ED 386950. Onlinewww.cal.org/ericcll/digest/ncrcds04.html

NAEYC. 1996. Responding to linguistic andcultural diversity-Recommendationsfor effective early childhood education.An NAEYC position statement. Washing-ton, DC: Author. Brochure.

Soto, L.D., ed. 2002. Mahing a difference inthe liues of bilingual,/bicultural children.ln Counterpoints: Studies in the post-modern theory of education, vol 134, eds.J.L. Kincheloe & S.R. Steinberg. NewYork: Peter Lang.

Stefanakis, E. 1998. Whose judgmentcounts? Assessing bilingual children K-3.Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.

Tabors, P.O. 1997. One child, tuo lan'guages: A guide for preschool educators ofchildren learning English as a secondIanguage. Baltirnore: Paul H. Brookes.

Copyright @ 2002 by the National Associa-tion for the Education of Young Children.See Permissions and Reprints onl ine atwww. naeyc.org/resources/j ournal.

72

TnP PIru MNru@-OKLAHOMAvvww'positivepins.com

CUSTOM LAPEL PINS

30 YEARS EXPERIENCE

FASTSERVICE

VOLUME DISCOUNTS

The Pin Man welcomes your custom designs.Use the popularity of pins to promote yourcenter or school; recognize staff, teachers,volunteers and students.

We guarantee you low prices and quality service.We have an in-house design team to assist you withthe graphics. We have created unique pins formuseums, parks, hospitals, charities, schools andgovernmenial agencies.

Let us add your name to our list of satisfied customers!

Send us your design today!

Phone: 918-587-2405Fax: 918-382-0906E-Mail: pinrus@aol.comwebsite: www.positivepins.com

@ffi

Young Children. July 2002