Targeted--NY ESL Teachers (and Students)

I should've known the first time I heard Regents Chancellor Betty Rosa speak at George Washington Campus. There is a plan. Rosa said they'd changed Part 154 so that students could have more content instruction. At the time I didn't really grasp the implications.

It's now clear to me that neither Rosa nor and of the other geniuses in Albany see English as content. It's just something you magically acquire by virtue of being here. To an extent, that's true, but to a much larger extent, it is ridiculous and hurtful.

Imagine yourself shipped to China tomorrow and placed in a Chinese history class taught entirely in Chinese. If you didn't know the language, you'd be lost. Now imagine how my kids feel when they're dumped into an American history class. Will it matter if there's an ESL teacher sitting in the room two days a week? It's entirely likely that teacher has no time to make contact with the content teacher. How that person is supposed to catch you up on language, culture and background knowledge concurrently with instruction I have no idea.

What if you have a social studies teacher who has taken the magical 12 credits and is provisionally certified in ESL? Will that person be able to teach not only the content, but also all the vocabulary and background in the same 40 minutes her colleagues teach the content only? Perhaps she's a miracle worker, but four classes do not a miracle worker make. It's highly unlikely the students will develop a love for social studies or civics under these conditions.

The fact is that the geniuses in Albany have based all of their brilliant programs on studies of younger children. While it is indeed counter-productive and myopic to have reduced support for younger ELLs, they may do better with Albany's new dictates. After all, as many people will tell you, their grandparents arrived without knowing English, and somehow managed to make a living. Who's to say, though, that they might not have had more opportunities if they'd received the supports we used to give ELLs before the Regents woke up and decided to take most of them away?

Young children are hardwired to learn language, and will acquire it very rapidly. This ability declines rapidly after puberty, and this is something the geniuses in Albany did not consider over any of their gala luncheons. High school students have had direct English instruction reduced by a factor of 33-100%, and they are suffering for it. Of course, up in Albany they're having Very Important Meetings and can't be bothered with such things.

I've been saying that ESL teachers ought not to be programmed with more than two co-teachers. People tell me that this will discourage principals from hiring teachers who teach only ESL, as opposed to teachers possessing dual certification. I'm here to tell you that train left the station five years ago, and teachers with dual certification are grabbed up by principals much faster than those of us who fritter away valuable school time teaching newcomers English.

Here's the truth--English instruction is the most important thing we can give newcomers, bar none. Without it, they cannot thrive in their other classes. Maybe they'll pass tests, including the English tests, because they are all crap. Maybe, by the ridiculous standards dictated by Albany, they'll be "college and career ready."

But I've seen the results up close and personal. I've had students who tested out of ESL, who passed the English Regents exam, who cannot write their way out of a paper bag. They cannot produce a coherent sentence, There is no way these students will thrive in college without either remedial instruction or someone else to do the actual work for them.

Shame on the Regents for removing the best lifeline these students had, and for failing to see the value of our work.

No NY Teacher Should Have More than Two Co-teachers

It's tough keeping up with the geniuses in Albany. They have so many ideas, and they are so smart that each one must be followed to the letter. They are not to be criticized because they are the Regents, the closest thing NY State has to popes, or saints, or statues so sacred birds won't poop on them.

In their infinite wisdom, they rewrote CR Part 154 so that students who don't know English would get less English instruction. Though they gave them no more time, they decreed that if some ESL teacher sat his or her posterior in a subject class full of ELLs, the students would magically learn not only the subject, but also all the English and culture associated with it. If it takes 45 minutes for a native English speaker to learn about chapter one of To Kill a Mockinbird, an ELL can learn not only that, but also all the vocabulary, idioms, background info, and everything else a native American English speaker can learn.

How does that happen? No one knows, but since the Regents say so, that should be good enough for anyone. So people scream at me that I'm not kind enough to the geniuses in Albany, that they are experts, and that they know.

Here's the thing, though. On this astral plane, there are consequences. Yesterday I spoke to a high school teacher who had five co-teachers. I'm acquainted with an elementary teacher who has nine. Now how do you co-plan with five teachers? How do you co-plan with nine teachers. The short answer is you don't. You walk in those classrooms and hope for the best. You can't possibly anticipate what the teachers will do.

Even if you could, you're a third wheel. Teachers may think you don't belong in the classroom. After all, they're there each and every day and you aren't. Who the hell do you think you are horning in and demanding they share lesson plans with you? What? You want vocabulary words? When on earth am I supposed to figure out what they are? And do you think I'm gonna let you interrupt my class to teach them? No way. I don't let the paraprofessionals teach my class, and I'm not letting you do it either. Why the hell are you here anyway?

Well, they're there because principals, now that they no longer have to offer ESL instruction beyond year one, need to pay lip service to it so as not to be out of compliance. That's why they dump ESL teachers into classroom for the bare minimum time required. It's important they sit there and keep the principal out of trouble. Can students learn English under these conditions? Can a kid who got off the plane from China yesterday handle chapter one of To Kill a Mockinbird,? Who cares? The principal's in compliance and that's all that matters.

Since the geniuses in Albany are never wrong, there can't possibly be any issue with Part 154. However, it's pretty clear that it's ridiculous to use ESL teachers as scarecrows. It's time for us to stand up and say no more ridiculous numbers of co-teachers. Were my friends not running around like headless chickens, they could, you know, teach students English.

It's unbelievable, to me at least, that we put up with such blatant nonsense. It's time we forced principals to do the right thing and worked to limit the number of co-teachers we work with. I'd say one is already enough, more than enough in many circumstances, but no one should have more than two.

IO Classroom Sucks

I used to write that Skedula sucks, but it became the first thing you saw when you googled Skedula. I'm not sure whether or not that's why they changed their name, but they still suck. One of the reasons they suck is they are totally unresponsive. They actually sent someone to my school a few years back, and asked us what we wanted to see improved. Of course, no improvements followed.

This year IO Classroom sucks, but it's not 100% their fault. It's also the fault of the execrable Part 154, enacted by the geniuses in Albany to make sure that English Language Learners (ELLs) don't fritter away valuable classroom time learning English. Instead, we prep them for the English Regents exam. I'd argue the English Regents exam is the second worst test I've ever seen. The worst, of course, is the NYSESLAT, which theoretically measures English ability, but actually places students very poorly (and also rates teachers very poorly).

A particularly insightful idea the geniuses in Albany had was to group ELLs by grade rather than language level. Consequently, they decreed that students may be no more than one grade apart. That might make sense with very young children. For example, 1st and 4th graders may be at very different places developmentally. The Regents applied this across the board though, and couldn't be bothered noting that 9th and 12th graders may not have that issue. In fact, as someone who's taught them for decades, I can assure you they don't.

However, because of the directive by the Regents, I now find myself teaching as many as four classes in one room. (By "room," of course, I mean room, half-room, or trailer, all of which I teach in this semester. Thankfully, unlike the room and trailer, the half-room is actually air-conditioned.) There are several issues with this, the worst of which is recording grades for four classes instead of one. Actually, so far, there are only three, as four of my sixteen classes don't yet have students in them.

An administrator helped me the other day. There is, evidently, a way to combine classes within IO classroom. I thought that would solve my issue. To an extent, it did. I was able to combine my active classes together and rename them by period, as opposed to the long and incomprehensible letter and number alphabet soup mandated by the city. So I am now able to write, say, "homework #1," and assign it to three classes at a time. That's great.

Here's the problem, though--when I try to actually grade the homework, it shows up as three classes again. This means I have to separate the assignments into groups, or jump back and forth in those letter and number groups I don't recognize. This was not so bad last year, when I had only two groups in a class. After a while, I kind of remembered who fell into which groups. Three, likley four as I get more incoming, is beyond the pale.  If I had a paper marking book, I'd simply alphabetize all the students together and mark them very quickly.

This is redundant paperwork. IO Classroom ought to fix this instantly. If they don't, they'll have to deal with a UFT paperwork complaint, because I certainly won't hesitate to file it. Like every teacher, I haven't got time to jump through hoops on a daily basis in order to satisfy their lack of foresight and flexibility.

Double Whammy for ELLs in NY State

I've written quite frequently about CR Part 154, which the geniuses in Albany revised so that ELLs would get less direct instruction in English. MaryEllen Elia and the Regents decided it was discriminatory that ELLs were in classes by themselves learning English. What a waste of time, they thought, leaving them in classes with other language learners. So they cut direct langauge classes by a factor of 33-100%, and decided to take another approach.

The new NY approach is sit around, do nothing, and hope for the best. In a way, it works. For one thing, the most recent iteration of the NY State English Regents exam is a piece of crap. It measures neither reading nor writing. It isn't called a Common Core exam anymore, but that's what it is. In NY State, because Common Core exams were so unpopular, the geniuses in Albany removed the name Common Core. They just left the tests the same and hoped no one would notice.

They've accomplished several things here that benefit taxpayers. First, they cut services to the most vulnerable students in the state, saving districts a ton of money that may have been frittered away teaching newcomers English. After all, who needs English in the United States of America? There are plenty of jobs washing dishes and collecting aluminum cans that require no English at all. Second, they saved the taxpayers the unwanted expense of rewriting a test.

Now sure, you'll say, a teacher like me can write a test in ninety minutes. But what do I know? I'm just a teacher. We need to run tests by psychometricians and people with doctorates. We need to find out what people in offices think about them. Then we need to run all sorts of tests. We need to place questions on current tests to test the tests. Now sure, after we do that the tests may still be total crap, but we'll have spent millions of dollars developing them. So you see, NY State, by allowing the crappy tests to continue, has saved the taxpayers millions.

Now sure, counselors may look through college application letters and notice that even their very best scoring students can't write their way out of a paper bag, but what difference does that make? After all, they'll get accepted somewhere anyway. And if their college application letters are crap, at least the colleges will be 100% certain the students themselves wrote them.

Then we come to the test that ELLs take to demostrate their English level. This test is called the NYSESLAT. Here's what teachers I speak with have been noticing--our students are lower than they ever were before. I notice it too. Last year I taught an advanced class for the first time in ten years. This is because there were fewer beginners. Why?

The NYSESLAT says that students I used to teach as beginners are no longer beginners. That's no accident. NY State sets cut scores any way it golly goshdarn pleases and needs to show progress. So lo and behold, ELLs are scoring higher and doing better. My beginners, who often used to be false beginners with more background knowledge than we expected, are rank beginners. The false beginners, who truly need what I have to teach, have been placed higher.

In fact, I had a whole lot of beginners in my so-called advanced class. They couldn't produce a coherent sentence in English. This notwithstanding, they'd tested out of English instruction and passed the ridiculous English Regents exam. For those who didn't, it was my job to teach them how to pass the Regents exam. This came, of course, at the expense of learning reading, writing, or English, all of which they required.

I'm really baffled as to why educational activists statewide seem not to give a damn about ELLs. It mirrors the Trump administration's indifference to newcomers. Maybe they don't know. Maybe they don't care. Only time will tell.

Crossing the Line

We all have lines. We make lines and we respect them. Some lines you just don't cross. Now if you're Daffy Duck, or Donald Trump, you just draw arbitrary lines and tell people not to cross them This is the line of death, you say. Cross this line and you die. Then, when they cross it, you draw a new one and say this is the line of death. Cross this line and you die.

Most of us have different lines, and we don't rewrite them over and over. If we did, we'd have no character, and we'd be Daffy Duck, or worse. Some lines are necessary. Some are stupid. Judging which are which is a challenge.

I crossed a lot of lines this year. When MORE unceremoniously booted my friends from the caucus, they crossed a line. I was never going back there again, and I'm sure if I'd only been attending their meetings they'd have kicked me out too. I crossed another when people from Unity invited us to run with them. I'd never envisioned doing anything like that, but it seemed like the best decision. I want to be active beyond writing things on a blog.

Of course there are consequences for crossing lines. For me, I suffered a few nasty comments online. Some people are funny with me now, and not in that ha-ha sense. For MORE, there went 80% of their vote. But they're happy with that, because winning was never the goal for them. They considered it a disaster. Fortunately for them, having redefined themselves as losers, they will remain exactly where they wish to be. I'm in DC right now at AFT Teach, and I'm spending time with people a lot more interesting than most I encountered in MORE.

I crossed another line when I trashed the geniuses in Albany last week. I'm getting a little blowback from that. Oh, they may double down on bad policy because they're offended. What does it say of ostensible educators that they'd double down on bad policy that hurts thousands of children because they don't like what someone says about them?

Regardless, I hope they're offended, because it was my express intention to offend. Their actions, depriving children of vital basic English instruction, makes life harder for kids whose lives are hard enough already.

Yesterday I got to hear an Albany rationale for the changes to Part 154. You see, by giving students classes with other ELLs, we were segregating them. They weren't getting the chance to meet other people. Therefore, dumping them into general classes with less English instruction was a bold step, a definite improvement.

Okay. Let's take that a step further. Why are we dumping only the kids who want to learn French in French classes? Isn't that segregation? Why don't we just dump everyone in French classes? That's absurd, isn't it? Would you want to be the French teacher after that happened?

Actually, I'm all for having ELLs attend classes with speakers of English, as well as other languages. I just want to give them the opportunity to prepare for it. Not only that, but the only people who need explicit language instruction in English are ELLs. So no, I'm not placing them in a linguistic ghetto. I'm placing them in a group with people who share their needs, people who empathize with them and can mutually support one another.

I wrote that NY State, by depriving learners of the instruction they desperately need, but pulling away the only safe place they had to practice English, was practicing an awful kind of discrimination. Someone told me that was not their intent, and that they were rather trying to make up for something. I believe that. But why, I asked, did they place such an awful, stupid program in its place? I anticipated every single negative consequence that would occur. Why didn't they?

"Because they aren't teachers," the person answered.

Now here's the thing--the very first time I read about Part 154, I knew what the consequences would be. Of course, I don't attend the meetings of the geniuses in Albany, and being geniuses, they don't need teacher input.

So they had good intentions. But most if not all of the students they hurt are students of color. So they're practicing discrimination. Is discrimination any better if the intentions are good?

For my students, the results are exactly the same. So no, it isn't any better. Not even a little. I'd like to see a whole lot of people stand up and tell the geniuses in Albany this is outrageous. You must fix it.

But a whole lot of them won't. They don't want to cross that line. You have to be nice to the geniuses in Albany, they say, because they have good intentions.

I don't care. I'm over the line. If they fix Part 154, I'll sincerely apologize and tell them how much I appreciate it. If not, I couldn't care less just how many good intentions they've used to pave their shiny new road to hell.

NYSED and ESL--Stupid Is as Stupid Does

"Gee I want to learn Spanish so I can take math tests in another language, " said no kid ever.

Yet that's precisely the policy of NYSED, whose official rationale for stand alone ESL classes is, and I'm not kidding.  “Students receive English language development instruction in order to acquire the English language needed for core content areas."

As teachers, it’s our job to somehow persuade students to love our subjects. My job is to teach English to speakers of other languages. It’s pretty easy to make kids love English. I don’t even have to trick them. They can take what I teach them and use it not only that very day, but also for the rest of their lives.

If you’re the child of immigrants, your parents might depend on you for more than just taking out the garbage and doing homework. Since you’ll learn English faster than your parents, you might become a part-time translator. Dental appointment? ER visit?  Let the kid help. Trip to the supermarket? Bring the kid in case you have questions. Over the last thirty years I’ve heard countless examples.

Not only that, but you might have personal needs. The very best language learners are social. That’s intrinsic motivation. When the teacher shows you how to introduce yourself, you hang on every word. After all, you want to make friends. When the crazy teacher sits you at a table with three people who don’t speak your first language, it may be the only time in your young life when you’re forced to use English.

One of my students wrote a very funny story about his struggle to order a hamburger in a restaurant. He described the gesticulation and pointing, the misunderstandings that occurred, and the eventual communication between he and the server. After taking my class, he was able not only to order hamburgers easily, but also to write about his struggles to learn how. (That may sound like a minor achievement, but if you’re with teenagers all day you know perpetual hunger is a an ongoing issue.)

I could certainly re-orient my classes to conform to NYSED’s concept. What would happen if I revolved my classes around geometry or earth science? Do you think my students would respond better with test-prep over communication and survival skills? I don’t.

Not only that, but everything I’ve read about language acquisition suggests NYSED is horribly wrong. Language is different from other subjects in that how well you grasp it may not be as linked to intelligence as it is to affect. For example, my student, I’ll call her Maria, loves being here. At first, she was angry when I placed her at a table with no one who spoke her language. Within weeks, however, she was chatting with the boy next to her. He and Maria shared sharp senses of humor. They unwittingly helped one another to learn English all year long. That’s what I call a win-win.

On the other hand, my student John didn’t love the US and was dragged here kicking and screaming. He never spoke to anyone. He didn’t care who he sat with, and his sole interest was figuring out how to use his phone in class without having me confiscate it. I can smell illicit phone use, John didn’t like that, and eventually he stopped coming altogether.

Do you think English lessons revolving around geometry would have won him over? I don’t. Had I done what NYSED wanted, I’d have lost not only John, but also Maria and her friend.

Newcomers need a place they feel understood. They need a place they feel safe. I can give them that, and I can ease them into using our language. I can show them the joy of communicating in a new language. Were I to do what NYSED wanted, all of my students would not only fail my class, but also lose their very best path to understanding the others.

NYSED’s notion that English is not in itself a subject is nothing short of idiotic. I’m a teacher, and idiotic is not remotely what I want to model for my students.

CUNY Teaches Lies About ELLs

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know I'm all bent out of shape over the most recent iteration of CR Part 154. It cuts direct English instruction to English Language Learners, and instead places an ESL teacher in one of their subject classes a few times a week.

So if you're teaching the Pythagorean  theorem today, and it takes 45 minutes to explain to the native English speakers, you will teach it, plus the requisite language, to ELLs in the same 45 minutes. You will do that because the ESL teacher is there (or not, depending on which day it happens to be).

My friend told me she was studying to get her ESL certification, and the professor told the class that this was wonderful. The students would get enhanced instruction, and would get the benefit of INTEGRATED ENL!!! (ENL, of course, is English as a NEW Language, rather than a second language.)

Actually, there's nothing wrong with the idea of integrated ENL. The problem is ELLs need more time, and NY State has given them less. They've cut ESL classes, placed ESL teachers in "core classes," and they somehow expect teachers to offer not only the subject, but also all the requisite English and cultural cues in the same time it takes to teach native English speakers the subject alone.

That's beyond absurd.

Yet this college professor (and likely as not others) is presenting this as though it's a step forward. However, this college professor is either a. stupid b. hopelessly ignorant c. woefully uninformed, or more likely d. all of the above. Maybe he went to a state workshop where they professed this nonsense, but I fail to see how it's different from watching Fox and determining Sarah Huckabee is the bestest press secretary ever.The worst part, though, is that it isn't one professor, According to my friend, just about all have drunk the Kool-Aid.

It's disappointing that our future teachers are paying good money to hear alternative facts. I'd argue that facing reality is a pretty high priority for students, teachers, and that it's not too large a demand for teachers of teachers either. I'll be standing on a soapbox by myself, though, since this nonsense is so widely accepted.

Oddly, once teachers actually procure jobs, they're likely as not to find they're running about like headless chickens, going twice a week to this class, twice a week to that class, once to some other, and that they have 15 co-teachers, none of with which there is any time to meet. There's a reason why NYC is perpetually out of compliance, and it's not because the system is easy to comply with.

I was shocked when my friend told me this story. I showed her the chart above and explained to her just how much more instruction ELLs got before it was released. They cut language instruction to the bone and gave newcomers absolutely nothing in return.

For that, they talk about what a great job they did, and tell professors it's a step forward. What it really is is sink or swim, a model that ought to have died some time in the last century. Remember in Annie Hall when they discuss how a shark must move forward to stay alive? ESL instruction in NY is that shark moving backward. It's so disgraceful I'm amazed Betsy DeVos herself didn't dream it up.

What Are the Techniques and Strategies for English Language Learners?

I hear a lot of talk about that, particularly from people who are trying to rationalize Part 154. In case I haven't explained it 500 times, CR Part 154 says that we no longer need to teach English to English Language Learners. So we take away 33-100% of their direct English instruction, and they just pick it up in the other classes, the ones they were taking anyway.

You see, they will train the subject teacher in the techniques and strategies for dealing with ELLs. Either that, or at least two days a week a certified ESL teacher will appear, and use the techniques and strategies. So if it takes a native English speaker 45 minutes to study Chapter Four of To Kill a Mockingbird, we can teach ELLs that same chapter in those same 45 minutes. We will do that by incorporating techniques and strategies.

Will it waste the time of the native English speakers if we use those techniques and strategies? After all, we hadn't used them before. Will they lose valuable Chapter Four time? The answer is no, they absolutely will not. I've been teaching ESL for about thirty years, and I'm going to let you in on the top techniques and strategies for teaching ELLs before you finish this blog.

You don't need to go to school and take the credits. I mean, it would be great if you'd learn about language acquisition. Clearly neither MaryEllen Elia nor any of the Regents have bothered to study that. If they had, they'd know that older learners pick up language more slowly than younger learners, and they'd know that a one-size-fits-all approach they use is baseless and without merit. In fact, they'd know that their revision of Part 154 actively precludes the most effective techniques and strategies for teaching ELLs.

What are they, you ask? Thank you for that question. They are:

1. Be kind, and
2. Give them time.

People from other countries can feel pretty lost here. We have customs with which they're unfamiliar, and we speak this funny language they don't understand. Our food is different from theirs. Our homes look different from theirs. A lot of my students have left family behind, grandmothers, grandfathers, uncles, aunts, sometimes brothers, sisters, even parents. They're in shock. Lots of us lack patience.

They need a safe place. They need to feel more comfortable. Language learning is a lot about affect. A person who's angry about being here will not learn quickly, and perhaps will refuse to learn at all. It's on you, potential teacher of ELLs, to make that student feel welcomed. A good way to do that is to smile and be patient. One way to build on that is by offering them comprehensible input. Distinguished researcher Stephan Krashen says it's key to offer materials at or slightly above the learner's level. It's pretty gratifying for students to learn they can understand English at some level.

I'd think it was common sense that it takes time to learn a language. I'm horrified when I read this and that about ELLs not graduating in four years, and what's wrong with them and their teachers. You go to China, today, and graduate from their high school in four years. Students learn, and they learn at their own rate. Some learn much faster than others. That too is about affect. Students who love it here learn rapidly. There's no stopping them.

The thing is the geniuses in Albany took time away from them. They took their English classes away and replaced them with, well, nothing. Is there anyone who believes that an ESL teacher who sits in the room twice a week is going to pull the ELLs right up to the level of native English speakers in the same time it takes said native English speakers to do whatever the class is doing? Is there anyone who thinks giving a subject teacher the magical 12 credits in ESL will allow her to make up for a student who doesn't speak English?

There are a lot of classroom tricks I use. There are a lot of little things I say and do. But they won't make one bit of difference if I'm not kind to these kids. They would never listen to me. And if I don't have time to reach them, I will not reach them.

Finally, if you think that English teacher doing Chapter Four of To Kill a Mockingbird is gonna make ELLs understand it in the same time native English speakers do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn with your name on it.

The Commish and Me

Last Saturday I met NY State Education Commissioner MaryEllen Elia at the UFT Spring Conference. That's her on the left, UFT VP Evelyn de Jesus on the right, and Evelyn's ESL point person Katie K. looking very serious in the middle. I don't know who that tall guy is.

Whenever I get to meet education people from Albany, I talk Part 154, which has degraded education for ELLs and  frequently turned us, their teachers, into glorified school aides.

I told Elia we needed to fix it. She said yes, but we can't lower the standards. That was a pretty simple challenge. I told her I wanted to raise the standards. After all, Part 154, in conjunction with the outlandishly poor tests issued by the state, has lowered the standards so much they pretty much have to look up to see down.

I've written here and in the NY Daily News about the abysmal quality of state tests. Elia has to bear responsibility for this along with the Regents, who actually have the tests named after them. Of course they don't really write them. Instead, they pay thousands, hundreds of thousands, who knows how many dollars to have them written by "experts." You know, they call in a few teachers, but end up having them polished by psychometricians, who are much more qualified than we are. They're so qualified they write tests so crappy we couldn't even imagine them. Give me 90 minutes and I'll write a better test than either or both the NYSESLAT or the English Regents. 

The most recent iteration of Part 154 eliminates quite a bit of direct English instruction. At a minimum, it cuts 33% from beginners. For non-beginners, it can cut up to 100%. Elia told me that the state wanted all teachers familiar with strategies to reach ELLs. That's a great idea. I have no issue with that whatsoever. It's fine that the new CTLE requirements demand 15% of all PD relate to ELLs. It's not a bad idea to familiarize incoming teachers with language acquisition.

The issue I have is that, as far as I can tell, neither Elia nor the Regents have any familiarity with what language acquisition entails. One thing it requires, especially for older learners is time. Time is precisely what this iteration of Part 154 takes away from our students. This is because when we take 33% of direct English instruction from ELLs we replace it with nothing. When we take 100% of direct English instruction from ELLs, again, we replace it with nothing.

That's a matter of interpretation, of course. Here's mine--if you lose direct English instruction, it's replaced with a blended course, i.e., a social studies or English course taught by either a dually-certified teacher, or a subject teacher along with an ESL teacher. In theory, this class will combine subject matter and English instruction.

However, this class is given no more time than the class the ELL would have taken without the newer Part 154. So if it take 45 minutes to teach chapter 12 of To Kill a Mockingbird to native English speakers, it's supposed to take the same 45 minutes to teach it to ELLs. That's absurd, and you certainly don't need to be an expert to see why. There is no strategy to make English instantly comprehensible to people who don't yet understand it. There is no strategy to produce instant fluency.

When I teach ELLs, I spend a great deal of time on vocabulary. I have no idea how many PowerPoint and Keynote presentations I've written to introduce vocabulary. Here's something Albany doesn't know--it takes longer to teach vocabulary to people who know fewer words. I'd argue that's common sense, and I'd further argue that's something short supply in Albany. (Maybe something happens to you when you breathe in all those cement fumes.)

Let's go a little further. Not only do you need to learn the vocabulary, but you also need to learn how to use it. For example, you may be wearing a white shirt. In Spanish, though, you'd be wearing a shirt white, because they use adjectives differently than we do. In fact, they make adjectives plural. And then there are all those conventions. We usually tell stories in the past tense. There are all those irregular verbs. Does Albany expect us to teach them to integrated classes, wasting the time of students who already know them? Really?

Here's the thing--Albany is right that it's healthy to mix ELLs with native English speakers. They're right that kids will learn from their peers. But they are 100% wrong that the way to promote that is by killing direct English instruction. The fact is ELLs were already in those mixed classes before Albany allowed myopic, money-grubbing administrators to stop offering direct instruction. Albany has given ELLs absolutely nothing, and taken away their lifeline, sometimes the only classes they could actually follow and participate in.

In case you wonder why kids don't like school, it's frequently because they get the message school doesn't like them either. 

NYSED Fiddles While ELLs Are Ignored

I’d just like to express, for the record, that I find this article amazing. After virtually gutting direct English instruction for ELLs, NY State thinks giving a college course or two to potential teachers will somehow compensate. This is absolutely absurd. It is the official policy of UFT and NYSUT that ELLs need more, not less, direct instruction in English. It is remarkable, not to mention unconscionable, that NY State does not share that policy. 

It is supremely ironic that the state now proposes to instruct potential teachers about language acquisition. The most recent revision of Part 154 is abundant evidence that the state itself knows little or nothing about language acquisition.I don't know what the Regents do all day, but removing 33-100% of direct English instruction from high school English Language Learners is one of the very stupidest acts I've witnessed in education. I've been teaching in New York City since 1984, and believe me, I've seen stupid in virtually every flavor. 

Here's an example--there are few things quite so idiotic as New York State's notion that direct English instruction exists for the purpose of preparing students for core courses. Our job is improving student lives, not showing them how to pass tests. What do you think of doing when you think of learning a new language? I think of going to new places, and meeting and talking with new people. For my students, I think of them making friends, helping older family members, and learning how to live in the United States.

New York State takes a different approach. They think the reason we teach people the native language of the United States is so they can take tests. They actually state that the purpose of direct English instruction is to prepare student for "core subjects." You see, according to the people in charge of education in our state, we learn English so we can do better in social studies and math. That way, we can move toward the ultimate language activity--taking a state test.

Ironically, New York State tests, at least the ones I'm dealing with, are among the worst I've ever seen. I've spent most of the week giving a speaking and listening test, part of the NYSESLAT, which is supposed to help place ELLs. The problem with this test is it does not much involve speaking and listening. The students taking it have the text in front of them the entire time. How often do you have text in front of you when you are listening?

As for speaking, they are frequently extracting information from test in front of them. While the instructions say use your own words, there are a whole lot of words from which to borrow right in front of your face. This does not mimic actual speaking and listening, and that's just one reason ELLs are placed too high, almost always.

I used to teach two sections of beginners, students unfamiliar with English and its conventions. Now I teach one, and students who'd have ended in my beginning class are frequently in my advanced. Many are unable to use past tense in English. Many cannot compose a comprehensible sentence. And now that they're measured by an English Regents exam that does not really measure writing, they don't need to fret over things like that. 

In much of the state, only rank beginners are given direct English instruction. The state seems to feel that acquiring the English language is not a worthwhile pursuit. Take the kid, dump her into a classroom where they're reading To Kill a Mockingbird, and hope for the best. We'll sit an ESL teacher in the back of the classroom two days a week, give the teacher no consultation as to what's going on in the class, make no allowance for one on one time with this teacher, and that will solve everything.

Chalkbeat presents a ridiculous, rosy notion that we're gonna help ELLs by making future teachers take a course. Meanwhile, all over NY State, ELLs struggle to get by in school. Forget about getting by in life, because tests are all the state values.We've moved virtually all the way backward to sink or swim, and no one in NYSED seems to care at all.

No English for You!

The cynical, morally bankrupt thugs in NYSED face issues far differently than you or I might. For example, there's been a perennial shortage of ESL teachers as far back as I can recall. In fact, one of the reasons I'm an ESL teacher is that I could never get a job as an English teacher. Someone told me, "Go teach ESL," and though I didn't know what it was at the time, I grew to love it.

There are few things more satisfying than observing the rapid progress of beginners, or noticing that your students are suddenly fluent in the language. I remember one girl who struggled for two years and then caught it. I said, "You see? I told you you could do it." She said, "Yeah. I was surprised." Another milestone is the first time a student reads a book in English. "You forced me to do that, and I hated you for it. But now I'm glad you did it."

There's another thing you'll see if you teach beginners. You'll have kids thank you for teaching the one class that they can understand. Imagine what torture it is to go through five or six that they don't understand.

Of course that's changed now. How do you deal with a teacher shortage? In some states, you just lower the standards and hire anybody. Sure, that's a terrible approach, but it keeps bodies in the teacher chairs. In NY State, they've got a different approach. They take a regulation called CR Part 154, and rig it so you barely require direct English instruction at all. Then, they take the test that ostensibly measures English ability and make the standard so low that my dog could pass. Finally, when everyone advances, they say, "You see that? Our plan worked."

I'm fortunate enough to be in a building in which the principal thinks learning English is important for newcomers. Our principal, in fact, thinks it's so important that he holds classes of multiple levels in which students are explicitly taught English. This, of course, is old school. Official NY State policy is that direct English instruction exists only to support advancement in core courses. Who cares if you can introduce yourself, ask where the bathroom is, order a pizza, or make friends? As long as you can pass a bunch of rigged tests, that's good enough for the geniuses up in Albany.

So all over the state, only rank beginners are required to have only one period of direct English instruction per day. Once they advance, via that NYSESLAT exam that my dog can pass (and granted, he's a smart dog), you plant an ESL teacher in a classroom twice a week and you meet the standard. According to NY State, the kids are being served. What exactly is that teacher supposed to do? Who knows?

One thing the teacher is likely not supposed to do is plan. I know that because co-planning is a serious endeavor. If you're with more than one co-teacher, it becomes nigh impossible. I know teachers with eight co-teachers. The only time they can possibly see them is in the classroom.

I had a hole in my program this semester, so I'm co-teaching in a special education English class. There are two former ELLs in the room, and that's who I'm there for. In my judgment, the issues these kids have (or don't) are not related to their knowledge of English. But hey, the regulations say I'm supposed to be there, and my boss says so too, so I'm there.

The teacher with whom I work has another section of the same class directly after this one. I would not presume to tell him how to plan. Also, if I'm walking around I will help any kid, not just the two to whom I'm assigned. For me, this is not a bad assignment. My co-teacher, like me, was assigned to teach the English Regents exam. He's given it some serious consideration, so I steal and use almost all his handouts. My class complains that another teacher's name is on the paper, but I don't care.

I'm okay with this, even though I'm absolutely certain my presence in that room is far from necessary. If I had to do this five times a day, though, and had no classes of my own, I'd be pretty upset. I know teachers who do this five times a day. One of the groovy things about Part 154 is that you don't need to even be there all week. Instead of one teacher pushing in each day, you could push in two days here, two there, and one somewhere else. Now here's the beauty part--In that third class, you're there once a week, and then some other teacher is there once a week. Even though there's no continuity, Part 154 says this is good enough. And for principals, teachers who used to teach one class are now teaching 2.5 classes.

Now imagine you do this five times a day. ESL teachers who used to plan and cover five classes are now covering 12.5 classes. They have no input whatsoever in these classes and cannot possibly plan anything. A big bonus is that you can now fire over half of your ESL staff and save big time. It's a WIN-WIN!!!

Unless, of course, you actually care whether your students get support. NYSED and the NY State Regents don't give a crap one way or the other. They sit in fancy offices and go to gala luncheons while ELLs sit through incomprehensible classes. And hey, because the English Regents exam doesn't entail real writing or real reading, they can pass that and graduate.

God help them when they get into college, because no one else will. Our total failure to teach them English means they'll be bounced to some community college, where they'll pay thousands of dollars to take zero credit remedial English courses, and lose a year or more of their young lives. I know what these courses are, because I've taught them at Queens College and Nassau Community College. I taught these classes for twenty years.

And guess what? I can teach these same skills in high school. I would, too, except NY State says I can't. Instead, I'm test-prepping for the NY State Regents exam, without which my kids will not graduate.

At PD, I Learn ESL Teachers Are Obsolete

On the left, you see an ESL teacher. On the right, of course, is the State of New York, which knows everything. How do I know that? Because they say so, and that ought to be good enough for anyone.

I'm one of those old-fashioned ESL teachers who studied Dr. Stephen Krashen's theories. They are obsolete, of course. I know this because someone who worked for a NY State Regent told me. The person didn't actually provide any citations, but she said so, and since she makes more money than I do, she must be right.

One of the "obsolete" Krashen notions is that language learners need comprehensible input. If they don't get it, they tune out. I actually do a workshop where I illustrate that very phenomenon to English speakers. I give them a piece that borders on incomprehensible, so complex that few can understand it at all. I then break it up, do a Keynote presentation, and by doing that, pull my audience back into a place where they know what's going on. Actually, the geniuses in Albany say there is no such thing as complex text. I guess they never read Beowulf, or Moby Dick, or Shakespeare, But hey, they're the experts, and I'm just an obsolete ESL teacher.

The main reason I'm obsolete is I have this archaic notion that it's different teaching English to people who don't speak the language, as opposed to people who do.  You probably can't see the text in the photo to the right, so I'll type it out.  An "outdated guiding assumption and principle" is this:

The strengths and needs of English learners and their classmates are distinct and necessarily demand different approaches. 

Here is the "21st century reality and guiding principle:"

In many classrooms, the literacy strengths and needs of English Language Learners, Multilingual Learners, Monolingual Learners, and their English-only peers are more similar than they are different. Learning academic English, oral and written, should be an instructional priority for all.

(Let's ignore the profligate use of capital letters, since anyone who works in Albany and makes all that money is necessarily a genius.) This asserts that there is no difference in what people who speak English need to learn in an English class, and what people who don't speak English need to learn in an English class. And they've pretty much gotten their wish, too. Newcomers can now come to NY schools and be told it's time to read To Kill a Mockingbird. Don't like it? Tough crap. Sink or swim. This is how you learn academic English, and that's our only goal. We don't care if you can talk to your friends. We don't care if we make you hate reading, writing, English, your teacher, or yourself. We are the sole arbiters of what "21st century reality" is and what we say goes.

My colleagues and were asked to post questions about the reading, and indeed we did.  

Where is parent involvement in this plan? 

 Like all things reformy, everything is the fault of the teachers. The teacher is the only variable.

What is the role of school leaders?

I can only suppose it entails telling teachers they suffer from "outdated guiding assumptions and principles," and that the state would now dictate what "realities" are. Screw everything you studied in school. We, who come up with new crap every year to replace the old crap from last year, have come up with new crap, and it's infallible, unlike the crap from last year (which we also said was infallible).

What research supports the contention that ELLs don't have distinct needs?

I can't imagine there is any, since ELLs are acquiring a language, while native English speakers are not. I acquired a second language when I became an ESL teacher, because I thought it behooved me to do what I was asking my students to. Let me tell you something--it's a whole lot harder than reading a novel in your native lanaguage. I had a Spanish teacher who thought it was a good idea that a bunch of near beginners read La Muerte de Artemio Cruz. I can assure you it was not. One of my fellow students and I read it in English, and it was still hard. The teacher thought we were geniuses because we, unlike anyone else, were able to discuss it. Actually the teacher had picked a task that was way too difficult, and we just found a workaround.

However, since the geniuses in Albany are now simply redefining what "realities" are, they have no need for research to support their positions.

If ELLs do not have distinct needs, why is ESL instruction needed?

If ELLs do not have distinct needs, why not dump them into classes with everyone else? Why bother giving them time to learn English? Why should anyone bother studying language acquisition? Why bother learning that language acquisition ability begins a steep decline around puberty, or that the older people are, the more difficult it is for them?

To me, it's entirely conceivable that NYSED looked at how young children acquired language, and
did not bother examining high school students. If it works for a five-year-old, why shouldn't it work for a 17-year-old? They're not different. They're all kids, right? We'll just tell the teachers to differentiate instruction and take no responsibility whatsoever for the disasters that ensue.

Here's the toughest question, referring to what the state calls "outdated guiding assumption and principles."

Why are these outdated?

Well, because MaryEllen Elia, or Betty Rosa, or someone else in Albany says so. We don't need to give no stinking reasons. We have declared that this is the way and everything else stinks, and that will be true until next year, when we have a new way and everything else stinks.

How will they implement the idea that all classrooms will use similar instructions and strategies?

That's a tough question, but as for all things educational, Bill Gates has an answer. Actually all we need to do is record the lessons of teachers and show them to everyone. This is just an extension of the incredible efficiency we get from Albany. When it turned out there was a shortage of ESL instructors, they simply eliminated the need for ESL instruction, substituting nonsensical assertions like we didn't need to teach English to people who don't speak it.

Here's a reality--New York State is indifferent to the needs of newcomers. This is a arguably a violation of Lau vs. Nichols, and therefore a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I plan to do some arguing that it is. (I wonder if anyone in Albany has studied American History, or whether they also consider that obsolete.)

The people who created these programs belong somewhere that has nothing whatsoever to do with education. They don't give a golly gosh darn about our students or their families, let alone us. I'm sick to death of hearing about how newcomers will not only magically learn basic English, but also acquire academic English. Lots of us have taughts ELLs to pass the English Regents. The only thing that proves is that they can pass the English Regents, spitting out formulaic crap to fool readers.

It would be far better if we were allowed to teach them English. And if any of the geniuses in Albany wish to learn English, I'll make myself available to them too.

Teachers, ELLs, and What the NY State Board of Regents Hath Wrought

Yesterday I gave two PD sessions at 52 Broadway. The title of my workshop was The Affective Filter and How to Avoid it. I probably should have changed it to something more sexy because it was not all that well attended. I think the morning session had 10 participants and the afternoon had only six.

The workshop focused on the theories of Dr. Stephen Krashen, who's all about comprehensible input. Krashen says, and I agree, that the only way people acquire language is to actively use it, via input that's workable and comprehensible. Krashen says that input ought to be at, or a little above, the student level. He also says that when things get too difficult, veritable walls go up.

Part of my PD involved giving a paper that was virtually impossible to understand. Participants certainly responded as expected. They hated every minute they had to read this thing. I offered them an annotated version, which helped them to understand it. I offered another paper that explained what the first paper was about. Finally, I broke it down into far simpler ideas via a Keynote presentation.

Sometimes, if you have to teach something that's very tough, you can break it down for your students. Other times it's far more difficult. Because of the very small class sizes, we had pretty extensive participation. I repeatedly heard stories for ESL teachers who were in five different classes with five different teachers.

This was seen differently by new teachers and a veteran. There was only one veteran participant, actually, and she taught elementary. She contrasted what she used to do, which was pulling out students, to the new push-in model. She said when she was alone with the students, she was able to support their use of English. She was able to have genuine interactions and help them build confidence. Now she was expected to push in to the classes of multiple teachers.

There was no time to plan with these teachers because there were so many of them, and also because she did not share free periods with them. She said she tried her best, but the limits of trying to make multiple children at multiple levels understand material that was utterly unsuited for them made her task impossible.

The issue of students at multiple levels being grouped together seemed to bedevil every participating teacher. They are ELLs, so let's dump them all in that class. This is probably made worse by the idiotic mandate that ELLs in the same class be no more than one year apart. Thus, you can't place a freshman in a class with a junior. How do you deal with that issue? Just dump all freshman with all sophomores, and dump all juniors with all seniors. Problem solved.

One teacher running around to five different classes told me that she was afraid to complain because she didn't have tenure. I told her to come and tell her story in the ELL focus group that meets monthly at UFT. Actually I told several of the teachers to do that. I would love to see them tell their stories to the whole group. What the NY State Regents have done to  ELLs with their mindless reworking of Part 154 is an abomination. Their notion that we offer direct English language instruction only so that our students can do better in core courses shows utter English of not only language acquisition, but also common sense.

The best language learners in the world are children. Unless Eva brainwashes them very early, children are not primarily concerned with taking tests. Kids want to share and talk and play. That's a quality, we hope as parents, that will linger into adulthood. Of course we want our kids to do well in school, but first and foremost we hope they're happy. It's beyond remarkable that the Regents have no interest in that.

On a side note, I met an occasional commenter to the blog. He introduced himself and we talked for a while. He said, "You talk just like you write." I've been told that before, actually. Ultimately, it sounds like a good thing. Still, there are thousands of ELLs in NYC that can neither talk nor write in English. When we dump them into native ELA classes and tell them, "Read to page 37 of To Kill a Mockingbird by Tuesday, we aren't doing them any favors.

I'm not sure what will rouse the tone-deaf, callous, ignorant, and self-satisfied Board of Regents, but I'm thinking torches and pitchforks might be a good start.

The Albany Way

There's a famous quote from Sean Connery's character in The Untouchables when he's schooling young Eliot Ness. He explains the Chicago Way.

He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. 

They don't mess around in Chicago. In Albany, messing around seems to be the number one activity. I mean, Diane Ravitch looks at the amazing test scores, compares them to NAEP, and says that's impossible. The papers declare Ravitch must be out of her mind. The grades went up because of Michael Bloomberg's reforminess, he's a genius, and any damn fool could see that. Otherwise, why would he have all that money?

A year later there's a big scandal. Oh my gosh the tests were dumbed down. It's a disaster. How could this happen? A little later, Reformy John King declares that 70% of the people who take the tests are going to fail, because we aren't Common Corey enough. Then the tests go to Albany, they set the cut scores, and waddya know? 70% failed. I'm pretty sure Arne Duncan looked at the results and declared that white soccer moms had kids who weren't so smart, or something equally stupid at that time.

I'm thinking about this because one of the ways Albany rationalizes the miserable CR Part 154 that robs newcomers of English instruction is by saying more of them pass the test. They're talking about the NYSESLAT test, which is supposed to determine English ability but actually does nothing of the sort. Every year all our kids take the test, and we don't get the results until maybe October.

Can you imagine programming hundreds of kids for classes, only to find out in October that the geniuses in Albany want to send them elsewhere? Every school in the state has to do that, and those of us with large ELL populations really have a hard time with it. That's not to mention, of course, that kids who've been sitting in a classroom for months, studying, taking tests, making friends, are suddenly moved around, likely as not for no good reason at all.

Here's the thing, though--Albany manipulates the scores to say whatever they wish them to. It's not even a secret. We can't give grades to the papers, even the ones we ourselves corrected, because Albany sets the cut scores to say any damn thing they wish. Why are students doing better on the test? Is it because less English instruction causes more English learning? Is that the most absurd question you've seen today? I hope so.

I teach these kids, and have done for years. Here's something I notice as a beginning level teacher--my students know less English than they ever did. Why? Because getting into a higher level is easier, or course. I tend to get really rank beginners now, rather than students who know a little English and need a little push. I also tend to get fewer students. Three years ago there was no space in my classes. Lately there's quite a bit.

Why do you think Meryl Tisch, in her infinite wisdom, declared that teachers could no longer grade state tests of our own students? Tisch assumed because she's a crook, we must all be crooks too. The thing about dishonest people is they tend to expect others to share their dishonesty. I don't do like Tisch does. If I give a test, it actually says how many points you get for each answer. If students don't get the proper credit, they can come and scream at me so I change it.

Of course you can't scream at the geniuses in Albany. For one thing, you'd have to drive there. For another, who knows where your test even is? And even if they found it, the score is whatever they say it is. In fact, you won't find it, you'll never see it, and you'll never know exactly why you got that score, be it good, bad, or whatever. There is absolutely no way you will learn anything from a state test, and that's just fine with the geniuses in Albany.

That's the Albany Way.

If Carranza's Concerned with Inequality, He Can't Ignore Part 154

There's an interesting feature on Chancellor Richard Carranza in the Atlantic right now. Clearly, in tackling inequality and segregation in our schools, he's got his work cut out for him. The writer, who seems to know nothing whatsoever about actual NYC education, compares him to Joel Klein. Were I Carranza, I'd sue for damages. We don't know that much about Carranza, but it's clear he's not a simple corporate mouthpiece.

The issue of segregation is a third rail, and no matter which approach you take, someone is bound to hate you for it. It's particularly tough in this climate, with a President intent on moving us back to the 19th century. No one knows that better than union. We're now clearly in the sights of the Koch Brothers and Walmart, who may as well make the rules for the astoundingly pro-corporate, anti-worker SCOTUS.

I see discrimination played out every single day in my work. No, I'm not complaining about my administration. I'm talking about the third year of CR Part 154, which reduces direct English instruction by 33-100%, and replaces it with, essentially, nothing whatsoever (or perhaps even less than that). In high schools, we used to be required to give beginners three full periods of English instruction daily. Now we can give them as few as one period a day. And once they aren't beginners anymore, we can reduce that to zero.

We replace these English classes with nothing. But for each one, we dump an ESL teacher into one of their "core content" classes. Alternatively, we can place a single dual-certified teacher in. So that teacher might take 45 minutes to teach fractions to a native English speaker. In that same 45 minutes, the dual certified teacher, or the pair of teachers, is expected to teach both fractions and English to English Language Learners (ELLs).

I have been teaching English to ELLs for decades. It probably won't surprise you when I say it takes more time, not less, to teach concepts to people who don't understand the language you're learning. The possibility of teaching both the concept and the language in the same time it takes for native speakers to learn the concept is remote indeed. Not only that, but it's a blatantly stupid expectation.

In fact, I'd argue it's discrimination. Of course it's not Carranza's fault, since he had nothing to do with the regulation. I don't think it was the intention of the Regents to discriminate either. The rationale I've heard from them has been that they wanted to make sure students were focused on actual subject matter, the implication being that English is not a subject. I wouldn't call that discriminatory. Of course it's completely wrong, if not totally idiotic, so that's not much of a defense.

A friend sent me this comment:

 ...the rationale is to keep foreigners in their place. Lock them into dead end jobs and shove them into certain neighborhoods. This is especially true if they are of color. All of those wonderful sentiments about coming to America for a fresh start, the Statue of Liberty as a great symbol of hope- are a thing of the past. These days, it is called “stay in your lane and ensure that your neighbors look like you.” If they cannot speak English or have access to education, that is the first step.

I don't think that was the actual intent, but the effect is not much different. I can't speak for the Regents, but I think their focus was not so much on black and brown as it was on green. There is a shortage of ESL teachers, and every five classes that disappear under Part 154 means one fewer ESL teacher is needed. That means schools save money, and that means the state saves money, I suppose.

The piece in the Atlantic mentions that Carranza learned English as a child. It's actually a lot easier to do that than it is for the high school students I teach. Language acquisition ability begins a rapid decline around puberty. That's why Carranza speaks unaccented English while my students may never do that. But the fact is they need more support, not less, and this has been affirmed by resolutions passed by both UFT and NYSUT.

If Carranza is truly concerned about inequality, he ought not to ignore the ELLs. They are his brothers and sisters, they are our children, and Part 154 is an abomination. Maybe it's time to sue the state for discrimination. If he needs someone to testify, I'm available.

Who Needs English?

Not newcomers to the United States, evidently. Here are a couple of ads for teachers in NYC:

Benjamin Franklin High School for Finance Information Technology is seeking teachers in the following license areas:

- ESL (dual certified with any other subject)

- Special Education (to co-teach in a Social Studies class)

Please send resumes to Dr. Carla Theodorou,  ctheodorou@schools.nyc.gov

Midwood High School is seeking teachers in the following license areas:

- ESL (dual certified with any other subject)

- Special Education (

dual certified with any other subject)

Please send resumes to Michael MDonnell at mmcdonn2@schools.nyc.gov

ESL teachers need not apply unless they have some other niche they can fill. This is the inevitable result of the latest iteration of CR Part 154. NY State has determined that direct English instruction only exists to prepare students for core subjects. Evidently, it's not their problem if newcomers can't communicate.

The Regents in NY State have so decreed, and that's the way it goes. It used to be important that we gave English language learners (ELLs) a whole lot of help so they could, you know, live. Now, living takes second place to testing. It used to be that ELLs who arrived with no English background would get three full periods of English instruction. Now, they can get as little as one.

Imagine going to China and getting 40 minutes a day to learn Chinese. The rest of the day you'll attend classes with native Chinese speakers. But don't worry. In two of those classes, you'll have a Chinese as a second language teacher to help you out. Or maybe you'll have a dual certified CSL/ science teacher. That should make all the difference, right?

If you're an administrator, especially in a small school, you have limited funds. Why would you bother to hire an ESL teacher simply because your ELLs are in desperate need of one? Instead, you could hire some 12-credit wonder who took a few courses and therefore places you in compliance. You could pretend that, during science class, the ELLs were magically learning English. Never mind that you gave native English speakers exactly the same time to learn. The state says ELLs can learn English and science in that same time, and since you're following the rules, that's good enough for the New York State Regents.

Now here's the thing. Both UFT and NYSUT say that newcomers need more instruction, not less. I've studied language acquisition and of course I agree. But you don't need to study language acquisition to know that it takes more time to learn a new language than to not learn one, do you?

If you went to China tomorrow, wouldn't you want a little extra help and guidance with the language? I know I would. I know, your grandfather came here and got no special treatment, no extra help, and he went on to do this and that. So did mine. My grandfather came over on a boat from Russia when he was 13. He became an electrician, opened a shop, bought a house in Brooklyn and raised a family.

Times are just a little tougher now. That house my grandfather bought will cost you a million dollars today. Pay is not what it once was, and most households now need two breadwinners. It's not impossible, of course, to come here, receive little or no help with English, and make it. Language learning is kind of an individual thing. Extroverts will acquire verbal language, for example, more quickly than introverts.

Language acquisition is also very much about affect. If you're happy here, you'll acquire language more rapidly. If your parents dragged you here kicking and screaming, you'll actively resist learning English. It's my job to help students get what they need no matter how they feel. For those who acquire verbal language quickly, I can help with their writing and reading. For those who resist, I can try to trick them into having fun somehow. Last year I taught a very small class and managed to reach kids who would not have done well in a standard ESL class, let alone an academic class pretending to offer English support.

In school, there is nothing more important for newcomers than learning English. My class provides the building blocks for absolutely everything else my students do. I tell them my class is the most important one they're taking. The things I teach are things they will use every day of their lives, things I use every day of my life, and things.

It's nothing short of a disgrace that the Regents continue to push this unproductive and short-sighted nonsense. They know little or nothing about language acquisition, they care little or nothing about the children I serve, and how they sleep at night is a complete mystery to me.