The Academic Achievement of Children of Immigrant Families:
A Research Review with Implications for Closing the Achievement Gap
Linda M Espinosa, Ph.D.
Paper prepared for the National Research Council
March, 2011
Paper Outline
I.
Introduction
A. Achievement Patterns of Young Children from Immigrant
Families p.4
II.
B. Early Learning Settings and Children of Immigrants
p.7
Early Learning Approaches and Impacts
p.9
A. Language and Literacy Development for ELLs
p.12
B. Features of Early intervention with Empirical Evidence
Of Efficacy
p.20
III.
Barriers to Implementation
p.22
IV.
Recommendations for Research
p.25
References
p.28
1
The Academic Achievement of Children of Immigrant Families:
A Research Review with Implications for Closing the Achievement Gap
Linda M Espinosa, Ph.D.
The number of young children of immigrants has doubled since 1990; this
increase accounts for the entire growth in the U.S. population of young children since
1990.
Fortuny, Hernandez, & Chaudry, 2010, p.1
I. INTRODUCTION
Young families immigrate to the United States from multiple countries for diverse
reasons, but the majority arrive full of hope with the vision of a better life for their
children. The reality is that economic and educational progress among immigrant groups
is uneven, some groups experience school and economic success while others face
downward social and economic mobility (Fortuny et al, 2010; Hao & Bonstead-Bruns,
1998; Capps, et al., 2007). Since 1965 when Congress liberalized immigration policy, the
waves of immigration have shifted from Europe to Latin America and Asia. Of all U.S.
children birth-eight years old in 2008, 24 percent have immigrant parents and 43 percent
of these young children from immigrant families have parents of Mexican descent; 22
percent have parents born in Asia or the Middle East (Fortuny et al., 2010).
These recent immigration trends are of concern to educational policy makers
because of the disproportionate number of young children in Mexican immigrant families
who live in poverty, have limited English proficiency, and have low educational
achievement and attainment when compared to their native-born peers. However,
children from Asian-born immigrant families often outperform their U.S.-born
counterparts academically (Espinosa, et al., 2007). Further analyses have shown that
within this group of children from Asian-born families, children of Chinese, Korean, and
Vietnamese heritage achieve at higher levels in reading and math than children from
Cambodia and the Philippines (Pong, 2003).
This paper will describe current achievement patterns of children from Latin
American and Asian immigrant groups; identify features of ECE interventions that have
been shown to support higher levels of academic achievement with a focus on children
2
who are English language learners, as well as barriers to meeting the language and
learning needs of young children from immigrant families. Finally, the author will make
recommendations for a research agenda of key topics that need urgent attention,
A. Achievement Patterns of Young Children from Immigrant Families
Children from immigrant families are defined in this paper as those who are either
foreign-born or live with at least one parent born outside of the United States regardless
of legal status (Capps et al. 2004; Matthews and Jang, 2007). The vast majority of these
children were born in the United States and are American citizens (93%). Children of
immigrants are, on the whole, distinct from the native-born population of children. Many
have parents who are illegal; they are more likely to be low-income; they are more likely
to have parents with less than a high school education and limited English proficiency;
and they are more likely to live with both parents and less likely to attend non-parental
child care than children of U.S.-born citizens (Burk, 2006; Capps et al., 2005;
Hernandez, et al., 2007). However, since they are U.S. citizens with the same rights as all
other native-born children and they have never lived anywhere else, they will most likely
live their entire lives in the U.S.
Within the larger group of children from immigrant families, some subgroups do
better academically than others. Latinos as a group struggle academically (Gandara &
Contreras, 2009). There are further achievement variations by country-of-origin within
the Latino category of immigrant children. For example, Cuban children typically
outperform other Latino immigrants on academic tests in math and reading (Burk, 2006),
while Mexicans, who constitute the largest group of immigrants, have much less school
success (Miller & Garcia, 2008). While the achievement levels of all language minorities
is about .4 SD below non-language minority children at kindergarten entry and is reduced
to about .3 SD by the end of third grade, those from Spanish-dominant households
entered kindergarten almost .8 SD below non-language minority children in literacy
skills, and were still .7 SD behind at the end of third grade (Rumberger & Tran, 2006).
Children from Mexican-immigrant families who live in poverty and have limited
English proficiency at kindergarten entry are on average reading at very low levels at the
end of fifth grade and have poor school completion rates (Miller & Garcia, 2008;
Espinosa, in press). At every testing period by all achievement indices, children from
3
Mexican immigrant families score significantly below national norms. However,
Spanish-dominant children also live in families with the highest concentrations of
poverty and lowest levels of parental education of all language minority groups
(Espinosa, 2007). The social, economic, and cultural characteristics of the families are
important considerations when designing educational interventions for language minority
children.
Somewhat paradoxically, young children from Mexican immigrant families have
shown a “mental health advantage” at kindergarten entry. Current research suggests that
preschool children who learn to regulate their emotions in prosocial ways and control
negative emotions do better in school (McClelland et al., 2000). If young children can
pay attention, follow directions, and get along with others, they are more likely to be
accepted by their peers and teachers and succeed academically. When teachers view
children positively, especially at-risk children, they are more likely to give them
opportunities to participate and perceive them as having academic ability (Espinosa &
Laffey 2003; Rist 1974, 2001). In a recent study of kindergarten teachers’ ratings of
Mexican immigrant children’s level of internalizing and externalizing symptoms,
Crosnoe (2005) found that children from Mexican immigrant families had lower levels of
internalizing and externalizing symptoms than both their White and African-American
peers. These two variables from the large, nationally representative ECLS-K data set
refer to the degree to which kindergarten teachers observed signs of internalizing
symptoms (e.g., anxiety, sadness) or externalizing symptoms (e.g., anger, fighting) in the
child. In essence, the teachers rated the children of Mexican immigrant families at
kindergarten entry as more socially and emotionally competent than their peers from
similar backgrounds. This finding was surprising given the multiple risk factors
associated with the Mexican immigrant families including high levels of poverty and
relatively more physical health complications than their African-American and White
peers. The author concludes that the mental health strengths displayed by these young
Mexican immigrant children could be viewed as an academic resource—one that,
unfortunately, is rarely recognized (Crosnoe, 2005).
In an analysis of the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study, Burk (2006)
demonstrated clear differences in academic performance among various nationality
4
groups in two large, urban school districts, San Diego and Miami-Dade County. In this
study, students’ math and reading scores on the 8th grade Stanford Achievement test are
compared across nationalities. Children from Asian-immigrant families academically
outperformed their native-born White counterparts with Chinese, Korean, and SE Asian
children scoring higher in math and reading and Pacific Islanders scoring considerably
lower than their native-born White peers (Burk, 2006). Within this group of children
from Asian-born immigrant families, Indian, Chinese, and Vietnamese children scored
significantly higher on math tests, Chinese and Indian students outperform other
immigrant groups on reading tests, and Cambodian students scored only slightly better
than Mexican students on math tests. Students from Mexican-immigrant and Cambodian
families had the lowest overall math and reading scores.
In addition, when Espinosa and colleagues (2007) conducted an analysis of the
achievement patterns of different language groups using the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten-Cohort, children from households in which an Asian
language was spoken began kindergarten slightly behind their English-speaking peers,
but were out-performing them by third grade in both math and reading. In this study,
family SES explained much of the variation among school performance with children
from homes where a European language was spoken having the highest SES levels and
highest scores in all subjects at all testing points. This variation in academic achievement
by race/ethnicity, country-of-origin, generational status, language proficiency, and SES
factors makes comparisons among immigrant groups quite complex with no simple
explanations. What is it that is common to Cambodian, Mexican and Hmong children that
accounts for their particularly poor performance on math and reading tests and the higher
scores of Chinese, Indian, Korean and Vietnamese students? To what extent are these
factors amenable to policy levers?
Assimilation Theories. Scholars who study the divergent patterns of immigrant
children’s educational achievement have often focused on generational status (Kao &
Tienda, 1995; Pong, 2003), social-personal capital available to the children (Hao &
Bonstead-Bruns, 1998), factors affecting assimilation and acculturation (Portes, 1996;
Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 2009; Zhou, 1997), and/or community/educational
influences (Brandon, 2002; Crosnoe, 2007; Matthews & Ewen, 2006). While there is a
5
growing literature on the factors that foster academic achievement, many of the findings
and recommendations are contradictory, and nowhere is there a coherent, explanatory
theory supported by empirical research. For example, some scholars conclude that high
quality early education benefits Hispanic children more than their White-native-born
peers (Gormley, 2008); some studies have shown that attending Head Start has no
positive impact for Spanish-dominant children (Rumberger & Tran, 2006), others have
suggested that children from Mexican immigrant families may gain cognitively from
early intervention while putting other developmental strengths at risk (Crosnoe, 2007),
and the Head Start Impact study revealed that while Spanish speaking preschoolers gain
in their English proficiency during the Head Start year, they never catch up to their
native-English speaking peers, and their Spanish proficiency declines relative to Spanish
language norms (OHS, 2010). Consistent with Corsnoe (2007) cited above, some
researchers have presented evidence for an “immigrant advantage” in children’s health
and socio-emotional development that may be jeopardized as families assimilate into
American culture (Jackson, Kieman, & McLanahan, 2010). This phenomenon has led
some scholars to suggest that becoming American constitutes a “developmental risk”
(Garcia Coll & Marks, 2009) for some groups of immigrants.
While there are no simple explanations or a clear consensus driven by consistent
research findings, some scholars have attributed these differential patterns of
achievement to several major influences: assimilation paths and early learning
opportunities environments (Gans, 1992; Portes & Zhou, 1993; Crosnoe, 2007).
Assimilation paths. As immigrant families adjust to the unfamiliar customs,
language, foods, and values, of a new country, they will gradually integrate themselves
into the majority culture. Assimilation theorists have posited several models to explain
the process (Alba & Nee. 2003). The straight-line-model of assimilation predicts that
immigrants become more “American” gradually over time with successive generations as
they have more contact and exposure to U.S. culture. This was largely the pattern that
European immigrant groups followed during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century waves of immigration and a common vision of immigration and assimilation..
Based on current school achievement research among different immigrant populations
6
and differential health and life outcomes, this straight-line-model of assimilation has been
largely discredited (Gans, 1992).
Portes and Zhou (1992, 1993) suggest an alternative explanation, the segmented
assimilation model. This perspective explains differential patterns of achievement and
success according to the contexts of assimilation that vary by immigrant groups. Some
groups enter the U.S. into higher segments of the society and follow a linear, straight-line
path of upward socio-economic advancement, just as European immigrants from the
earlier generations. Other immigrant groups may experience deterioration in socioeconomic status and overall well-being over the generations and become vulnerable to
long-term poverty and discrimination. Finally, some immigrant groups may achieve
social and economic upward mobility that matches middle class White Americans, but
without losing their native culture and language. Portes and Zhou (1993) suggest that
these different paths of assimilation are a function of policies and prejudices in the host
country. In particular, Portes and Zhou (1993) identified family SES, skin color, and
geographical location as three determinants of an immigrant group’s upward or
downward mobility pattern. The extent to which the new context allows for educational
and occupational opportunities influences each group of immigrant families in different
ways. Those immigrant groups that enter U.S. society with limited economic, educational
and social resources tend to enter lower-status segments of American society. They are
more likely to reside in low-income communities, with low-performing schools, and
limited occupational opportunities. According to the segmented assimilation theory, there
is no single path every immigrant group follows as they integrate into American society.
Mexican immigrant families, due to their overall higher levels of poverty, lower
levels of parental education and darker skin color will be more vulnerable to downward
economic and educational mobility. As children of Mexican immigrant families represent
a growing proportion of all young children in the U.S. and their educational outcomes
have not kept pace with their native-born peers, researchers and policy makers need to
pay more attention to their early learning environments. While we may not be able to
dramatically influence societal patterns of discrimination, we can make progress by
identifying those features of the early learning systems that promote improved school
7
readiness, design policies that support these ECE program features, and increase access
for young children of immigrants.
B. Early Learning Settings and Children of Immigrants
Early learning opportunities. Throughout the last 20 years, educational
researchers and social policy makers have focused on the critical importance of a child’s
first 5 years of life in laying the cognitive and social foundations for all future learning
(Shonkoff & Philips 2000; Bowman, Donovan & Burns, 2001). Much of academic
success is dependent on a child’s linguistic abilities: size and depth of vocabulary,
listening skills, reading skills, particularly the ability to comprehend print, narrative skills
and grammatical knowledge (National Research Council, 2010). All children benefit
from language-rich environments that support the development of these foundational
early language and literacy skills that undergird later academic performance. What do we
know about the early care and education of young children from immigrant families?
Preschool children from immigrant families are less likely to attend
out-of-home early learning programs and are more likely to spend their days in
relative, or parental care or have no regular child care arrangement than children
with native-born parents. (See Figure 1 as cited in Matthews & Ewen, 2010.) This
differential participation rate in early educational programs is evident both for
children under age three and children ages three-to-five; three and four year old
children of immigrants also participate in center-based educational programs at
lower rates than their native-born peers with some states showing large differences,
e.g., California, Arkansas, and Georgia. (See Table 1 as cited in Matthews & Jang,
2007.)
8
Table 1. Early Education Enrollment for Selected States, 2000
Barriers to ECE Participation for Children of Immigrants. While the specific
reasons for reduced participation in center-based care and ECE programs for children of
immigrants, are still not known, there is some evidence that the major reasons are lack of
9
access and affordability (Hernandez et al., 2008). Latino families have been shown to
value early education and have educational aspirations for their children, but have
difficulty affording the costs of the programs and locating centers in their neighborhoods.
A recent policy report identified three factors that may be barriers to increased ECE
program participation by children of immigrants: awareness, accessibility, and
responsiveness (Matthews & Jang, 2007). In this mixed-methodology study published by
CLASP, the authors concluded that immigrant families are often unaware of the types
early childhood programs available and their eligibility requirements, there is a lack of
supply in communities where immigrants reside, and that programs may be unresponsive
to the diverse linguistic and cultural needs of immigrant families and their children. This
report concludes with a set of four recommendations for policy makers at the federal,
state and local level. These recommendations range from increasing resources to expand
access to high quality early care, to improved data collection and reporting, and recruiting
bilingual, culturally competent staff. While these policy recommendations, if enacted,
would undoubtedly increase access and attendance, they still would not provide sufficient
guidance on the program and classroom features that promote high levels of academic
achievement for children of immigrants who are English Language Learners.
II. EARLY LEARNING APPROACHES AND IMPACTS
The features of high quality in ECE programs that benefit native English
speaking children and families have been extensively studied during the last 30 years.
Participation in high quality early childhood education has been shown to improve school
readiness particularly in the academic areas of language, literacy, and mathematics
(Barnett et al., 2006), as well as reduced grade retention, increased school achievement,
school completion, and higher levels of adult functioning with impressive cost-benefit
returns (Heckman, 2010). Recent studies have found about effect sizes of .2-.4 on
improved school readiness scores for children who attend non-Head Start preschool
programs (Rumberger & Tran, 2007; Vandell, 2004) In addition, a recent meta-analysis
of 123 studies found that children who attended a preschool program prior to
kindergarten experienced significant cognitive gains at kindergarten entry (Camilii et al.,
2010). Findings from rigorous experimental studies, several meta-analyses, and research
reviews all highlight the need for well qualified teachers, extensive professional
10
development and support for teachers, adequate teacher-child ratios, as well as more
instructionally focused features such as responsive and enriched language interactions,
opportunities for children to learn and practice new vocabulary, frequent assessment and
parent engagement (Barnett et al., 2007; Camilli, et al., 2010; Dickinson & Neuman,
2006: Espinosa, 2003). The volumes of research studies and recommendations have
formed the basis for state early learning standards as well as reliable ECE classroom
quality monitoring instruments and procedures. In general, we know the important
elements of high quality in early childhood programs that serve native English speakers,
we know how to reliably assess and monitor these features, and we can connect quality
features to later school performance.
To date, we do not have a comparable research base for important
features of ECE programs that serve children of immigrants, many of whom are English
Language Learners. Most of the studies cited above have either not included English
Language Learners or administered cognitive and social assessments exclusively in
English. Consequently, we are only beginning to amass a comparable research literature
that offers guidance on how to design high quality early childhood programs for ELLs.
We also know very little about the characteristics of parent-child interactions and features
of the home environment that support English Language Learners in their overall
language development and school readiness levels.
Some researchers have found that enrollment in high quality pre-kindergarten
programs helps boost the English language scores of young Hispanic ELLs (Gormley,
2008; Hammer, 2009; Winsler, et al., 1998). These studies have shown that when
preschool programs systematically expose ELL children to English within the context of
a high quality program, their English proficiency scores at kindergarten entry will
improve. Furthermore, there is a convergence of evidence that supporting the child’s
home language while adding English promotes higher levels of achievement in English.
Several recent research syntheses have also concluded that the academic achievement of
English Language Learners is positively related to sustained instruction that includes the
child’s first language (August & Shanahan, 2006; Genesee et al., 2006; Goldenberg,
2008; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2010). Recently, E. Garcia (2010) wrote, “More
recent research---including syntheses, meta-analyses, and other reviews—suggest
11
academic benefits of bilingual over English-only programs—on average, an increase of .2
to .3 standard deviations in test performance (e.g., Green 1998; Slavin & Cheung, 2005;
Rolstad, et al, 2005).” (p.8). However, language of instruction is only one aspect of high
quality early education for English Language Learners.
Contrasting with this line of experimental research, other researchers have found
that attending preschool before kindergarten had very little connection to school
readiness for children from Mexican-immigrant families (Crosnoe, 2007; Rumberger &
Tran, 2006). In fact, in Crosnoe’s study of the linkages between preK attendance and
child outcomes, he concludes that… “In this population, math achievement was higher
among children transitioning into elementary school from sole parental care.” (2007, p.
172). In this study Crosnoe used the ECLS-K data set to investigate the connections
between preschool attendance and school readiness of children from Mexican-immigrant
families. One of Crosnoe’s final conclusions is …. “Although the data suggest that
universal early child care programs would not provide a substantial boost to the school
readiness of children from Mexican immigrant families, any such programs put into place
for other reasons will likely have a small side effect on the academic school readiness of
these children. This side effect would only be realized, however, if these programs did
not interfere with their generally positive socio-emotional development.” (pp. 173-174).
Crosnoe goes on to explain,
“Yet, careful inspection of these results suggests that, from a policy stand-point, early
care would not be a particularly useful remedy for educational inequalities related to Mexican
immigration. One issue is that all of the effects in the mediational pathway (Mexican immigrant
status >> early child care >> math achievement) were small in magnitude, so that overall
mediational effect could only be considered weak. Another issue is the relatively consistent
pattern that children from Mexican-immigrant families might “get less” from formal child care –
in terms of achievement- than their native peers…. Together, these two issues suggest that putting
extensive resources towards early child care programs for children from Mexican immigrant
families would likely do little to close the gap in school readiness between them and other
children.” (p.175).
12
This finding that children from Mexican immigrant families generally benefited
less than their native born, English-speaking counterparts and may experience some
unintended consequences when they attend formal early care programs echoes the
findings from the meta-analysis of effective reading programs for children from linguistic
minority backgrounds (August & Shanahan, 2006). Children who have been identified as
English language learners do benefit from high quality reading instruction just as nativeEnglish speakers do, but the effect size is much smaller. Programs need to make
curricular and instructional enhancements to meet the needs of ELLs (August &
Shanahan, 2006; Goldenberg, 2010).
The question relevant for this paper is what are the recommended
accommodations or enhancements to formal early learning programs that would improve
both cognitive/language aspects of school readiness as well as build upon important
socio-emotional/cultural strengths? Further, which approaches contribute positively to the
long-term academic achievement, high levels of English language proficiency and
reading comprehension, and increased school completion rates of children from Mexican
immigrant families? Finally, what is it about the early learning contexts and experiences
that support high levels of overall academic performance for children from some groups
of Asian immigrant families?
A. Language and Literacy Development for English Language Learners
Research has shown that language experiences and early exposure to literacy are
important precursors for children’s language development and reading success (Snow,
Burns, & Griffin, 1998). In particular, several language skills have been identified as
important during the early childhood years, including a strong vocabulary, phonological
awareness, letter knowledge, background knowledge, and understanding of print concepts
(Dickinson & Neuman, 2006; National Reading Panel, 2000). The National Early
Literacy Panel (2008) recently completed a meta-analysis of research and
recommendations focused on critical early language and literacy skills and practices
associated with them. The report identified the skills and abilities of young children (age
birth through 5 years or kindergarten) that predict later reading, writing, or spelling
outcomes, and the types of early literacy interventions that promote these early literacy
skills. Their findings support the importance of alphabet knowledge, phonological
13
awareness, rapid auto-naming of letters or digits, rapid auto-naming of objects or colors,
writing or writing one’s name, and phonological memory as predictive skills for literacy
development. An additional five early literacy skills were identified as potentially
important variables, including concepts of print, print knowledge, reading readiness, oral
language skills, and visual processing. Similar to much of the research cited above, this
meta-analysis is silent on how these skills and interventions operate for young ELLs.
Since many young children from immigrant families are not fully proficient in
English and are still mastering the fundamentals of their home language, they are
challenged with learning through two languages from their earliest school experiences.
These children “ are simultaneously trying to develop proficiency in their home language
and in English, all the while gaining the pre-academic knowledge and social skills they
need to be ready for formal schooling” (Chang et al. 2007, p. 244).
Research with bilingual populations supports the importance of many of the same
dimensions of language and literacy for ELLs in early childhood as described above. The
National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (August and
Shanahan, 2006) concluded that instruction in the key components of reading, as
identified by the National Reading Panel, including phonological and phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension, has clear benefits for
ELLs. However, the reviewers added that instruction in the key components of reading is
necessary—but not sufficient—for teaching language-minority children to read and write
proficiently in English. Oral proficiency in English is critical as well—but student
performance suggests that it is often overlooked in instruction (August & Shanahan,
2006, p. 4).
Reading Comprehension. Reading proficiency includes two inter-related sets of
skills: decoding and comprehension (Hoover & Gough, 1990). Decoding refers to the
ability to understand that a printed word represents the spoken word, and that this printed
word is made of a sequence of phonemes. Reading decoding skills also require the ability
to recognize the individual phonemes and phoneme blends to make the printed text
understandable. Decoding skills typically include the specific literacy skills described
above: alphabetic knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid naming of letters, digits,
objects, colors, writing skills, and phonological memory. There is a moderately strong
14
relationship between preschool code-related skills and school age reading comprehension
for native English speakers (0.44 to 0.48) (NELP, 2008).
The Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearing House defines reading
comprehension as having two dimensions. The first is vocabulary development which
includes the development of the knowledge of the meanings, uses, and pronunciation of
words and the second is reading comprehension which refers to the understanding of the
meaning of a passage and the context in which the word occurs (What Works Clearing
House, 2007). Reading comprehension is first built upon decoding skills. A rich and
extended vocabulary is important in making meaning—or having the mental lexicon that
connects to the written text. Once these skills are established, the child can interpret the
meanings of text, make inferences, and connect the content to their personal background
knowledge. It is at this stage of reading development that oral language skills play an
important role in helping children analyze and synthesize text, master new information,
and build knowledge as they read---or reading to learn as opposed to learning to read
(Dickinson & Freiberg, 2009).
The most recent research has identified specific oral language skills as critical to
future reading comprehension: listening comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, syntax,
narrative abilities, and academic language use (University of Chicago, 2010). Extended
vocabularies allow children to attach meaning to the words they decode and comprehend
written text. Traditionally, receptive vocabulary has been identified as a critical precursor
to reading comprehension, particularly in native English speaking student populations
(Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). Other language skills such as syntactic or narrative skills
also have been shown to be predictive of later comprehension (Share & Leiken, 2004).
An additional oral language ability that has shown to support reading comprehension is
narrative skill, the ability to organize narrative in time sequences, cause-effect relations,
and problem-attempt-resolution sequences. Kindergarten narrative skills have been
shown to correlate with later reading comprehension in several studies (Kendeou, van
den Broek,, White, & Lynch, 2009).
Finally, familiarity with a more formal, academic language style has been linked
to reading comprehension. Academic language is less context-bound and typically uses
more rare words, complex grammar, elaborated noun phrases, and information that
15
involves abstract objects and events (Dickinson & McCabe, 2001). The ability to talk
about the past and future during the early childhood years appears to be a significant
predictor of later reading comprehension scores.
The vast majority of the research cited above was conducted with monolingual
English speaking populations. While there are relatively fewer studies on the process of
learning to read for ELLs, we have learned a great deal in the past decade about dual
language development and its consequences for learning to read and comprehend English
text (August & Shanahan, 2006; Kuhl, 2001.) As with native English speakers decoding
and oral language skills have been shown to be important for reading comprehension
with ELL populations (Mancilla & Lesaux, 2010). While decoding skills appear to
develop at appropriate rates when ELLs receive high quality instruction, their
comprehension abilities are far below age-grade expectations (Espinosa & Zepeda, 2009;
Kieffer, 2008). In fact, in several studies ELLs knowledge of vocabulary has been found
to be two standard deviations below the national norm in preschool and continue to be
significantly low through middle school (Hammer et al., 2003; Paez, Tabors, Lopez,
2007.) With sufficient exposure and good instruction, English language learners typically
develop the prerequisite decoding skills described above during the early childhood
years, but not the linguistic capacity to understand the text they are decoding.
Empirical studies with young ELLs have repeatedly documented cross-linguistic
influences between a child’s home language (L1) and second language (L2) oral language
and reading skills (for a comprehensive review, see August & Shanahan, 2006). In
general, well-controlled studies have shown that using the child’s home language to
access knowledge and build early vocabulary and conceptual skills will facilitate reading
development in the second language (Reese, Garnier, Gallimore, & Goldenberg, 2000;
Durgunoglu, 2003). Strategic use of the child’s home language while adding English
language proficiency and building English reading skills appears to be significant, but not
sufficient to improve reading comprehension and help close the achievement gap for
ELLs.
Early Interventions. Several recent studies have shown that systematic early
instruction in decoding skills with ELLs will improve their ability to decode text (Lesaux,
2009). However, very few studies have identified strategies that predictably and
16
significantly increase the third-fourth grade reading comprehension scores of English
language learners (Miller & Garcia, 2009). These disappointing findings are confirmed in
the achievement data presented earlier in this paper. Of the 32 reading interventions
designed for ELLs recently reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), none
were found to have “strong evidence of a positive effect” on children’s reading
comprehension and only a few were found to have “evidence of positive or potentially
positive effects for at least one improvement outcome”.
Several studies on the impact of preschool attendance for ELLs have shown that
attendance in high quality preschool improves English language outcomes particularly for
children from Mexican immigrant families who speak only Spanish in the home
(Gormley, 2008). While much less cited, an additional feature of the evaluations of the
impact of the Oklahoma Universal PreK on young Spanish speaking ELLs is that they
showed declines in their Spanish language abilities. Based on a careful review of the
evaluation reports and multiple site visits by the author of this paper, it appears that the
program implements a mostly English immersion approach to early literacy for ELLs.
The Oklahoma studies confirm the finding that it is possible to improve certain aspects of
English vocabulary development and early literacy skills at kindergarten entry, however,
it is not possible to know how this curricular approach influences long-term reading
comprehension for ELLs since they have not followed the children through third grade
and beyond. It is also not possible to know which aspects of the curriculum are
responsible for these specific outcomes at kindergarten entry since there was no attempt
to link instructional practices with language outcomes.
A recent experimental study of preschool ELLs who attended either a two-way
immersion (50% Spanish, 50% English) or an English immersion (100%) English
program showed that the children in the two-way immersion improved in their Spanish
language development without any declines in their English development (Barnett, et al.,
2007). Similarly, the Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority
Children and Youth concluded,
“English language learners may learn to read best if taught both in their native
language and English from early in the process of formal schooling. Rather than
17
confusing children, as some have feared, reading instruction in a familiar language may
serve as a bridge to success in English because decoding, sound blending, and generic
comprehension strategies clearly transfer between languages that use phonetic
orthographies, such as Spanish, French, and English.” (August & Shanahan, 2007, p.
397).
In summary, the ability to read comprises two inter-related components, decoding
skills and comprehension abilities. ELLs appear to develop decoding skills when they are
enrolled in high quality early literacy programs, but no approaches have consistently
improved reading comprehension scores for ELLs. In addition, strategic use of the child’s
home language combined with instructional adaptations appears to support long-term
English reading achievement. The most recent research findings point to the need for
early childhood educators to target oral language development as these skills contribute
greatly to reading comprehension by grades two-three. In particular, extended vocabulary
knowledge, understanding of complex syntax, narrative skills and academic language use
are important to ELLs reading comprehension.
It is important to remember that there is great diversity both across different
immigrant groups and within our ELL population. Young English language learners vary
greatly both in their personal characteristics and their cultural, social, and language
learning environments. The rates at which they learn English as well as their eventual
bilingual proficiency depends to a great extent on interactions between the child’s
cognitive abilities, cultural and linguistic background, personality, motivation, age, and
the amount and quality of exposure to English. Some young ELL children have had little
or no exposure to English prior to their entry into an early education classroom and may
also have had limited extended language interactions in their home language. Others may
have had systematic and extensive opportunities to learn both languages from their
earliest years. Some are growing up in well-resourced households with highly educated
bilingual parents while many live in homes where no-one speaks English and it is a daily
struggle to meet basic needs.
These economic, linguistic, and cultural differences are significant and should not
be overlooked. Across and within different immigrant groups, families possess unique
strengths and language needs; ELL children and families should not all be lumped
18
together and treated as though they share the same strengths and needs. It is important for
early childhood educators to know about each ELL child’s specific language background,
what languages have been spoken in the home, by whom, for what amounts, and for what
purposes (Espinosa, 2010).
Loss of Home Language. Research in the last two decades has also deepened our
understanding of the consequences of losing one’s home language while mastering a
second language. We have ample evidence that for many ELL preschoolers, as soon as
they enter an English-dominant classroom, they start to prefer to speak English and lose
interest in continuing to use the home language.
It is true that children in the preschool years can learn a language quickly and
with little apparent effort. These are the years of rapid language development and
children can acquire a language in a year or two simply by being in a setting where the
language is in daily use. However, it is equally true that languages can be lost with equal
ease during this period, especially when the language they are learning is more highly
valued than the language they already speak. Over the years, I have tracked many young
children who, as soon as they learn a little English in the school, put aside the language
they already know and speak, and choose to communicate exclusively in English, even at
home with family members who do not speak or understand much English. (Fillmore,
2000, p.37)
This early shift to English dominance often occurs at the expense of the home
language. When children lose the ability to speak their first language, the language of
their home, they are at risk for multiple negative outcomes: poorer academic achievement
in English, loss of cultural and personal identity, decreased ability to communicate with
and learn from important family members, and the loss of their potential bilingualism
(Thomas & Collier, 2002). The language they have learned to interpret and understand
the world, to build enduring relationships with immediate family members, and to
process information is no longer relevant—at the same time they are still struggling to
master the basics of the English language.
Recent research has also demonstrated the multiple advantages of becoming
bilingual. Infants who are growing up in bilingual settings (which is typical in many parts
of the world) have displayed the innate capacity to acquire two languages without
19
significant costs to the development of either language. Simultaneous dual language
children generally experience the same milestones at approximately the same age as
monolingual children (Genesee et al., 2006). In addition to the capacity to acquire more
than one language, there are special cognitive, linguistic, and social advantages of
bilingualism. Preschool children who are systematically exposed to two languages during
the preschool years demonstrate age-appropriate development in both languages as well
as specific cognitive benefits associated with bilingualism (Espinosa, 2008).
From the field of neuroscience, we now have evidence that the development of
two languages benefits the brain; greater brain tissue density in areas related to language,
memory, and attention have been found in young bilinguals (Mechelli, et al., 2004).
Young children learning two languages also have more neural activity in the parts of the
brain associated with language processing. This increased brain activity and neural
density may have long-term positive effects on specific types of cognitive abilities, such
as those that require focusing on the details of a task and knowing how language is
structured and used—or metalinguistic abilities. These are important underlying
linguistic competencies that promote high levels of reading abilities in the long-term.
Finally, the amount of time devoted to language and literacy development for
young English language learners will need to be increased. Researchers have found that
ELLs generally make similar rates of growth in important literacy skills, but because they
start below their native-speaking counterparts, they never “catch up” to national norms
(Mancilla & Lesaux, 2010). These children need both opportunities to develop language
proficiency in their home language as well as time to transfer these skills to English and
acquire the component English reading skills. In order to achieve at age-grade
expectations, English language learners will need to acquire many skills and concepts in
their native language, and accelerate their acquisition of English oral language and
reading abilities. The time, resources, and attention required to achieve these outcomes
will need to be expanded. We need to both improve our instructional approaches and
expand the amount of quality learning time available for many young ELLs.
B. Features of Early Intervention With Empirical Evidence of Efficacy
The next section provides a summary of the literature on the elements of early
childhood quality that have been shown to promote learning and achievement among
20
ELLs, including curriculum and instruction, program and teacher characteristics, and
family engagement. It is important to remember that most ECE research with this
population has been conducted in center-based settings and with preschool-aged children.
There is an urgent need to address the gap in knowledge about the early childhood
experiences of infants and toddlers who are DLLs and those attending home-based
programs (Castro, Espinosa, & Paez, in press).
1. Strategic Use of the Child’s First Language. As described above, multiple recent
research syntheses (August & Shanahan, 2006; Genesee et al., 2006; Slavin &
Cheung, 2005) have found that, for ELLs, teaching reading skills in the first
language is more effective in terms of English reading achievement than
immersing children in English. The stronger their home language is, the stronger
their English will be. In fact, research shows that preschoolers in dual/bilingual
Explicit and language programs show larger language and preliteracy gains in
their two languages than preschoolers in preschools that only use the English
language (Barnett, Yarosz, Thomas & Blanco, 2007). The amount and frequency
of primary language use may vary depending on the language(s) of instruction in
the early childhood program, but even in programs in which instruction is
provided only in English, some use of the primary language should be
incorporated to support ELLs (Castro, Gillanders, Machado-Casas, & Buysse,
2006). Some researchers have suggested that a child needs to have at least 2530% of language input in a language in order to develop proficiency (Pearson,
2001).
2. Explicit and Intentional Vocabulary and Phonics Instruction. Extensive
knowledge of many words is essential for skilled reading comprehension. For
ELLs, vocabulary development in English requires a combination of direct
teaching of words and incidental learning that occurs in multiple exposures to
words in a variety of meaningful social contexts (Carlo et al., 2004). Therefore, an
important instructional strategy for ELLs in early childhood programs is to use
instruction time to address, often in the context of play, the meanings of everyday
and content words, phrases, and expressions not yet learned. Direct, explicit
literacy instruction that is embedded within meaningful lessons connected to
children’s prior knowledge is recommended (Genesee, et al., (2006).
3. Emphasis on Oral Language Development. Strong oral language skills are
necessary for reading comprehension, an area where ELLs have been shown to
struggle (Lesaux, 2009). In particular, knowledge of academic language, narrative
skills, listening comprehension, and the understanding of complex grammatical
structures are all important to English reading achievement. Additional support
for language comprehension is also suggested: visual representations, songs,
chants, rhymes, physical gestures, media aids, and concrete objects such as
puppets and character cut-outs (Lindholm-Leary, 2010; Mathematica Policy
Research, 2010).
4. Frequent, Skilled Book-Reading in English and Child’s Home Language.
Storybook readings, read-alouds, and extended access to books in both English
21
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
and the home language promote vocabulary learning, print concepts, as well as
children’s interest in reading (Espinosa, 2010). Activating knowledge in a child’s
first language and explicitly connecting to English can facilitate dual language
learning (Gillanders, & Castro, 2008). If educators are not fluent in the children’s
primary language, learning and using specific core words in the primary language
can further support children’s learning of the same concepts in English (Castro et
al., 2006). Skilled book reading, including dialogic reading strategies have also
shown to increase early literacy skills.
Culturally Responsive Curriculum and Instruction. There is some evidence that
systematically incorporating elements of the child’s home culture can increase
student engagement and interest (August & Shanahan, 2006).
Structured Peer Interaction. Providing opportunities for ELLs to interact and
practice their emerging language skills with more proficient English speakers
supports English language development and social inclusion (Saunders &
O’Brien, 2006).
Small Group and One-on-One Activities. Small group lessons allow the teacher to
individualize instruction for ELLs based on specific learning needs. Small group
and peer-assisted instruction has also been shown to promote ELLs engagement,
involvement, and amount of English language practice (McMaster et al., 2008).
Screening and Assessment. Frequent classroom assessment and monitoring of
ELLs language and literacy development is critical to instruction and
identification of children who may need additional services. For example,
measures of phonological processing, letter and alphabetic knowledge, and the
process of second language acquisition can help educators plan specific
instructional enhancements, such as the use of extra support in small group
instruction (Lesaux & Siegel, 2003). One of the most serious challenges for
conducting valid and reliable assessments of DLLs’ development and learning is
the lack of appropriate measures (see Espinosa & Lopez, 2007, for a review).
Even though some measures are available in Spanish and English, few are
available in other languages. Furthermore, among available translated
instruments, most have been normed on monolingual speaking populations of the
non-English language so that they are not comparable to the experience of
children growing up with two languages. There is a need for an array of
instruments that can reliably and validly assess DLLs’ development for different
purposes, including screening, progress monitoring, and instructional planning.
Teacher Characteristics. Professional organizations have concluded that to be
effective educators of ELLs, teachers need to be knowledgeable in five major
content areas: (1) understanding the structural aspects of language development
(e.g., syntax, phonology) and the development of both the first and the second
language; (2) understanding the role of culture and its linkage to language
development; (3) acquiring knowledge and developing skills about effective
instructional practices to promote development and learning in ELLs; (4)
understanding the role of assessment and how to implement appropriate
assessment strategies with ELLs; and (5) understanding the teacher’s role as a
professional in the education of ELLs (ACEI, 2006; Hyson, 2003; NAEYC, 1995;
NCATE, 2008; Zepeda, Castro & Cronin, 2008). Teacher effectiveness has been
22
strongly linked to ELL student achievement; Garcia recently estimated that as
much as 40% of the variance on ELL student achievement can be attributed to
teacher characteristics (Garcia, 2010).
10. Family Engagement. Strong school-family partnerships have been a hallmark of
high quality early education for decades. The empirical research base for parent
education, family visitation, parent conferences, and home-school communication
interventions with ELL populations is “minimal, but promising”. (Mathematica
Policy Research, 2010). Researchers have found that sending literacy materials
home in the family’s dominant language and training parents on how to conduct
literacy activities can increase the frequency of home literacy activities and
promote literacy skill development in ELL children (Goldenberg et al., 1992;
Hancock, 2002).
11. Extended Learning Opportunities. Finally, the amount of time devoted to
language development and academic learning for young English language
learners will need to be increased. These children need both opportunities to
develop language proficiency in their home language as well as time to transfer
these skills to English and acquire the component English reading skills. In order
to reduce the academic achievement gap, English language learners will need to
acquire many skills and concepts in their native language, and accelerate their
acquisition of English oral language and reading abilities. The time, resources,
and attention required to achieve these outcomes will need to be expanded (Miller
& Garcia, 2008). We need to both improve our instructional approaches and
expand the amount of quality learning time available for many young ELLs.
III. BARRIERS to IMPLEMENTATION
Program participation. In order for young ELLs to benefit from high quality,
culturally and linguistic appropriate early education, they first must attend. As described
in section I.B., children of immigrants attend out-of-home center-based early educational
programs at lower rates than their native-born, English-speaking peers. The main barriers
are clustered around the accessibility, affordability, and culturally and linguistically
responsiveness of the programs. These barriers are not insurmountable; they can be
addressed through thoughtful and intentional federal, state, and local policy attention (see
Matthews and Jang, 2007).
Program Quality. The “implementation gap”, the discrepancy between what we
know and what is consistently enacted in classrooms, is significant and endemic across
all levels of educational programming. Much of the research-based recommendations for
specific teaching strategies for young ELLs has been learned in the last decade. The
23
findings around the need to systematically support home language development as well
as introduce English may be counter-intuitive to many educators and policy makers.
After conducting extensive professional development for ECE staff across more than a
dozen states, the author has repeatedly found that, many teachers and administrators have
deep beliefs about the efficacy of English immersion and, therefore emphasize English at
the expense of home language development. Therefore, extensive professional
development that addresses both beliefs about bilingualism and specific teaching
strategies is warranted. Most ECE teachers of young ELLs report that they have received
inadequate preparation to teach children from diverse backgrounds and little professional
development on how to teach ELLs.
In order to commit program resources to additional professional development on
the topic of ELLs, educational decision makers will need to prioritize the needs of
English Language Learners. To fully implement many of the strategies described above,
additional materials in multiple languages will need to be purchased. In addition, local
and state educational administrators will need to collaborate around a coherent policy that
clearly outlines the short and long-term goals for English Language Learners. Many local
program and state education agencies have limited background on dual language
development, and have not been informed about current research on bilingualism.
Therefore, outdated policies, confusing directives, and inconsistent programming will
impede efforts to implement the research-based approaches that have been shown to
improve long-term achievement of ELLs.
The need to recruit, retain, and support highly qualified teachers and staff is
clearly critical to improving achievement. Most of our teachers in early childhood
programs are monolingual English speakers—and this is not expected to change anytime
soon. While Head Start has a higher percentage of bilingual teachers, it is not known how
their language abilities are used in the classroom or even if they are matched to children
who speak the same language (Freedson, 2010). We are also just learning about the
features of effective teacher preparation and professional development for improved
teaching of ELLs.
State Early Learning Standards. As of June, 2005, Forty-nine states plus the
District of Columbia had developed prekindergarten early learning standards (Scott-Little
24
ae al., 2010). These standards are designed to clearly articulate what pre-school children
should know or be able to do and thus determine what is taught and what children need to
learn prior to kindergarten entry. While many of the state early learning documents
provide some guidance on how to use the standards with ELLs, and a few states have
translated the standards documents into other languages, there is very little information
that addresses expectations for home language development, rate of English language
development, the highly variable process of second language development, or strategies
that reflect the research findings described above. Only one state, California has included
early learning guidelines that specifically outlines the process of English language
development for preschoolers and provides assessment items that capture progress in
English acquisition. The new Head Start Child Development and Early Learning
Framework contains a new domain, English Language Development, that identifies
growth in receptive and expressive English language skills and engagement in English
literacy activities as goals of Head Start. However, there is little instructional or
assessment guidance on specific teaching approaches or assessment instruments to use.
As the proportion of children from immigrant families who are ELL continues to grow,
states and federal programs will need to clearly state learning goals for both English
language development and maintenance of home language with well defined teaching
strategies and assessment procedures. Currently the lack of such guidance leaves
programs and teachers confused about the best approach for their young children who
arrive with a language other than English.
Community contexts. Some communities and school systems have adopted
restrictive language policies and practices that are inconsistent with the research
summarized above. As E. Garcia (2010) has stated, “Historically, school districts and
states have approached the language development and education of ELLs in very
different ways. Unfortunately, these approaches are typically not influenced by rigorous
research, but politics and ideology (Garcia & Jensen, 2009).” (p.5). This topic often
arouses highly charged debates arguing for or against bilingualism. The lack of public
understanding of the process of dual language development and the community
characteristics that promote improved educational outcomes for children of immigrants
will continue to interfere with widespread implementation
25
IV. Recommendations for Research
Given the rapid increase of different immigrant groups, the relative scarcity of
experimental research that explains the factors that support their educational
achievement, and the urgent need to identify and disseminate specific teaching and
assessment practices that promote long-term success, the following research areas are
targeted for immediate attention.
1. Define research protocols with recommendations for researchers focusing on
immigrant groups including: clear description of sample being studied, details
about their country of origin, immigration history and experiences, language
usage patterns, proficiency levels in home and English languages, educational
aspirations and attitudes.
2. Promote and fund longitudinal research designs that capture development and
achievement over time for different immigrant groups. Perhaps include items
on the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-2011) that focus
specifically on experiences and outcomes for children from immigrant
families. Longitudinal studies could help unravel the multiple influences of a
child’s early language learning opportunities, the socio-cultural parenting
practices of the home, and early educational experiences. Immigrant groups
that are not Hispanic, Spanish-speaking should also be included in sufficient
numbers to conduct sophisticated analyses.
3. Invest in research that designs and carefully evaluates the efficacy of specific
strategies for improving oral language abilities and reading comprehension for
ELLs, including those that work in urban, rural settings, and for bilingual as
well as monolingual English-speaking teachers.
4. Specific instructional areas that need to be researched include: language
balance, amount of L1 and L2 instruction that is most beneficial to which
groups of ELLs; threshold effects, are there thresholds for oral language
proficiency in L1 and/or L2 necessary for English language instruction?
Efficacy of different language models, e.g., 50-50, 90-10, for different
language groups.
26
5. Field test and evaluate well-designed preschool-grade three coordinated
approaches that provide a continuous, articulated program of instruction and
assessment in communities that have high concentrations of recent immigrant
families.
6. Invest in research on assessment tools with good psychometric qualities that
accurately capture language development for young children from immigrant
families in both their home language and English. This need is especially
urgent for languages other than Spanish and English. In particular, more valid
measures are needed in the areas of oral language proficiency, deep
vocabulary knowledge, narrative skills and syntax, phonology, and functional
competence. These tools are urgently needed to both inform instructional
decision-making and track growth in both languages.
7. In tandem with the development of new assessment measures, age-appropriate
developmental norms need to be developed that reflect typical language
development for ELLs across a broad range of variables relevant to immigrant
populations. In particular, generational status, SES, language of the home, and
amount of exposure to English are important considerations when making
judgments about rate of second language acquisition.
8. Encourage studies that focus on the contributions of parenting practices of
families from different immigrant groups particularly with non-Latino groups.
Specific language and literacy practices in the home environment should help
explain both the school readiness levels at kindergarten entry as well as the
educational attitudes and school persistence characteristics of children from
immigrant families.
27
References:
Alba R. & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American Mainstream. Assimilation and
Contemporary Immigration, Harvard University Press
August D. & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second language
learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children
and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates.
Barnett, W.S., Yarosz, D., Thomas, J., Junga, K., & Blanco, D. (2007). Two-way and
monolingual English immersion in preschool education: An experimental
comparison. Early Childhood research Quarterly, 22(3), 277-293.
Barnett, W. S. (2008). Preschool education and its lasting effects: Research and policy
implications. Boulder, CO., and Tempe, AZ: Education and the Public Interest
Center & Education Policy Research Unit.
Bowman, B. T., Donovan, S., & Burns, S. (2001). Eager to Learn: Educating our
Preschoolers. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Brandon, P. (2004). The child care arrangements of preschool-aged children in immigrant
families in the United States. International Migration 42(1):65-87.
Burk, D. (2006). Differentials in the academic Achievement of Children of Immigrants.
Honors Thesis in Economics, Stanford University.
Fortuny, K., Hernandez, D., & Chaudry, A. (2010). Young Children of Immigrants: The
Leading Edge of America’s Future. Brief No.3. Washington DC: The Urban
Institute.
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.S. (2009). A meta-analysis of the effects
of early education interventions on cognitive development. Teachers College
Record. 104(7), 1485-1523.
Capps, R., Fix, M., & Reardon-Anderson, J. (2003). Children of immigrants show slight
reduction in poverty, hardship (Working paper). Washington DC: Urban Institute.
Capps, (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No
Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute
Castro, D., Espinosa, L., & Paez, M. (in press). Defining and Measuring Quality Early
Childhood Practices that Promote Dual Language learners’ Development and
Learning. Brookes.
28
Crosnoe, R. (2004). Double disadvantage or signs of resilience: the elementary school
contexts of children from Mexican immigrant families. American Research
Journal, 42, 269-303.
Crosnoe, R. (2007). Early childcare and the school readiness of children from Mexican
immigrant families. International Migration Review, 41,(1):152-181.
Dickinson, D.K., & McCabe, A. (2003). A Framework For Examining Book Reading in
Early Childhood Classrooms. In A. van Kleeck, , & S. Stahl, & E.B Bauer (Eds.),
On Reading Books to Children: Parents and Teachers (pp. 95 - 113). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Dickinson, D., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Freiberg, E.S., Poe, K. (2003)
The Comprehensive Language Approach to Early Literacy: The Interrelationships
Among Vocabulary, Phonological Sensitivity, and Print Knowledge Among
Preshcool-aged Children. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 465-481.
Dickinson D. & Freiburg, (2009). Environmental factors affecting language acquisition
from birth to five: Implications for literacy development and intervention. Paper
prepared for the Workshop on the Role of Language in School Learning:
Implications for Closing the Achievement Gap, October 15-16, Hewlett
Foundation, Mentlo Park, CA
Durgunoglu, (2003). Cross language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 453-465.
Espinosa L. & Laffey, J. (2003). Urban primary teacher perceptions of children with
challenging behaviors. Journal of Children & Poverty, 9(2), 23-44.
Espinosa, L. (2007). English-language learners as they enter school. In R. Pianta, M. Cox
& K. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era
of accountability (pp.175-196). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Espinosa, L., Laffey, J., & Whittaker, T. (2007). Language minority children analysis:
Focus on technology use. Final Report to the Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards and Student Testing and National Center for Educational Testing.
Espinosa, L. (2008). Challenging common myths about young English language learners.
Foundation for Child Development Policy Brief No. Eight.
29
Espinosa & Zepeda, (2009). LAUSD Early Childhood Education for English Language
Learners Plan. Los Angeles: Internal Report.
Espinosa, L. (2010). Getting it right for young children from diverse backgrounds:
Applying research to improve practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Espinosa, L. (2010). The importance of language and literacy development for ALL
children, bilingual and monolingual. In Washington, V. & Andrews, J.D. (Eds).
Children of 2020. Washington DC: Children of 2020.
Fortuny, K., Hernandez, D., & Chaudry, A. (2010). Young children of immigrants:
The leading edge of America’s future. Washington DC: The Urban Institute.
Fuller, B. (2005). Mapping the availability of center-based care in Latino communities.
Paper presented at the technical work group meeting of the National Task
Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics, Tucson, AZ.
Gandara, P. & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of
failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
Gans, H. (1992). Second generation decline: Scenarios for the economic and ethnic
futures of post-1965 American immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15 (April):
173-191.
Garcia, (2010). Castanda’s third prong: Evaluating the achievement of Arizona’s English
learners under restrictive language policy. In P. Gandara & M. Hopkins (Eds.),
Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New
York: Teachers College Press
García Coll, C., & Marks, A. K. (2009). Immigrant stories: Identity and academic
pathways during middle childhood. New York: Oxford University Press.
Garcia, E. E. (2010). Education and Achievement: A Focus on Latino “Immigrant”
Children. Paper prepared for the Young Children in immigrant Families and the
Path to Educational Success Roundtable Meeting. Urban Institute, June 28, 2010.
Garcia, E.E. & Jensen, B. (2007). Language Development and Early Education of
Hispanic Children in the United States. Working Draft. Arizona State University
Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). Synthesis: Cross-linguistic
relationships, Chapter 6. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds), Report of the
30
National Literacy Panel on K-12 Youth and Adolescents, pp. 147-168. Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Genesee, F.; J. Paradis; and M. B. Crago. (2004). Dual Language Development and
Disorders: A Handbook on Bilingualism and Second Language Learning.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Gormley, W. (2008). The effects of Oklahoma’s pre-K program on Hispanic students.
Social Science Quarterly (December 2008), pp.916-936.
Hammer, C, Miccio, A, & Wagstaff, D (2003). Home Literacy Experiences and Their
Relationship to Bilingual Preschoolers' Developing English Literacy Abilities: An
Initial Investigation. Language Speech and Hearing Services in School, 34, 20-30.
Hao, L & Bonstead-Bruns, M. (1998). Parent-Child Difference in Educational
Expectations and Academic Achievement of Immigrant and Native Students.
Sociology of Education 71:175-198.Heckman, 2010
Hernandez, D., Denton, N., & Macartney, S. (2008). Children in immigrant families:
looking to America’s future. Social policy Report 22(3): 1-24.
Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development.
Development Review, 26, 55-88.
Jackson, M, Kieman, K. & McLanahan, S. (2010). Nativity differences in child
development across diverse populations, settings and outcomes: Do
socioeconomic resources narrow or widen the gap? Fragile Families Working
Paper No. Wp10-11-FF.
Kao, G. & Tienda, M. (1995). Optimism and achievement: The educational performance
of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly, Mar 01 v76n1,1.
Kendeou, van den Broek, White, & Lynch. (2007). Preschool and early elementary
comprehension: Skill development and strategy interventions. In D.S. McNamra
(Ed.) Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, Interventions, and
Technologies, (pp. 27-45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kuhl, P. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 5 (11), 831-843.
Lesaux, N. (2009). Slide presentation, Panel I: Vocabulary and Academic Language.
Presented at the Workshop on the Role of Language in School Learning:
31
Implications for Closing the Achievement Gap, October 15-16, Hewlett
Foundation, Menlo Park, CA.
Lindhom-Leary, C. (2011). Sobrato Family Foundation Early Academic and Literacy
Project After One Full Year of Implementation. Research Report #1. San Jose,
CA: Internal Report.
Lindholm-Leary C. & Genessse, F. (2010). Alternative Educational Programs For
English Language Learners. In California Department of Education (Eds.),
Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches.
Sacramento: CDE Press.
Mancilla & Lesaux, (2010). Predicators of reading comprehensive for struggling readers:
The case of Spanish speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational
Psychology.
Mathews, H., & Ewen, D. (2006). Reaching all children? Understanding early care and
education participation among immigrant families. Washington, DC: Center for
Law and Social Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED489574)
Matthews H. & Ewen, D. (2010). Administration reverses a decade of indifference:
Budget proposal expands quality child care and early education opportunities.
Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
Matthews, H. & Jang, D. (2007). Challenges of Change: Learning from the Child Care
and Early Education Experiences of Immigrant Families. Washington DC: Center
for Law and Social Policy.
McClelland, M.M., Morrison, F.J., & Holmes, D.L. 2(000). Children at risk for early
academic problems: the role of learning-related social skills. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 15, 307-329.
Miller & Garcia, (2008; 2009) A reading-focused early childhood research and strategy
development agenda for African Americans and Hispanics at all social class
levels who are English speakers or English language learners. Arizona State
University: Office of the Vice President for Educational Partnerships.
Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Stevenson, (2004). Phonemies, rimes, vocabulary, and
grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: evidence from a
longitudinal study. Developmental psychology, 40(5), 665-81.
32
National Early Literacy Panel, (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National
Early Literacy Panel. Washington DC: National institute for Literacy.
National Research Council. (2010). Language Diversity, School Learning, and Closing
Achievement Gaps: A Workshop Summary. Washington DC: National Academies
Press.
NAEP, (2009). The National Assessment of Educational Progress
Paez, M., Tabors, P., & Lopez, L. (2007). Dual language and literacy development of
Spanish-speaking preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 28(2), 85-102.
Peterson & McCabe, (1992). Parental styles of narrative elicitation: Effect on children’s
narrative structure and content. First language, 12, 299-321.
Pong, S. (2003). Immigrant Children’s School Performance. Paper prepared for the 2003
American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA., August 15-19.
Pong, S. (2009). Grade Level and Achievement of Immigrants' Children: Academic
Redshirting in Hong Kong. Educational Research and Evaluation 15(4): 405-425.
Portes, A. (1996). Immigration theory for a new century: Some problems and
opportunities. International Migration Review 31 (Winter): 799-825.
Porte, A. & Zhou, M. (1992). Gaining the upper hand: Economic mobility among
immigrant and domestic minorities. Ethnic and Racial Studies 15:491-522.
Portes, A. & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and
its variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530
(November): 74-96.
Reese, Garnier, Gallimore, & Goldenberg, C. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of the
antecedents of emergent Spanish literacy and middle-school English reading
achievement of Spanish-speaking students. American Education Research
Journal 37, 633-662.
Rist, R. (2001). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophesy
in ghetto education. Harvard educational Review, 40, 266-301. (Reprinted from
R. Rist, 1970, Student social class and teacher expectations: the self-fulfilling
prophesy in ghetto education. Harvard Education Review, 40, 72-73.)
33
Rowe & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009). Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities
in child vocabulary size at school entry. Science, 323, 951-953.
Rumberger R. & Tran, J. (2007). State language policies, school language practices, and
the English learner achievement gap. In P. Gandara & M. Hopkins (Eds.),
Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Share & Leiken, (2004). Language impairment at school entry and later reading
disability: Connections at lexical versus supralexical levels of reading. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 21 (1), 253-263.
Shonkoff, J. D. & Philips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods. The
science of early childhood development. Washington DC: National Academies
Press.
Suarez-Orozco M. & Suarez-Orozco, C. (2009). Globalization, Immigration, and
Schooling. In The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural
Education. James A. Banks (Ed). New York: Routledge. Pp. 62-76.
University of Chicago, (2010). Getting on Track Early for School Success: An
Assessment System to Support Effective Instruction. Technical Report. Chicago,
IL: Author
Vandell, D. (2004). Early child care: The known and the unknown. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 50, 387-414.
What Works Clearing House, 2007
Whitehurst R. & Lonigan, C. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from pre-readers.
In S.B. Newman & D.K. Dickinson, (Eds.) Handbook of early literacy research
(pp. 11-29). New York: Guilford Press.
Winsler, A., Diaz, R.M., Espinosa, L., & Rodriguez, J. L. (1999). When learning a
second language does not mean losing the first: Bilingual language development
in low-income, Spanish-speaking children attending bilingual preschool. Child
Development, 70(2), 349-362.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should education be concerned?
Theory into Practice, 203-210.
34
Zhou, M. (1997). Growing up American: The challenge confronting immigrant children
and children of immigrants. Annual Review of Sociology 23:63-95.
35