Start the conversation here

ESL Full Certification, Or Not?

I appreciate all of the work that the ELL task force does on behalf of our ELLs and their families. It has been a true honor to be a part of the team. Over the last few years, the issue of advocating for a "Full Certification" in ESL, rather than a simple endorsement, has been a topic of discussion. I'd like to raise two opposing arguments to the discussion regarding advocating for a stand-alone ESL certificate. I welcome your feedback!

All too often, when an untrained classroom teacher gets a new ELL, he/she sees that student as "someone else's problem." By having a full ESL teaching certificate, this only adds to the mystique of it all. In other words, the default belief is that the ELL needs someone who has a lot of coursework under their belt who can tend to their specific needs. And, because the classroom teacher does not have the coursework, he/she is off the hook. While having a stand-alone certificate lends to the prestige of being an ESL teacher, it also may backfire in that the certified ESL teacher is seen as having a special magical wand that fixes all of the problems. We all know that this magical wand doesn't exist. The content itself is the perfect vehicle for teaching/acquiring language. And, the person who teaches the content is the classroom teacher.
I earned an Ed.M. from SUNY Buffalo in Elementary Education with a concentration in bilingual education. Within that degree and certificate program, I took a certain number of linguistics-focused courses that were not literacy-focused or content & language focused. And, when I became a teacher I found that the linguistics courses did very little (I'm being generous) in the way of affecting my teaching of ELLs. It was the literacy courses and the content courses along with a basic understanding of second language acquisition (SLA) that supported my understanding of how to help ELLs. See, at no point did I sit with an ELL and say "Ahhh, this student is struggling with his fricatives." But, I did sit with children and diagnose and address reading needs, and areas of content instruction that needed extra linguistic scaffolding.

The problem with creating this separate ESL certificate is that we run the risk of separating the linguistic expertise from the classroom expertise in the areas of literacy and the content areas. By now, you're probably saying "So, let's make sure the ESL certificate includes literacy and content." But then how would that be different than what we have now? And, how would it avoid the problem of excluding all teachers from this expertise?

Instead, we ought to advocate for the requiring of more ELL scaffolding and SLA understandings in teacher preparation programs. And, at minimum, we ought to be keeping institutions of higher education accountable for including the 3 credits that they are claiming that they include, and doing so at a high level of quality, rather than repeatedly reintroducing the most basic understandings over and over throughout their programs (which is what happens when you spread it across, or "integrate it" into all of the other existing coursework).

So, the fundamental rationales for my two opposing arguments are these: By creating a stand-alone certificate, we reinforce the dangerous belief that the ELL is "someone else's problem." And, secondly what ELLs need is not experts in linguistics, but experts in literacy and content who can make their subjects linguistically accessible. We ought to be advocating that more second language acquisition coursework be required of all teachers, rather than a select few.

I'd like to make a very reasonable request of the ELL Task Force: That before we advocate for a separate stand alone ESL Certificate, we first determine what coursework (sample titles would be fine) would make up this certificate, and then ask two things: In what ways is it better? In what ways is it not as good? And, how might a stand-alone certificate end up helping our ELLs and hurting our ELLs in the long run?

Added on 1/17/12: Based on questions I've received, I feel I need to add a bit of background on the full certificate as opposed to the endorsement.

The current ESL certificate is made up of a minimum of 12 credits (4 courses) in Linguistics, Methods, and Diversity. In order to obtain the current ESL certificate, you have to have earned a teaching certificate in Elementary or Secondary Education (in approved subjects). That ESL certificate option will change in August of this year (the exact date is under discussion).

After August 2012, Newly certified ESL teachers still need to have a PA teaching certificate, but they also need 16-18 credits of additional credits in ESL. Personally, I think this is a huge improvement especially if a focus on diagnostic reading and literacy interventions for each of the various stages is a key piece (with real kids).

But, having a full ESL certificate would ELIMINATE the need to have an existing Elementary or Secondary teaching certificate altogether, because the ESL certificate would now be a stand-alone full certificate. I don't think that is enough. I think teachers should have a full Elementary or Secondary teaching certificate along with the 16-18 credit ESL endorsement proposed by the PDE, in order to really understand how to help their kids develop literacy and content area knowledge. Typically stand-alone ESL certificate programs are very heavy in linguistics and often don't require many of the literacy and content courses required by elementary and secondary programs.

The one credit to which I was referring is only for non-ESL certified teachers who are only majoring in elementary or secondary education, and who will be certified after 2013. It's not for those getting ESL certification. These non-ESL guys are required to have only three credits (one course) in methods for teaching ELLs. So, what I'm proposing is that we require more from those certified in elementary or secondary alone, and keep the ESL certificate as a 16-18 credit add-on ESL certificate. Because what it is currently being added to (literacy and content expertise) is equally of critical importance to the success of our ELLs.

Thanks! I appreciate your feedback!

Tags: ELL, ESL, Pennsylvania, certificate, teaching

2 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by gina major on January 13, 2012 at 5:51pm

I have not yet had the chance to reply back on any items on this site, so here goes.

On the idea of full ESL certification, I add based only on my experience. I am not a professional teacher or education administrator. My degree is in Marketing and Communication. But I am a mom to four kids internationally adopted at older ages,12 years ago.

Fortunately I found my way to the Ed Law Center back in 2000! And through this experience I had not only the chance to HAVE to become an assertive fiesty education advocate for my four special needs learners, but also Ed Law's ESL task force gave me the chance to learn, network, and ultimately even have a handle on how to advocate for my kids!!

We were in a school district with no ESL, but a district who beleived they knew how to do it. I learned the hard way not to trust. One year later, with no ESL, let alone whatever else, my kids pretty much had no shot at any literacy. They fully lost their native language, found themselves only in a world of pretty much pre-school English, at the ages of 8,9 and 10....and as I wrote, had no shot at any content or any literacy.

There is a negative to English Langauage Learners whose parents are also ELL's...of course. But in our case, the parent was an educated English speaker. By our second year, with Ed Law Centers help, an ESL teacher was required to be hired in our district. And this is where my thoughts begin on a non-certified or non-correctly certified ESL Teacher begin.

My answer to any questions on what type of certification, would simply come from the students perspective. Which of the choices on certification will give ESLs and ELLs a shot at becoming literate and learning content? I now deal with four distinctly different situations with my four kids...one out of high school, one is a high school senior and one in middle school...12 years later. T

he holes in content and literacy are MAJOR, and I believe primarily due to a late start, then awful ESL program in the first years in America. A properly PREPARED ESL teacher, pulls the team of content teachers together to work as a team for the benefit of the child--so they ARE and CAN learn content. A properly prepared ESL ELL teacher knows the difference and makes a difference to all in the school, as to how to accomplish language changes while making sure that content teachers know how to get some content into an ESL students head! I would go with which ever certification answer/plan, actually focuses on the long range literacy of the student!! Because I have four dramatic examples, all different, showing now what happens when the ESL ELL beginnings are not there.

But I fully get that the ESL ELL teacher should not be held responsible in full for a student making or not making basic levels of literacy!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Persida Himmele on January 13, 2012 at 8:49pm

WOW! Gina, thank you so much for sharing your and your children's stories! Stories like yours ground us in reality.

Twelve years ago, I don't even think PA had an ESL certificate, but they were still bound by federal laws to provide linguistic support. I am very sorry that this didn't happen for your children. Parents like YOU are the ones who got the ball rolling in PA-- because laws existed that were not adhered to, and you did something about it. So, thank you for playing an important role in that! And as far as we've come, I think stories like this still exist, although on the books, everything looks legit, students are not being adequately served. You bring up some great points: A properly prepared ESL teacher pulls the team together and should provide an extra layer of linguistic expertise. (I underlined that, because I think that whatever the task force decides to pursue, that intermediary role ought to be embedded within it-- thanks for that). Our current certification (endorsement) is made up of a minimum of 4 ESL courses and these teachers are required to also have an earned Instructional I certificate before they take on any ESL certification coursework. They can't just be ESL certified. So, currently existing ESL teachers are supposed to have their 4 courses in ESL and also a teaching certificate in Elementary education or in English/C&A (there are a couple of other options too). This will be changing later this year. Newly certified ESL teachers still need to have an Instructional I teaching certificate, but they also need 16-18 credits in additional credits in ESL. Personally, I think this is a huge improvement especially if a focus on diagnostic reading and literacy interventions for each of the various stages is a key piece (with real kids).

But, having a full certificate would ELIMINATE the need to have an Instructional I teaching certificate altogether, because the ESL certificate would now be a stand-alone full certificate. I don't think that is enough. I think teachers should have a full teaching certificate along with the 16-18 credit endorsement proposed by the PDE. Typically stand-alone ESL certificate programs do a better job preparing teachers to teach English as a foreign language, than English as another language. And, the world of TESOL hasn't caught up with changing US classrooms. These programs are typically very heavy in linguistics and often don't require many of the literacy and content courses required by elementary and secondary programs.

Well Gina, Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate your advocacy. Please reply back, with anything else that will give us a parent's perspective on this critical issue. (And, all you millions of readers out there can chime in at any time too:)

Also, drop me an email, and I'll send you some ideas on how to support your middle schooler and high-schooler. It's never too late. languagerich@gmail.com

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by gina major on January 13, 2012 at 10:55pm

I wish I could be of more help. I have been involved with the Task Force since 2000. Len Rieser knows my stories. We were as he puts it, used as the guinea pig family to test out how the top brass would handle it.

As we suspected, our district made a great report back that was in fact accepted as all ok. And through Len/Ed Law we went back at them again, to contest what was being viewed as acceptable. But the entire time, in my mind, it was not just about my children, it was so blatant what will and does happen to kids everywhere when schools do not seek out the truth/best practices/let alone hire qualified ESL/ELL teachers. One year later, the suits were in our district on the first day of school. But the truth on that, an ESL teacher was hired, but not prepared in any way other than being a young home-bound-student teacher.

You are correct, that was right before there was any certification needed. And by now my kids had no language. Thier native language was gone, so translation was not even viable as a way to teach any content. There was no translator anyway, and they had very very little English. So now there was not even any native lanaguge to think in, or translate to, or share emotions in etc.

I actually was one of few parents who got invited to be in PDE's conferences many many years ago when the first certifications were being discussed. In our case, I think back and feel that an ESL teacher with correct and complete training would have never let that happen to these kids. So how now do you teach any content to a 10 year old child, with fully lost native lanaguage, pre-school English ability, and no prior education? So I am all for complete and thorough training and certification for what is in fact a very specialized job, that requires a very complex set of skills. I now can stand back 12 years later and see the dramatic affects, times four, that the zero-ESL program had on my kids. And once behind, now always behind.

It is next to impossible to learn anything in fifth grade when you are on a first grade reading level...maybe, and had no content get in because you never understood anything in classes due to the language barrier!! I could go on for hours and hours....but in a very dramatic and major way i now watch my four teens struggle with simple things that others take for granted, simply because primarily there was no ESL and then when there was, it was pathetic.

Thats the foundation of education. And lack of any early foundation for a non-english speaker pretty much means they cant achieve much if anything in literacy. You don't get a life, let alone a career or an education, with that sort of poor start. That is the first and most critical piece for English Langauge Learners. And my heart bleeds for the majority who have non-english-speaking parents who dont have the langauge skills or education to fight the effects of it all themselves!

The special set of skills and knowledge that an ESL teacher needs, in my book, is like the special set of skills a doctor needs to care properly for young children. If they don't get the right foundation of vaccines and exams and attention to exactly what they need first and right then, their health will be compromised forever. In the case of ESL students, if the teacher is not properly prepared and trained to deal with the unique educational needs of a non-English speaking/comprehending/reading/writing student, then their entire education, therefore succesful life in general, si compromised. I live that exact situation times four kids. Happy to be called upon for whatrever I can do to bring awareness to this.

One comment: you spoke of, was regarding teachers being prepared from the stand alone ESL certificate to teach English as a foreign lanaguge as opposed to

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Patricia Verbovszky on January 17, 2012 at 12:08pm

The ELL Certification definitely needs to be strengthened. Perhaps another way of looking at this certification is to make it comparable to the Reading Specialist Certification. A teacher can only earn a Reading Specialist Certification after that teacher has an Instructional I Certification.

In this way, the teacher has teaching experience, has experience in literacy acquisition (one hopes), and will be able to focus on not only teaching ELLs but on how to work with classroom teachers and administrators in an educational environment. The teacher pursuing an ELL Certification could also be well on his or her way to earning a Master's Degree in TESOL with this kind of ELL Specialist Certification. The certification needs to include instruction in oral proficiency, reading and writing for ELLs. It also needs to include a course on what is different about teaching ELLs literacy.

The ELL teacher is the ELL specialist in the building and many of them already have a Reading Specialist Certification and/or an English certification in addition to their current certification. However, because of the current structure of the ELL certification little regard or respect may be accorded the ELL teacher and the body of knowledge and expertise that he/she brings to the table because the status of the add on has a low level status.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Persida Himmele on January 17, 2012 at 12:20pm

Hi Pat, Thanks for your post. Yes! I wholeheartedly agree. Whatever is decided, it ought to be limited to folks who've already earned a teaching certificate. So, are you suggesting that more than the additional 16-18 credits be required?

You bring up some good content requirements too.

I struggle with calling it TESOL. If we look at typical TESOL programs, so little is actually useful to teachers in K-12 settings. First, mastery of literacy in the first language is usually assumed, and high motivation is also assumed. The focus on the nuances of linguistics is all very interesting, but it doesn't help teachers teach real kids.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Patricia Verbovszky on January 17, 2012 at 12:30pm

Whatever is eventually decided upon should carry the same weight that the Reading Specialist Certification carries. Many of those courses could be similar to what is in the MA TESOL program. The course load; however, does need to have at least one strong course in it about second language acquiation and how that affects literacy acquisition in another language. It doesn't need to be 100% theoretical; it should be based in theory and delivered with practice in mind.

How will the teacher use this information in the classroom? It doesn't need to be called TESOL; however. The certification could be called ELL or ESL Specialist Certification. I haven't yet seen what new courses are going to be required. If they are meaty enough, then the certification should carry more weight.