Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom

Author(s): Elsa Roberts Auerbach
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1993), pp. 9-32
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586949 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 18:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TESOL QUARTERLYVol.27, No.1, Spring1993

ReexaminingEnglishOnlyin the
ESL Classroom
ELSA ROBERTS AUERBACH
atBoston
ofMassachusetts
University

Despite widespreadoppositionto theEnglishOnly movement,sup-

portforbilingualeducation,and advocacyforlanguagerights,many
U.S. ESL educatorscontinueto upholdthenotionthatEnglishis the
onlyacceptablemediumofcommunication withintheconfinesofthe
ESL classroom.Althoughthe exclusiveuse of Englishin teaching
ESL has come to be seen as a naturaland commonsensepractice
whichcan bejustifiedon pedagogicalgrounds,thisarticlearguesthat
it is rootedin a particularideologicalperspective,restson unexam-
ined assumptions,and servesto reinforceinequitiesin the broader
socialorder.Evidencefromresearchand practiceis presentedwhich
suggeststhattherationaleused tojustify Englishonlyintheclassroom
is neitherconclusivenor pedagogicallysound. Further,the article
detailsa growingbodyofevidenceindicatingthatL1 and/orbilingual
optionsare not onlyeffective but necessaryforadult ESL students
withlimitedL 1literacy orschoolingand thatuseofstudents'linguistic
resourcescan be beneficialat all levels of ESL. Accountsfroma
numberof projects,includingtwowithwhichthe authorhas been
involved,documenta rangeof uses forthe nativelanguagein both
initialliteracyand ESL instruction for adults. Finally,because the
issue of languagechoiceis so intimately linkedwithissuesof power,
thearticlecallsforreconceptualizing thenotionofexpertiseto legiti-
matethe knowledgeand experienceof nontraditional expertsfrom
the communitiesof the learners.

To me,thewholeRodney Kingcaseand theriotingprovedthatthere

is
noAmerican dreamofopportunityfor
peopleofcolor,"
saidJesus
Vargas,
17, a highschooldropout
enrolled
inajob training
programinEastLos
Angeles.
We are treated likegarbage.I keptgetting suspendedbecausewhenI
spokeSpanishwithmyhomeboys, theteachers I wasdisrespecting
thought
them. TheykepttellingmetospeakinEnglishbecause I wasinAmerica.
I wasn'tgoingtotakethat..... So I leftand neverwentback.Someof
thoseteachersdon'twantus.Thathurts, thatreally
hurts.
(Ribadeneira,
1992, p. 7)

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A s a field,we face an unwitting yetpervasiveschizophrenia.On
the one hand, we like to see ourselvesabove or beyondthe kind
ofpracticesdescribedbyVargasin theepigraph,takenfromtheBoston
Globe.Althoughsome ESL educatorssupportand have organizational
ties to the EnglishOnly movement,manyothersadvocate language
rightsand bilingualeducation,decrylinguistic repression,and oppose
thepoliticalagenda ofU.S. English(see,e.g.,Judd,1987).The TESOL
organizationitselfhas passed a language rightsresolution(TESOL,
1987) supporting"measureswhichprotectthe rightof all individuals
to preserve and foster their linguistic and cultural origins ... [and
opposing]all measuresdeclaringEnglishthe officiallanguage of the
UnitedStatesofAmerica ... ." Morerecently, ithas issueda statement
opposing discriminationin hiring based on language of origin
(TESOL, 1992).
On the otherhand,withintheconfinesof theESL classroom,many
of thosewho mayoppose theEnglishOnlymovementon a policylevel
insistthattheirstudentsuse Englishas thesole mediumofcommunica-
tion; teachersdevise elaborategames,signals,and penaltysystemsto
ensurethatstudentsdo notuse theirL1 andjustifythesepracticeswith
theclaimthatuse of the L1 willimpede progressin theacquisitionof
English.Even officialTESOL publicationslend supportto thisview
withthe publicationof articleslike a recentone (Weinberg,1990)
extollingthe virtuesof finingstudentsforusingtheirLi. The author
humorouslytellsher students,"This is an English-only classroom.If
you speak Spanish or Cantonese or Mandarin or Vietnamese or Rus-
sian or Farsi,you pay me 25 cents.I can be rich"(p. 5). The axiom
underlyingthesepractices,assumedtobe self-evident, seemstobe that
English and English only should be used in the ESL classroom.
To the extentthatthisaxiom is widelyacceptedamong ESL educa-
tors,it needs to be reexamined.Whereasthe politicalagenda of the
EnglishOnly movementmayseem obviouson a macrolevel,the ways
inwhichour ownpracticesreinforce thisagendaon a microlevel are less
visible,and yet,as Vargas says,whathappens insideand outsidethe
classroomare twosidesofthesamecoin.Whetheror notwesupportthe
use oflearners'Lls is notjust a pedagogicalmatter:It is a politicalone,
and the waythatwe address it in ESL instruction is botha mirrorof
and a rehearsalforrelationsof powerin the broadersociety.

SITUATING COMMONSENSE PRACTICES IN AN

IDEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Power,accordingto Fairclough(1989), is exercisedbythedominant
groups in two main ways: through coercion (the use of force) or

10 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
throughconsent(willingacquiescence).Consent,however,isnotalways
the resultof conscious choice; rather,it comes about throughthe
unconsciousacceptanceof institutionalpractices:
Institutional whichpeopledrawuponwithout
practices thinking oftenem-
bodyassumptions whichdirectly or indirectly
legitimizeexistingpower
relations. canoftenbe showntooriginate
Practices inthedominant classor
thedominant bloc,and to havebecomenaturalized.(p. 33)
In otherwords,practiceswhichare unconsciouslyaccepted as the
naturaland inevitablewayof doing thingsmayin factbe inherently
political,servingto maintainthe relativepositionof participants with
respect to each to
other-theyhelp perpetuateexistingpower relations.
These everyday,taken-for-granted practicesconstitutewhat Fair-
clough calls ideologicalpower,one of thecentralmechanisms ofensuring
controlbyconsent.He arguesthatlanguagehas a particularly impor-
tantroleinexercisingthiscontrol:Authority and powerare manifested
by institutional practicesaround language use.
Severalrecentanalysesdocumentthewaysthatlanguagepoliciesin
general,and policiesaround the impositionof Englishin particular,
functionas tools of dominationand subordinationon a global level.
Tollefson(1991) arguesthatlanguagepoliciesare a centralmechanism
in ensuringthat vast numbersof people will be unable to acquire
the kinds of language competencerequired by modern social and
economicsystems. As he says,"Languageis one criterionfordetermin-
ing which people will completedifferentlevelsof education.In this
way,language is a means forrationingaccesstojobs withhighsalaries"
(pp. 8-9), thus creatingunequal social and economicrelationships.
Skutnabb-Kangas (1988) callsthistypeofcontrollinguicismand defines
itas "ideologiesand structures whichare used tolegitimate,effectuate,
and reproducean unequal divisionofpowerand resources(bothmate-
rial and nonmaterial)betweengroupswhichare definedon the basis
oflanguage"(p. 13). Phillipson(1988, 1992)situateslinguicism withina
broadertheoryoflinguistic imperialism,arguing that Englishlinguistic
imperialism(in which"thedominanceof Englishis assertedand main-
tainedbytheestablishment and continuousreconstitution ofstructural
and culturalinequalitiesbetweenEnglishand otherlanguages"(1992,
p. 47)) has come tobe a primarytoolofpostcolonialstrategy: "Whereas
once Britanniaruled the waves,now it is Englishwhichrules them"
(1992, p. 1).
Whereas the mechanismsof ideologicalcontrolexercisedthrough
languagepolicyhavebeen examinedextensively on a globallevel,they
have been less fullyexplored on the level of day-to-dayinteractions
between teachers and learners. What I want to show in this paper is
that the insistence on using only English in the classroom represents

ENGLISH ONLY IN THE ESL CLASSROOM 11

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
preciselythekindof taken-for-grantedand naturalizedeverydayprac-
ticewhichFaircloughdiscusses:Althoughithas come to bejustifiedin
pedagogicalterms,it restson unexaminedassumptions,originatesin
the politicalagenda of the dominantgroups,and servesto reinforce
existingrelationsof power.Preciselybecause itsmechanismsare hid-
den, it is a primeexampleof Fairclough'snotionof covertideological
control.This paper, thus, is meant not as an attackon those who
advocatethemonolingualuse of English,butratheras an invitation to
reexaminethese practicesin lightof theirofteninvisibleideological
roots,theirpedagogical effectiveness,and theirimplicationsfor the
ESL professionas a whole.

HISTORICAL ROOTS OF
ENGLISH-ONLY INSTRUCTION
Historicalaccounts of language education in the U.S. show that
monolingualapproachesto the teachingof Englishhave byno means
alwaysbeen the norm(Baron, 1990; Crawford,1991; Daniels, 1990);
rather,therehave been cyclicalfluctuations in policyoftendetermined
by political rather than pedagogical factors.In the 19thcentury,for
example, the decentralized and locallycontrolled nature of public
schooling allowed forbilingual education in accordance withthepoliti-
cal powerofparticularethnicgroups.It wastheresurgenceofnativism
and antiforeign politicalsentiment inthelate 19thcenturythatsignaled
the decline of bilingualeducation.The adventof World War I, the
increasein immigration fromSouthernand EasternEurope, and the
growing role of immigrants in the labor movementcontributedto an
increasingly xenophobicatmosphereintheearly20thcentury;"foreign
influence"wasblamedforthenation'spoliticaland economicproblems
and theAmericanization movementwaspromotedas a meansofcount-
ering this influence. ESL instruction became a vehicleto enhanceloy-
alty both to the company and the country,withcompanieslike the
Ford MotorCompanyrequiringemployeesto attendAmericanization
classes (Crawford,1991, p. 22). Englishwas associatedwithpatrio-
tism-speaking"good" Englishwasequatedwithbeinga "good" Amer-
ican (Baron, 1990, p. 155). Childrenwereencouragedto professlan-
guage loyaltythroughoaths such as one thatbegan as follows:
I lovetheUnitedStatesof America.I lovemycountry'sflag.I lovemy
country'slanguage.I promise:
1. That I willnotdishonormycountry's speechbyleavingoffthelast
ofwords.
syllables

12 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 2. That I willsaya goodAmerican "yes"and "no"in placeofan Indian
grunt"um-hum" and "nup-um" or a foreign
"ya"or "yehand "nope."
(Robbins,1918,p. 175,citedin Baron,1990,p. 155)
AccordingtoBaron,thespreadofESL instruction in thefirstquarter
ofthe20thcenturywasa directoutcomeoftheAmericanization move-
ment; it was at this time that directmethods stressing oral English
gained favorover methodswhichallowed the use of the students'
nativelanguage,and Englishonlybecamethenormin ESL classes.In
the early 1920s, Henry Goldbergerdeveloped an approach to adult
ESL instruction whichfocusedon teachingpracticalEnglishincluding
lessons on opening bank accounts,visitingthe doctor,makingpur-
chases, askingdirections,and showinggratitude.He recommended
thatEnglishbe the sole mediumof instruction, and, in groupingstu-
dents, "warned teachers to prevent the formation of 'nationalcliques'
whichwoulddelaytheworkofAmericanization" (Baron, 1990,p. 160).
Hand in hand withinstructional approachesdesigned to promote
U.S. valueswereformalizedgate-keeping practicesdesignedtoexclude
foreigners from theranks of theteachingprofession:Speech testswere
instituted, and those who failedthe pronunciation sectionsweredenied
licenses. Many statespassed laws requiringteachersto be citizens.
Accordingto Baron (1990),countryoforiginand nativelanguagewere
more importantforteachingESL thantraining:"As a resultof these
efforts to homogenizethelanguageoftheteachingcorps,schoolteach-
ers remainedbyand largemonolingualEnglishspeakersuntrainedin
any methodologyto teachEnglishto non-anglophonesand unable to
empathizewiththe non-anglophonestudent"(p. 162).
Althoughthisis notthe place to proceedwitha detailedaccountof
the subsequentdevelopmentof ESL methodologies,I presentthis
slice of historyto show that practiceswe take for grantedas being
pedagogicallygroundedhave antecedentsin overtlyideologicaltend-
encies. Much of the discourse fromthe Americanizationperiod is
mirroredin the discourse of present-day"innovative"approaches
whichfocuson survivalEnglishin an English-only classroom,withthe
notable differencethat,at thattime,the politicalagenda was more
explicit.
Phillipsonargues thatmore recentglobal rootsof commonlyheld
assumptionsabout Englishlanguageteaching(ELT) can be tracedto
Britishneocolonialpolicies.He claimsthatthedevelopmentof ELT as
a professionwasitselfa directresponsetoa politicalimperative. English
was seen to be a keycomponentof theinfrastructure requiredforthe
spread of Britishneocolonialcontroland, as such, therewas a vast
infusionof fundingto supportthe developmentof ELT in the late
1950s and early 1960s. A conferenceheld at Makere Universityin

ENGLISH ONLY IN THE ESL CLASSROOM 13

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Uganda in 1961articulatedthisrelationship
of dominanceand depen-
dence betweenthe developed and developingcountriesthroughthe
ways ELT expertisewas to be shared and disseminated.Five basic
tenetsemerged fromthisconferencewhich,accordingto Phillipson
(1992), becamean unofficial
and yetunchallengeddoctrineunderlying
much ELT work.These tenetsare:
* Englishis besttaughtmonolingually.
* The idealteacherof Englishis a nativespeaker.
* The earlierEnglishis taught,
thebettertheresults.
* The moreEnglishis taught, thebettertheresults.
* Ifotherlanguagesareusedtoomuch,standards ofEnglishwilldrop.(p.
185)
Phillipsonargues thatthese tenetshave become the cornerstonesof
thehegemonyofEnglishworldwide.Thus, althoughtherootsofmon-
olingualapproaches to ESL have been largelyobscured,and despite
thefactthattheyare based on argumentswhichhavebeen challenged
by research,theyhave come to be seen as naturaland commonsense.

COMMONSENSE ASSUMPTIONS AND

TAKEN-FOR-GRANTEDPRACTICES
To investigate theextenttowhichthesesametenetsunderliecurrent
attitudesamong ESL educatorsin the U.S., I recentlypassed out a
briefsurveyat a statewideTESOL conferenceasking,Do you believe
thatESL studentsshould be allowedto use theirLl in the ESL class-
room? Only 20% of the respondentsgave an unqualifiedyes to the
question;30% gave an unqualifiedno, (withcommentssuch as, "It's a
school policy"and "No ... but it's hard"); the remaining50% said
sometimes(withcommentssuch as: "Usuallynot,but if I have tried
severaltimesto explainsomethingin Englishand a studentstilldoesn't
understand,then I allow anotherstudentwho speaks the same lan-
guage to explain in thatlanguage"; "They'regoingto do it anyway";
"As a lastresort").The essenceof thesecommentsis capturedby the
followingresponse: "In generalESL studentsshould be encouraged
to use Englishas much as possible,but in realitythisdoesn't always
work."Thus, despitethe factthat80% of theteachersallowedtheuse
axiomis so strongthattheydidn't
of the Li at times,the English-only
trusttheirown practice:They assigneda negativevalue to "lapses"
into the L1, seeing themas failuresor aberrations,a cause forguilt.
The rationalefor thisview is oftenframedin pedagogicalterms:
The more studentsare exposed to English,the morequicklytheywill
learn; as theyhear and use English,theywillinternalizeit and begin

14 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to thinkin English;theonlywaytheywilllearnitisiftheyare forcedto
use it.There seemstobe an all-or-nothingview:Because thegrammar-
translationmethodhasbeen widelydiscreditedand concurrenttransla-
tion(immediatetranslation of whatis said in thetargetlanguage into
theL1) shownto be ineffective (Legaretta1979),no alternativeexcept
thecompleteexclusionof the L1 in theESL classroomis seen as valid.

EVIDENCE AGAINST ENGLISH ONLY

IN THE CLASSROOM
Evidence fromboth researchand practice,however,suggeststhat
the rationaleused to justifyEnglishonlyin the classroomis neither
conclusivenor pedagogicallysound. Althoughthereis extensiveand
widelyacceptedresearchsupportingbilingualeducationforchildren
(e.g., Ramirez,Pasta,Yuen, Billings,& Ramey,1991; Snow, 1990),the
relevanceof thesefindingsforeitherESL instruction or thelanguage
educationof adults is rarelyexamined.Bilingualeducationand ESL
are seen to be separatebeastswithdifferent underlyingassumptions.
Even those who fullysupportbilingualeducationoftenjustifytheir
own practiceswithintheconfinesof theESL classroomwithreference
(eitherimplicitor explicit)to studiesof childrenwho have become
bilingualthroughimmersionprograms.Yet, as Irujo (1991) shows,
claims for the relevanceof the immersionmodel for ESL must be
qualified.First,manyoftheimmersionprogramsused tojustify mono-
lingual ESL instructionare in factbilingualto theextent thatstudents
are initiallyallowed to use theirL1 to communicatewitheach other
and the teacher;theteacherunderstandsthelearners'languageeven
if s/hedoesn't produce it. A recentstudyof effectiveinstructional
practicesforlinguisticallyand culturallydiversestudents(Garcia,1991)
foundthatpreciselythispracticecharacterizedtheclassroomsof aca-
demicallysuccessfullearners:"In classeswithSpanishspeakers,lower
grade teachersused bothSpanishand English,whereasupper grade
teachersutilizedmostlyEnglish.However,studentswere allowed to
use eitherlanguage" (p. 4). Allowingthe use of the L1 in earlyESL
acquisitionwascriticalto latersuccess;use ofbothlanguagesfacilitated
the transitionto English.
Furtherevidencesuggeststhatstronginitialliteracyis a keyfactor
in successfulsecondlanguageacquisitionand academicsuccess(Cum-
mins,1981). Whereasresearchindicatesthatimmersionprogramscan
be effectivein the developmentof languageand literacyforlearners
fromdominantlanguage groups,whose L1 is valued and supported
bothat homeand in thebroadersociety,bilingualinstruction seemsto
be moreeffective forlanguageminority students, whose languagehas

ENGLISH ONLY IN THE ESL CLASSROOM 15

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
less social status(Tucker, 1980). This findingclearlyindicatesthat
relationsof power and theiraffectiveconsequencesare integralto
language acquisition.Acquiringa second language is to some extent
contingenton the societallydeterminedvalue attributedto the L1,
which can be eitherreinforcedor challengedinside the classroom.
As Phillipson(1992) says,"The ethos of monolingualismimpliesthe
rejectionof theexperiencesofotherlanguages,meaningtheexclusion
of thechild'smostintenseexistentialexperience"(p. 189). Prohibiting
thenativelanguage withinthecontextof ESL instruction mayimpede
language acquisitionpreciselybecause it mirrorsdisempoweringrela-
tions.
Rivera(1988, 1990)arguesthattheunderlying rationaleforbilingual
educationforchildrenappliesequallyto languageminority adults.Yet
implications of these findings for adult education have, until quite
recently,been virtuallyignored.Despite the factthata growingper-
centageofstudentsin adultESL classescomefrompreciselythegroups
shownto benefitmostfroma bilingualapproach-subordinated mi-
noritylanguage groups and those with limited L1 literacyback-
grounds-relativelyfewprogramsnationwideprovidenativelanguage
literacyor bilingualadult ESL instruction foradults.A surveyof pro-
gramsoffering literacyinstruction to minority
linguistic adultsand out-
of-schoolyouthconductedbytheNationalClearinghouseforLiteracy
Education(NCLE) indicatedthatonly68 of thealmost600 programs
who returnedthe questionnaireofferclasses in learners'nativelan-
guages; of these,all but 10 have been startedsince 1980 (Gillespie,
1991).
Althoughresearchon adult biliteracyhas increasedin the past de-
cade (see, e.g., Spener,in press),much of it focuseson ethnographic
descriptionsof literacypracticesin the home,community, and work-
place rather than on issues of acquisitionand their educationalimplica-
tions.The NCLE surveywas able to identify onlytworesearchstudies
(Robson's 1982 studyof Hmong refugeesin Thailand and Burtoff's
1985 studyof HaitianCreole speakersin New YorkCity)investigating
the effectiveness of initialnative-languageliteracyforadult students.
Although both of these studiespointtoward"the beneficialeffectof
initialliteracyin the nativelanguage on subsequentoral and written
Englishlanguage proficiency (Gillespie,1991, p. 2)," therehas been
littleresearchto followup on thesepreliminary findings.Thus, until
furtherresearch is undertaken,we need to look to accounts from
practiceand to related(but perhaps less direct)researchto ascertain
the effectiveness of nativelanguageand bilingualapproachesto adult
ESL.
In the remainderof this article,I will supplementresearchdata
withpublishedand unpublishedaccountsfrombothpractitioners and

16 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
learners,includingevidenceemergingfrommyown workat the Uni-
versityof Massachusetts/Boston in twoadultliteracytrainingprojects.
The firstof these,the StudentLiteracyCorps project,trainedunder-
graduateESL studentsas tutorsand placed themin community-based
adult literacyprogramswheretheyworkedwithlearnersfromtheir
own language groups.The second,theBilingualCommunityLiteracy
TrainingProject,a collaborationbetweentheUniversity of Massachu-
settsand threecommunity-based adult literacycenters(theJackson-
Mann CommunitySchool,East Boston HarborsideCommunityCen-
ter,and the Haitian Multi-Service Center),trainedpeople fromthe
communities of thelearnersto teachESL, Spanish,and Haitian(Creole
literacy,respectively.
Perhapsthestrongest evidenceagainstmonolingualadultESL comes
fromexaminingwhatactuallyhappenswhenthisal)pproach isenforced
in the ESL classroom.Veryoften,Englishand literacyskillsare not
differentiated in intakeassessmentand placement.Literacyis equated
with English literacy,and English proficiency is equated withoral
Englishproficiency (Wiley,1990-91). The resultis thatstudentswith
littleL1 literacybackgroundare grouped withthosewho are literate
in theirL1 buthavebeginningoralESL proficiency. Forthosewithlittle
L1 literacybackground and schooling, theeffect
is often to completely
and
precludeparticipation progress,causing the "revolvingdoor syn-
drome"in whichstudentsstarta course,fail,startagain,and eventually
giveup (Strei,1992). Community-based programslikeCasa Azatlanin
Chicago report that the majority of studentswho drop out of ESL
classesare preciselythosewhoare unableto read and writein theirLi
(1985 surveyreportedin Gillespie& Ballering,1992). In one of the
University of Massachusetts projects,studentswithminimalLi literacy
in monolingualESL classesoftentold theirbilingualtutorsthatthey
had no idea what was going on in class: "I am alwayslost. I waste
mytime."SimilarlyKlassen's(1991) ethnographicstudyin Toronto's
Spanish-speaking community foundthatmonolingualESL classeswere
virtuallyinaccessible to the beginning-literate Spanish speakers.De-
spite theirlack of the he
Spanishliteracy, people interviewed wereable
to manage in virtuallyeverydomain of theirlives exceptin theESL
classroom;there,theyreportedbecomingcompletelysilenced,making
no
virtually progress,or droppingout:
Angela... said thatshe had nevergonebackto an ESL classshe once
startedbecausetheteacher embarrassed herbyaskingheraboutthings she
hadneverlearnedbefore.MariaandDofiaLuciadescribed spendingtheir
timeinclass"drawing" lettersand wordstheycouldnotunderstand while
everyone elsereadthewordsandlearned.Mariasaidsheleftclassknowing
no morethanwhenshefirst came..... Pedroand Rebeccabothsaidthat,
becausetheydid not"knowSpanish"(meaningthattheydid notknow

ENGLISH ONLY IN THE ESL CLASSROOM 17

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 proper"schooled"Spanish),theycouldnotunderstand theESL teachers'
aboutgrammar,
explanations verbs.(p. 52)
especially
Moreover,the people Klassen interviewedreporteda strongsense
of exclusionin theirEnglishclasses. Two of them"experiencedthe
classroomas a place whereteachersisolatedthemfromotherstudents"
(p. 53), a responseperhapsbased on teachers'ownsenseof frustration
at being unable to communicateor being forced to reduce lesson
contentto the mostelementary,childlikeuses of language. The stu-
dents'sense of exclusionwithinthe classwas compoundedbythe fact
thatitled to exclusionin theoutsideworldas well:The lackof Spanish
literacywas an obstacleto participating in thehigherlevelESL courses
required forentryintojob trainingprograms,which,in turn,limited
theiremploymentpossibilities.
Thus, the resultof monolingualESL instruction forstudentswith
minimalL I literacy and schooling is often that,whether or not they
drop out,theysuffer severeconsequences in terms of self-esteem;their
sense of powerlessness is reinforced either because they are de facto
excluded fromthe classroomor because theirlife experiencesand
language resourcesare excluded. This, in turn,has consequencesfor
theirlivesoutsidetheclassroom,limiting job possibilitiesand perpetu-
atingtheirmarginalization. Given the fact that monolingualESL classes
virtually assurethatminimally literatelanguageminority adultswillbe
to
excluded fromaccess English and all but the most menial employ-
ment,one has to wonderwhyfederaland statefundingforbilingual
and nativelanguagemodelsis so limited;perhaps,as Faircloughwould
suggest,this lack of fundingexemplifieshow the dominantgroups
maintaintheirstatusthroughinstitutional practices.

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING USE OF THE

NATIVE LANGUAGE
On the flipside, when the nativelanguage is used, practitioners,
researchers,and learnersconsistently reportpositiveresults.Rivera
(1990) outlines variousmodels for incorporatingthe L1 intoinstruc-
tion,includinginitialliteracyin the L1 (withor withoutsimultaneous
but separate ESL classes) and bilingualinstruction (where both lan-
guages are utilizedwithinone class).The first of
benefit suchprograms
at the beginninglevels is that theyattractpreviouslyunservedstu-
dents-students who had been unable to participatein ESL classes
because of limitedLl literacyand schooling.For example, because
Creole literacyis now being offered,Boston's Haitian Multi-Service
Center reportsthat formerstudentswho had dropped out are re-

18 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
turning.Teachers at CentroPresente,a bilingualprogramforCentral
Americansin Cambridge,Massachusetts, reportthatcurrentstudents
oftensay theydropped out of monolingualESL classes in the past
because theyfeltintimidated.The data fromthiscommunity-based
nativelanguage literacyprogramwere gatheredthroughinterviews
withteachersand administrators unlessotherwiseindicated.
A second benefitof usingthe L1 is thatitreducesaffective barriers
to Englishacquisitionand allowsformorerapidprogressto or in ESL.
Hemmindinger(1987) likewisefound that a bilingualapproach to
initialESL fornonliterate and nonschooledHmongrefugeeswasmore
effectivethan monolingualapproaches had been; althoughstudents
made almostno progressin 2 to 3 yearsof monolingualsurvivalESL
classes,once a bilingual,problem-posingapproach was introduced,
progresswas rapid. She attributesthis in part to the fact that the
bilingualapproachallowedforlanguageand cultureshocktobe allevi-
ated. Similarly,in a studydesignedto investigate the effectivenessof
using"pedagogicallyunsophisticated" bilingual tutorsto teach nonlit-
erateCambodians,D'Annunzio(1991) reportsthatthestudentsmade
rapid gains in ESL. Despite a relatively
shorttotalinstructional time,
highlysignificantresults wereattainedin speaking,reading, and vocab-
ularyas indicatedbypre-and posttestscoreson a numberof standard-
ized tests,portfolioanalysis,and ongoinginformalassessment.Strei
(1992)reportsthata pilotnative-language literacyprogramforHaitians
in Palm Beach Countyresultedin thedramaticincreaseoftheirreten-
tionrateonce theyenrolledinESL classes.The drop-outratedecreased
from85% priorto the programto only 10% afterit was started.
Further,contraryto theclaimthatuse of theL1 willslowthetransi-
tionto and impedethedevelopmentofthinking in English,numerous
accountssuggestthatit mayactuallyfacilitatethisprocess.Shamash
(1990), forexample,describesan approach to teachingESL used at
the InvergarryLearningCenternear Vancouverwhichmightbe con-
sideredhereticalbysome: Studentsstartbywriting abouttheirlivesin
theirL1 or a mixtureoftheirL1 and English;thistextisthentranslated
intoEnglishwiththehelp of bilingualtutorsor learnersand, as such,
provides"a naturalbridge for overcomingproblemsof vocabulary,
sentencestructure and languageconfidence"(p. 72). Ata certainpoint
in thelearningprocess,accordingto Shamash,thelearneris willingto
experimentand take riskswithEnglish.Thus, startingwiththe L1
providesa sense of securityand validatesthe learners'lived experi-
ences, allowingthemto expressthemselves"whileat the same time
providingmeaningfulwrittenmaterialto workwith"(p. 75).
Similarly,teachersat Centro Presentereportthat use of the L1
naturallygiveswayto increasinguse of English.Their studentsoften
say, "I can't say this in English, but I really want to say it"; once they

ENGLISH ONLY IN THE ESL CLASSROOM 19

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
have expressed their ideas in Spanish, the group helps them express
them in English. Centro Presente teachers argue that since students
don't startby thinkingin the second language, allowing forthe explora-
tion of ideas in the L1 supports a gradual, developmental process in
which use of the L1 drops off naturally as it becomes less necessary.
Likewise, Strohmeyer and McGrail (1988) found that allowing for the
exploration of ideas in the L1 served to enhance students' ESL writing.
When students were given the choice of writingfirstin Spanish, they
went on to write pieces in English that were considerably more devel-
oped than their usual ESL writing.These findingsfrom practice are
supported by Garcia's (1991) more formalresearch on effectiveinstruc-
tional practices which found that (a) academically successful students
made the transition from Spanish to English without any pressure
from teachers; and (b) they were able to progress systematicallyfrom
writingin the native language in initial literacyto writingin English
later.
These findingsconcerning use of the L1 are congruent withcurrent
theories of second language acquisition. They show thatitsuse reduces
anxiety and enhances the affectiveenvironment for learning, takes
into account sociocultural factors,facilitatesincorporation of learners'
life experiences, and allows for learner-centered curriculum develop-
ment. Most importantly,it allows forlanguage to be used as a meaning-
making tool and forlanguage learning to become a means of communi-
cating ideas rather than an end in itself.As such, according to Piasecka
(1986),
teachingbilinguallydoes not mean a returnto the GrammarTranslation
method,but rathera standpointwhichacceptsthatthe thinking,feeling,
and artisticlifeof a personis verymuchrootedin theirmothertongue.If
thecommunicative approachis to liveup to itsname,thenthereare many
occasionsin whichthe originalimpulseto speak can onlybe foundin the
mothertongue.Attheinitialstagesoflearninga newlanguage,thestudents'
repertoireis limitedto thosefewutterancesalreadylearntand theymust
constantlythinkbeforespeaking.When havinga conversation,we often
becomefullyawareof whatwe actuallymeanonlyafterspeaking.We need
to speak in orderto sortout our ideas,and whenlearninga new language
thisis oftenbest done throughthe mothertongue.(p. 97)

USES OF THE LI BEYOND BEGINNING LEVELS

Even those who acknowledge the usefulness of a bilingual approach
to beginning ESL acquisition often find it counterproductive beyond
the very beginning stages, arguing that overreliance on the L1 will
interferewith ESL acquisition. However, evidence fromboth research

20 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and practiceagain suggeststhatthe L1 may be a potentialresource
ratherthan an obstacle.On the researchside, forexample,a recent
studybyOsburneand Harss-Covaleski(1991) suggeststhatthewidely
frownedupon practiceof writingfirstin the L1 and thentranslating
into the L2 is not detrimentalto the qualityof the writtenproduct.
Theycitetheconventional wisdomthatstudentsshouldbe discouraged
fromtranslatingas thiswill"cause themto make more errors,result
in rhetorically inappropriatetexts,and distractthemfromthinkingin
English-and that all thesefactorswould negatively affectthequality
of theirwriting"(p. 5). To investigatethe validityof thisclaim,they
compared ESL compositionswrittendirectlyin Englishwithothers
writtenfirstin the L1 and thentranslatedinto English;theirresults
indicatedno significant differencein the qualityor quantityof the
writtenproducts.They conclude,"It seemsthenthatthereis no need
for teachersto become overlyanxious if studentschoose to employ
translation as a composingstrategy attimes"(p. 15). Friedlander(1990)
citesnumerousotherstudiesreportingthebeneficialeffectsof using
the L1 forL2 composing;hisown studyprovidesfurthersupportfor
L1 use in planningESL writingwhenknowledgeof thetopichas been
acquired in the L1.
Althoughpractitioners rarelyadvocatethe nondiscriminate use of
theL1, theydo reportfindingtheselectiveand targetedintegration of
the L1 useful;accountsfrompracticeidentify a multiplicity
of clearly
delineated functionsfor such use. Piasecka (1988), for example in-
cludes the followingin herlistof "possibleoccasionsforusingmother
tongue"(pp. 98-99): negotiationofthesyllabusand thelesson;record-
keeping;classroommanagement;scenesetting;languageanalysis;pre-
sentationof rules governinggrammar,phonology,morphology,and
spelling;discussionof cross-cultural or prompts;
issues; instructions
explanations of errors; and assessment of comprehension. Collingham
(1988) concurswithmanyof theseuses, adding the following:to de-
velop ideas as a precursorto expressingthemin the L2; to reduce
inhibitions or affective blocksto L2 production;to elicitlanguageand
discoursestrategiesforparticularsituations;to provideexplanations
of grammarand languagefunctions; and to teachvocabulary.G. Dove
(personal communication, 1992) sees Ll use as a wayto value cultural
diversityas students teach each other vocabularyor expressionsin their
own languages.
Osburne(1986) describesan instructional strategyin whichstudents
are invitedto reflecton theirown Ll writingattitudesand practices;
comparethesewiththoseof otherESL writers;writea compositionin
the L1; analyze theirLi writingprocesses,strategies,and strengths
based on this composition;and discuss implicationsfor writingin
English. In thiscase, the L1 is utilized to develop metacognitiveaware-

ENGLISH ONLY IN THE ESL CLASSROOM 21

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ness of the writingprocess; as studentsidentifysimilarities between
themselvesas writersin theirnativelanguages and in English,they
approachcomposingin Englishwithmoreconfidence.Brucker(1992)
describesusingtheL1 as a toolforinitialassessment, toidentify student
needs and goals. She writes:
I encouragedthestudents toanswerthisevaluationinSpanish.Although
I don'treadSpanishwell,I canalways personoranother
finda staff teacher
forme.Thisextrastepis worthmytimebecausestudents
to translate can
give me that
"true," is to say,more accurateand more complete answers,
language.Theyfeelfreertoexpressthemselves
usingtheirfirst andletme
knowwhattheywant.Italsogivesmea senseofthestudents' nativelanguage
competency. This is important in orderforme to understandwherestu-
dentsare starting.
(p. 37)
There are two revealingaspectsof the studiesand programsde-
scribedhere whichreinforcethe notionthatthequestionof language
choice is, in essence,a questionof ideology.The firstis the factthat
manyof thosewho advocatenativelanguageor bilingualapproac:hes
to adult ESL do so because theysee languageacquisitionas intimately
connectedwithaddressingthe problemslearnersface in theirlives
outsidethe classroom.Hemmindinger(1987), forexample,identified
use of the L1 as criticalin implementing an empoweringapproach to
ESL in her classesbecause it allowedstudentsto discussvitalissuesin
theirliveswhichtheywerethenable to addressin English.As she says,
"The class membersthusstilllearned new languagetheyneeded, but
moreimportant, theyused thatlanguageto attemptto solveproblems,
such as in [a work-related] incidentwheretheywerecheated"(p. 20).
Many of these programssupport Paulo Freire'sapproach to adult
education in whichcurriculumcontentis drawn fromparticipants'
experiences and invitesreflectionon these experiences.Goals are
framedin termsof challengingand changingoppressiveconditionsill
learners'lives. As Rivera (1988) says,"The role of educationin this
approach is to empowerlearnersto use theirnativelanguage actively
in order to generatetheirown curriculum,and, therefore,theirown
knowledge"(p. 2). Thus, a monolingualapproach to ESL is rejected
notjust because it mayslow the acquisitionof Englishbut because it
denies learnersthe rightto draw on theirlanguage resourcesand
strengths; byforcinga focuson childlikeuses of languageand exclud-
ing the possibilityof criticalreflection,it mayultimately feed intothe
replication of relationsof inequalityoutside the classroom, reproduc-
ing a stratum of people who can only do the least skilledand least
language/literacy-dependent jobs. As Collingham (1988) says,
To treatadultlearners as iftheyknownothing oflanguageis toacceptthe
imbalance ofpowerand so ultimately tocolludewithinstitutionalracism;

22 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 to adopta bilingualapproachand to valuetheknowledge thatlearners
alreadyhave is to to that
begin challenge unequalpowerrelationship and,
onehopes,thereby toacquiretheskillsandconfidence
enablelearners they
need to claimbackmorepowerforthemselves in theworldbeyondthe
classroom.(p. 85)
The second revealingfactis thatmanyof theadvocatesforL1 usage
citedhere come fromoutsidethe U.S.-from Canada, Australia,and
England,countrieswheremulticulturalism ratherthanEnglishonlyis
stressedin the wider politicaland policycontext.ESL teacherswith
whom I spoke on a recenttripto Australiaexpressedsurprisethat
using the Li in ESL classes mightbe consideredcontroversial in the
U.S.; theytold me thattheyencourage studentsto use theirLl since
teacherevaluationis based in parton theextentto whichthestudents'
culturesand languagesare valued in the classroom.AlthoughI cer-
tainlycannotgeneralizefromthesecomments,I mentionthisto show
thatmonolingualESL instruction is byno meansthetaken-for-granted
normeverywherein the world.The factthatso manyof the studies
exploringthe use of the Ll are publishedoutsidethe U.S. (see, e.g.,
referencesin Hopkins,1989,and Nicholls& Hoadley-Maidment, 1988)
again suggests that monolingualapproaches to ESL may be ideologi-
callyrooted.

CLASSROOM REALITIES: LANGUAGE CHOICE IN

MULTILINGUAL CLASSES
Howeverappealing the notionof a bilingualapproach to ESL may
sound in theory,the prospectof implementing it in the classroomis
oftenmet by resistance;teachersrespond withunderstandablecon-
cerns: "How can I incorporatemystudents'firstlanguageswhenhalf
of themwantme to enforceEnglishonly,theycome from20 different
language backgrounds,and I don't speak theirlanguages?"
However,each oftheseconcerns,I think,has ideologicalimplications
relatingto how issuesof powerare embeddedin classroomrelations.
The issue of languagechoiceis reallypartof thebroaderquestionof
teacher-student roles-who getsto decide whatshould happen in the
classroom.Traditionally,the teacherdetermineswhatis best forthe
studentsbased on his/herstatusand knowledgeof the field.But, as
Freire(1970) argues,centralto acquiringtheskillsand confidencefor
claimingmore poweroutsidethe classroomis a shiftof powerinside
the classroom.For example,veryoftentheissue of L1 use is a source
of classroomtension,withsome studentsfeelingthatit wastestimeor
creates bad feelingsand others seeing it as a necessarysupport.
Whereas beginning-level studentsoftensay theyprefera bilingual

ENGLISH ONLY IN THE ESL CLASSROOM 23

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
approach (e.g., Hopkins, 1989; C. Howell, personalcommunication,
1991), more advanced studentsmayfeeluse of the Ll slowsEnglish
acquisition.In cases like these,then,ratherthan the teachermaking
thedecisionforthestudents(eitherforor againstL1 use), thequestion
can be posed to studentsforreflection and dialogue.As such,theissue
itselfcan becomecontentforlanguageand literacywork.Studentscan
discusswhenitis and isn'thelpfulto use theL1 in Englishacquisition.
Afterconsideringthe advantagesand disadvantagesof L1 versusL2
use and thefunctionsof each in different contexts,studentscan estab-
lishtheirown rulesfortheclassroom.Certainly, teacherscan contrib-
ute theirown knowledgeand opinionsin thisexchange,but whatis
importantis a shifttowardsharedauthority. The teachermovesfrom
a
being problem solver or arbiterof tensions to a problemposer or
facilitator of criticalreflection.
Teachers I workedwithin theBilingualCommunity LiteracyTrain-
ing Project (BCLTP) who used thisapproach with severalbeginning
ESL classesreportedthateach oftheclassesarrivedat different conclu-
sions; in some, studentsdecided to use the L1 as littleas possible;in
others,theyenumeratedspecificfunctions/times whenitwasand wasn't
helpful.Significantly, however, each class stuck to itsdecisionregard-
less of the particularcontentof the decision.The teachersreported
thattheyno longerhad to mediatedisagreements or actas theenforcer
oflanguagechoicedecisions.Similarly, Chang (1992) reportsthatwhen
studentsare invitedto regulatelanguage use themselves,theycon-
sciouslyuse the targetlanguage more,and the teacher'srole as ESL
enforceror correctordiminishes.Of course,forbeginningESL classes,
thiskindof discussioncan besttakeplace in theL1; yeteven reflecting
on the waysthatboth languages are used to conductthisdiscussion
can yieldinsightsintothe use of each language forvariousfunctions
in othercontexts.
The concern about L1 use in multilingualclasses can also be ad-
dressedthrougha dialogicalprocess,withstudentsexploringthe par-
ticularfunctionsand consequencesof usingthe L1 when severallan-
guage groups are present.The pedagogical bonus is that students
develop metacognitive awarenessof language learningstrategies;the
classroommanagementbonus is thatit takesthe teacheroffthe hot
seat; studentsdevelop empathyforeach others'perspectives, and ten-
sions are relieved.Most importantly, studentsgain a greatersense of
controlover theirown learning.Ultimately, the processof decision
making is even more important than the outcome of thedecision,not
because it is an effectivemechanismforclassroommanagement,but
because it models a way of addressingproblemsand shiftingpower
thatcan be extendedmorebroadly.The toolsthatstudentsdevelopfor
thinkingcritically, exploringalternatives, and makingchoicesprepare

24 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
themforaddressingproblemsoutsidetheclassroom.The sameprocess
can be applied withotherissuesof classroomdynamics.If thereare
attendanceproblems,or problemswithunevenparticipation, involving
studentsin analyzingthe underlyingissuesfostersa sense of control
over theirown learningand, in turn,becomesa kindof rehearsalfor
dealing withoutsideissues.

WHO'S THE EXPERT HERE ANYWAY?

The questionof the teachernot knowingthe students'L1 and thus

being unable to use it as a resourcein the classroomis also reallythe
tip of a muchlargerideologicaliceberg,namely,thequestionof who
should teach and whatcountsas qualificationsforteachingnon-An-
glophones.The taken-for-granted assumptionin the fieldis thatESL
teachersdon't need to knowstudents'languagesto teach ESL. When
we're at a partyand someone says,Oh, you'rean ESL teacher,what
languagesdo you speak?"the automaticresponseis "You don't need
to knowthe learners'languagesto teachthemEnglish."The assump-
tionhereis thatnativeEnglishspeakerswithTESOL degreeshave the
requisitequalificationsby virtueof theirlinguisticbackgroundand
advanced study.What counts is knowledgeof English and second
language theories,research,approaches,and methods.
Yet,as Phillipson(1992) suggests,thetenetthattheideal teacherof
Englishis a nativespeakeris a twinof the tenetthatEnglishis best
taughtmonolingually. Bothare aspectsofthesameunderlying ideolog-
ical orientationwhichprivilegesthe interests of the dominantgroups
and reinforces inequalities.In thecase ofBritishneocolonialism,struc-
turaldependence is perpetuated"as the presenceof nativespeakers
and books from[GreatBritain],and all thattheysignify, is necessary
to implementthe nativespeakertenet"(p. 199). Even the termnative
speakeritselfis an ideologicalconstructto the extentthatit impliesa
single,idealizednativeEnglishalthoughthereare in factmanynative
Englishes,someofwhichare valuedmorethanothersforsociopolitical
reasons(Phillipson,1992); thetermhas de factobeen used to referto
whiteBritonsfromthedominantgroups.Because thesenativespeak-
ers are seen to be the model,speakersof English,Britishnormsof
usage and language teachinghave become the universalstandard.
This, in turn,has divertedattentionaway fromthe developmentof
local solutionsto pedagogicalproblemsand impeded the processof
buildingon local strengths,resultingin the creationof ideological
dependence.In thecase oftheU.S., as we haveseen,theoriginsof the
native-speaker fallacycan be foundin theAmericanization movement,
where language instructionwas seen as a vehicle for the imposition

ENGLISH ONLY IN THE ESL CLASSROOM 25

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of U.S. culturalvalues and nativeEnglishspeakersseen as the only
appropriateconveyersof thesevalues.That thistenetis aliveand well
in the U.S. today is demonstratedby the factthatmany statesstill
requireteachersto be nativespeakers.For example,at thetimeof this
writing,therewas a move to oust a first-grade teacherin Westfield,
Massachusetts,because of his nonnativeaccent.
Althoughthe pedagogicalrationaleforprivilegingnativespeakers
is thattheirknowledgeof thetargetlanguageis better,examinationof
currenttheorysuggeststhatbeing a model Englishspeaker is not a
sufficientqualificationfor teachingESL and, in some cases, not a
necessaryone. Of course,itis widelyagreed withintheprofessionthat
it is wrongto assume thatjust because one speaks English,one can
teach it; specializedtrainingis required.Phillipson(1992) claimsthat
manyof thosequalitieswhichare seen tomakenativespeakersintrinsi-
callybetterqualifiedas Englishteachers(e.g.,theirfluency, appropriate
usage,and knowledgeof culturalconnotationsof thelanguage)can be
acquiredor instilledthroughtraining.Moreover,he argues,nonnative
speakerspossesscertainqualifications whichnativespeakersmaynot:
They have gone through"the laboriousprocessof acquiringEnglish
as a secondlanguageand ... haveinsightintothelinguistic and cultural
needs of theirlearners"(p. 195).
I would go furtherin arguingthat,in the case of ESL (as opposed
to EFL) where English is being taughtto immigrantsand refugees
transplantedto a new country,it is notjust experienceas a language
learner,buttheexperienceof sharingthestrugglesas a newcomerthat
is critical.If a centraltenetof state-of-the-art second language and
literacytheoryis theimportanceofcontextualizing instruction
around
real,meaningfulusage centeredon contentthatis significant in learn-
ers' lives,who is betterqualifiedto draw out, understand,and utilize
learners'experiencesthanthosewhothemselves havehad similarexpe-
riences?There is somethingabout havingactuallylivedtheserealities
whichenablesimmigrant teachersto makeconnectionsthatare other-
wise not possible.For example,I once, spentmanyhours struggling
to elicitdiscussionabout housingissuesfroma classof Haitianlearners
while one of my students,a CentralAmericanundergraduatewith
considerablyless "professionalknowledge,"was able, withseeming
ease, to instantly igniteanimateddiscussionof the same topicjust by
sharing an anecdote fromher own life dealing withan exploitative
landlord.Her livedexperiencewas morepowerfulthanmyexpertise
in unlockingthe doors to communicative interaction.
Similarly, D'Annunzio (1991) much of the successof his
attributes
program to "theuse ofbilingualtutors who shared thestudents'experi-
ences"(p. 52). He arguesthat,witha shorttrainingperiod,"pedagogi-
callyunsophisticated" bilinguals(who,in the case his program,were

26 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"onlyhighschoolgraduates")can becomeeffective tutorsand trainers
of othertutors;thismodel "maybreakthechainof relianceon heavy
professionalintervention"(p. 52). Hornbergerand Hardman's (in
press)studyof instructional practicesin a Cambodianadult ESL class
and a PuertoRicanGED (GraduateEquivalencyDiploma)classcorrob-
orates the importanceof shared backgroundbetweenteachersand
learners.In the case of the Cambodianclass,theyfoundthatdespite
the factthatthe teacher(who had finished just 2 yearsof collegeand
a vocationalprogram)triedto speak Englishexclusively, the students
used Khmer to respond to her questionsand help each other; in
addition,theteacherand studentssharedassumptionsaboutthelearn-
ing paradigm,and classroomactivities wereintimately connectedwith
learners'other life activitiesand culturalpractices.Likewise,in the
GED class, instructional activitieswere embedded in a culturaland
institutionalcontextthat integratedand validatedlearners' Puerto
Ricanidentity. Their studysuggeststhatthereinforcement of cultural
identity,made possibleby the shared cultural of
background learners
and teachers,is criticalnotjust forL1 literacyacquisitionbut forESL
acquisitionas well.
BoththeBCLTP and theUniversity of MassachusettsStudentLiter-
acy Corps (SLC) project were based on the notion that,withtraining,
people from thecommunities of the learners who are usuallyexcluded
fromteachingpositionsbyvirtueof a lackof formalcredentialing can
become effectivelanguage and literacyinstructors. A comprehensive
accountof the rationale,process,and outcomesof theseprojectswill
be presentedat a laterdate; however,some mentionof theirresultsis
relevanthere.In bothcases,througha multidimensional participatory
trainingprocess,traineeswho were or had been ESL studentsthem-
selvesbecame tutorsor teachers.In the SLC project,tutorsnot only
contributedtheirenergy,life experiences,and nativelanguage re-
sources but were able to introduceinnovativestate-of-the-art ap-
proachesto literacyinstruction to theclassroomsofexperiencedteach-
ers. The followingquote, takenfroma teacher'sevaluation,indicates
the powerof thismodel:
J.isa modeltutorbecausehe hasa genuineunderstanding
ofourstudents
basedon hisownexperience and hisability
tolistentothem,andbecause
he is able to followhisgutfeelings.
His initiative
is extremely
valuable.I
wishI knewhowtobringoutthatkindofleadership inothertutors.
ability
In theBCLTP, internscamefroma rangeofbackgrounds,including
some who had themselvesbeen beginningESL studentsa fewyears
earlierand otherswhoweregettingtheirGEDs orwereundergraduate
students.Despitethefactthattheymayhave highereducationin their
home country,severalwere workingin jobs such as housecleaning,

ENGLISH ONLY IN THE ESL CLASSROOM 27

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
factorywork,and so on, because of lack of credentialsand/orEnglish
proficiency.They were trainedto become nativelanguage literacyor
beginning ESL instructors throughworkshops, mentoring, and teacher
sharingprocesses. As a resultof theirwork, adult studentsin thenative
language literacy classes who had been unable to writetheir names
at intakewere writingdialoguejournals, letters,and articlesfor site
magazinesafterabout 6 monthsof instruction. At the Haitian Multi-
ServiceCenter,internsdeveloped a Creole proverbbook for initial
literacy;studentsin ESL classes wrote language experience stories
about thecoup in Haitiand itseffectson theirlives,studiedthehistory
of Haiti,and read and discussednewsstories.All of thiswas possible
largelybecause the teacherswereintegrally partof thelearners'com-
munities,sharing both language and lifeexperiences.
Even in mixedESL sites,liketheJackson-Mann Community School,
wherestudentscome fromover 25 languagegroups,the factthatthe
internswere themselvesfromthecommunitiesof the learnerswas an
asset.In developinglessons,internsdrewon theirown experiencesas
languagelearnersand membersofthecommunity. The adultlearners,
seeingtheirpeers in the role of teacher,assumed moreresponsibility
forthelearningofothers.In one case, forexample,a studentwhohad
neverspoken in class began to participateactivelyafterbeing paired
witha more advanced student;the advanced studentthen asked to
remain in the class (even though he was ready for a higherlevel),
because, as he said, "I can help here. You need me."
These projectsdemonstratethatthebenefitsofhiringteachersfrom
the communitiesof the learnerscan at least balance the benefitsof
hiringnativeEnglishspeakers.Whereasnonnativespeakersof English
withnontraditional educationalbackgroundscan be trainedin literacy/
ESL pedagogy,it is notclear thatthe reverseis true-that the under-
standingsthatcome throughsharedlifeexperienceand culturalback-
ground can be impartedthroughtraining.These are qualifications
which may be trulyintrinsicto nonnativespeakers(althoughthese
characteristicstoo are certainlynot sufficient in themselvesto assure
good teaching).

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION

The implicationsof the argumentspresentedin thisarticleare nei-

ther that traditionally teachers
credentialednative-English-speaking
shouldcommitprofessionalsuicidenorthatESL instruction shouldbe
totallyabandoned in favorof Li literacyinstruction. Rather,what I
to
want suggest is thatwe need,on theone hand,to and expand
rethink

28 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the roles of native-English-speaking ESL teachersand, on the other
to
hand, expand therange optionsand uses forthenativelanguage
of
in initialliteracyand ESL instruction. I hope tohaveshownthatunveil-
ing the mechanisms of ideologicalcontrol can ultimatelystrengthen
the fieldas a whole. By lettinggo of some of our unexaminedand
taken-for-granted assumptionsabouthowESL/literacy studentsshould
be taughtand who is qualifiedto teach,we can open thedoors to rich
resourcesforaddressingthelanguageand literacy needsofimmigrants
and refugees.
The firststepin thisprocessis recognition ofthefactthatcommonly
accepted everyday classroom practices, frombeing neutraland
far
natural, have ideologicaloriginsand consequencesfor relationsof
power both inside and outside the classroom.As the evidence pre-
sentedhere indicates,monolingualESL instruction in the U.S. has as
much to do withpoliticsas withpedagogy.Its rootscan be tracedto
the politicaland economicinterestsof dominantgroups in the same
way that the English Only movementhas been; the rationaleand
researchused to justifyit are questionable;and there is increasing
evidence thatL1 and/orbilingualoptionsare not only effectivebut
necessaryforadult ESL studentswithlimitedL1 and schoolingback-
grounds.Clearlytheaccumulatedbodyofresearchand practicepoints
towardthe need to expend much greaterresourcesin exploringLi
literacyor bilingualESL programmodelsfortheselearners.
Further,the evidencesuggeststhatcurrentdefinitions of teaching
qualifications must be reconsidered in order to implementthisgoal.
As withlanguageuse, thequestionof who is qualifiedto teachis more
than purelya pedagogical matter.Insistenceon the irrelevanceof
teachers'knowingthelearners'languagesmaybe de factoajustification
formaintaining thestatusof nativeEnglishspeakers.Alternatively, by
expanding conceptionof whatcountsas expertiseto includeother
the
kindsofknowledgebeyondthosetraditionally developedand validated
through institutions of highereducation, ties betweenthe classroom
and communitiesof thelearnerscan be strengthened. Evidencefrom
a rangeof programssuggestsa newwayofthinking aboutcommunity-
classroomrelationsin whichcommunitypeople are seen notjust as
aides or culturalresourcesbut as expertsin theirown rightand as
partnersin collaborativerelationships. Promotingthedevelopmentof
thiscommunity-based expertisedoes not byanymeansimplyeliminat-
ing the role of traditionallycredentialed ESL teachers;thesetwokinds
of expertisearen'toppositionalor mutuallyexclusive.Rather,creden-
tialedESL/bilingualeducatorsand community-based bilingualeduca-
torscan worktogetherthrougha processof mutualtrainingto share
theirknowledge,establishpartnerships, and learn fromeach others'

ENGLISH ONLY IN THE ESL CLASSROOM 29

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
experiences.This may mean expanding the role of native English
speakersin theareas of teachertrainingand classroom-based collabo-
rationswithnonnativeEnglishspeakers.
Thus, returningto the opening epigraph,as Vargas suggestedin
discussingthereactionsto theRodneyKingverdict,we need to recog-
nize thatrespectforlearners'languageshas powerfulsocial implica-
tions.The extentto whichESL educatorsvalue participants' linguistic
resourcesin teachingis a measureof our willingness to addressbasic
inequitiesin the broader society.As we let go of the need to enforce
Englishonlyin theclassroomand open our rankstocommunity exper-
tise,studentswillgain greatercontrolof theirown learning.Each of
thesechangesrepresentslimitedstepsthatwe can takeas a profession
to contributeto strugglesforgreaterequityoutsidethe classroom.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thankEugenie Ballering,Sandra McKay, CatherineWalsh, Vivian
Zamel, and an anonymous reader for theirsuggestionsabout how to strengthen
thispaper. Portionsof thispaper were included in mykeynoteaddress, "Connect-
ingCommunityand Classroom,"at theFall 1991 MATSOL Conferencein Newton,
MA.

THE AUTHOR

Elsa Auerbach is AssistantProfessorin the Bilingual/ESLGraduate Studies Pro-

gram at the Universityof Massachusettsat Boston. She has coordinated several
university-community literacycollaborations,includingthe Bilingual Community
LiteracyTraining Project,and, currently,the CommunityTraining forAdult and
Family LiteracyProject. She is author of numerous articlesand books on adult
ESL/literacy.

REFERENCES

Baron, D. (1990). TheEnglishonlyquestion:An official

languageforAmericans? New
Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.
Brucker, K. (1992, May). When asking isn't enough. Adventures in Assessment,
2,
37-40. (Boston: MassachusettsSystemfor Adult Basic Education)
Burthoff,M. (1985). Haitian Creole literacyevaluationstudy.(Final reportto the
Haitian Centers Council). Washington,DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Chang,J. (1992). Bilingual debates among Chinese students.TESOLJournal,2 (1),
37.
Collingham,M. (1988). Making use of students'linguisticresources.In S. Nicholls

30 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 & E. Hoadley-Maidment (Eds.), Currentissuesin teachingEnglishas a second
languageto adults(pp. 81-85). London: Edward Arnold.
Crawford,J. (1991). Bilingual education:History, politics,theory,and practice(2nd
ed.). Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.
Cummins,J. (1981). The role of primarylanguage development in promoting
educational success forlanguage minoritystudents.In CaliforniaState Depart-
ment of Education (Ed.), Schoolingand languageminority students:A theoretical
framework. (pp. 3-49). Los Angeles: California State University,Evaluation,
Disseminationand AssessmentCenter.
Daniels, H. (Ed.). (1990). Not onlyEnglish:Affirming America'smultilingual heritage.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
D'Annunzio, A. (1991). Using bilingual tutorsand non-directiveapproaches in
ESL: A follow-upreport.Connections: A JournalofAdultLiteracy, 4, 51-52.
Fairclough,N. (1989). Language and power.London: Longman.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogyoftheoppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
Friedlander (1990). Composing in English: Effectsof a firstlanguage on writing
in English in a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Secondlanguagewriting (pp.
109-125). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.
and culturally
Garcia, E. (1991). Educationof linguistically diversestudents:Effective
instructional Santa Cruz, CA: NationalCenter forResearchon Cultural
practices.
Diversityand Second Language Learning.
Gillespie, M. (1991). U.S. adult educationprogramsoffering mother-tongue and ESL
literacy:1991 sunrvey. Unpublished manuscript,Washington,DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Gillespie, M., & Ballering, E. (1992). Adultnativelanguageliteracy: A synthesisand
planfor research and action.Unpublished manuscript,Washington,DC: Center
for Applied Linguistics.
Hemmindinger,A. (1987). Two models Jorusingproblem-posing and culturalsharing
inteaching theHmongEnglishas a secondlanguageandfirstlanguageliteracy. Unpub-
lished master'sthesis,St. Francis Xavier University,Antigonish,Canada.
Hopkins, S. (1989). Use of mothertongue in the teachingof Englishas a second
language to adults. LanguageIssues,2, 18-24.
Hornberger, N. H., & Hardman, J. (in press). Literacyas cultural practice and
cognitiveskill: Biliteracyin a Cambodian adult ESL class and a Puerto Rican
GED Program. In D. Spener (Ed.), Adultbiliteracy in theUnitedStates.McHenry,
IL & Washington,DC: Delta Systems& Center for Applied Linguistics
Irujo, S. (1991). [Reviewof Forkedtongue:Thepoliticsofbilingualeducation].TESOL
Quarterly, 25(1), 150-155.
Judd, E. L. (1987). The EnglishLanguage Amendment:A case studyon language
and politics.TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 113-135.
Klassen, C. (1991). Bilingual writtenlanguage use by low-educationLatin Ameri-
can newcomers. In D. Barton & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Writingin the community.
(WrittenCommunicationAnnual No. 6, pp. 38-57). London: Sage.
Legarreta, D. (1979). The effectsof program models on language acquisition by
Spanish speaking children.TESOL Quarterly, 13(4), 521-534.
Nicholls,S., & Hoadley-Maidment,E. (Eds.). Currentissuesin teachingEnglishas a
secondlanguagetoadults.London: Edward Arnold.
Osburne, A. (1986,March). Usingnativelanguage writingin theESOL composition
class. TECFORS, 9(2), 1-5. (Universityof Houston)
Osburne, A., & Harss-Covaleski,S. (1991). Translationin the ESOL composition
class. Unpublished manuscript,Central Connecticut State University,New
Britain.

ENGLISH ONLY IN THE ESL CLASSROOM 31

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Phillipson,R. (1988). Linguicism:Structuresand ideologies in linguisticimperial-
ism. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (Eds.), Minorityeducation:From
struggletoshame(pp. 339-358). Clevedon, England: MultilingualMatters.
Phillipson,R. (1992). Linguisticimperialism. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Piasecka, K. (1988). The bilingual teacher in the ESL classroom. In S. Nicholls &
E. Hoadley-Maidment(Eds.), Current issuesinteaching Englishas a secondlanguage
toadults(pp. 97-103). London: Edward Arnold.
Ramirez,J. D., Pasta, D. J., Yuen, S. D., Billings,D. K., & Ramey, D. R. (1991).
Longitudinalstudyof structured Englishimmersion strategy, and late-exit
early-exit,
bilingualeducationprograms forlanguageminority children(Vols. 1-2, U.S. Depart-
ment of Education Report, ContractNo. 300-87-0156). San Mateo, CA: Agu-
irre International.
Ribadeneira, D. (1992, May,9). Hispanics say plightignored in crisis.BostonGlobe,
pp. 1,7.
Rivera, K. (1988). Not "either/or"but "and": Literacyfor non-Englishspeakers.
Focus on Basics, 1(3/4), 1-3.
Rivera,K. (1990, October). Developing nativelanguage literacyin language minor-
ityadult learners. ERIC Digest.(Washington,DC: National Clearinghouse on
LiteracyEducation, Center for Applied Linguistics)
Robson, B. (1982). Hmong literacy,formaleducation and theireffectson perfor-
mance in an ESL class. In B. Downing & O. Douglas (Eds.), The Hmongin the
West.Minneapolis, MN: Universityof Minnesota, Center for Urban and Re-
gional Affairs.
Shamash, Y. (1990). Learning in translation:Beyond language experience in ESL.
Voices,2(2), 71-75.
Skutnabb-Kangas,T. (1988). Multilingualismand the education of minoritychil-
dren. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (Eds.), Minorityeducation:From
struggletoshame.(pp. 9-44). Clevedon, England: MultilingualMatters.
Snow, C. (1990). Rationales for native language instruction:Evidence from re-
search. In A. Padilla, H. Fairchild,& C. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingualeducation: Issues
and strategies(pp. 60-74). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.
Spener, D. (Ed.). (in press). Adultbiliteracy in the UnitedStates.McHenry, IL &
Washington,DC: Delta Systems& Center for Applied Linguistics.
Strei,G. (1992, Spring). Advantages of native language literacyprograms: Pilot
project. TESOL RefugeeConcernsNewsletter, p. 7.
Strohmeyer, B., & McGrail, L. (1988). On FOCUS: Photographs and writingsby
students.Boston, MA: El Centro del Cardenal.
TESOL. (1992, August/September).A TESOL statementon nonnativespeakers
of English and hiringpractices,TESOL Matters,p. 23.
TESOL. (1987, March). Resolution20: Language rights.Resolution passed at the
21st Annual TESOL Convention,Miami Beach, FL.
Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning language,planninginequality: Languagepolicyin the
community.London: Longman.
Tucker, G. R. (1980). Implications forU.S. bilingualeducation: EvidencefromCanadian
research(Focus No. 2). Rosslyn,VA: National Clearinghouse forBilingual Edu-
cation.
Weinberg,J. (1990, June). Pennies from He Vinh. TESOL Newsletter, p. 5.
Wiley, T. G. (1990-91). Disembedding Chicano literacy.School ofEducation Journal,
8(1), 49-54. (California State University,Long Beach)

32 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:02:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions