1

Primary Language Literacy

The federally designated English Language Learner or Limited English Proficient
label applies to approximately 9% of public school students in the United States (Office of Civil
Rights, 2015), and within that group, it is unknown as to how many students would fit into the
Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education (SLIFE) category as states are not
required to track them (DeCapua, Smathers, & Tang, 2009). According to Klein and
Martohardjono (2006), Students with Interrupted Formal Education (SIFE) are English
Language Learners (ELLs) who have experienced two or more years of interrupted education. In
this paper and in my research, I will use the term SLIFE as it includes students who may have
limited education, too (DeCapua, Smathers & Tang, 2009).
It is well known within the fields of language acquisition and literacy that a language
learner must have strong literacy skills in their first language in order for language and literacy
skills to develop in a second language (Collier, 1992). It is for this reason that bilingual students
participating in bilingual programs perform better academically in both their native and the target
language the longer they are enrolled in such programs (Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991). At the
time of their report on English immersion programs and late-exit bilingual programs, Ramirez et
al. (1991) noted that despite the shift in funding away from bilingual programs to English-only
programs, it was not known how much more effective English-only programs were.
In a case study of a public high school in the United States, Olsen (1997) found that
students who recently immigrated became English seekers and English preferers (p. 99),
placing little premium on their home languages as they wished to fit in. This is in spite of
English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and Newcomer School teachers providing a
safe space for students to speak their home languages. This reflects the choices bilingual

students often feel they must make to speak one language or another (Baker, 2011). Speaking
the dominant language is seen as a desire to integrate and a demonstration of patriotism.
Such politicization of language use has potentially negative consequences for all
bilingual students, but especially for SLIFE. Students who are preliterate in their home language
and have limited or interrupted formal education face the added challenges of navigating the
mainstream school system, learning new social systems, learning academic language and
vocabulary, and engaging with their peers and teachers in a new language (Brown, Miller, &
Mitchell, 2006). This set of unique challenges are especially formidable for high school students
who must overcome these issues in time to graduate (DeCapua, Smathers, & Tang, 2009),
especially if they arrive in their new country unaccompanied.
As Rutter and Jones (1998) point out, refugee education is not a new phenomenon, and
refugee students bring with them a wide variety of cultural and linguistic knowledge. Although
their work focuses on the British context and on refugees specifically rather than SLIFE, there is
some overlap. Teachers of refugee students in the United Kingdom also feel overwhelmed and
underprepared, and feel as though they are provided with few resources (Rutter & Jones, 1998),
just as many teachers in the United States experience a disconnect between their preparation and
student needs in terms of second language acquisition (Giambo, Szecsi, & Manning, 2005).
Furthermore, the school system in the United States is designed to practice subtractive education
rather than additive education, meaning that it does not value students cultural and linguistic
knowledge, which counterintuitively results in a divestment of students resources (Valenzuela,
1999). For SLIFE, this is particularly damaging, and perhaps contributes to the high dropout rate
(Fry, 2005).

Based upon a mixed methods study of 112 Spanish-speaking SLIFE in New York, Klein
and Martohardjono (2006) recommend a sheltered two year transitional program providing
primary academic language support for SLIFE before they enter high school to counter the high
dropout rate. In Australia, high school aged refugee students are typically enrolled in Intensive
English Centres (IECs) prior to beginning school in the mainstream classes (Ferfolja & Vickers,
2010). While the Australian body of qualitative research on SLIFE and refugees illustrates
similar issues in the education SLIFE receive in the United States (e.g. de Heer, Due, Riggs, &
Augoustinos, 2016; Dooley, 2009; Due, Riggs, & Augoustinos, 2016), the IECs described in
many Australian studies on refugee education seem to provide bilingual students with a smoother
transition than experienced by SLIFE in the United States. SLIFE receive varied English
language support in mainstream schools depending on the state and district they live in.
In order to combat the cultural dissonance SLIFE encounter in U.S. schools and educate
more effectively, DeCapua and Marshall (2011) created the Mutually Adaptive Learning
Paradigm (MALP) for secondary students and teachers. This model calls for teachers to adapt to
SLIFE conditions for learning, SLIFE and U.S. teachers then adapt to each others learning
paradigms, and SLIFE adapt to U.S. expectations for learning (p. 49). This gradual model allows
SLIFE to build upon their literacy skills by linking oral transmission and print,and to engage in
activities repeatedly in varied contexts so they can develop their academic language.
Interestingly, in a discussion of SLIFE literacy and their reasoning behind labeling the failure of
SLIFE to achieve academically as an issue of cultural dissonance rather than an achievement
gap, DeCapua and Marshall (2011) chose not to discuss primary language literacy and the lack of
opportunity SLIFE have to engage in bilingual education. This discussion is also notably absent

from many of the Australian studies I have read, perhaps due to a combination of a lack of
resources and strident English-only policies (Crawford, 2000).
My Research Interests
After reading literature on SLIFE, literacy, and bilingual education, my research interests
have grown to include Australian English as an Additional Language programs and the treatment
of SLIFE in the Australian public school system. At this time, I am interested in exploring both
preservice teacher perceptions of SLIFE and their literacy as well as SLIFE perceptions of
literacy.

References
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Tonawanda, NY:
Multilingual Matters.
Brown, J., Miller, J., & Mitchell, J. (2006). Interrupted schooling and the acquisition of literacy:
Experiences of Sudanese refugees in Victorian secondary schools. Australian Journal of
Language and Literacy, The, 29(2), 150.
Collier, V. P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data
on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1-2), 187-212.
Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Tonawanda,
NY: Multilingual Matters.
DeCapua, A., Smathers, W., and Tang, F. (2009). Students with Limited or Interrupted
Schooling: A Guide for Educators. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
de Heer, N., Due, C., Riggs, D. W., & Augoustinos, M. (2016). It will be hard because I will
have to learn lots of English: experiences of education for children newly arrived in
Australia. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(3), 297-319.
Dooley, K. (2009). Re-thinking pedagogy for middle school students with little, no or severely
interrupted schooling. English Teaching, 8(1), 5.
Due, C., Riggs, D. W., & Augoustinos, M. (2016). Diversity in intensive English language
centres in South Australia: sociocultural approaches to education for students with
migrant or refugee backgrounds. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-11.
Ferfolja, T., & Vickers, M. (2010). Supporting refugee students in school education in Greater
Western Sydney. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 149-162.
Fry, R. (2005). The higher dropout rate of foreign-born teens: The role of schooling abroad.

Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

Giambo, D., Szecsi, T., & Manning, M. (2005). Teaching strategies: Opening up to the issues:
Preparing preservice teachers to work effectively with English language learners.
Childhood Education, 82(2), 107-110.
Klein, E., & Martohardjono, G. (2006). Understanding the student with interrupted formal
education (SIFE): A study of SIFE skills, needs and achievement. New York, NY:
Research Institute for the Study of Language in Urban Society CUNY Graduate Center.
Office for Civil Rights. (2015, January). Ensuring English Learner students can participate
meaningfully and equally in educational programs. Retrieved from:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-el-students-201501.pdf
Olsen, L. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public schools. New York, NY:
The New Press.
Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S.D., and Ramey, D.R. (1991). Final Report: Longitudinal Study of
Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual
Education Programs for Language-Minority Children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre
International.
Rutter, J., & Jones, C. (1998). Refugee Education: Mapping the Field. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of
caring. New York: State University of New York Press.